Phillip Dampier

The Federal Communications Commission has announced the composition of its new Open Internet Advisory Committee to help track and evaluate the effects of the agency’s Net Neutrality policies, but has no member directly representing the interests of consumers.

The OIAC will focus on important Net Neutrality policies like transparency, reasonable network management practices, the differences governing policies for wired and wireless broadband, and issues like usage caps and speed throttling. But there are no voices on the committee that speak directly on behalf of end users — individual customers who use the Internet in their daily lives.

The FCC instead packed the panel with business, social policy and educational interests, many with direct financial ties to large telecommunications companies.

Selected members include:

• Harvey Anderson, Vice President of Business Affairs & General Counsel, Mozilla
• Brad Burnham, Founding Partner, Union Square Ventures
• Alissa Cooper, Chief Computer Scientist, Center for Democracy & Technology
• Leslie Daigle, Chief Internet Technology Officer, Internet Society
• Jessica Gonzalez, Executive Board, Media and Democracy Coalition; Vice President for Policy & Legal Affairs, National Hispanic Media Coalition (representing NHMC)
• Shane Greenstein, Professor and Kellogg Chair of Information Technology, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
• Russell Housley, Chair, Internet Engineering Task Force; Founder of Vigil Security, LLC (representing Vigil Security, LLC)
• Neil Hunt, Chief Product Officer, Netflix
• Charles Kalmanek, Vice President of Research, AT&T
• Matthew Larsen, CEO, Vistabeam
• Kevin McElearney, Senior Vice President for Network Engineering, Comcast
• Marc Morial, President & CEO, National Urban League
• Elaine Paul, Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning, The Walt Disney Company
• Jennifer Rexford, Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University
• Dennis Roberson, Vice Provost & Research Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology (representing T-Mobile)
• Chip Sharp, Director, Technology Policy and Internet Governance, Cisco Systems
• Charles Slocum, Assistant Executive Director, Writers Guild of America, West
• Marcus Weldon, Chief Technology Officer, Alcatel-Lucent
• Michelle Zatlyn, Co-Founder & Head of User Experience, CloudFlare

Missing are the voices of consumers who want an open Internet and do not believe in Comcast and AT&T’s definitions of “reasonable network management” that include Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and overlimit fees.

Consumers will instead have to depend on Internet businesses and institutions that coincidentally share an active dislike of traffic control measures, primarily for their own business reasons.

By excluding the consumer’s voice in policy debates, it is no wonder FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski increasingly seems amenable to the companies he is supposed to independently oversee — spending a considerable amount of time opening industry conventions with keynote speeches, reviewing lobbyist briefs about various communications issues, and talking directly with the corporate leadership of the companies involved. It is disturbingly clear he is listening less and less to consumers. A clear sign of that was his vocal support for the kinds of usage-based Internet pricing schemes that consumers generally loathe.

Genachowski and his staff need to spend more time listening to individual Internet users and the customers of providers and less time attending industry-sponsored events.

The OIAC is a good place to start. Consumers deserve a seat at the table in a debate that will impact every American Internet user.

Rogers' "unconscionable" service contract allows the company to do just about anything.

Did you know that signing a contract with Rogers Communications for your broadband, phone, and cable television service will not protect you from the company’s annual rate increases?

It represents a classic example of an “unconscionable term” in a contract, according to Anthony Daimsis, a contract law professor at the University of Ottawa. Not because Rogers has inserted language that allows the company to raise rates on contract customers at will, but rather because consumers cannot escape the contract without paying a stiff early termination fee, usually approaching $200.

Rogers says its service contracts do not guarantee stable rates, instead providing a discount for bundling its services together. Most Canadians asked by CBC’s Marketwatch thought otherwise, believing it should lock in current rates for the term of the agreement.

The consumer show also chases Bell for charging Canadians $2.80 a month for touch-tone service — a fee that disappeared off most other phone company bills 20 years ago. Bell claims the touch-tone fee was introduced because the company met opposition from rotary phone customers when it tried to bundle the fee into its general price for phone service.

These days, buying a rotary dial phone requires a visit to an antique shop, but should you acquire one just to escape paying the phone company an extra $33 a year, it won’t work. Bell says the fee is now mandatory for all customers, rotary or otherwise — no one can “opt out.”

Bell’s touch tone bill padding rakes in an extra $100 million a year in revenue, all for a service upgrade paid for decades ago.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Busted 04-2012.flv[/flv]

CBC Marketplace presents “Busted,” a special marathon edition exposing consumer ripoffs and deceptive advertising. In this clip, the show chases down Bell’s bill padding touch tone fee and Rogers’ notorious service contracts that lock customers in place -and- subject them to annual rate increases.  (13 minutes)

Data provided by OSHA statistics

A new joint investigation by Frontline and ProPublica reveals serious lapses in safety for America’s cell tower workers, a career now considered one of the most hazardous and life-threatening in America.

In the last eight years, 50 climbers have died, with many more injured installing and servicing cell sites for AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and T-Mobile. The investigation finds many of these deaths and injuries were preventable, but as America’s profitable cell phone companies outsource jobs to cut-rate subcontractors (and the sub-contractors they often use themselves), safety measures take a back seat to low-ball bidding and profits.

Efforts to hold companies accountable are stymied by the byzantine layers of third party companies hired to do the work, an under-equipped federal safety agency, and difficulty assessing where the responsibility lies when things go wrong.

From ProPublica and Frontline:

From their perch atop the contracting chain, carriers typically set many of the crucial parameters for work on cell sites, including deadlines, pay rates and even technical specifications, down to the exact degree an antenna should be angled. An analysis of cell tower deaths by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” showed that tight timetables and financial pressure often led workers to take fatal shortcuts or to work under unsafe conditions.

“We’ve had a number of situations where we think that accidents were caused by companies trying to meet deadlines and … cutting corners on safety in order to meet those deadlines,” said Jordan Barab, OSHA’s deputy administrator.

But Barab said it’s difficult for the agency to hold cell companies responsible for safety violations involving subcontractors. In most cases, federal officials have interpreted OSHA regulations to mean that carriers can be held accountable only if they exercised direct control over subcontractors’ work or were aware of specific unsafe conditions.

OSHA has not sanctioned cell carriers for safety violations implicated in any subcontractor deaths on cell sites since 2003, a review of agency records by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” found.

Most of OSHA’s enforcement efforts have focused on a transient cast of small subcontractors, though they, too, typically have eluded significant penalties. Over the last nine years, the median fine levied for safety violations linked to a fatal tower accident was $3,750, an analysis by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” showed.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Frontline Cell Tower Deaths 5-23-12.flv[/flv]

Watch this segment from PBS Frontline exploring ‘Cell Tower Deaths,’ and what can be done to stop them.  (30 minutes)

Northern Minnesota's Paul Bunyan Communications is threatened by FCC reforms that they claim favor larger phone companies.

Northern Minnesotans will have to wait longer for broadband after a telephone co-op announced it was suspending its $19 million broadband expansion project because funding is being diverted to more powerful phone companies like AT&T and Verizon — neither of which have any concrete plans to improve rural wired broadband.

Bemidji-based Paul Bunyan Communications, which serves 28,000 hearty Minnesota customers, has been working on broadband expansion for several years, bringing broadband to customers who have known nothing except dial-up since the Internet age began. Only now the project is threatened because of well-intentioned plans by the Federal Communications Commission to expand rural broadband, but in ways that cater primarily to larger phone companies that lobbied heavily for the changes.

At issue is Universal Service Fund reform, which plans to divert an increasing share of the surcharge all telephone customers pay away from rural basic phone service and towards broadband expansion in rural America.

Paul Bunyan used their share of USF funding to scrap the company’s existing, antiquated copper-wire network in favor of fiber optics. Other phone companies have traditionally used the money to keep their existing networks running. Now the independent phone company says large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have successfully changed the rules in their favor, and will now benefit from a larger share of those funds, ostensibly to expand broadband to their rural customers.

Bissonette (Courtesy: MPR)

But neither AT&T or Verizon have shown much interest in rural broadband upgrades. AT&T, which recently announced it concluded its U-verse rollout in larger cities, has also thrown up its hands about how to deal with the “rural broadband problem” and plans no substantial expansion of the company’s DSL service.

Verizon also announced it had largely completed the expansion of FiOS, a fiber to the home service. Verizon has also been discouraging customers from considering its DSL service by limiting it only to customers who also subscribe to landline phone service.

Verizon Wireless has introduced a wireless home broadband replacement that costs considerably more than traditional DSL, starting at $60 a month for up to 10GB of usage.

As a result of the funding changes, Paul Bunyan is reconsidering plans to expand its broadband, phone and television services to Kjenaas and about 4,000 other residents in rural Park Rapids and a township near Grand Rapids.

It may also have to cut workers.

“It’s kind of ironic,” Paul Bunyan’s Brian Bissonette tells Minnesota Public Radio. “The mantra of these changes is to create jobs. It’s killing jobs.”

Minnesota Public Radio explores how rural Minnesota broadband is being threatened by a telecom industry-influenced plan to divert funding to larger companies like AT&T and Verizon for rural broadband expansion those companies have no plans to deliver. (May 23, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

A green light for usage-based billing at Time Warner Cable.

Time Warner Cable announced its intention to expand its usage-based billing system for broadband beyond southern Texas, and is now considering new pricing tiers that will emphasize usage levels over broadband speeds, according to CEO Glenn Britt.

Appearing at the industry-sponsored Cable Show in Boston, Britt suggested consumers can “save money” opting out of unlimited broadband with its Internet Essentials program, which provides a $5 discount for customers who agree to keep their usage below 5GB per month.  The company is now also considering additional service tiers that will offer different usage allowances at progressively higher prices.

Britt insisted the company will retain the option of unlimited use service, but did not specify whether that would be sold at the same price customers currently pay for the cable company’s Internet service.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski yesterday told cable industry executives he supports usage-based pricing, making it unlikely the FCC will intervene if companies substantially raise broadband pricing.

In 2009, consumers and elected officials protested the cable company’s earlier experimental foray into usage pricing which would have tripled the price of unlimited broadband service to $150 a month. The company quickly relented after customers picketed the cable operator in Rochester, N.Y., and Greensboro, N.C., in a campaign coordinated by Stop the Cap! The cities of Austin and San Antonio, Tex. also made their opposition clear through public meetings and input from local officials.