A small wireless ISP owner who regularly complains about Net Neutrality and an industry friendly group that opposes broadband oversight were the handpicked guests at a hearing held today to investigate Net Neutrality.  Only one witness, Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge was there to defend the important consumer net protection principle.

The hearing, held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on IP, Competition and the Internet was among the first held in the new Republican-controlled Congress, which overwhelmingly opposes Net Neutrality.  It opened an opportunity for Net Neutrality-opponents to attack the watered down rules, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission last December.

Laurence “Brett” Glass, owner of Lariat, a wireless ISP in Laramie, Wyoming, is a familiar name to those who follow comment sections of public interest websites and newspapers.  Glass regularly attacks the concept of Net Neutrality and favors Internet Overcharging schemes, if only to protect revenues on his bandwidth-limited wireless ISP.

Glass told Congress adoption of even the FCC’s watered down regulations will put his company’s future at risk because they could be interpreted to allow “servers” on his network.  Andrew Schwartzman, a net-neutrality proponent and senior vice president at the Media Access Project, says the restriction could technically violate rules, but only if it was argued as a prohibition of attaching server hardware/equipment.

“He is describing a practice which would violate Michael Powell’s 4 principles from 2005 (I think) since it allows end users to attach any device,” Schwartzman said in an e-mail to The Hill.

Of course, the watered down Net Neutrality regulations exempt wireless networks, and Glass’ argument ignores the long-recognized concept of the Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits network activities that can create problems for the network itself or other customers.  The FCC moving in to crush Lariat over such a scenario is hard to imagine in any case.

Larry Downes, another witness, represents the Big Telecom-friendly TechFreedom, which loathes industry regulations that could impact big players like AT&T and Verizon.

Downes argued the Net Neutrality rules were slipped in during the Lame Duck Session to avoid Republican scrutiny on Capitol Hill and are completely unnecessary.  Downes argues:

• There is no need for new regulation because there were never any serious violations (ignoring the Comcast incident that interfered with network traffic and the subsequent adventures (by others) this year on the wireless side where content access is being repackaged and sold by third parties based on access and usage).
• Enforcement mechanisms are complex and expensive: It costs too much to investigate, so why bother?
• Exceptions reveal a profound misunderstanding of “the Open Internet”: Downes argues today’s well-accepted concept of speed equality and agnostic network management are simply popular with consumers and irrelevant to the technical workings of the Internet itself.
• The FCC lacked authority to issue the rules—and likely knew it: By not invoking appropriate authority, the FCC’s new Net Neutrality policies may fail to pass court scrutiny.

Downes favors a different kind of net freedom — one for corporations to treat the online ecosystem as they please and let the free market sort it out.  If you are served by two providers who believe in Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles, so be it.  If you’re lucky enough to be served by a provider that supports today’s online experience, lucky you.

The FCC evidently was not invited to testify about their own policy.  Instead, Public Knowledge’s Gigi Sohn argued for Net Neutrality, but even she complains the FCC’s current provisions of that policy don’t go far enough.  Public Knowledge is planning a pushback against Republican-led efforts to repeal Net Neutrality in a campaign launching later this week — The Internet Strikes Back.

(Click the image on the left to enroll in the campaign and participate in the effort to stand up for Net Neutrality this Thursday.)

Public Knowledge:

You – the Internet – are going to make it clear that ISPs cannot be gatekeepers and do not get to choose which websites work and which websites do not work.  You – the Internet – will tell all of Congress to join the 105 Representatives who have already come out clearly in support of a free and open Internet.

EchoStar Corporation, which makes equipment and provides satellites for Dish Network, today announced it has agreed to buy Hughes Communications, Inc., for about $1.32 billion.

The deal means Dish, the second-largest U.S. satellite television provider, could be one step closer to providing a national data service to its customers.  Hughes operates a “broadband” satellite network, which almost entirely serves rural areas.

Much maligned by its customers, who consider the service’s high prices, low speeds and even lower usage caps “fraudband,” Hughes’ satellite service has been up for sale for some time.

The purchase “brings together the two premier providers of satellite communications services and delivers substantial value to our shareholders,” Pradman Kaul, chief executive officer of Hughes said in the statement.

Satellite television companies have increasingly been at a disadvantage because they cannot sell a true “triple-play” package of television, Internet, and phone service to customers who commonly bundle the three services together.  Instead, Dish and its larger competitor DirecTV have been relying on partnerships with telephone companies who provide phone and Internet service with a satellite television package.

The current generation of satellite broadband services are not well-rated by their customers.  Capacity shortages force providers to place strict limits on usage, which makes the service largely useless for high bandwidth applications — especially video.

The deal is expected to close later this year.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Hughesnet.flv[/flv]

Watch HughesNet’s advertisement promising “blazing fast” speeds in contrast to an actual speed test completed by one of their customers, at a non-peak-usage time.  (2 minutes)

The telephone landline business is hardly a growth industry, as an average of 5-7 percent of customers disconnect their home phone service every quarter, but you wouldn’t know that from the dividends being paid to stockholders.

From AT&T, Bell Canada, Frontier to Qwest — the companies that speak in terms of keeping their customer defection rates down are paying dividends that often exceed earnings.

Among the worst of all — Frontier Communications, whose outsized dividend is expected to reach 75 cents a share.  That, despite the fact analysts predict the phone company will earn only 40 cents a share or so this year.

Where do these phone companies expect to make their money?  Their broadband and wireless divisions.  AT&T and Bell Canada are able to cover landline losses with enhanced profits from their IPTV services like U-verse and Fibe.  Frontier and Qwest expect to survive on providing cheap-to-deploy DSL service in rural areas avoided by cable operators.

Sibley County's fiber future?

It takes a lot of chutzpah to vilify a community’s proposed fiber to the home network when you’ve managed to completely screw up the one you’ve acquired from another company, but Frontier Communications tries anyway.

Instead of relying on Frontier’s overpriced (and soon to be rationed) slow speed DSL from an earlier era, Sibley County, Minnesota is proposing a municipally owned fiber project that will bring much needed connectivity to area businesses, homes, and farms.  Community Broadband Networks found a certain phone company in strong opposition.  Frontier warned county officials not to make the mistake of delivering better service than they can provide themselves:

As a provider of telephone, internet, and video services to our customers in the Green Isle, Arlington, and Henderson areas, Frontier Communications is obviously interested in the “fiber to the home” proposal that has been presented. As a nationwide provider, Frontier is aware of other efforts by municipalities of various types to build and operate their own telecommunications network. While these proposals are always painted in rosy tones, it is important for officials to carefully review the underlying assumptions and projections that consultants make when presenting these projects. Unfortunately, history tells us that the actual performance of most of these projects is significantly less positive than the promises. Often times, these projects end up costing municipalities huge amounts of money, and negatively impact their financial status and credit ratings.

Frontier even “runs the numbers” on the county proposal.  But Sibley County should carefully consider the source.  This is the same company that couldn’t manage its fiber to home network it acquired with landline purchases from Verizon Communications.  Instead, this month it dumped $30 rate increases on its fiber customers in the Pacific Northwest and Indiana.

Frontier has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which means leaving many rural Minnesotans with one choice for broadband: Frontier.

Of course the company opposes the county’s fiber project — they would be crazy not to, considering it will cost them many of their customers.

Cherry-picking a small percentage of the municipally-owned networks facing difficulties is just a scare tactic, and doesn’t prove their case.  County officials should consider the growing number of projects that are a breath of fresh air for the communities they serve, all at no risk to taxpayers: projects like EPB in Chattanooga, Greenlight in Wilson, or Fibrant in Salisbury — both North Carolina.

Or DSL past?

Those projects all faced the same provider-financed campfire scary stories, too — just because incumbent cable and phone companies didn’t want the competition.

When wild claims about failing projects don’t work, Frontier officials hilariously offered up this absurdity in a story in the Arlington Enterprise that ran Dec. 16.

“What we can do is provide the same speed of service as fiber can provide,” said Todd Van Epps, Frontier’s regional manager.

Really, on Frontier’s pre-existing, decades-old copper wire network?  The same one that Frontier currently sells “blazing fast/up to” 3Mbps DSL service on for $50 a month?

In comparison, the fiber network proposed for Sibley County would deliver at least 20/20Mbps service for less than $50 a month.  That fiber network is infinitely upgradable as well, with service up to 1 gigabit per second if a customer needed that much.

Our advice when dealing with Frontier’s promises: get them in writing.

When a company tells customers to throw away their Frontier FiOS fiber and switch to a competitor’s satellite television service or else pay $30 more per month for basic cable, their helpful advice about how to manage the fiber business should be taken with a grain of salt.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Frontier vs CityNet Pt 1 12-11-10.mp4[/flv]

DecisionMakers: Frontier vs. Citynet, Part One  (10 minutes)

Bray Cary

Bray Cary, who runs a Sunday news-talk-interview show on his network of West Virginia-based television stations, turned his attention back to the mediocre broadband picture across the state.  Once again, the “free market can do no wrong”-host showered attention and praise on Frontier Communications for their promises to improve West Virginia’s bottom-of-the-barrel rankings in broadband adoption, availability, and speed.  Only this time, one of his guests took him to school on why Frontier Communications is not the state’s broadband savior.

In this round, Cary invited Frontier’s senior vice president Dana Waldo and Citynet president and CEO Jim Martin to discuss where the state’s broadband is today and where it is going tomorrow.

The community of French Creek can't get Frontier broadband even after promising the company dozens of new broadband customers.

Cary wears his opinions on his sleeve, and he’s no fan of the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program, believing private companies will deliver West Virginia from its broadband doldrums. That’s wishful thinking Cary can afford as he browses the web from well-wired cities like Charleston.  But if you live in a community like French Creek in Upshur County, that talk isn’t going to get you broadband from Frontier or anyone else.  Stop the Cap! has heard from residents in the community who have delivered petitions from dozens of residents ready and willing to sign up for -any- broadband service, but Frontier hasn’t responded.

Martin opines that as long as stimulus money is available, using it to get the best bang for the buck could improve service for residents from the Panhandle to the Virginia border, instead of simply improving Frontier’s bottom line.

Cary did seem concerned that Frontier was ill-equipped to deliver service to all residents, regardless of cost.

Martin argues Frontier’s broadband network will do nothing to stimulate competition and bring better service.  Martin wants funds redirected into a robust middle-mile statewide backbone, preferably fiber-based, that is open to all-comers at reasonable wholesale pricing.  Citynet has been aggressively complaining about broadband stimulus grants in the state which seem to benefit a handful of companies and projects that don’t actually result in service to individual residents.

The reality is, Cary’s “free market” approach will not deliver service to tens of thousands of West Virginians who will never get wired because of “return on investment” requirements for service in the mountainous state.  Martin’s middle-mile mentality won’t bring access to the last mile, critical for wiring individual homes, either.  But one thing Martin does see that Frontier doesn’t — fiber is the future.

There is a third way to get service without waiting from Frontier’s 1-3Mbps service with an Internet Overcharging scheme or Martin’s middle-mile network that goes past your home but never stops there — petition your local government to empower itself and build a community-owned network that answers to residents, not to Frontier’s dividend-obsessed shareholders.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Frontier vs CityNet Pt 2 12-11-10.mp4[/flv]

DecisionMakers: Frontier vs. Citynet, Part Two  (9 minutes)