“If (Comcast) can’t rape and pillage, it’s probably not a great investment.” — Dr. John Malone, former CEO Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI Cable)
Susan Crawford
The age of content producers blissfully producing websites and ignoring broadband policy is over.
That message comes courtesy of President Barack Obama’s former Special Assistant for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, Susan Crawford, who rang warning bells over corporate control of the Internet last week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York City.
Crawford, now a law professor at the University of Michigan, delivered a presentation arguing that increased corporate dominance over broadband has stalled the Gilded Age of the communications revolution.
Even as broadband becomes an increasingly important component of an American economy in recovery, marketplace concentration and laissez-faire broadband policies have combined to allow a handful of companies to control broadband access, with the potential of limiting access to web services and stalling entrepreneurial online innovation.
Crawford builds her case for a threatened broadband future:
As of 2010, 75-85 percent of the population will have only one choice of provider capable of delivering 50-100Mbps speeds — their local cable company;
Major cable systems have clustered their operations and do not compete with each other;
Verizon has suspended expansion of FiOS, its fiber to the home service, indefinitely;
Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator with 24 million customers, 16.3 million of which take their broadband service, seeks a merger with NBC-Universal, providing a built-in incentive to limit broadband distribution of video content to non-subscribers who cut cable’s cord.
[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Susan Crawford at PdF 10 Rethinking Broadband 6-2-2010.flv[/flv]
Watch Susan Crawford’s presentation warning the tech community about the implications of America’s broadband duopoly given free rein. (17 minutes)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is not impressed with the telecom industry effort to oppose Net Neutrality and broadband policy reform. Pelosi was referring to two talking-point-infested letters sent to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski opposing Commission efforts to restore regulatory oversight of the broadband industry lost in a recent court decision.
Speaking for the Democratic majority, Pelosi told bloggers the effort was destined to fail unless Democrats suddenly develop a bipartisan streak, long absent in the House, to sign on Rep. Cliff Stearns’ (R-Florida) anti-oversight bill, something she considers unlikely.
“I don’t know how many options they have unless they choose to work with Republicans, but it’s not going to be a Democratic initiative,” she told bloggers on the conference call. She added:
“Part of the innovation agenda I advocated for when I became Leader was universal broadband. We had hoped to get it done within five years. We just got the bill passed three years ago under President Bush, but we had no funding. Now we want to have the resources to take us to that place so we don’t have a disparity between urban and rural populations. Reclassification, net neutrality, universal access for every American, these are priorities for us. And we see it not in isolation but as part of a new prosperity, as a job creator, to make America healthier, smarter and an international leader.”
Firedoglake reports pro-consumer Net Neutrality advocates have a letter of their own thanks to Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Washington):
The PCCC has a petition to sign in support of Inslee’s letter, as well as a tool to contact your Representative in the House to tell them to get on board. Today, Speaker Pelosi spoke about the need to educate Representatives on why this is so important, so get to it! Pick up the phone and call, and tell your elected official that you want the Internet protected from greedy corporations.
Congress doesn’t seem to know right from wrong, but we do.
It’s not right when big insurance companies write health care laws when millions can’t afford to see a doctor.
It’s not right when big oil companies write energy laws as gas prices skyrocket.
It’s not right when Congress passes trade bills that send our jobs overseas.
Congress won’t change until we change the people we’re sending to Washington.
–Rep. Heath Shuler’s 2006 campaign commercial
That was less than four years ago. Apparently these days Rep. Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) believes it -is- right for large telecommunications companies to censor online content, slow down Internet services they don’t want you to use, and allow the phone and cable industry to control broadband policies in this country.
Shuler’s abandonment of his mountain values was made easier with $23,000 in campaign contributions from a grateful industry.
Shuler
When those telecom checks cleared the bank, Shuler went to work for big telecom companies, becoming a leading opponent of consumer-friendly Net Neutrality.
For his supporters who once had high hopes for the Democratic congressman first elected in 2006, it’s been one disappointment after another.
Last fall, Shuler was a co-signer of a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski opposing Net Neutrality. To reiterate the point, many of the same co-signers of last fall’s letter were back on board with a second letter sent last month.
The latest letter was a godsend to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other Net Neutrality opponents who are using it to suggest there is considerable bipartisan opposition to broadband reform.
I have long since had it with Mr. Shuler. I admit it, I have no more patience for him.
[…]
I campaigned for you, and phone banked for you, and made cash contributions. Today I find out that you are against net neutrality, that you signed a letter to the FCC Chairman supporting AT&T and other large corporations — choosing corporations over the people.
In 2010 I will be voting for anybody who runs against you, Democrat or Republican, as you have consistently demonstrated in the three years you have been in Congress that you are quite simply not up to the job of representing the people of Western North Carolina. You and the “Blue Dog Coalition” are surrogates for corporate interests; you do not have the interests of the people of North Carolina at heart. Or at least that’s the message you are sending to me.
I’m just fed up.
North Carolina's 11th District is currently served by Rep. Heath Shuler
Similar sentiments from upset residents in his district are voiced all over Shuler’s Facebook page. Why not add yours?
Then give his office a call or drop him an e-mail.
Ask Rep. Shuler how standing with big phone and cable companies against consumer broadband protection could ever represent western North Carolina mountain values.
Tell him trusting AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable with our broadband future is like trusting BP to protect the Gulf Coast.
Let him know you were disappointed with his decision to sign the first letter opposing Net Neutrality last fall, but now you are simply appalled he’s done it again.
It’s not right when big phone and cable companies have the power to write their own legislation and stop pro-consumer protections like Net Neutrality. Where is the Rep. Shuler who campaigned on doing the right thing in 2006?
If Shuler won’t change his mind on an issue as important as this, perhaps we need to take his own advice and change the person the 11th district sends to Congress.
The Denver Post this morning did a major disservice to its readers in a heavily slanted editorial objecting to the reclassification of broadband service to restore the FCC’s traditional oversight authority over Internet providers.
In their piece For Web and Broadband Regulation, Less is More, the editors at the Post delivered less facts and more industry talking points. It even mislead readers by quoting from two Republican FCC commissioners, completely ignoring the Democratic majority that would likely prevail in a vote on the matter.
The editorial forgets to mention why this debate is taking place. Readers should have been made aware the broadband industry the Post celebrates as successful under a light touch regulatory philosophy effectively-won total deregulation in a game changing court decision that stripped the FCC’s authority to provide checks and balances over today’s duopoly broadband market.
Ed Whitacre, AT&T
Comcast sued after the FCC punished the company for deliberately interfering with customers’ broadband speeds for certain Internet applications (despite Comcast’s initial denials). The Post characterizes such behavior on the part of the nation’s largest cable company as “only a couple documented issues, which were quickly resolved.” How does the Post think these were resolved? The FCC used the authority it now no longer has to pressure Comcast to stop. What stops the next “documented issue?”
AT&T’s former chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre gave Americans plenty to worry about in 2005 when the nation’s largest phone company infamously declared that popular web sites should not be expected to use AT&T’s “pipes for free.” That attitude is still being defended today by millions of dollars in lobbying, fake grassroots astroturf campaigns, and industry bought-and-paid-for “research studies.” Why spend all that money on a “resolved” issue?
But the most offensive part of the Post‘s piece was a completely dishonest attempt by the editors to imply there is widespread bipartisan opposition to common sense broadband regulation like Net Neutrality.
We had the opportunity Wednesday to talk with two FCC commissioners about the dual proposals for reform. They voiced concerns about an FCC move to redefine broadband networks as highly regulated telecommunications services.
Meredith Attwell Baker, who was nominated to the commission by President Obama, called the reclassification dangerous, adding it was a “brand new model.” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell, nominated by President George W. Bush, worried about the unintended consequences that might come out of an additional layer of regulation.
On the right side of the Commission, the two Republican members Meredith Attwell Baker, a former telecom industry lobbyist and Robert M. McDowell.
How clever of the Denver Post to dangle the implication that Baker, being appointed by Obama, is somehow an ally. She is not. The Post only spoke with the two Republican minority commissioners for its editorial. Atwell was appointed by Obama under long-standing FCC rules which require that only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. There is no practical difference between Atwell and McDowell. Why didn’t the newspaper speak to at least one of the majority Democrats on the Commission, all of which are expected to support Chairman Genachowski? Because that would have dramatically weakened the provider’s editor’s arguments and talking points.
Of course, there is nothing “brand new” about Title II authority. It has been used successfully to oversee today’s increasingly deregulated landline marketplace to protect rural Americans who don’t have competitive choices should their phone company provide abysmal service. What was new was the defective mechanism used by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, under the Bush Administration, to oversee broadband using what the courts determined was phantom authority.
There is nothing about those regulations “ill-suited” to restoring the FCC’s lost authority, which is the ultimate game plan here. Providers have fed talking points, which editors at the Denver Post apparently devoured, suggesting everything from unintended consequences to the sky falling down should the FCC be able to implement its National Broadband Plan on its terms. Providers want the power to control and implement broadband deployment on their terms — the same ones that have left millions without any real broadband options at all, and the rest of us with slow service at high prices.
We hope that process ends with succinct and limited rules that apply to broadband providers, but leave them relatively unfettered so the Internet continues to be a place for entrepreneurs, thinkers and dreamers to pursue their ideas.
These are all noble goals, but they cannot be achieved if a handful of giant broadband providers start extorting fees from content producers and engaging in other abusive behaviors. The Post seems to think America is a world-leader in broadband, yet we are not. This country is now handily beaten by several Asian nations and even cities within the former Soviet Union and its east European bloc. Just this week Ookla released a speed index report that tells the truth about America’s broadband experience:
Here are the top 10 U.S. cities and their corresponding 30-day average speeds:
San Jose, Calif. 15.02 Mbps
Saint Paul, Minn. 14.53 Mbps
Pittsburgh, Pa. 14.18 Mbps
Oklahoma City, Okla. 12.12 Mbps
Brooklyn, N.Y. 12.10 Mbps
Tampa, Fla. 12.05 Mbps
Bronx, N.Y. 12.01 Mbps
New York, N.Y. 11.85 Mbps
Denver, Colo. 11.68 Mbps
Sacramento, Calif. 11.34 Mbps
The global top 10:
Seoul, South Korea 34.49 Mbps
Riga, Latvia 27.88 Mbps
Hamburg, Germany 26.85 Mbps
Chisinau, Republic of Moldova 24.31 Mbps
Helsinki, Finland 20.58 Mbps Mbps
Stockholm, Sweden 19.97 Mbps
Bucharest, Romania 19.68 Mbps
Sofia, Bulgaria 18.99 Mbps
Kharkov, Ukraine 18.15 Mbps
Kaunas, Lithuania 17.46 Mbps
With evidence like this, the editors at the Post need to get out from behind those telecom talking points and visit today’s real broadband world.
Rep. Dan Maffei (D-New York) has begun to worry broadband consumers in his western and central New York district.
In April 2009, when Time Warner Cable’s announced Internet Overcharging experiment was upsetting customers in Rochester, Maffei claimed he was concerned about limiting broadband usage for customers in the area. But when former Rep. Eric Massa introduced legislation to ban unjustified usage caps and consumption billing, Maffei told his constituents he wasn’t interested in Massa’s approach:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act was introduced by Representative Eric Massa (NY-29) on June 16, 2009, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill would authorize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review volume usage service plans of major broadband internet service providers to ensure that such plans are fairly based on cost.
When Time Warner Cable announced in April that Rochester would be used as a test market for charging Internet users based upon consumption usage, I, along with Representative Massa, opposed this policy. We helped persuade Time Warner to abandon the plan in the area. At that time, Representative Massa also introduced the Broadband Internet Fairness Act.
Other utilities, like water or electricity, charge customers based on usage, but Internet users have traditionally been charged a flat fee for unlimited access to the web. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act would require Internet Service Providers that want to implement usage-based pricing plans to go through several traditional regulatory hurdles. While I share many of the goals of Representative Massa’s legislation, I do not believe passing this stand-alone bill is the right approach at this time.
Of course broadband is nothing like water or electric utilities. In fact, Maffei’s inclusion of that reference is a classic talking point of the telecom industry. Notice they, and Maffei, didn’t mention telephone service — the one utility that provides flat rate calling for most Americans. It also happens to be the utility most comparable to broadband service!
New York's 25th Congressional District
But Maffei made a bad situation worse when he joined 72 other House Democrats co-signing a letter from Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T), urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to fight a court decision overturning the agency’s ability to conduct broadband oversight.
The letter represented one giant talking point — the false premise that enforcing a fair, free, and open Internet with Net Neutrality would somehow stifle investment in broadband expansion. Yet AT&T was required to honor the very same principles when it merged with SBC, and managed to remain a multi-billion dollar powerhouse well positioned to expand broadband service to additional customers in its ever-growing service areas.
The fact the broadband industry is a duopoly for most Americans — one that can threaten to pull back on service if it doesn’t get its way in Washington — is just one more reason the industry requires more oversight, not less.
Yet Rep. Maffei stood alone as the only member of the western New York Congressional delegation to sign his name to the agenda of big cable and phone companies.
Perhaps the congressman has forgotten these facts which trouble broadband consumers across western and central New York:
Rochester, NY was the only city in the northeast where Time Warner sought to conduct an Internet Overcharging experiment, made possible because of limited competition in the Rochester market;
Rochester’s other broadband provider, Frontier Communications, insists on a monthly usage allowance of just 5GB per month in its Acceptable Use Policy;
Verizon FiOS has suspended expansion indefinitely and the service will never be available in most of the 585 area code where Frontier operates, and it will take years for most of the rest of his Syracuse district to see the service reach those areas;
Time Warner Cable increased its broadband rates in 2010, as did Verizon;
Green’s letter dances around the real issue — telecommunications companies are spending millions to oppose pro-consumer reforms and stop a return of oversight authority the FCC lost after a recent court decision. Without this authority, the FCC cannot implement the National Broadband Plan’s insistence that American providers not block or impede network traffic. These Net Neutral policies preserve net freedom. The FCC cannot even require that providers tell the truth about broadband speeds and include the company’s terms of service in plain English.
Western New York is a hotbed of consumer activism on broadband issues, particularly because we are actual victims of provider abuse. No one knows more than we how critical 21st century broadband is to the transformation of this region’s perennially challenged economy.
Rep. Maffei needs a reminder this is a hot button issue for consumers from Irondequoit to Manlius. Perhaps he just doesn’t fully understand what’s at stake here. You need to remind him.
We’ve included a suggested letter you can use to help write your own. For maximum effectiveness, include some of your own personal stories, challenges, and frustrations with your local broadband provider. Feel free to share yours in the Comments section.
Dear Rep. Maffei:
I was extremely disappointed to discover you signed your name on a letter written by Rep. Gene Green urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to restore oversight authority over broadband. While Rep. Green’s letter illustrates he’s mostly concerned about the well being of AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Comcast, as a consumer I am more concerned about the broadband duopoly that exists in Rochester & Syracuse.
If the FCC does not regain its ability to oversee broadband by reclassifying it under Title II — as a telecommunications service (which it very clearly is), the FCC can effectively do nothing to stop broadband provider abuses, such as Comcast’s notorious speed throttle on customers using certain Internet websites and services. It took an FCC investigation to finally get the cable company to admit the truth — it was interfering with customers’ broadband speeds. The oversight power the agency had was just what was needed to convince Comcast to stop.
Unfortunately, a DC Circuit Court recently disagreed it had that authority and effectively stripped it away. Chairman Genachowski is simply seeking a return to the status quo before that court decision was handed down. He’s not asking to regulate broadband anything like telephone service. In fact, he’s insisted on a “light touch.” That’s better than today’s court-imposed total-hands-off reality.
By signing Rep. Green’s letter, you effectively tell us you don’t support Net Neutrality protections that guarantee providers cannot censor or impede web traffic. You also do nothing to protect consumers from other provider abuses. Considering what residents of Rochester went through last year fighting a Time Warner Cable scheme that would have tripled broadband prices for the same level of service, I’m shocked you of all people would be a supporter of big telecom’s agenda.
Telecom companies are claiming that if regulations enforcing Net Neutrality are enacted, investment will suffer and broadband expansion will be slowed. Yet AT&T was required, as part of its merger with SBC, to respect Net Neutrality for several years. The company flourished, broadband was offered to more customers than ever, and investors liked what they saw.
The record in western New York is clear — Time Warner Cable was willing to limit its customers access to broadband service, Frontier already does in its terms and conditions, and Verizon FiOS deployment has been suspended indefinitely. For too many of us, there are too few choices. In fact, the only thing we can be assured of is higher pricing and a strengthened duopoly.
I strongly urge you to remove your signature from Rep. Green’s letter and get on board with consumers like myself in your district who believe deregulation and oversight failures have given us nothing but nightmares — from Wall Street to BP’s oil spill. Let’s not make another mistake in handing cable and phone companies unfettered permission to abuse their customers.
Please get back in touch with me as soon as possible on this important matter.
Rep. Dan Maffei told constituents he was concerned about Time Warner Cable’s Internet Overcharging scheme proposed in April 2009. At a town hall meeting in Irondequoit, New York, he admitted Time Warner Cable held near-monopoly power over consumers in Rochester. What changed his tune when he signed on to Rep. Gene Green’s anti-consumer letter to the FCC?(April 9, 2009 — 2 minutes)
Be Sure to Read Part One: Astroturf Overload — Broadband for America = One Giant Industry Front Group for an important introduction to what this super-sized industry front group is all about. Members of Broadband for America Red: A company or group actively engaging in anti-consumer lobbying, opposes Net Neutrality, supports Internet Overcharging, belongs to […]
Astroturf: One of the underhanded tactics increasingly being used by telecom companies is “Astroturf lobbying” – creating front groups that try to mimic true grassroots, but that are all about corporate money, not citizen power. Astroturf lobbying is hardly a new approach. Senator Lloyd Bentsen is credited with coining the term in the 1980s to […]
Hong Kong remains bullish on broadband. Despite the economic downturn, City Telecom continues to invest millions in constructing one of Hong Kong’s largest fiber optic broadband networks, providing fiber to the home connections to residents. City Telecom’s HK Broadband service relies on an all-fiber optic network, and has been dubbed “the Verizon FiOS of Hong […]
BendBroadband, a small provider serving central Oregon, breathlessly announced the imminent launch of new higher speed broadband service for its customers after completing an upgrade to DOCSIS 3. Along with the launch announcement came a new logo of a sprinting dog the company attaches its new tagline to: “We’re the local dog. We better be […]
Stop the Cap! reader Rick has been educating me about some of the new-found aggression by Shaw Communications, one of western Canada’s largest telecommunications companies, in expanding its business reach across Canada. Woe to those who get in the way. Novus Entertainment is already familiar with this story. As Stop the Cap! reported previously, Shaw […]
The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the Canadian equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, may be forced to consider American broadband policy before defining Net Neutrality and its role in Canadian broadband, according to an article published today in The Globe & Mail. [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s] proposal – to codify and enforce some […]
In March 2000, two cable magnates sat down for the cable industry equivalent of My Dinner With Andre. Fine wine, beautiful table linens, an exquisite meal, and a Monopoly board with pieces swapped back and forth representing hundreds of thousands of Canadian consumers. Ted Rogers and Jim Shaw drew a line on the western Ontario […]
Just like FairPoint Communications, the Towering Inferno of phone companies haunting New England, Frontier Communications is making a whole lot of promises to state regulators and consumers, if they’ll only support the deal to transfer ownership of phone service from Verizon to them. This time, Frontier is issuing a self-serving press release touting their investment […]
I see it took all of five minutes for George Ou and his friends at Digital Society to be swayed by the tunnel vision myopia of last week’s latest effort to justify Internet Overcharging schemes. Until recently, I’ve always rationalized my distain for smaller usage caps by ignoring the fact that I’m being subsidized by […]
In 2007, we took our first major trip away from western New York in 20 years and spent two weeks an hour away from Calgary, Alberta. After two weeks in Kananaskis Country, Banff, Calgary, and other spots all over southern Alberta, we came away with the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Good Alberta […]
A federal appeals court in Washington has struck down, for a second time, a rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission to limit the size of the nation’s largest cable operators to 30% of the nation’s pay television marketplace, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.” The 30% rule, designed to keep no single company from controlling […]
Less than half of Americans surveyed by PC Magazine report they are very satisfied with the broadband speed delivered by their Internet service provider. PC Magazine released a comprehensive study this month on speed, provider satisfaction, and consumer opinions about the state of broadband in their community. The publisher sampled more than 17,000 participants, checking […]