Anthony Lacavera

Large Canadian telecommunications companies like Rogers, Telus, and Bell are loudly protesting a proposal to cap the maximum number of wireless licenses they can beg, borrow, or buy.

The proposal, from Wind Mobile and Quebecor Inc.’s Vidéotron Ltée, would tell some of Canada’s largest telecom companies they cannot buy up every available wireless license that becomes available in the future in an effort to lock out would-be competitors.  Both companies fear that without such a license cap, the deep pockets of larger providers could sustain a wireless cartel to keep mobile competition at bay.

“Competition doesn’t just ‘happen’,” said Wind Mobile’s Anthony Lacavera. “True competition and the long term benefits of competition for Canadians will occur when, and if, our regulatory framework is improved, our access to foreign capital is unhindered and the playing field is leveled to the benefit of Canadians.”

Lacavera’s upstart Wind Mobile has faced incumbent provider-fueled scrutiny over claims of foreign ownership violations in an effort to keep Wind’s discount service out of Canada.  In addition to fending off regulatory challenges, Lacavera is wary of Conservative Party policy towards wireless competition, which he suspects is too shallow and lacks important protections against further marketplace concentration.

The idea of a license limit met with predictable hostility from the three larger incumbents.

On Wednesday, Telus’ chief financial officer rejected the idea out of hand, telling the government they should not be giving advantages to discount carriers and foreign entities over Telus, which he said was more focused on “innovation.”

Wind Mobile

Rogers called a license cap “a slap in the face” to millions of their customers, and Bell pulled an AT&T — without allowing companies like Bell to have the chance to outbid everyone else, Canada will run the “risk of lagging” behind the United States, harm innovation, and deprive the government of much needed auction revenue.

Bell CEO George Cope also warned letting foreign companies into the Canadian market could leave rural Canada with older technology.  At the risk of shooting down his own earlier argument, Cope specifically targeted his remarks at U.S. carriers, who presumably could be among Canada’s future wireless players.  In Cope’s mind, U.S. providers like AT&T would treat Canada as an afterthought.

“If you really believe that if a U.S. carrier had owned Bell at the time we launched HSPA+ (an advanced iteration of 3G), do you really believe Prince Edward Island, that province, would have had HSPA+ before Chicago?” Cope asked. “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Large incumbent carriers also accused the smaller competing upstarts of simply trying to boost their own value before they sell out.  Telus and Rogers should know — they fought over buying that competition, like Microcell’s Fido, which Rogers eventually acquired in 2004.

Phillip Dampier

This week, the tech community has been buzzing over new entrants in the world of cloud computing.  Apple’s iCloud in particular has sparked enormous media coverage as the company plans to encourage customers to access all of their favorite content over their broadband connection.  Apple is also moving towards online distribution of many of its software products, including the forthcoming OS X Lion operating system, suggesting consumers can pass up traditional physical media like CD-ROMs or DVDs.

Cloud storage theoretically allows you to store your entire music, video and photo collection online for easy access from any device.  Watching the 20-somethings buzz about 100GB+ secure file lockers and the end of traditional file storage as we know it has been amusing, but these people need to get their heads out of the clouds.  Unless they become politically involved in America’s broadband debate, it is not going to happen the way they hope it will.

Tech entrepreneur?  Meet broadband provider reality check: the Internet Overcharging usage cap and “excessive use” pricing scheme.

While Steve Jobs was introducing iCloud, broadband providers and their industry friends have been ruminating over the impact all of this new traffic will have on their broadband networks.  In an homage to former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre’s “you can’t use my pipes for free,” the drumbeat for implementing “control measures” for cloud computing and video traffic has been amplified several times over by certain providers, Wall Street analysts, and their trade press and equipment supplier lackeys.

One alarmed provider pondered the impact of iCloud in terms of their past experience with iTunes, which also spiked traffic when it was first released.  Others balk at the notion of consumers using broadband platforms to move entire libraries of content back and forth, especially on wireless networks.  The only sigh of relief detected?  Apple won’t start iCloud with video content — just music, at least at first.

The enemies list

The biggest targets — the companies that get a lot of pushback from providers for using “their networks” to earn millions for themselves are Google, Netflix, Amazon and Apple.  Each of them are rapidly moving into the online entertainment business, threatening to provoke more cable TV cord-cutting.  Netflix is now responsible for 30 percent of online traffic during primetime hours, a fact that some use as an accusation — as if Netflix should be held to account for its own success. Amazon has opened its own cloud based music storage and is also increasingly getting into online video content streaming.  Apple has a novel approach at handling its forthcoming iCloud music feature which should save hours in uploading, but the company is also moving towards online distribution of a growing proportion of its software, including the huge bug fixes and upgrades that will easily exceed a gigabyte if you own several Apple products.

Google is a frequent Washington target and honestly delivers the only truly effective corporate pushback to anti-consumer broadband pricing some providers have contemplated.  In fact, Google is putting its money where its mouth is building a gigabit network larger providers repeatedly scoff at as unnecessary, too costly, and too complicated.

While millions in venture capital funds new online innovations, only a miniscule amount of money is being spent to counter the lobbying major providers are doing in Washington to redefine the broadband revolution in their terms, complete with usage pricing that bears no relation to cost, arbitrary usage limits, and ongoing lack of true competition.

Online innovation is grand, but allowing providers to strangle it with Internet Overcharging schemes guarantees to end the party real fast.

Individually, none of the new cloud services are likely to blow out usage caps in excess of 100GB, but in combination they certainly could.  Anyone using online file backup, cloud storage of video and large music collections, uses Netflix or other online streaming services, and spends lots of time on the web will easily approach the limits some providers have established.  That doesn’t even include large software updates.  Unless you have an unlimited usage plan on the wireless side, don’t even think about using most of these services with AT&T’s 2GB monthly wireless usage cap.

Glenn Britt: The Internet is a utility which is why we can keep raising the price.

In the handful of countries with ubiquitous Internet Overcharging, little of this will pose a problem — companies won’t launch cloud computing services in markets where usage caps will effectively keep customers from using them.

That is why it is critical for some of America’s largest technology companies to get on board the fight against Internet Overcharging, and demand Washington recognize broadband as a utility service that should be wide open and usage cap free.  The evidence is right in front of you.  Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt recognizes the fact broadband is an essential part of our lives today, which is why he is confident enough to keep raising the price and charging even more in the future.  It’s not about “network congestion,” “building the next generation of broadband,” or “pricing fairness.”  Stop the Cap! started at ground zero for Time Warner Cable’s 2009 version of “pricing fairness” — $150 a month for an unlimited use broadband account that likely cost major providers less than $10 a month to provide.  It’s about pure, naked profiteering, unchecked by free market competition in today’s broadband duopoly.

Unless a company like Google can vastly expand its own broadband rollouts, it is increasingly apparent to me (and many others), we may have to move towards an entirely different model for broadband in the United States — one built on the premise of the Interstate Highway System.  One advanced, publicly-owned fiber network open to all providers on which telecommunications services can travel to homes and businesses from coast to coast.

Nobody says private companies shouldn’t be able to compete, but every day more evidence arrives they will never be inclined to deliver the next generation of service that other countries around the world are starting to take for granted.  They will instead protect their current business models at all costs, even if that means throwing America’s broadband innovation revolution under the bus.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Will iCloud Measure Up 6-7-11.flv[/flv]

CNN takes a look at what makes Apple’s iCloud service different from competitors from Google and Amazon.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Dropbox Cloud Computing 6-8-11.flv[/flv]

CNN talks with the folks at Dropbox about their cloud file storage system.  (3 minutes)

A consumer group has filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission alleging that Verizon Wireless is violating its agreement with federal authorities by attempting to restrict the use of third-party wireless tethering applications.

The basis of the complaint, filed by Free Press, is that Verizon agreed not to “deny, limit, or restrict” customers from accessing the applications of their choosing as part of Verizon’s LTE license spectrum agreement.

“Verizon’s conduct is bad for the public and bad for innovation. It also appears to be illegal under the FCC’s rules that govern Verizon’s LTE network. Users pay through the nose for Verizon’s LTE service, and having done so, they should be able to use their connections as they see fit. Instead, Verizon’s approach is to sell you broadband but then put up roadblocks to control your use of it,” said Free Press policy counsel Aparna Sridhar.  “In 2007, Verizon argued aggressively against the adoption of these basic openness protections. Having lost that policy battle but won the auction for the spectrum licenses, Verizon has adopted a new regulatory strategy: simply ignore the rules on the books. The Commission must move quickly to investigate and stop these harmful practices.”

As Stop the Cap! reported earlier, Verizon has taken measures to try and warn off customers using the third-party tethering apps instead of purchasing the company’s $20 tethering plan, which offers 2GB of data usage per month.  In addition to text warning messages, the company has asked Google to disable access to tethering software in the Android Market for Verizon customers.

From Free Press’ complaint:

Efforts to disable smartphone features and create barriers to this useful, productive, pro-innovation activity should cause concern no matter who initiates them; but when Verizon Wireless interferes with the use of third-party tethering applications, that conduct also violates the rules governing its LTE network. When Verizon purchased the licenses for the spectrum over which it has deployed LTE, it agreed to abide by a set of pro-consumer, pro-innovation openness principles. In particular, Verizon promised that it would not “deny, limit, or restrict the ability of [its] customers to use the devices and applications of their choice.” Verizon’s recent move to limit and restrict access to tethering applications by actively requesting that Google make them unavailable in the Android Market (the Google market for mobile applications) deliberately and unequivocally violates this prohibition. The FCC should immediately open an investigation to assess Verizon’s practices and determine appropriate penalties for this clear breach of the Commission’s rules.

[…] When the FCC auctioned the C Block of the Upper 700 MHz spectrum — the spectrum on which Verizon has deployed its LTE offering — the Commission adopted important license conditions to protect the openness of broadband networks. It provided that licensees using that spectrum “shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice.” In the words of Chairman Kevin Martin, the Commission adopted the conditions to ensure that “[c]onsumers will be able to use the wireless device of their choice and download whatever software they want onto it.”

The more wireless carriers try to impose punitive usage caps on their customers, the more they will shop elsewhere for wireless service or turn to free Wi-Fi alternatives.  Those are the results of an important new report from Devicescape, a Wi-Fi advocate and software creator that allows for seamless Wi-Fi connections.

At the very top of the findings of the latest quarterly report: consumers overwhelmingly continue to despise usage caps and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  At least 73 percent suggest they will take their business elsewhere if their provider cancels their unlimited usage data plan, with 80 percent making changes in how they consume wireless data — especially moving usage to free Wi-Fi networks and off 3G/4G networks.

Almost 90 percent of smartphone users already connect to Wi-Fi at home and on the road, with 64 percent using Wi-Fi hotspots at work and in shops and restaurants at least once a day.

The report also makes it clear consumers want a hassle-free Wi-Fi experience.  It should be free and open access, with no annoying PIN codes or passwords.

Wi-Fi is quickly becoming an expectation more than a treat, and businesses and communities that don’t provide it will increasingly be judged negatively by some consumers.  An even greater negative reaction can be expected from those who treat Wi-Fi access as a profit center.  Customers don’t like paying extra for access at hotels, restaurants, or while browsing around shopping malls or business centers.  Forget about annoying login or customer agreement screens as well.

While many consumers claim they will switch wireless carriers over usage caps, in reality few are currently doing so for several reasons:

1. The alternative providers still offering unlimited use plans are perceived as having lower quality coverage areas (eg. Sprint);
2. Most major carriers have grandfathered their sizable base of “unlimited plan” devotees, allowing them to retain the popular plans even as they discontinue them for new customers;
3. Customers ultimately have few choices for unlimited service.

Where customers are stuck with a usage-capped data plan, they economize wherever possible.  In particular, many rely on Wi-Fi service instead of the wireless service provided by their wireless provider.

Ironically, that’s fine with many carriers, especially AT&T, which has been promoting efforts to offload as much 3G traffic as possible onto local Wi-Fi hotspots instead.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC The Real Challenge Facing Tablet Sellers 6-7-11.flv[/flv]

With the release of a new tablet computer from Samsung, manufacturers are finding an increasingly challenging market as consumers are confronted with buying multiple, expensive data plans to accompany 3G-capable tablets.  Bob O’Donnell, Vice President, Clients and Displays at IDC says peddling extra data plans is hampering the tablet market, as consumers increasingly use these devices on Wi-Fi only to avoid running up yet another bill from their wireless carrier. [From CNBC]  (5 minutes)