Isiogu

A current member of the Michigan Public Service Commission is penning guest editorials featuring AT&T’s favorite talking points: promoting the company’s deregulatory agenda and providing false memes about Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing.

Orjiakor N. Isiogu, co-vice chairman of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Committee on Telecommunications and member and immediate past chairman of the Michigan Public Service Commission wrote nearly identical pieces appearing in The Hill, the Detroit Free-Press and the Battle Creek Enquirer that included misleading claims that could have come straight from an AT&T lobbyist’s “fact sheet.”

A sample:

The federal government has used the telecom industry as a model of how competition could be a better elixir than the guiding hand of government regulation. And the results are impressive. The high-speed Information Superhighway touches 95 percent of the U.S., and most consumers can choose from among six or more wireless or wireline providers (90 percent can choose from at least two). And the price of Internet access — measured by megabits per second — has fallen 87 percent since 1999, even as the speed has increased tenfold;

80 percent of U.S. homes now have access to download speeds of 100 megabits per second, and 4G wireless service will soon be available nationwide, with speeds of up to 20 megabits per second;

Despite the evidence, however, there are those who wonder whether there is sufficient competition for Internet access, whether speeds are too slow and prices too high. Others object to new pricing plans that allow a consumer to purchase the amount of bandwidth that best suits his needs.  In fact, some have asked the government to stop these new tailored pricing plans, even though these plans save nearly all consumers from having to underwrite the “outliers” whose monthly usage is gigantic — over 300 GBs a month or the equivalent of over 500 standard definition movies;

And if Teddy Roosevelt were with us today, he would likely argue that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, pointing to the banking industry as an example of industry excesses in need of a public check and the telecom industry as an example of how private competition, with occasional nudges, could better make the markets work.

In reality, if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he’d ask why a state commissioner working for the public is instead carrying water for the large telecommunications companies he oversees.

Did Roosevelt advocate the government keep their hands off AT&T and other consolidating telecom companies?

Isiogu doesn’t know his history either.

Roosevelt made no distinctions between the excesses of one industry over another. He strongly believed all major interstate corporations (and that would cover Isiogu’s friends at AT&T, Comcast, and other big telecom companies) should be subject to federal regulation and, in some cases, have their rates set by the government to ensure the public was charged fairly for the services they received. Roosevelt learned his lesson well from the oil, railway, and tobacco trusts his government sued to break up after years of consolidation and rapacious greed at the public’s expense. Those companies all claimed to be competitive as well.

Few industries have consolidated faster than the telecom sector, which is gradually rebuilding the Bell System in AT&T and Verizon’s image and a cable cartel that agrees never to compete directly with other cartel members.

Isiogu’s “facts” are disturbingly incomplete and misleading for a telecom regulator ostensibly serving the public interest.

For example, his claim that Americans can choose among six or more different providers ignores the fact AT&T and Verizon are counted twice (wired and wireless), no competition exists among multiple cable operators or phone companies, and many of the other options Isiogu counts (almost always wireless) do not provide coverage in suburban and rural Michigan. The average consumer in the U.S. has two practical choices for broadband — the cable or phone company.

While Isiogu sings the praises of American broadband, the rest of us have watched the price of Internet service continue to increase, whether customers want faster speeds or not. The industry itself admits it can raise prices because the competitive landscape and consumer love of broadband gives companies “pricing power.”

He also doesn’t mention the price of 100Mbps service or the fact it is not offered by either AT&T or (outside of one city) Time Warner Cable — both industry leaders. Wireless is no panacea either. 4G service may offer faster speeds, but usage plans that start with just a 1GB allowance make it hard (and expensive) to take advantage of the technology improvements. Just a few years ago those plans offered unlimited access.

Isiogu also tapdances around the fact no broadband provider in the country wants to sell a “pay for what you use” plan. Instead, companies create usage allowances that come with steep overlimit fees and, as AT&T executives have told shareholders, deliver limitless potential revenue growth as subscribers are forced to upgrade as their usage grows.

Most consumers favor and appreciate unlimited-use plans for predictable pricing and ease of mind. But flat rate plans ruin providers’ goals to monetize broadband usage and are usually eliminated when consumption pricing arrives, another fact Isiogu does not bother to disclose.

Isiogu has gotten remarkably cozy with the industry he oversees, even resorting to mind-bending pretzel logic that calls regulation for the banking sector a good idea and oversight of his industry friends a disaster.

What is disturbing is while Isiogu pens these industry friendly guest editorials in his spare time, he is also in a position of power to oversee and regulate these same companies in the public’s interest.

That represents a clear conflict of interest Teddy Roosevelt could see and feel from his grave.

Time Warner Cable has introduced its usage measurement tracker tool for customers in parts of upstate New York. The tool can be found on Time Warner Cable’s website under the My Services -> My Internet menu for customers logged in on the website.

Time Warner has been quietly collecting usage statistics for customers in this region since September 2012 and also offers the archived results for viewing.

The measurement tool managed to track a swap of the cable company-supplied modem for one I own in the fall of 2012.

The usage statistics seem generally accurate, although it combines both upstream and downstream traffic into one number. Some routers and other usage measurement tools measure this traffic separately.

Mountain Cablevision was owned by Shaw Communications but has been purchased by Rogers.

Rogers Communications, already Canada’s largest mobile-phone company, will grow even larger with the acquisition of Shaw Communications’ unused wireless spectrum and a Shaw-owned cable company making inroads in Rogers’ backyard in southwestern Ontario.

Rogers has agreed to pay $300 million for the spectrum and $400 million for Hamilton, Ont.-based Mountain Cablevision, Ltd. In return, Shaw will acquire a one-third interest in Rogers’ TVtropolis network.

Shaw is getting a premium price for the wireless spectrum it acquired in 2008 for $190 million. Shaw, like many American cable companies, originally planned to launch competing mobile phone service but aborted the effort in 2011, deciding to invest in its broadband service and construct a Wi-Fi network in western Canada instead.

Rogers CEO Nadir Mohamed told Bloomberg News the spectrum is needed to meet growing demands from Canadian wireless broadband customers.

“The wireless business is defined by what I would describe as an explosion in terms of usage,” Mohamed said. The new spectrum “will help us meet that demand in terms of capacity and speed.”

Rogers is by no means finished acquiring spectrum. The company plans to borrow as much as $800 million to purchase more at the next Canadian spectrum auction later this year.

AT&T 3G MicroCell

One of the core principles of Net Neutrality is that all Internet traffic is treated equally — nothing favored, nothing penalized.

AT&T does not seem interested in following that principle, as our regular reader James found out when reviewing the terms and conditions of AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme that limits DSL customers to 150GB of usage per month and 250GB for U-verse customers.

AT&T Wireless customers with the company’s 3G MicroCell that covers for AT&T’s network shortcomings are given special treatment if they also subscribe to the company’s wired broadband services: use of the MicroCell is exempt from the wired usage cap.

The MicroCell creates a mini “cell-tower” within the home for wireless devices that do not receive adequate indoor reception, powered by your home or office broadband connection. Customers with smartphones or other wireless devices can use the MicroCell to browse web pages, use apps, make and receive calls, or send and receive text messages without ever worrying about exceeding their DSL or U-verse broadband usage allowance. Want to access that content on your home computer? That does count against your cap.

“So data from another AT&T service which is sent over the same Internet connection as any other data traffic is excluded from the cap?  That sounds like a clear Net Neutrality violation to me,” says James.

From AT&T’s own FAQ:

“I have an AT&T 3G MicroCell. Since that utilizes my home broadband network to boost my wireless data signal, does that mean my wireless usage also counts against my wired broadband monthly data plan?

No, the wireless traffic from your AT&T 3G MicroCell does not count toward your monthly home broadband plan. Please register your AT&T 3G MicroCell account and your residential AT&T Internet account at www.att.com/internet-usage-MicroCell to help ensure accurate Internet usage billing. If you have broadband service with another provider, you do not need to register your account.”

The usage cap “free pass” does not extend to your wireless service plan, however. Despite using your home broadband connection, the use of the MicroCell still consumes monthly plan minutes and megabytes, unless you purchase extra add-ons. AT&T would argue it already charged you for your wireless usage, so it would not be fair to charge you again through your home broadband plan. But if you are not an AT&T broadband customer, that is exactly what happens if your local cable operator also has usage billing.

AT&T’s logic for implementing usage caps in the first place:

AT&T has experienced a dramatic increase in the amount of data that is sent and received over its wireline broadband networks. This dramatic increase is driven primarily by a small fraction of our customers. In fact, the top 2% of customers use about 20% of the total capacity on our network. A single high-traffic user can utilize the same amount of data capacity as 19 typical households. Lopsided usage patterns can cause congestion at certain points in the network, which can slow Internet speeds and interfere with other customers’ access to and use of the network.

Customers that blow through their allowance receive one warning and then a higher bill: a $10 overlimit penalty will apply and extends your usage allowance by 50GB. AT&T’s cost per gigabyte is estimated to be in the pennies.

CNET was forced to withdraw a planned award for Dish Network’s ad-skipping “Hopper” DVR because the website’s owner, CBS, is suing the satellite dish company over the device.

The rift has led to questions about the editorial independence at CNET, and as of this afternoon, a senior writer has quit over the controversy.

Greg Sandoval, who formerly reported for the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times resigned in protest less than one hour after reports surfaced CNET was ordered to disqualify Dish Network from consideration at the Best of C.E.S. Awards in Las Vegas last Thursday.

The well-advertised Dish Hopper DVR allows viewers to seamlessly skip past advertising on recorded major network primetime programming. CNET disclosed that regardless of the product’s merits, it could not be considered at the awards event because the website’s owner was actively engaged in litigation that argues the device violates U.S. copyright laws.

“We are saddened that CNET’s staff is being denied its editorial independence because of CBS’s heavy-handed tactics,” said Dish Network CEO Joseph P. Clayton. “This action has nothing to do with the merits of our new product. Hopper with Sling is all about consumer choice and control over the TV experience. That CBS, which owns CNET.com, would censor that message is insulting to consumers.”

The Verge website turned up the temperature in CNET’s offices when it reported the Dish Hopper was banned from consideration only after it became apparent it was going to win an award:

Before the winner was unveiled, CBS Interactive News senior-vice president and General Manager Mark Larkin informed CNET’s staff that the Hopper could not take the top award. The Hopper would have to be removed from consideration, and the editorial team had to re-vote and pick a new winner from the remaining choices. Sources say that Larkin was distraught while delivering the news — at one point in tears — as he told the team that he had fought CBS executives who had made the decision.

The Verge added there was clear evidence of a growing influence on the editorial decisions at the digital news subsidiaries owned by CBS, all designed to protect the parent company.

Sandoval left almost immediately after The Verge went public with its report.

CBS released a statement earlier this afternoon:

CBS has nothing but the highest regard for the editors and writers at CNET, and has managed that business with respect as part of its CBS Interactive division since it was acquired in 2008. This has been an isolated and unique incident in which a product that has been challenged as illegal, was removed from consideration for an award. The product in question is not only the subject of a lawsuit between Dish and CBS, but between Dish and nearly every other major media company as well. CBS has been consistent on this situation from the beginning, and, in terms of covering actual news, CNET maintains 100% editorial independence, and always will. We look forward to the site building on its reputation of good journalism in the years to come.