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)

Clearwire’s often-unclear “network management” policies are the subject of a lawsuit filed yesterday in Seattle seeking class action status.

Angelo Dennings vs. Clearwire Corporation was filed in the Western District of Washington federal court, and seeks refunds for consumers who were mislead by the company’s failure to disclose its network speed throttling and usage limitations, and charged early termination fees when subsequently canceling service.

Clearwire promises that its high-speed Internet service provides a “fast” and “always on, always secure” Internet connection allowing users to “[d]ownload pictures, music and videos.” But Clearwire does not provide an “always on,” “high-speed” connection as it promises. Clearwire purposefully slows the connection of its users because it cannot accommodate the high volume of traffic. Clearwire engages in a practice known as “throttling,” which is the intentional delay and/or blocking of Internet communications. This practice deprives Clearwire customers of the ability to “[d]ownload music and videos,” and leads to slow connection speeds.  Clearwire engages in throttling at times when demand for Internet use is highest, beginning at approximately 7:30 p.m. and ending at about 1:00-to-2:00 a.m.

If users attempt to cancel their service, Clearwire claims that, pursuant to its “contract” with them, it is entitled to collect an early termination or a re-stocking fee. The “contract” referred to by Clearwire is not a contract between it and its customers. The contract between Clearwire and its customers is simply that the customers will pay for, and Clearwire will provide, “unlimited” Internet usage at certain speeds, depending on the speed and payment plan selected in Clearwire’s stores, kiosks, or online.

The remaining “terms” invoked by Clearwire at its convenience are embedded in a document that consumers never see prior to subscribing to Clearwire’s service. Clearwire sells its services in its stores, kiosks at shopping centers, and online. Clearwire’s stores and kiosks do not have copies of this “contract” on hand for potential subscribers to read before they “agree” to its terms. Users who subscribe through Clearwire’s website never see the contract either because the link to it is at the bottom of a page, in substantially smaller font and lighter shade than all of the other text on the page. The text states: “Want to read the fine print (and who doesn’t read the fine print?) It’s all there in the CLEAR Legal Index.” No one wants to read fine print legalese and almost no one does. The statement is obviously and sharply ironic, and mocks anyone who may have been fussy enough to have considered continuing.

Despite not showing its terms to consumers, Clearwire refuses to allow users to cancel their service without paying the unconscionable fees it claims it is owed under this “contract.” These fees include an early termination fee (“ETF”), which penalizes consumers that want out before the end of the two-year term. Although Clearwire breached its contract with its customers, Clearwire insists on the payment of this ETF when customers realize they are not getting what they bargained for.

The suit argues that Clearwire has oversold its wireless broadband network, and allegedly quotes a company representative at one point telling Dennings, “Clearwire had signed up more customers than its cell towers could accommodate, and that therefore it was ‘managing’ users’ accounts.”

Attorney Clifford Cantor argues in the filing that Clearwire reduces customer speeds to 300kbps or lower when their network is congested, making the service unsuitable for most broadband applications.  Dennings, who lives near Ft. Worth, Tex., was outraged to learn Clear sold him a home and mobile broadband account that was advertised as a replacement for wired cable or DSL broadband, but was left with service he considered largely useless when throttled.  Even more upsetting, the suit alleges, Denning was asked to pay a $219 early contract termination and restocking fee when he tried to cancel service over the matter.

Cantor is asking for a court ruling declaring Clear’s policies to be unconscionable, attorneys’ fees of at least $5,000, and refunds for all impacted subscribers.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Michael in Chicago for sending along a copy of the lawsuit.  He runs the “Clear/Clearwire internet not as advertised” Facebook group.

While America’s largest cell phone companies battle over map coverage and work towards limiting wireless data usage, one super-regional wireless carrier is willing to pay customers to dump their old carrier and switch.

Privately owned Cellular South, which delivers home coverage over its own network in Memphis, the Florida Panhandle, Rome, Georgia, and parts of Mississippi and Alabama, is offering $100 to hand over your AT&T iPhone and get a brand new Android phone.  The company will even cover up to $200 of any early termination fees charged by AT&T or other carriers.

The company offers smartphone plans starting at $50 a month that includes unlimited mobile web access.  Customers with two or more smartphones on one account can get “unlimited everything” service for $59.99 per line.

Cellular South, virtually unknown outside of its service areas, has gained wider attention in recent days because of its stand against Verizon Wireless’ LTE network policies and an unrelated total meltdown of a Lauderdale County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors meeting that began with a debate about switching away from AT&T.

[flv width=”640″ height=”447″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cellular South Ad.flv[/flv]

An ad for Cellular South promotes the fact its smartphone data plan delivers unlimited usage.  (1 minute)

The company is planning its own LTE network for its local coverage areas and got into a major dispute with Verizon Wireless, a fellow CDMA carrier, over the LTE standard’s roaming capabilities.  Wireless providers who belong to the Rural Cellular Association are disturbed that without interoperability requirements from the FCC, big national carriers will be able to exclude small players from their networks.  Even worse, companies like Cellular South may have trouble finding affordable wireless equipment that works on the frequency bands they are allocated to use.  What this means for consumers is that equipment purchased for Cellular South’s LTE network may not function while roaming.  The carrier told the FCC:

Lack of interoperability in the 700 MHz band will impose significant costs and burdens upon A Block licensees, which will competitively disadvantage smaller and regional carriers and their consumers. By delaying a decision on interoperability, the FCC is denying rural America access to 4G service. Cellular South paid $192 million dollars for licenses in Auction No. 73 and for months has been prepared to immediately put available capital to work to deploy its 700 MHz network in compliance with the FCC’s build-out requirements and for the benefit of its rural and regional consumers. But, without the certainty of interoperability across the 700 MHz spectrum, Cellular South’s capital will remain on the sidelines – unable to create jobs or increase economic activity within its 700 MHz license area.

Collectively, the rural and regional carriers holding Lower A licenses do not have the scale or scope to attract equipment manufactures making Band Class 17 or Band Class 13 equipment to produce Band Class 12 equipment at reasonable costs. Even where Band 12 equipment can be made available, the costs are unnecessarily inflated by the limited scale resulting from the lack of interoperability across the 700 MHz bands. If such equipment were produced, it would not be technically capable of roaming outside of Band Class 12 deployed networks. Nevertheless, rural and regional carriers like Cellular South may have no choice but to reduce the speed and size of their 700 MHz deployment and pay the unnecessarily inflated costs of Band 12 equipment and devices if it wants to compete with Verizon Wireless and AT&T in the 4G market.

The Rural Cellular Association noted the FCC inquired whether or not rural carriers could simply rely on the good will of Verizon Wireless, which is running its own private interoperability initiative, the Rural American Partnership Program.  Verizon says it will work with rural carriers and sign roaming agreements with participants to help ensure equipment was standardized across multiple carriers.  But the Rural Cellular Association claims Verizon’s offer was akin to a digital Trojan Horse — a gift to rural operators on the outside, but one that benefits Verizon far more than rural carriers on the inside.

“Verizon’s Plan provides a limited number of rural carriers with nominal opportunity to add or extend their 4G coverage in a way that only fills Verizon’s coverage gaps. Additionally, Lower A licensees paid a significant amount of money for their spectrum, more than Verizon paid for the C block per MHz/pop, and have stringent geographic-based build-out requirements,” Rebecca Murphy Thompson, the rural carriers’ general counsel wrote the Commission. “Considering these strict build-out requirements, Cellular South will focus on building its own business, not helping Verizon expand its network.”

The Rural Cellular Association (RCA) also continued its campaign against what it sees as anti-competitive behavior on the part of AT&T and Verizon.

“In addition to interoperability, RCA described how its members have limited options to obtain nationwide data roaming, but their customers still expect nationwide coverage and comparable services to their urban counterparts. Larger carriers are blocking rural and regional carriers from obtaining data roaming with reasonable terms and conditions because there is no regulatory mandate. RCA plans to supplement the record to provide examples of how AT&T and Verizon have blocked rural and regional carriers from negotiating data roaming agreements with reasonable rates. After a year of negotiations, Cellular South now has a data roaming agreement with one of the larger carriers.”

Lauderdale County, Miss.

For rural America, unaccustomed to getting good cellular coverage, the presence of rural carriers specifically targeting underserved communities as their main business function is a welcome change from “extended service” provided by larger carriers, mostly for travelers, as an afterthought.  These smaller carriers also often deliver savings in the communities they serve.

In Lauderdale County, Mississippi, the Board of Supervisors met earlier this week to review potential savings of at least $10,000 a year for the county sheriff’s department, just by ditching AT&T for Cellular South.  While Sheriff Billy Sollie had no objections to that, a follow up discussion about what to do with the savings started an on-camera debate that quickly descended into personal attacks and traded accusations.

District 5 supervisor Ray Boswell and Sheriff Sollie turned the meeting into a spectacle with allegations of drug and alcohol abuse, illegal use of county property, culminating in claims the sheriff was a “crybaby” and “a disgrace.”  A sheriff’s deputy even joined in at one point, yelling at Boswell for making unsubstantiated allegations and suggesting Boswell was arrested on felony charges but had his record expunged.

While other members of the board, including its president, sat stunned into silence, no one bothered to gavel the shouting match out of order.  The resulting 15 minutes of fame has created a sensation, and many area residents are embarrassed and upset.

Cellular South will probably win the county’s business, but heaven help the customer service representative that takes a call from Ray Boswell about a service problem.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Lauderdale County Meltdown 12-6-10.flv[/flv]

Watch for yourself as a county meeting descends into chaos.  As it goes from bad to worse, nobody bothered to intervene to stop the escalating accusations and counter-accusations that have since become an embarrassment for residents of Lauderdale County, Miss.  (18 minutes)

Copps

Julius Genachowski’s fellow Democratic commissioner Michael Copps is signaling discontent with the FCC chairman over his weak approach at Net Neutrality reform.

During a Thursday speech before the Columbia University School of Journalism in New York, Copps said several aspects of Genachowski’s proposed reforms are non-starters for him.

In particular, he objects to Internet toll-booths, part of the “paid prioritization” argument that would allow preferred content to get traffic priority, presumably in return for money.  Copps sees that as the Internet’s great un-equalizer, allowing deep pocketed content providers to gain a competitive advantage.

Copps calls such arrangements dangerous, insisting they “cannot be allowed to supplant the quality of the public Internet service available to us all.”

Copps also finds it unacceptable that wireless providers gained major concessions that would allow them to treat content unequally.

“Internet Freedom also means guaranteeing openness in the wireless world as well as the wired. As people cut their wired connections, why would we deny them openness, accessibility and consumer protections in the wireless world,” Copps asked.

None of the proposals Genachowski makes may withstand legal challenges, Copps says, if the Commission does not reclassify broadband under Title II of its regulatory authority, declaring the Internet a “telecommunications service.”

“If this requires reclassifying advanced telecommunications as Title II telecommunications — and I continue to believe this is the best way to go — we should just do it and get it over with,” Copps said.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BBC News The public is crying out for news and information 12-3-10.flv[/flv]

The FCC’s Michael Copps appeared on BBC America’s World News to discuss his concerns about the quality of American broadcast journalism and Internet policies.  (4 minutes)

Mignon Clyburn, the Commission’s newest Democratic member, is being lobbied heavily by public interest groups to join Copps in demanding a better deal for consumers.  But some analysts think she’ll be the easiest vote for Genachowski to get.

Clyburn is a strong proponent of Net Neutrality and has made the issue a centerpiece of several public appearances.

Genachowski may find his proposal ultimately will fail to win a majority vote, because Republicans are strongly opposed to it, and his fellow Democratic commissioners may find voting for what some are calling a capitulation to providers too unpalatable.

Republicans promise to try and derail any Net Neutrality reforms in the House of Representatives when they take control in January.

[flv width=”540″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Mignon Clyburn Open Internet Champion.flv[/flv]

Mignon Clyburn receives thanks from public interest groups for her support of an Open Internet.  (2 minutes)

Phillip "Of course you know this means war" Dampier

Sizing up the big winners from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s latest Net Neutrality proposals is as simple as putting those praising Genachowski in column “A” and those outraged by downsized consumer protections into column “B.”  It comes as no surprise Big Telecom, the employees whose jobs depend on those companies, their trade associations and lobbyists are all living it up on the “A” side while consumers and public interest groups sit in the dark in column “B.”

Among the high-five club is Kyle McSlarrow, the outgoing head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the cable industry’s top lobbying enterprise.

On the NCTA’s blog, an indication of your broadband future has been placed front and center — a meter.  Perhaps putting a coin slot on your cable modem or a credit card reader on the side of your monitor would be a bit too brazen, even for this industry.

McSlarrow, among others, heaped bountiful praise on the FCC chairman for his ‘enlightened’ views on Net Neutrality.  That hardly a surprise considering Genachowski has opened his phone line, and apparently his heart, to industry propaganda and arguments.

Genachowski’s remarks about usage-based pricing, in particular, were a breath of fresh air to Wall Street and providers clamoring to dispense with unlimited broadband service for consumers to increase profits:

Our work has also demonstrated the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing.

“This approach reflects a responsible and considered view of a fast-moving and highly dynamic marketplace but it doesn’t assume that there is any one ‘correct’ answer,” McSlarrow wrote.

It’s also a view consumers strongly disagree with, but those opinions are off the FCC’s radar.  Consumers don’t have the chairman’s direct phone number.  If they did, they could argue the fact “matching price to cost” would mean a dramatic reduction in pricing for today’s unlimited broadband account.  Instead, we have a lobbying effort to end “unlimited” entirely, backed by manufactured studies funded by providers expecting pre-determined conclusions.  Too bad the FCC doesn’t read provider financial reports.

Writes McSlarrow:

Some consumers don’t see the need to go online.  Others are constrained by cost.  Still others want to use the service they have in cutting-edge ways.  And the ability to pigeonhole companies and their business plans as being one thing or another is breaking down, particularly in an environment where Internet applications, content, and services change the way we behave as consumers, provide new opportunities for providers and consumers and alter how we all interact with both traditional and new devices and features.

The key point is that that we need to focus on what best serves consumers.  With all this change, it is necessary to have the flexibility to test new business models – and perhaps new pricing plans – in order to see if they make sense.

A usage-based pricing model, for instance, might help spur adoption by price-sensitive consumers at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder.  As Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett noted in a report issued yesterday, “{u}sage-based pricing for broadband would have profound implications.  At the low end, it would allow cable operators to introduce lower priced tiers that could boost penetration and help in efforts to serve lower income consumers.”

McSlarrow

Evidently, to chase the small percentage of Americans who either don’t have an interest in going online, or think it costs too much, the NCTA wants those already online to face Internet Overcharging schemes ranging from usage caps to metered billing.  Is it flexible for consumers who face the end of broadband pricing as they’ve lived with for more than a decade or is it flexible for providers who can run to the bank with the higher profits rationed broadband delivers?

McSlarrow quotes Moffett’s quest for higher profits for his clients — Wall Street investment banks, but ignores the implications Moffett himself admits — consumer rebellions, self-rationing of usage, a stifling of online innovation from independent companies not connected with providers, and higher prices.

American providers look north for an example of Big Telecom’s pot ‘o gold — Canadian ISPs that have managed to wreak havoc on the country’s broadband rankings, forcing consumers to live with higher prices and, in some cases, declining usage allowances.  Canada’s broadband innovation graveyard is an object lesson for Americans: usage-based pricing doesn’t deliver savings to anyone except the most casual users living under constrained speeds and paltry allowances as low a 1GB per month.  For everyone else, broadband prices are higher, speeds are slower, and usage allowances deliver stinging penalties for those who dare to exceed them.  What do Canadian providers do with all of the money they earn?  A good sum of it goes towards acquiring their competitors, further reducing an already-poor competitive marketplace.

As one Ontario reader of Broadband Reports noted, “our largest cable company has the money to buy three professional sports teams but not enough to roll out DOCSIS 3 [to all of its customers.]  Our largest phone company, Bell, has the money to buy half the news stations in Canada, but cannot seem to get users off of 3Mbps DSL service.  The whole system is a scam.”

While the rest of the world is decidedly moving away from limited-use broadband, American providers have sold Genachowski that rationing the Internet is “innovation.”

Of course, you and I know real innovation means investing some of the enormous profits providers earn back into their networks to keep up with growing demand.  Providers can innovate all they like to attract price sensitive customers, so long as current unlimited plans remain available and affordable.  But as AT&T illustrated earlier this year, the first thing off the menu is “unlimited,” replaced with overpriced and inadequate wireless data plans that only further alienate their customers.

AT&T should take a lesson… from AT&T.  While it gouges its customers on the wireless side, the company has managed to solve the affordability question all by itself, without resorting to wallet-biting.  It dramatically reduced prices on its DSL services — now just $14.95 a month for its customers, which includes a free gateway and modem.  That sure sounds like a solution for budget-conscious customers and delivered all without antagonizing those who want to keep their current unlimited service plans.

AT&T seems to have managed to solve the affordability question without overcharging their customers.

Cable companies deliver their own budget broadband plans, but it comes as no surprise they barely market them, fearing their premium-paying customers could downgrade their service.

In short, Internet Overcharging is a solution chasing a problem that simply does not exist in a responsible broadband marketplace.

McSlarrow says he’s not arguing for or against any particular model.  All he is really confident about is that the marketplace is changing and that “companies will have to adapt to that change.”

But as is too often the case, McSlarrow, his industry friends and colleagues, and Chairman Genachowski have forgotten it’s ultimately consumers who have to adapt to change, and we promise it means all-out war if providers tamper with unlimited broadband service.