The Pacific Technology Alliance claims to be a "grassroots" organization representing consumer interests.
From time to time, Stop the Cap! readers send us news tips based on things they find in their local newspaper or online. Shaffa in Seattle sent us a link to a letter to the editor in the Seattle Times which seemed to be right up our alley. The writer, Tom Gurr, executive director of something called the Pacific Technology Alliance, wrote the newspaper advocating the redefining of broadband as “a necessary, transformative element to modern life.” Gurr advocates widespread deployment of broadband service to all Americans. So far so good.
We cannot overstate the economic impact, to both the individual and the nation, of building out broadband infrastructure and making it available and accessible to all. But not all Americans have access to broadband, and not all Americans who have access are able to use broadband. Price or concerns about privacy and data security are barriers for some. For these individuals and communities, the degree of “openness” or “neutrality” of the network is irrelevant.
America can universally reap the rewards of broadband through its infrastructure deployment, removal of barriers to adoption and investment in more efficient and cost-effective smart networks needed for tomorrow’s dynamic and ever-evolving applications and content.
Whoops… what was that part about “openness” or “neutrality” of the network being “irrelevant?”
As Stop the Cap! readers already know, Net Neutrality issues can go hand in hand with availability and price, and I have yet to meet anyone who hasn’t pondered how private their information is kept (particularly their credit card numbers used online) and how secure their computers are from external attack from viruses and spyware.
In communities with little competition, speed can fall behind more competitive cities nearby. Prices are almost always lower when providers do battle to secure and keep customers. Interfering with a consumer’s broadband service to maximize revenue or protect existing business models is a risky proposition if your biggest competitor doesn’t. Customers will flee across town to “the other guy” for service.
It seemed odd to advocate for widespread broadband deployment while taking time out to swipe at Net Neutrality. The closing line of the letter seemed slightly vague as well, so it was time to bring out The Google and figure out where this organization is coming from.
For those who tried to watch the live stream from this past Monday’s Internet Town Hall from Toronto, it was a process that demonstrated the limitations of broadband service in Canada. Evidently the hotel broadband connection was inadequate for the task, and the stream suffered ongoing video and audio problems for the duration.
An audio podcast version has now become available and is included below. Because the event runs nearly two hours, you may wish to download the audio and listen on the go. If you want to listen here, remember that the audio player will only work as long as you remain on this page.
Internet Town Hall On Canadian Broadband/Net Neutrality Issues – Toronto, June 8, 2009 (1 Hour 50 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.
Gazing into our future, unless Internet Overcharging stops before it gets started (Photo: Sean McGrath)
Americans have a lot to learn. Our neighbors to the north have been living our broadband future, and it’s time to start paying attention.
Broadband providers that want to implement their Internet Overcharging schemes often claim that this isn’t unprecedented. People in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other countries already face a broadband service hobbled by arbitrary limits, and ‘you don’t hear them complaining.’
The Canadian broadband market is remarkably similar to our own. A very comfortable duopoly of providers – one cable operator and one telephone company provide the vast majority of Canadians with their Internet service. Several smaller independent providers, typically reselling access to Bell Canada’s network they’ve contracted to obtain at wholesale pricing, make up most of the rest.
Five years ago, those two providers clawed each other fighting for market share, and independent providers were popping up to provide more flexible broadband accounts for those looking for lower pricing or different speeds. Canada rose to second place in broadband among the 30 nations that belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Evidently, the price and service war ended with a truce in the last 24 months. Then came the classic signs of Internet Overcharging: new restrictions and limits on usage, overlimit and penalty fees for exceeding those limits, a slowdown in competition to build better infrastructure offering higher speeds, and even “traffic shaping,” which in reality means artificially restricting selected services moving across a broadband network.
Rogers Internet Overcharging limbo dance reduces usage allowances on new customers. (click to enlarge)
Even more irritating for customers, rate increases accompanied all of these new restrictions. Rogers Cable, which helped get the ball rolling on Internet Overcharging schemes, raised broadband rates March 1st and then announced a “free speed upgrade” this past month, bringing their broadband speed in Toronto to 10Mbps for $45.26US per month, before taxes, with a 60GB limit and “traffic shaping.”
Customers looking for cheaper broadband from Rogers have been subjected to a reduction in the usage allowance since the Internet Overcharging schemes began. Now, customers looking for the least expensive plan pay $26.23US per month for 500kbps “broadband” with a usage limit of 2GB per month. Exceed that, and your overlimit penalty fee is an enormous $5.00CAD per gigabyte. When the first Internet Overcharging scheme was introduced, “lite” customers could use up to 60GB per month. It’s just more evidence that when broadband companies are allowed to implement Internet Overcharging schemes like this, the broadband limbo dance begins, with customers facing smaller and smaller “allowances” at the whim of the provider.
Rogers competition, primarily from Bell Canada, did what can be expected in a lightly competitive marketplace — they announced Internet Overcharging schemes of their own, trapping many Canadians into restrictive broadband service from every provider around.
Canadians hate the schemes, despite broadband industry propaganda that suggests customers didn’t mind paying more for less.
“Broadband in this country has completely stalled,” Stop the Cap! reader Brent, living near Ottawa wrote to us.
For several years, everything was heading in the right direction in Canada. Broadband service was extending from cities into smaller towns and communities, even in the Prairies, BC and Alberta, which have much more empty space between developed communities. Here in Ontario, Rogers and Bell are the dominant companies. It was bad enough when Rogers starting using traffic shaping to slow down things like peer to peer services, so you often find your speeds slowing down by half or more. Internet video is not as common in Canada because services like Hulu see the usage allowances and don’t bother to come here, because people can’t afford to watch them. But some independent producers do have online video, that they freely distribute using peer to peer. It’s throttled by Rogers, though, so it takes forever to load.
Then their cap came. We get 60GB per month on our service. I have a wife and two teenage daughters. Everyone is online here. Between all of us, 60GB is never enough, and we have to constantly watch them because they like to have friends over to do things on the computer together. We have to keep track of everything they do, and there are fights all of the time about who used what. You can never relax when you are online anymore, because you have to always be worried about what something might cost you.
Even worse, Rogers interferes with your service when you reach 75% of your allowance by injecting a warning banner on your web browser to tell you that you are approaching your limit for the month. That process forces their announcement onto web page after web page, and you’ll know it because half the time those pages with a warning banner take much longer to load, if they load properly at all. It doesn’t matter what page you are looking at, or who runs it. Rogers feels they can put their banner on it.
I spent two weeks in the States at a friend’s home who had Verizon FiOS and I couldn’t believe the difference. Using Canadian broadband and comparing it to Verizon FiOS is like the difference between dial-up service and the broadband service we used to have in this country.
Bell is now going to force limits on wholesale accounts as well. All of the independent companies that don’t currently have caps and allowances will now have to impose them, cutting off the last competitive choices we had. It’s a nice racket.
Reading the American papers, it’s all familiar to me. It’s the same things we were told.
There are “Internet hogs” using “too much service” so we have to charge them more.
We have to use the extra money to build better networks.
We need to traffic shape to make sure everyone can use our service.
It’s about fairness for everyone.
No. It’s about getting more money from you and pocketing it. The people they stereotype as “Internet hogs” turn out be ordinary families. Just because we may not know about some of the Internet cutting edge services becoming available, our kids do.
Canada’s providers aren’t using the all the extra money to build better networks, they are just treating them as profits. Our speeds are still slower than Americans get. They reduced the usage allowances on many people even further. They still traffic shape even on the networks they claim they were “improving.” Everyone’s Internet bill went up. Nobody is saving anything. There is nothing fair about duopoly pricing.
Dr. Michael Geist
Brent’s point about Bell Canada imposing Internet Overcharging schemes on their wholesale business accounts rings familiar. Earthlink wanted to sell its broadband Internet service that travels across Time Warner Cable’s lines at the current unlimited pricing they charge today. Whether they would be allowed to do so under TWC’s original Internet Overcharging proposal was highly doubtful.
Independent providers in Canada are upset about Bell Canada’s attempt to impose new limitations on their wholesale accounts, because it threatens their existence.
Two weeks ago, Dr. Michael Geist appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to discuss the state of telecommunications in Canada.
Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and noted expert on the state of Canadian broadband, called the developing situation in Canada “a crisis.”
Limiting competition and throwing your duopoly weight around has been a hallmark of insufficient oversight and regulatory control in under-competitive markets and Geist brought examples of providers engaged in mischief:
Telus blocked access to a union supporting website during a labour dispute, blocking more than 600 other sites in the process
Shaw advertised a $10 premium surcharge for customers using Internet telephony services opening the door to creating a competitive advantage over third party services
Rogers currently degrades the performance of certain applications such as BitTorrent, widely used by software developers and independent film makers to distribute their work
Bell openly throttles BitTorrent traffic, a practice that has been challenged before the CRTC
Bill St. Arnaud
Competition can provide some answers, but not all. It’s obvious new laws are required to put a stop to Internet Overcharging while real competition can develop.
As Stop the Cap! has documented, when fed-up municipalities reject their status as a “broadband backwater” and seek to deploy the advanced fiber networks that they need to spur economic growth and development, incumbent providers engage in lawsuits and delay tactics. But in many communities, in the end, the threat of municipal competition finally forces those networks to commit to the upgrades they refused to provide earlier.
Bill St. Arnaud, Chief Research Officer for CANARIE, ponders Canada’s future as the country slips further and further behind in OECD rankings because of the broadband duopoly in the country. Speaking with CBC Radio’s Nora Young, who hosts Spark, a twice-weekly radio program about technology and culture, he contemplates a solution to this problem that builds on the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program in the United States — by publicly funding an advanced “fiber to the home network” and then open it up to all providers to compete for customers.
Audio Clip: Bill St. Arnaud Appears on CBC Radio’s Spark – June 3, 2009 (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.
Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment who was the subject of our last HissyFitWatch, has decided damage control was the order of the day after being caught making remarks suggesting the Internet had never come to any good and was filled with pirates and freeloaders. A recap:
“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet, period.”
The Internet has “created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.”
Just brought to our attention, Lynton decided he’d better clarify those remarks, because the blog world had already spent a week burning him in effigy for making them. So off to The Huffington Post he went to pen his long-form explanation on May 26th.
In March, an unfinished copy of 20th Century Fox’s film X-Men Origins: Wolverine was stolen from a film lab and uploaded to the Internet, more than a month before its theatrical release. The studio investigated the crime, and efforts were made to limit its availability online. Still, it was illegally downloaded more than four million times.
That kind of wide scale theft was very much on my mind when I was on a panel the other day which opened with a question about the impact of the Internet on the entertainment business, and I responded, “I’m a guy who sees nothing good having come from the Internet. Period.”
But, I actually welcome the Sturm und Drang I’ve stirred, because it gives me an opportunity to make a larger point (one which I also made during that panel discussion, though it was not nearly as viral as the sentence above). And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content — music, newspapers, movies and books — have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.
Some of that damage has been caused by changing business models (the FTC just announced an inquiry into the impact of new media on the newspaper industry). But the primary culprit is piracy. The Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.
He could have said this at the Whine & Cheese breakfast in Syracuse and it would have provoked the same reaction his original comments had. Not much to see here beyond another big corporate Hollywood studio executive pleading poverty and ruin because one of the industry’s own employees made off with a film print to score big bucks and eventually the copy drifted into Pirate Bay. Nobody need call CSI to determine the cause of injury in this case. Even the most casual observer can see most of these wounds are self-inflicted.
Live Coverage of SaveOurNet.ca‘s National Open Internet Town Hall, netcasting from Toronto has now concluded. Unfortunately, connectivity issues at the hotel plagued the live streaming event, and a good deal of it was not available on the live stream. A recording of the presentation should be forthcoming shortly, and will be embedded in this space, when available.
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 […]