iAWFUL (which stands for Internet Advocates Watchlist for Ugly Laws) launched this week, calling attention to the “most reckless and misguided laws” impacting the Internet.

The site, a project of NetChoice, a Washington, DC eCommerce advocacy group, particularly opposes what they feel are “misguided” regulatory approaches to online problems by well meaning lawmakers, often on the state level. NetChoice claims to be a coalition of trade associations, eCommerce businesses, and online consumers, “all of whom share the goal of promoting convenience, choice and commerce on the Net.”

The inaugural list of the worst contains several state tax initiatives targeting Internet commerce, rules forcing websites to spend more time and effort enforcing their abuse of service policies, and an effort to regulate online ticket sales.  NetChoice also challenges efforts by lawmakers to incorporate certain standards, such as security and encryption, into law.

Presumably, the weight given to determining which are the “worst” laws is determined in part by the group’s members:

1-800-Contacts
America Online/Time Warner
American Vintners Association
Association for Competitive Technology
eBay
Electronic Retailing Association
IAC
Internet Alliance
NewsCorp
Oracle
Overstock.com
VeriSign
Yahoo!
The Wine Institute

One of the intended purposes of the iAWFUL list is to draft consumers into the fight against the targeted legislation.  While most of the inaugural list’s targets are anti-consumer, NetChoice doesn’t answer exclusively to those consumers.  They answer to the members who belong to the organization.  Often, the interests of consumers and business do merge, but not always.

Knee-jerk, overly prescriptive laws can destroy whole business models or stifle innovative new forms of communication before they have a chance to emerge. Too many laws are proposed without considering unintended harm they may cause to thousands of Internet companies and millions of Internet users.

NetChoice is dedicated to fighting these attacks on core Internet principles.

Destroying business models may not always be anti-consumer.  On our own issue of Internet Overcharging, could legislation designed to put an end to it be seen as a friend or foe to NetChoice?  A business model alone may be worthy of fighting to protect, but as Stop the Cap! readers understand, that isn’t always true.  Legislators are not the only ones capable of engaging in overreaching antics.  Some of NetChoice’s member companies have done that themselves.

Care must also be given to determine the exact definitions of “stifling” and “core Internet principles.”  The former may be a matter of perspective, the latter is not defined at all.

Perhaps iAWFUL will be a consistently positive asset for consumers and will not incorporate laws designed to protect consumers from anti-competitive behavior and Internet Overcharging onto their top 10 list.  Time will tell.  But consumers should always be wary about Internet organizations that claim to represent consumer interests, but rely on industry money to keep the lights on.  Some of those groups, particularly those in Washington, turn out to be astroturf organizations that claim to represent ordinary citizens, but really front for commercial interests, which often have a different agenda.

Gazing into our future, unless Internet Overcharging stops before it gets started (Photo: Sean McGrath)

Americans have a lot to learn.  Our neighbors to the north have been living our broadband future, and it’s time to start paying attention.

Broadband providers that want to implement their Internet Overcharging schemes often claim that this isn’t unprecedented.  People in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other countries already face a broadband service hobbled by arbitrary limits, and ‘you don’t hear them complaining.’

Except you do.

The Canadian broadband market is remarkably similar to our own.  A very comfortable duopoly of providers – one cable operator and one telephone company provide the vast majority of Canadians with their Internet service.  Several smaller independent providers, typically reselling access to Bell Canada’s network they’ve contracted to obtain at wholesale pricing, make up most of the rest.

Five years ago, those two providers clawed each other fighting for market share, and independent providers were popping up to provide more flexible broadband accounts for those looking for lower pricing or different speeds.  Canada rose to second place in broadband among the 30 nations that belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Evidently, the price and service war ended with a truce in the last 24 months.  Then came the classic signs of Internet Overcharging: new restrictions and limits on usage, overlimit and penalty fees for exceeding those limits, a slowdown in competition to build better infrastructure offering higher speeds, and even “traffic shaping,” which in reality means artificially restricting selected services moving across a broadband network.

Rogers Internet Overcharging limbo dance reduces usage allowances on new customers. (click to enlarge)

Even more irritating for customers, rate increases accompanied all of these new restrictions.  Rogers Cable, which helped get the ball rolling on Internet Overcharging schemes, raised broadband rates March 1st and then announced a “free speed upgrade” this past month, bringing their broadband speed in Toronto to 10Mbps for $45.26US per month, before taxes, with a 60GB limit and “traffic shaping.”

Customers looking for cheaper broadband from Rogers have been subjected to a reduction in the usage allowance since the Internet Overcharging schemes began.  Now, customers looking for the least expensive plan pay $26.23US per month for 500kbps “broadband” with a usage limit of 2GB per month.  Exceed that, and your overlimit penalty fee is an enormous $5.00CAD per gigabyte.  When the first Internet Overcharging scheme was introduced, “lite” customers could use up to 60GB per month.  It’s just more evidence that when broadband companies are allowed to implement Internet Overcharging schemes like this, the broadband limbo dance begins, with customers facing smaller and smaller “allowances” at the whim of the provider.

Rogers competition, primarily from Bell Canada, did what can be expected in a lightly competitive marketplace — they announced Internet Overcharging schemes of their own, trapping many Canadians into restrictive broadband service from every provider around.

Canadians hate the schemes, despite broadband industry propaganda that suggests customers didn’t mind paying more for less.

“Broadband in this country has completely stalled,” Stop the Cap! reader Brent, living near Ottawa wrote to us.

For several years, everything was heading in the right direction in Canada.  Broadband service was extending from cities into smaller towns and communities, even in the Prairies, BC and Alberta, which have much more empty space between developed communities.  Here in Ontario, Rogers and Bell are the dominant companies.  It was bad enough when Rogers starting using traffic shaping to slow down things like peer to peer services, so you often find your speeds slowing down by half or more.  Internet video is not as common in Canada because services like Hulu see the usage allowances and don’t bother to come here, because people can’t afford to watch them.  But some independent producers do have online video, that they freely distribute using peer to peer.  It’s throttled by Rogers, though, so it takes forever to load.

Then their cap came.  We get 60GB per month on our service.  I have a wife and two teenage daughters.  Everyone is online here.  Between all of us, 60GB is never enough, and we have to constantly watch them because they like to have friends over to do things on the computer together.  We have to keep track of everything they do, and there are fights all of the time about who used what.  You can never relax when you are online anymore, because you have to always be worried about what something might cost you.

Even worse, Rogers interferes with your service when you reach 75% of your allowance by injecting a warning banner on your web browser to tell you that you are approaching your limit for the month.  That process forces their announcement onto web page after web page, and you’ll know it because half the time those pages with a warning banner take much longer to load, if they load properly at all.  It doesn’t matter what page you are looking at, or who runs it.  Rogers feels they can put their banner on it.

I spent two weeks in the States at a friend’s home who had Verizon FiOS and I couldn’t believe the difference.  Using Canadian broadband and comparing it to Verizon FiOS is like the difference between dial-up service and the broadband service we used to have in this country.

Bell is now going to force limits on wholesale accounts as well. All of the independent companies that don’t currently have caps and allowances will now have to impose them, cutting off the last competitive choices we had.  It’s a nice racket.

Reading the American papers, it’s all familiar to me.  It’s the same things we were told.

• There are “Internet hogs” using “too much service” so we have to charge them more.
• We have to use the extra money to build better networks.
• We need to traffic shape to make sure everyone can use our service.
• It’s about fairness for everyone.

No. It’s about getting more money from you and pocketing it.  The people they stereotype as “Internet hogs” turn out be ordinary families.  Just because we may not know about some of the Internet cutting edge services becoming available, our kids do.

Canada’s providers aren’t using the all the extra money to build better networks, they are just treating them as profits.  Our speeds are still slower than Americans get. They reduced the usage allowances on many people even further. They still traffic shape even on the networks they claim they were “improving.”  Everyone’s Internet bill went up.  Nobody is saving anything.  There is nothing fair about duopoly pricing.

Dr. Michael Geist

Brent’s point about Bell Canada imposing Internet Overcharging schemes on their wholesale business accounts rings familiar.  Earthlink wanted to sell its broadband Internet service that travels across Time Warner Cable’s lines at the current unlimited pricing they charge today.  Whether they would be allowed to do so under TWC’s original Internet Overcharging proposal was highly doubtful.

Independent providers in Canada are upset about Bell Canada’s attempt to impose new limitations on their wholesale accounts, because it threatens their existence.

Two weeks ago, Dr. Michael Geist appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to discuss the state of telecommunications in Canada.

Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and noted expert on the state of Canadian broadband, called the developing situation in Canada “a crisis.”

Limiting competition and throwing your duopoly weight around has been a hallmark of insufficient oversight and regulatory control in under-competitive markets and Geist brought examples of providers engaged in mischief:

• Telus blocked access to a union supporting website during a labour dispute, blocking more than 600 other sites in the process
• Shaw advertised a $10 premium surcharge for customers using Internet telephony services opening the door to creating a competitive advantage over third party services
• Rogers currently degrades the performance of certain applications such as BitTorrent, widely used by software developers and independent film makers to distribute their work
• Bell openly throttles BitTorrent traffic, a practice that has been challenged before the CRTC

Bill St. Arnaud

Competition can provide some answers, but not all.  It’s obvious new laws are required to put a stop to Internet Overcharging while real competition can develop.

As Stop the Cap! has documented, when fed-up municipalities reject their status as a “broadband backwater” and seek to deploy the advanced fiber networks that they need to spur economic growth and development, incumbent providers engage in lawsuits and delay tactics.  But in many communities, in the end, the threat of municipal competition finally forces those networks to commit to the upgrades they refused to provide earlier.

Bill St. Arnaud, Chief Research Officer for CANARIE, ponders Canada’s future as the country slips further and further behind in OECD rankings because of the broadband duopoly in the country.  Speaking with CBC Radio’s Nora Young, who hosts Spark, a twice-weekly radio program about technology and culture, he contemplates a solution to this problem that builds on the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program in the United States — by publicly funding an advanced “fiber to the home network” and then open it up to all providers to compete for customers.

Audio Clip: Bill St. Arnaud Appears on CBC Radio’s Spark – June 3, 2009 (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Stop the Cap! reader John, who lives in Beaumont, Texas, went shopping for Internet access recently and was sold on broadband from AT&T:

I looked for and did not find any reference to caps, and called the sales department. I was told there were no caps. I signed up and when tech support helped me with the registration, the tech bragged how AT&T had no caps when cable companies (Time Warner) did. The day after I installed, I received the express letter stating there was a cap trial in the Beaumont area. The cap is 80GB for my “Elite” service plan. The overage charge is $1.00 per Gig.

Of course what John, and many other residents in Beaumont may not have realized is that AT&T is continuing to test their Internet Overcharging schemes in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.  AT&T’s website and marketing materials are generally targeted to a nationwide customer base, and it’s easy to receive marketing materials that don’t disclose you reside in the two unluckiest cities in America to be an AT&T broadband customer.

If John is subject to any long term service commitments, he should have the right to exit his contract and terminate service without any further obligation.

Time after time, customers learning of Internet Overcharging with unwarranted limits and penalties are left angry and upset.

Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment who was the subject of our last HissyFitWatch, has decided damage control was the order of the day after being caught making remarks suggesting the Internet had never come to any good and was filled with pirates and freeloaders.  A recap:

“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet, period.”

The Internet has “created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.”

Just brought to our attention, Lynton decided he’d better clarify those remarks, because the blog world had already spent a week burning him in effigy for making them.  So off to The Huffington Post he went to pen his long-form explanation on May 26th.

In March, an unfinished copy of 20th Century Fox’s film X-Men Origins: Wolverine was stolen from a film lab and uploaded to the Internet, more than a month before its theatrical release. The studio investigated the crime, and efforts were made to limit its availability online. Still, it was illegally downloaded more than four million times.

That kind of wide scale theft was very much on my mind when I was on a panel the other day which opened with a question about the impact of the Internet on the entertainment business, and I responded, “I’m a guy who sees nothing good having come from the Internet. Period.”

But, I actually welcome the Sturm und Drang I’ve stirred, because it gives me an opportunity to make a larger point (one which I also made during that panel discussion, though it was not nearly as viral as the sentence above). And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content — music, newspapers, movies and books — have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.

Some of that damage has been caused by changing business models (the FTC just announced an inquiry into the impact of new media on the newspaper industry). But the primary culprit is piracy. The Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.

He could have said this at the Whine & Cheese breakfast in Syracuse and it would have provoked the same reaction his original comments had.  Not much to see here beyond another big corporate Hollywood studio executive pleading poverty and ruin because one of the industry’s own employees made off with a film print to score big bucks and eventually the copy drifted into Pirate Bay.  Nobody need call CSI to determine the cause of injury in this case.  Even the most casual observer can see most of these wounds are self-inflicted.

… Continue Reading

Live Coverage of SaveOurNet.ca‘s National Open Internet Town Hall, netcasting from Toronto has now concluded.  Unfortunately, connectivity issues at the hotel plagued the live streaming event, and a good deal of it was not available on the live stream.  A recording of the presentation should be forthcoming shortly, and will be embedded in this space, when available.