This slide, produced to sell "network management" equipment, is the best argument for Net Neutrality around.

Want to visit Facebook?  That will be two cents per megabyte, please.  Skype?  You can get a real bargain this month — your ISP is only charging you $5 for an unlimited monthly permission pass.  YouTube?  All customers with a deluxe bundled broadband plan get a special discount — just 50 cents for up to 60 videos, this month only!

All of these charges, levied by your Internet Service Provider, are real world scenarios being sold by two equipment vendors — Allot Communications and Openet, for immediate use on Net Neutrality-free wireless broadband networks.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! readers Lance and Damian for sending us the story.

Both companies are excited by the potential harvest of bountiful revenue — for themselves in selling the equipment that will carefully monitor what you do with your Internet connection and then control what kind of experience you get, and for providers who can finally bend the usage curve down while “finally” getting average revenue per customer shooting sky high once again.

In the webinar, run last Tuesday and moderated by Fierce Wireless, the two companies carefully divided their one hour presentation between the technological and financial benefits of “network management” technology.  For every statement about how their bandwidth management system would improve the predictable responsiveness of the provider’s network, another comment followed, touting the enormous new revenue potential this technology will bring providers, all without costly network upgrades.

Poor provider. His stuffed pockets of profit are leaking your money paid to access websites you want to visit. But with Allot and Openet's products, the pot 'o gold is just a few steps away.

On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on a watered-down Net Neutrality proposal that would do nothing to prevent this nightmare scenario from becoming reality.  The webinar and its accompanying slides couldn’t illustrate Net Neutrality-proponents’ arguments better:

1. Such technology requires providers to carefully track and monitor everything you do with your web connection, obliterating privacy and creating a potential data trail that could be exploited for just about anything.  Indeed, Allot and Openet treat the data tracking feature as a benefit, opening the door to marketing campaigns to upsell your broadband connection or target upgrade offers based on your web history;

2. It’s all about the money.  Allot and Openet see their products as a cost-saver for providers to control expenses by cutting speeds/access for heavy users to provide a more consistent service for others, reducing the urgency to upgrade networks.  The companies also heavily focus on the revenue opportunities available from Internet Overcharging schemes;

3. The webinar includes a slide showing that providers can charge individual fees just to visit and utilize third party websites and applications, while letting providers deliver their own content, services and applications for free.  Got a bothersome competitor?  Just make a quick change with Allot’s product and your customers will face a withering admission fee in the amount you choose before they can even use the application;

4. The technology allows providers to wreak special havoc on peer-to-peer traffic, always the bane of traffic-conscious ISPs;

5. Want to extract more cash from an individual subscriber?  Providers can custom-design packages based on web site habits, usage, speed, and even the time of day the person is most likely to use the web.  Providers can then develop so many different usage packages, comparison shopping becomes meaningless.  The price you pay may be different than what others on your street pay, and you may never know by how much or why.

These Big Telecom workmen are not hard at work upgrading networks to meet demand. They are wrangling an Internet Overcharging scheme to reduce your usage while charging you more. (All of these slides were produced by the vendors themselves.)

Public Knowledge legal director Harold Feld saw right through the slide show: “If you want the slide deck to show why we need the same rules for wireless and wireline, this is it.”

Listen to the audio portion of “Managing the Unmanageable: Monetizing and Controlling OTT Applications,” which does not include the slide show. (60 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Broadband advocates have been warning providers have been dreaming of this kind of pricing for a few years now.

“I have been saying that this is where they want to go for a while,” Barbara van Schewick wrote to Wired. “The IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), a technology that is being deployed in many wireline and wireless networks throughout the country, explicitly envisages this sort of pricing as one of the pricing schemes supported by IMS.”

Although the system described by the webinar is currently being sold for use on wireless networks, nothing prevents providers from adopting similar schemes on their wired networks, arguing their use is about “intelligent network management,” not content or pricing discrimination.

It’s a scenario likely to be tested soon, especially with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s watered down Net Neutrality proposals.  More than one observer believes the chairman has made a deal with the Big Telecom Devil: observe our watered down rules, don’t sue to have them thrown out, and the Commission will not invoke Title II and reinstate regulatory authority over broadband.

But as anyone who watches the broadband industry must realize by now, providers always break these deals.  They will sue the moment a controversy erupts that is not in their favor, and they are very likely to win.

Crowell

Fibrant, Salisbury, N.C., community-owned fiber to the home network, shares advice to other communities considering building their own self-reliant, locally-owned broadband networks: work together and outsource the headend.

Christopher Mitchell from Community Broadband Networks alerted us to a video from TelecomTV interviewing Michael Crowell, Fibrant’s Director of Broadband Services.  In it, Crowell shows off Fibrant’s GPON fiber network and explains what the city has learned from the experience of building its own network.

Ironically, a significant part of Fibrant’s network came cheap thanks to Windstream.  It seems what the residents of Salisbury won was also a loss for those living in Concord, N.C.

Crowell explains Concord was served by a small independent phone company — Concord Telephone.  They had decided to build their customers an advanced fiber to the home network similar to Fibrant, until the company was sold to Windstream.  Windstream has no interest in delivering world-class fiber broadband to Concord (or anywhere else), and left Concord with dismal DSL, selling the fiber network equipment to Salisbury dirt cheap — for around 10 cents on the dollar.

But not everything has come so easy to Fibrant, says Crowell.  One of the company’s largest expenses is its headend, which receives, monitors, and distributes the hundreds of video channels Fibrant customers receive.

“What we think would be a better model going forward is for the other cities and counties to do what is called an open access network.  They build and maintain the fiber but get other providers to provide the service,” Crowell said.

Crowell proposes allowing the state’s two largest municipal broadband projects — Wilson in the east and Salisbury in the central-west part of the state, handle the headend, as well as customer service calls and billing on behalf of other communities interested in building their own municipal fiber networks.  Both cities can deliver bulk feeds of video channels to different parts of the state and that saves other communities from spending money to hire employees to monitor redundant, expensive equipment.

That is more or less what is happening further south in Opelika, Ala., where work is underway constructing a fiber to the home network.  But in Opelika, city officials have decided to let cable overbuilder Knology run the network.

Knology’s network is already up and running in nearby Auburn, according to Royce Ard, general manager for Knology.  Ard told WRBL TV:

“We met our scheduled date for installing our first Auburn test customers and the test is progressing nicely. We will begin adding our first paying customers by the end of October,” Ard said. “Initially, our services will be available in a limited number of neighborhoods, but as we build out our network we will contact homeowners and let them know when services are available in their area.”

Knology projects being able to offer service to its first Opelika customers by the second quarter of 2011.

“Knology is very excited about entering the Opelika market,” Ard said. “The technology that we are deploying in the Auburn/Opelika markets will allow us to offer consumers a much better product than they have today. This, along with Knology’s commitment to customer service, will greatly improve the overall experience for consumers in Auburn and Opelika.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Salisbury Discusses Motivation Behind Fibrant on TelecomTV 12-16-10.flv[/flv]

Fibrant’s Michael Crowell, interviewed by TelecomTV, walks viewers through Fibrant’s fiber network and discusses community-owned fiber networks.  (7 minutes)

In a welcome turn of events, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which has routinely turned up as a member of Big Telecom-backed astroturf campaigns and takes money from AT&T, has come together with Latinos for Internet Freedom to issue a joint statement calling on the Federal Communications Commission to adopt equal Net Neutrality policies for wired and wireless broadband services.

“Although we disagree on some of the components of the proposed network neutrality regulations, there is one point on which we are in lock step: the FCC’s network neutrality rules must apply equally to wireline and wireless internet access.  Of course we understand that what is ‘reasonable network management’ may be slightly different over different types of connections.  Cost is the primary barrier to broadband adoption, and Latinos are turning to their mobile phones as their only onramp to the internet.  We are committed to finding ways to lower broadband costs by increasing competition through wireless access and other means.  It is therefore essential that the FCC ensures that users of wireless and wireline services are protected by its openness rules.”

Of course, broadband providers’ demands for deregulation and unified opposition to Net Neutrality have never delivered and will never provide cheaper Internet service to anyone.  In fact, the court ruling that eliminated the FCC’s authority over broadband gave providers nearly a year of a wide open marketplace, yet many providers are now sending out notices they are -increasing- broadband prices for subscribers.  Net Neutrality has never been enforced against wireless networks either, and as a result most either usage cap, throttle, or charge enormous overlimit fees for users deemed to be “using too much.”

Increased competition can bring lower prices, but only if it extends well beyond today’s duopoly.  In areas where one provider is likely to maintain a de facto monopoly, effective oversight is required to ensure consumers receive adequate service at fair prices.

Still, it is a surprising and welcome change to see LULAC recognizing the true nature of broadband access for many economically-challenged Americans, especially in minority communities where unemployment continues to be catastrophic.  Some consumers are finding prepaid wireless broadband service to be one way onto the Internet, yet Big Telecom has sought to keep those networks exempt from any Net Neutrality consumer protections.  That cannot be allowed to happen.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon vs. Latinos for Internet Freedom.flv[/flv]

Watch these two competing spots from Verizon and the Latinos for Internet Freedom.  One is self-serving and a tad condescending, the other calls for a free and open Internet where individuals get a level playing field to tell their own stories and live their own lives without fear or special favor.  (2 minutes)

It's a three hour drive down Interstate 81 from Utica to Wilkes-Barre.

WKTV-TV Utica is off Time Warner Cable's lineup in parts of central New York this morning.

Viewers across Oneida, Herkimer, and other adjacent central New York counties lost their local NBC station early this morning after another retransmission consent dispute led Time Warner Cable to drop WKTV-TV in Utica, N.Y., from the lineup.

The fact Time Warner dropped a station is hardly unprecedented, but the cable company managed to replace the station almost immediately.  Away went WKTV, in came Nexstar-owned WBRE-TV, an NBC station serving Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Penn.

This morning, Mohawk Valley viewers woke up to watching local news and weather for the Susquehanna Valley — 187 miles away to the south.

While Time Warner’s apparent agreement with WBRE keeps NBC shows rolling, the loss of local news and weather represents a major blow for area subscribers, many enduring a western and central New York winter that has brought more than 50 inches of snow in just the last two weeks in some areas.

Utica city officials expressed concern about the loss of the local Utica station because important snow emergency alerts were often delivered over the station.

“They might as well have imported a station from Florida, because there is very little in common between Herkimer County, New York and Luzerne County, Pennsylvania,” writes Steve, who lives in Herkimer.  “You would have thought they would have just grabbed an NBC station from Syracuse.”

...replaced with WBRE-TV, a station in Wilkes-Barre, Penn.

Apparently, Time Warner has permission from Nexstar to import the distant signal of the Pennsylvania station for impacted subscribers.  The effective reinstatement of network programming may make it more difficult for WKTV’s owner, Smith Media, to negotiate the station’s return to Time Warner’s lineup anytime soon.  That one NBC affiliate may have granted permission to replace another station during a contract dispute may become a point of contention on the network level.  Traditionally, broadcasters have not been quick to undercut other stations with such carriage agreements.

Smith’s other stations were also affected.  Time Warner dropped WFFF (Fox) AND WVNY (ABC), which serve the Burlington, Vt. market and the CW-affiliated digital sub-channel running alongside WKTV in Utica.  The station owner launched a website to share their position and educate people about how to receive the signals either over-the-air or via satellite.

In nearby Rochester, Time Warner continues to play hardball with Sinclair Broadcasting over a carriage agreement renewal for WUHF-TV.  But Time Warner customers facing the loss of the Fox affiliate will not see any interruption of Fox network programming — the cable company has a separate agreement with the network.  Ironically, Sinclair jointly operates WUHF with Nexstar Broadcasting of Rochester LLC, the owner of WROC-TV, the city’s CBS affiliate.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WKTV Carriage Dispute 12-16-10.flv[/flv]

Time Warner’s replacement of WKTV-TV in Utica with a distant station may be a new tactic in the hardball war over cable-broadcaster carriage agreements.  WKTV ran several stories about how the station’s loss impacts the area.  YNN’s Central NY news station, run by Time Warner Cable, also ran its own story this morning, all of which are covered here.  (9 minutes)

Time Warner Cable is one of many cable companies that try to convince their customers Verizon FiOS and other true fiber-to-the-home providers offer nothing special.  After all, they proclaim: “we’ve got fiber, too!”

Time Warner Cable put this "special notice" on its website for cable subscribers.

More innovation from the late 70s.

In California’s Southland, stretching from the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley across the Inland Empire to deep within Orange County, the cable operator just finished installing 361,149 miles of fiber, telling the LA Times it has enough fiber to wrap around the equator nearly 15 times.

Unfortunately for residential subscribers, the cable company can’t manage to stretch some strands your way.

Most of the $120-million expansion program is designed to benefit area businesses — some 125,000 across the Southland that could potentially tell the phone company to take a hike.  The Business Class expansion delivers service to business parks and campuses across the sprawling region that the cable operator has not wired before.

While Time Warner likes to say they are running “an advanced fiber network,” for many customers it’s the same technology cable companies have been using since the 1990s.  Once it reaches your neighborhood, classic coaxial cable brings service the rest of the way, and some of that coax has been around since the late 1970s.

That makes at least part of Time Warner’s network as fresh and innovative as — the Sony Walkman.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Cable Fiber Ad.flv[/flv]

A Time Warner Cable ad implying the cable company delivers a fiber optic experience to customers in southern California.  (1 minute)