[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Franken FCC Net Neutrality Plan Flawed 12-20-10.flv[/flv]

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) took to the Senate floor this weekend to explain his strong opposition to the proposed Comcast-NBC/Universal merger, how some of the nation’s largest telecom companies use limited competition to maintain confiscatory pricing for service, and why feeding the Big Telecom beast with favors requested in multi-million dollar lobbying campaigns will cost ordinary Americans more money for less service in the future.  Franken’s remarks are a refreshing change of pace from the usual Congressional rhetoric, reduced to “Obama’s takeover of the Internet,” “socialist broadband,” and “Maoist net policies” we usually hear about.  It’s well worth the time to educate yourself about Big Telecom’s agenda.  (25 minutes)

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski sold President Obama's campaign pledge, his credibility, and you down the river in a sweetheart deal with Big Telecom.

The Federal Communications Commission voted today to pass what Chairman Julius Genachowski called “Net Neutrality” — reforms that will guarantee a free and open Internet.  But critics charge any similarity to actual Net Neutrality is purely coincidental.

In a 3-2 vote along party lines, the Democratic Commissioners approved Genachowski’s framework to keep providers from blocking access to websites.

Genachowski claims the rules will protect consumers from providers controlling the free flow of online content and will provide regulatory certainty for the broadband marketplace.  Providers, who have either lined up behind the chairman or have muted their criticism of the proposal in recent days, suggest they weren’t about to censor Internet content in the first place and that Net Neutrality is a cause in search of a problem.

Public interest groups were less than satisfied, dismissing today’s proceedings as “Net Neutrality-lite,” or “Net Neutrality with more (loop)holes than Swiss cheese.”  In particular, Genachowski’s willingness to exempt wireless broadband from the rules was a very sore spot among Net Neutrality proponents and some in Congress.

“Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) “If the FCC passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.”

Franken is convinced excluding wireless networks from open Internet rules is the first step towards a free speech calamity.

“If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.”

Craig Aaron, managing director at Free Press bemoaned today’s vote over rules he suggests were written by the industry itself.

“These rules don’t do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes, and they fail to protect wireless users from discrimination. No longer can you get to the same Internet via your mobile device as you can via your laptop,” Aaron said. “The rules pave the way for AT&T to block your access to third-party applications and to require you to use its own preferred applications.”

The Obama Administration is likely to claim credit for the new rules and declare Net Neutrality a campaign promise fulfilled, a claim that makes several net activists’ blood boil.

“Chairman Genachowski ignored President Obama’s promise to the American people to take a ‘back seat to no one’ on Net Neutrality,” says Aaron. “He ignored the 2 million voices who petitioned for real Net Neutrality and the hundreds who came to public hearings across the country to ask him to protect the open Internet. And he ignored policymakers who urged him to protect consumers and maintain the Internet as a platform for innovation. It’s unfortunate that the only voices he chose to listen to were those coming from the very industry he’s charged with overseeing.”

Aneesh Chopra, Obama’s chief technology officer said on Dec. 1 that the FCC proposal was an “important step in preventing abuses and continuing to advance the Internet as an engine of productivity growth and innovation.”

Genachowski’s two fellow Democratic commissioners agreed, noting the policies probably don’t go far enough, but it’s a start and they wouldn’t oppose them.  But Commissioner Michael Copps made it clear he remains unhappy with how the entire debate was managed.  He fears corporate control of broadband content will bring the same mediocrity large corporations have managed to deliver Americans over radio and television.

“I don’t want the Internet to travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gate-keeper control that other media and telecommunications industries — radio, television, film and cable — have traveled,” Copps said. “What an historic tragedy it would be,” he said, “to let that fate befall the dynamism of the Internet.”

If today’s mild net reforms are a step forward, it’s a small one say critics like the Center for Media Justice.  They suggest the FCC’s idea of Net Neutrality offers “minimal protections” for consumers.

“Our greatest fears have been realized,” said Malkia Cyril, Executive Director of the Center for Media Justice. “The Internet can only work if it’s a truly level playing field. Telecommunications companies have used their considerable wealth and lobbying might to exclude some of the most vulnerable communities from the only protection there is from their corporate abuses. These rules aren’t fair, and they don’t provide a path to equity or opportunity. We’re deeply concerned that today’s vote sends a clear message to our communities that if you access the Internet through your cell phone, you don’t count. The FCC has sadly shirked its responsibility to protect all Internet users equally.”

All of the debate may ultimately mean nothing should one of the providers decide to challenge the new rules in court.  The Commission failed to address an earlier court decision that ruled the Commission’s regulatory framework was based on nothing more than good intentions.  The agency was toying with the idea of reasserting authority over broadband using a different framework, but providers furiously lobbied against that, claiming it would “regulate the Internet” under rules designed for landlines.  The Commission’s decision to proceed under a foundation condemned by an earlier federal court ruling exposes an obvious weak spot providers could attack in additional lawsuits.

“We know these rules will be hotly contested,” said Betty Yu, MAG-Net Coordinator. “As they roll out, grassroots communities will continue to monitor the process, ensuring that the rights of wireless users are protected from the over reach and abuses of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other telecommunications companies. These rules are a compromise- unfortunately, what was lost in the deal are the rights of wireless users.”

Verizon may make things easier for Yu and other consumer groups to clear the playing field and start over again.  The company released a statement today that foreshadows a willingness to challenge the agency’s Net Neutrality rulemaking in court (underlining ours):

“While it will take some time for us to analyze the F.C.C.’s rules and the order once they are released, the F.C.C.’s decision apparently reaches far beyond the net neutrality rules it announced today,” the company said in a statement. “Based on today’s announcement, the FCC appears to assert broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband wireline and wireless networks and the Internet itself. This assertion of authority without solid statutory underpinnings will yield continued uncertainty for industry, innovators, and investors. In the long run, that is harmful to consumers and the nation.”

Net Neutrality Order Snippets

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

The Federal Communications Commission’s Open Meeting introducing Net Neutrality and includes a vote on the rulemaking.  (2 hours, 42 minutes)

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)