Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who often adopts anti-consumer positions on telecommunications policy, has written a so-called “killer amendment” that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing proposed Net Neutrality rules.

Her amendment, informally proposed Monday as part of a House Interior Appropriations spending measure (H.R. 2996) states:

Purpose: To prohibit the FCC from expending any funds in fiscal year 2010 to implement any Internet neutrality or network management principles, or to promulgate any rules relating to such principles.

Hutchison’s amendment has several Republican co-sponsors: John Ensign (R-Nevada), Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina),  and John Thune, (R-South Dakota).

Hutchison released a statement explaining the amendment: “I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading. We must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations. The case has simply not been made for what amounts to a significant regulatory intervention into a vibrant marketplace. These new regulatory mandates and restrictions could stifle investment incentives.”

Ensign said Net Neutrality would punish a telecommunications industry at a time when it’s managing through an economic downturn.

“Any industry that is able to thrive should be allowed to do so without meddlesome government interference that could stifle innovation,” he said.

Brownback also has a history opposing the consumer interests of his constituents.  Back in May, he penned a letter to a Stop the Cap! reader in Kansas openly favoring Internet Overcharging schemes.

Public interest groups are calling on the public to express their displeasure with the Republican senators for their opposition to Net Neutrality.

One possible explanation for the sudden, strong interest by Hutchison and other Republicans to oppose Net Neutrality can be found in their respective bank accounts.  Hutchison accepted $67,300 in campaign contributions just from AT&T, her ninth largest contributor.

Combined, AT&T donated more than $400,000 among the six Republicans opposing Net Neutrality, and one of those senators, John Thune, used to work for a DC lobbying firm that was hired by Comcast.

The details were compiled by Sam Gustin, a reporter for DailyFinance:

Over the course of his career, Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, has received $220,914 from “telephone utilities,” including some $83,130 from AT&T, his second-largest donor, in the form of employee and lobbyist donations to his campaign and political-action committees. Sprint Nextel has given Brownback $35,550 over the course of his career.

Two of the co-sponsors of the bill, Sen. David Vitter of Lousiana and Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who have both seen their reputations tarnished after sex scandals, have been on the receiving end of AT&T’s largesse. AT&T and predecessor BellSouth have donated $82,050 to Vitter’s campaigns and political-action committees. And over the last four years, AT&T has donated some $61,250 to Ensign’s campaign and political-action committees. Verizon-related entities donated $46,600 to Ensign during that period.

During that time, AT&T has donated $63,750 to the campaign and political-action committees of Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican. AT&T is DeMint’s second-largest donor.

Sen. John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, has not received significant donations from the telecom industry since his 2006 defeat of Sen. Tom Daschle, then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. But from 2003 to 2005, Thune served as a senior policy adviser to the D.C. lobbying firm of Arent, Fox, when its client Comcast, the largest cable company in the U.S., paid some $40,000 in fees.

[Update: Yesterday evening, Washington Post reporter Cecilia Kang reported that the Republicans were, at least for now, backing off on pushing for their amendment:

“While we are still generally opposed to net neutrality regulations, we have decided to hold off on the amendment because [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] approached us and we are beginning a dialogue,” said a staff member on the committee.

Hill watchers said the amendment itself represented standard operating procedure when attempting to block regulatory agency policy decisions, but characterized the Hutchison amendment’s chances of passage as remote.  Hutchison and the Republicans are in the minority in the Senate.]

Professor Geist

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the Canadian equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, may be forced to consider American broadband policy before defining Net Neutrality and its role in Canadian broadband, according to an article published today in The Globe & Mail.

[FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s] proposal – to codify and enforce some general principles of “Net neutrality” – comes as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is expected to release its own position this fall, after public consultations this summer that prompted feedback from tens of thousands of Canadians.

“The kinds of principles that the FCC is now looking to put into rules are precisely what the CRTC heard from many groups this past summer,” said Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa professor who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. “The kinds of concerns that Canadians have been expressing have clearly been taken to heart by the FCC.”

Many Canadian citizens have been unhappy with the CRTC after a summer of hearings and policy decisions which have almost universally-favored Canadian broadband providers’ positions.  The CRTC seemed skeptical during hearings over the urgency to enforce Net Neutrality protections and stop provider’s throttling of peer to peer networks.  But consumers were even more upset when the Commission agreed with Bell, Canada’s largest phone company and wholesale broadband provider, and allowed the company to impose “usage based billing (UBB)” (Internet Overcharging) on wholesale buyers — primarily independent Internet Service Providers.  Canadian customers attempting to avoid usage caps and consumption billing relied on more generous policies from independent providers, policies likely to be revoked with the imposition of UBB, potentially making flat rate broadband service in Canada largely extinct.

In general terms, Net neutrality refers to the concept that access to all legal content on the Internet should be equal. The concept often comes up in relation to the practice of “bandwidth throttling,” where ISPs limit the transfer speed of certain kinds of data – such as the transfer of large movie files between users – but not other kinds.

Many large Canadian ISPs have argued that network management doesn’t affect Net neutrality, and taking away an ISP’s ability to manage its network results in worse service for a large number of customers.

Currently, there is no uniform practice among large ISPs in Canada when it comes to network management. Some firms throttle bandwidth during certain times of the day, whereas other limit bandwidth all the time, or not at all. A CRTC ruling this fall could go a long way toward implementing a uniform code for all ISPs.

“In light of what we’ve seen today, [the CRTC ruling] will be particularly telling because the benchmark now isn’t just what the CRTC heard during this hearing, the benchmark now is our neighbours to the south,” Prof. Geist said. “The CRTC will in many ways be measured up against what the FCC is doing in the U.S.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Phillip "I Can See the Problem" Dampier

Yesterday’s proposal by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gets Net Neutrality halfway there.  That already puts us ahead of Canadian broadband, which is a throttler’s paradise, but remember — an eventual FCC rulemaking is not a law.  An FCC policy is only as good as the agency’s willingness to enforce it.  If a new administration decides Net Neutrality is not to their liking, they could very well appoint new Commissioners who agree, and while they may not repeal such policies, they aren’t likely to spend time enforcing them either.

Americans must insist that Net Neutrality have the force of federal law, and that can be done by telling your member of Congress to co-sponsor the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (H.R. 3458.)

Canadians need to immediately appeal to their MPs and ask why Canada is stuck with throttling broadband providers that completely ignore Net Neutrality when the United States not only has a bill to codify Net Neutrality protections but a regulatory communications body that is going to enforce it as policy even without a new law.  That’s a far cry from the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) which has spent all year rubber-stamping the wish list of the broadband industry.  That’s simply unacceptable, and Canadians need to tell MPs their vote in the next round of elections will depend on which candidate has the best plan to solve this mess.  There is absolutely no justification for Canada falling behind the United States in broadband service.  If the CRTC won’t represent Canadian citizens, perhaps it’s time to get rid of it and let them form an industry trade group, which isn’t far off from where they are right now.

Net Neutrality alone is not nirvana for broadband consumers.  Indeed, there is every expectation some broadband providers may try to slap more Internet Overcharging schemes on consumers and try to blame Net Neutrality for it, under the false “either/or premise.”  Too often, public interest groups and some consumers have been led astray with the assumption that one is better than the other, and that’s a false choice.  Both are extremely bad for innovation, broadband advancement, and consumer adoption and acceptance of broadband service.  When you engage in Overcharging schemes like raising prices, imposing usage caps, meters, overlimit fees and penalties, some consumers will decide it just isn’t worth it.  Few consumers will risk using high bandwidth online applications of the future worried about their usage allowance for the month, or the penalty for exceeding it.

Free Press Illustrates the Telecom Industry's Lobbying Frenzy

Internet Overcharging schemes are not dead, although some of the earlier experiments have been temporarily shelved.  Some smaller providers in rural and small cities are already engaged in usage caps combined with consumption billing.  AT&T continues its experiment in Beaumont and Reno.  Comcast celebrated its first anniversary of the 250GB usage cap by leaving it right where it is, unchanged.  Wireless mobile broadband is a 5GB capped experience all-around.

Although I realize it is difficult to generate intensity when there aren’t big bad actors imminently dropping Internet Overcharging on millions of broadband customers, this is not the time to keep the pressure off.  Let’s make sure providers realize the intense, red hot hatred of gas gauges, meters, and all of the other Overcharging schemes has not cooled a single degree.  You can do that by making another round of phone calls and sending messages to your member of Congress to support Rep. Eric Massa’s Broadband Internet Fairness Act (H.R. 2902.)

This bill does -not- get the government involved in regulating the pricing of broadband service, as some astroturfers have alleged.  It simply demands proof that a provider has a financial need to engage in these practices, and in the absence of independent verification, protects consumers by prohibiting providers from leveraging their de facto monopoly/duopoly status and imposing them anyway.

No government legislation alone is ever going to solve all of our broadband problems and concerns.  But some pro-consumer protections protect our wallets from the undercompetitive broadband industry most of us have to deal with.

Don’t be fooled by providers openly wondering why such protections are necessary.  It was ironic watching yesterday’s panel discussion on broadband when David Young from Verizon started asking what problem Net Neutrality was trying to solve.  He didn’t see any and had no problem living under the open platform standard Genachowski proposed.  That’s ironic because Verizon has nearly 200 paid lobbyists fighting Net Neutrality and related telecommunications policy spending well over $10 million dollars on it this year.  If Young doesn’t see the problem, why are ratepayers and shareholders footing the bill to address it?

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

FCC Chair Julius Genachowski announced a proposal that would prevent cable, wireless and telecommunications companies from blocking certain information on the Internet. A panel of industry analysts then discussed the concept called “net neutrality,” along with their ideas for improving broadband access.

Event Information

When

Monday, September 21, 2009
10:00 AM to 12:00 PM

Who dares break the most sacred Ark of the Cable Covenant?

In March 2000, two cable magnates sat down for the cable industry equivalent of My Dinner With Andre.  Fine wine, beautiful table linens, an exquisite meal, and a Monopoly board with pieces swapped back and forth representing hundreds of thousands of Canadian consumers.  Ted Rogers and Jim Shaw drew a line on the western Ontario border and agreed to stay on their respective sides of it.  Ted and Jim divvied up each others cable interests, swapping Rogers’ systems west of Ontario with Shaw’s systems east of the provincial line. Thus was born the Ark of the Cable Covenant, with its founding principle: Thou shalt not compete or intrude in my territory.

The only question left at the end of the meal was who was going to pick up the check.  You did.

And so it was.  Since 2000, Shaw Communications has kept its operations west of Ontario, Rogers stays in Ontario and points eastward.  A very nice state of affairs, as long as you are not a Canadian consumer looking for competitive relief from high prices and lousy service.

Shaw Raids Ontario

But in July there was heard a great rumbling across the prairies and into the verdant forests and rolling hills of southwestern Ontario.  What was that sound?  Who were these cowboy hat wearing hordes riding across the lands to the shores of Lake Ontario carrying saddle bags stuffed with cash?  Why look, Calgary-based Shaw is staging a $300 million dollar buyout raid on Mountain Cablevision, Ltd., a 41,000 subscriber independent cable company based in Hamilton, Ontario.

But what of the sacred agreement?  Ted Rogers passed away in December, leaving Shaw to rhetorically ask, “What agreement? Do you know anything about an agreement?”

Indeed, there is no honor among thieves and cable executives seeking the spoils of a highly uncompetitive industry.  Rogers was shocked to discover an invasion on their turf, and they responded with a torrent of attorneys to block the deal, as Canwest News Service notes:

“Shaw is bound by the restrictive covenant which prohibits Shaw from building or acquiring any broadband wireline cable business in Ontario, Quebec or Atlantic Canada,” Rogers argued in court documents released Thursday.

Thankfully for Shaw, Ontario courts do not typically recognize “covenants” as sacred documents not to be broken.  Justice Frank Newbould on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected the de facto non compete agreement and said Rogers had not proven any irreparable harm from the sale, dismissing Rogers’ “proof” as “speculative in the extreme.”

Of course, you realize this means war.

Tim Pinos of Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP is Rogers’ lead lawyer on the file. Shaw’s intentions are clear, he said Friday: “Shaw desires to re-enter Eastern Canada and acquire cable systems.”

Aside from picking a competitive fight with Rogers, an expansion east would pit Shaw against smaller but powerful players, such as Videotron, which is owned by giant Quebecor Inc., and commands a near-monopoly in Quebec.

With the agreement shattered, Rogers is likely casting its eyes westward, observers say.

Earlier this week, Edward Rogers was appointed to the role of deputy chairman of the company his father built. He moves from heading up Rogers Cable and will also oversee new operational responsibilities, including strategic acquisitions.

Unfortunately for consumers, some sacred agreements will remain unbroken.  Namely the one that keeps companies like Shaw and Rogers from competitively wiring communities already served by each other and competing head to head.  That simply wouldn’t do.  It would ruin a perfectly delightful meal.