One of the more far out there arguments against Net Neutrality has consistently come from conservative astroturf groups, who receive plenty of corporate funding to advocate a pro-business agenda using arguments that appeal to a conservative audience.

Newsmax, one of the more widely-read conservative websites, has gone all out on the theory that Net Neutrality is an attempt by President Barack Obama to take control of the Internet, potentially even leading to censorship.  In an unconvincing video segment, Newsmax.TV reporter Ashley Martella interviews Ryan Radia, an Information Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a pro-business think tank.

Newsmax TV: Net Neutrality is a "regulatory power grab" (4 minutes)

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>(Note: Because Google video ads auto-play without your consent, which we do not agree with at Stop the Cap!, clicking the image will launch a new browser window to take you to Newsmax’s site to play the video there.)

A number of conservative blogs and news sources have latched onto one echo chamber claim: “CBS News recently reported that a cyber security bill would give Obama the emergency powers he’d need to control the Internet.”  When a link to the actual report is not provided, that should ring warning bells in your head.  Unfortunately, too many people simply accept statements as fact and never bother to check them out.  If Katie Courac is warning the country about an Obama power grab online, I want to know about it.

Stop the Cap! is one of the few, the proud, the fact checkers.

As with most of the memes attacking Net Neutrality on political grounds, there is considerable exaggeration at work here.  We could find two references on CBS News’ website to the aforementioned claim, and both turned out not to be news reports, but one blog entry and a reprinted news article from a conservative news site¹:

• Senate Proposal Gives President Authority Over Internet, by Declan McCullagh, a senior correspondent for CBS News’ Web site.  (August 28, 2009)
• An Unconstitutional Internet Power Grab, by Bruce Henderson, reprinted with permission from The New Ledger, a conservative news site founded by Ben Domenech of RedState blog fame. (September 1, 2009)

An Associated Press wire story this past weekend covering proposed legislation also appears on CBS News (and thousands of other websites).

At issue is S.773, The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, a Senate bill introduced by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) to establish an effective defense against cyber attacks on the United States.  Some early drafts of the proposed bill had some language, long since discarded, that could have raised privacy concerns, but it’s disingenuous at best to suggest this bill’s language, known to Newsmax and others propagating these near-hysterical conspiracy theories, would give any power to the Obama Administration to silence dissent and “control the Internet.”

In fact, this legislation does not even originate with the White House.  Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, de-fanged the hysteria back in late August in a statement:

The President of the United States has always had the Constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the President’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shut down or takeover of the internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the President directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.

Radia, for his part, illustrates the effort to co-opt conservatives who distrust the Obama Administration into coming along for the ride for an industry friendly snowjob opposing Net Neutrality, with helpful prodding from Martella:

Martella: Could this lead to censorship?

Radia: There is the possibility of that.  What we have seen lately is the Obama Administration and agency officials attempt to increase their power over government networks.  Just a few weeks ago, CBS News reported that a cyber security bill would give Obama emergency powers to control the Internet.  Under a Net Neutrality regime, we could see the FCC tell companies what data they can and cannot prioritize.

Martella’s wild “censorship” reference was jarring because it comes out of the blue with no supporting preposition.  In fact, it’s pro-Net Neutrality advocates that fear providers could engage in censorship, because there have been instances where providers have done just that.  Net Neutrality impacts private Internet providers by demanding they do not block, impede, or interfere with third party website content.

Radia plays mix ‘n match with two different issues to create a magical blend of nonsense — the cyber security bill which conservatives fear is an Obama power grab and Net Neutrality’s consumer protections against abusive broadband network management.

The Obama Administration’s advocacy of Net Neutrality is not about increasing power over government networks.  CBS News did not report that a cyber security bill would give Obama emergency powers to control the Internet — it printed a blogger’s opinion and a reprint from a conservative news site that hypothesized such a bill, if it existed, would do that.  Radia defines Net Neutrality as the FCC telling companies what data they can and cannot prioritize.  Actually it just preserves the open network that has made the Internet so unique.  But on behalf of his provider friends, that issue is force-merged into the Obama “Internet takeover” theory, with the hope it will energize conservatives to also oppose Net Neutrality.

Radia’s arguments are hardly convincing.  He repeats the unpersuasive and undocumented fears that “Net Neutrality … is a rule that would stifle innovation, would reduce network investment, and it would decrease consumer choice in the broadband market.”  It sounds like he also bought a ticket to OppositeLand, where reality is defined as the exact opposite of the truth.  As is the case in Canada, it is the lack of Net Neutrality protection which stifles innovation from new high bandwidth applications that cannot succeed in a marketplace rich with Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles.  Online video for Canada is just one of several applications that have been stifled by provider controls.  There is no evidence Net Neutrality would reduce investment in networks.  Customers clamoring to use those networks and the diversity of online content is much more likely to stimulate network upgrades to maintain quality of service.  How consumer choice in the broadband market (which most consumers believe is hardly robust) would be impacted negatively is never explained.

Radia accidentally justifies why FCC policy alone is not enough to guarantee Net Neutrality protection when he points out Congress has not specifically authorized the FCC to get involved in the network management of service providers.  A bill in the House of Representatives would do just that, however.

Radia’s assumptions that consumers are pleased with the competitive marketplace, particularly for wireless, are dubious at best, particularly when he makes this stunning statement:

“If you want a walled garden, a device where a company controls and helps guide the user experience, you can get an iPhone.”

Of course, many iPhone users have complained openly and loudly about the fact they are stuck with AT&T — AT&T retains an exclusive arrangement with Apple in the United States to sell the phone for use on AT&T’s network.  They also aren’t too happy being limited by both companies in selecting applications to run on the phone, something managed by Apple and AT&T unless the customer “jailbreaks” the phone to bypass the restrictions.  The result is a stifled iPhone user experience on an overloaded AT&T wireless network, higher pricing on service plans for the iPhone, and consumer choice limited to deciding whether to live with these restrictions or go without.

Radia suggests Net Neutrality is being pushed just by a handful of “so-called consumer groups that believe that since their preferences are not being matched in the market, that they should use the hand of government to force these rules upon the private sector.”  His problem with that is that he believes (along with the providers who spend millions lobbying) that consumers are well served by today’s marketplace filled with proprietary business models.

Of course, real consumer groups can’t exist without consumers that actually support them, and as we’ve documented since this site launched, consumers are not well served by the limited competitive marketplace, and the abuses that come from that, and they’ve complained loudly and regularly to those providers about those practices.  They aren’t listening.  So consumers are turning to the public officials who regulate and oversee such markets to attempt to force them to listen.

Newsmax’s efforts to give mainstream media credibility to a sensationalized claim was only outdone by Radia himself on his own bio page:

Ryan is a frequent contributor to the Technology Liberation Front, the technology policy blog dedicated to preserving freedom and liberty in the information age. His ideas have been referenced by technology writers including Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic’s Daily Dish, Karl Bode of Broadband Reports, and Mike Masnick of Techdirt.

Karl Bode found it ironic Radia would reference a piece he wrote, because Bode’s article trashed Radia and his friends for claiming a cable price war was resulting in consumer savings.  The Techdirt piece Radia links to didn’t exactly give him a seal of approval either:

Last month, we mocked some mainstream press reports claiming both a broadband price war and the fact that broadband prices were rising. There doesn’t really seem to be much of either, as broadband prices have remained pretty constant, even accounting for promotional pricing. However, with Comcast getting ready to significantly boost speeds (yes, with its broadband caps, Ryan Radia is wondering if the actual “price war” is hidden by the fact that it’s in price per megabit.

In other words, if prices remain constant, but your speed doubles, isn’t that something of a price decrease? Radia chalks this all up to competition in the market, but it should at least be admitted that the speeds (even these higher speeds) still pale in comparison to other countries where there is much greater competition than in the US, where most people still are limited to only two real choices. Either way, as someone who’s still stuck on a home connection that runs around 500k (below the new 768k cutoff for “real” broadband) despite being in the center of Silicon Valley, I’m still not convinced that these greater speeds are so readily available yet.

We invite Radia to link to our spanking as well.

¹Using search terms “obama emergency internet” and “emergency internet” on the CBS News website.

Phillip “Doesn’t Derive a Paycheck From Writing This” Dampier

I see it took all of five minutes for George Ou and his friends at Digital Society to be swayed by the tunnel vision myopia of last week’s latest effort to justify Internet Overcharging schemes.

Until recently, I’ve always rationalized my distain for smaller usage caps by ignoring the fact that I’m being subsidized by the majority of broadband consumers.  However, a new study from Robert Shapiro and Kevin Hassett at Georgetown University is forcing me to reexamine my personal bias against usage caps.

There’s a shock, especially after telling your readers caps “were needed.”

As I predicted, our astroturfing and industry friends would have a field day over this narrowly focused report that demands readers consider their data, their defined problem, and their single proposed solution.  The real world is, of course, slightly more complicated.

I used to debate some of my economist friends on why I thought metered pricing or more restrictive usage caps were a bad idea, but I couldn’t honestly say that my opinion was entirely objective.  My dislike for usage caps stems from the fact that I am a heavy broadband user and an uncapped broadband service is very beneficial to me since everyone else pays a little more so that I can pay a lot less on my broadband service.  But beyond self interest, I can’t make a good argument why the majority of broadband users who don’t need to transfer a lot of data should subsidize my Internet requirements.

Your opinion is still not entirely objective, George.  Your employer has industry connections.

Our readers, many of whom are hardly the usage piggies the industry would define anyone who opposes these overcharging schemes, all agree whether it’s 5GB or 150GB per month, they do not want to watch an Internet “gas gauge” or lose their option of flat rate broadband pricing that has worked successfully for this industry for more than a decade.  George and his friends assume this is an “us vs. them” argument — big broadband users want little broadband users to subsidize their service.

That’s assuming facts not in evidence.

What is in evidence are studies and surveys which show that consumers overwhelmingly do not want meters, caps, usage tiers, or other such restrictions on their service.  They recognize that a provider who claims to want to “fairly charge” people for service always means “everyone pays more, some much more than others.”  To set the table for this “fairness,” they’ve hired Washington PR firms to pretend to advocate for consumers and hide their industry connections.  Nothing suspicious about that, right?

Although George can’t make a good argument opposing usage caps, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any.  Among the many reasons to oppose caps:

• Innovation: Jobs and economic growth come from the online economy.  New services created today by U.S. companies, popular here and abroad, would be stifled from punitive usage caps and consumption billing.  Even the broadband industry, now in a clamor to provide their own online video services, sees value from the high bandwidth applications that would have never existed in a capped broadband universe, and they are the ones complaining the loudest about congested networks.
• Consumer Wishes: Consumers overwhelmingly enjoy their flat rate broadband service, and are willing to pay today’s pricing to keep it.  The loyalty for broadband is much greater than for providers’ other product lines – television and telephone.  That says something important — don’t ruin a good thing.
• The Fantasy of Savings: As already happened across several Time Warner Cable communities subjected to “experimentation,” the original proposals for lower consumption tier pricing offered zero savings to consumers who could already acquire flat rate “lite” service for the same or even lower prices.  Even when tiers and usage allowances were adjusted after being called out on this point, consumer outrage continued once consumers realized they’d pay three times more for the same broadband service they had before the experiment, with absolutely no improvement in service.  Comcast and other smaller providers already have usage caps and limits.  Pricing did not decline.  Many combine a usage allowance -and- lower speed for “economy” tiers, negating the argument that lower pricing would be achieved with fast speeds -and- a usage allowance.
• Justifying Caps Based on Flawed Analysis: The report’s authors only assume customer adoption at standard service pricing, completely ignoring the already-available “economy” tier services now available at slower speeds.
• Speed Based Tiers vs. Consumption Based Tiers: Consumers advocate for speed-based tiering, already familiar to them and widely accepted.  New premium speed tiers of service can and do already generate significant revenue for those who offer them, providing the resources for network expansion providers claim they need.
• Current Profits & Self Interested Motives: Broadband continues to be a massively profitable business for providers, earning billions in profits every year.  Now, even as some of those providers reduce investments in their own networks, they claim a need to throw away the existing flat rate business model.  Instead, they want paltry usage allowances and overlimit penalties that would reduce demand on their networks.  That conveniently also reduces online video traffic, of particular concern to cable television companies.
• Competition & Pricing: A monopoly or duopoly exists for most Americans, limiting competition and the opportunity for price savings.  Assuming that providers would reduce pricing for capped service has not been the result in Canada, where this kind of business model already exists.  Indeed, prices increased for broadband, usage allowances have actually dropped among some major providers like Bell, and speed throttles have been introduced both in the retail and wholesale markets.

More recently, building our colocation server for Digital Society has made me realize that usage caps not only has the potential to lower prices, but it can also facilitate higher bandwidth performance.  Case in point, Digital Society pays $50 per month for colocation service with a 100 Mbps Internet circuit, and at least $20 of that is for rack space and electricity.  How is it possible that we can get 100 Mbps of bandwidth for ~$30 when 100 Mbps of dedicated Internet bandwidth in colocation facilities normally costs $1000?  The answer lies in usage caps, which cap us to 1000 GBs of file transfer per month which means we can only average 3 Mbps.

One thousand gigabytes for $30 a month.  If providers were providing that kind of allowance, many consumers would consider this a non-issue.  But of course they are not.  Frontier Communications charges more than that for DSL service with a 5GB per month allowance in their Acceptable Use Policy (not currently enforced.)  Time Warner Cable advocated 40GB per month for $40-50 a month.  Comcast charges around $40-45 a month for up to 250GB.  Not one of these providers lowered their prices in return for this cap.  They simply sought to limit customer usage, with overlimit fees and penalties to be determined later.

Of course, web hosting is also an intensively competitive business.  There are hundreds of choices for web hosting.  There are also different levels of service, from shared web hosting to dedicated servers.  That is where the disparity of pricing is most evident, not in the “usage cap” (which is routinely more of a footnote and designed to keep Bit Torrent and high bandwidth file transfer services off their network). There is an enormous difference in pricing between a shared server environment with a 1000GB usage cap and a dedicated rack mount server located in a local facility with 24 hour security, monitoring, and redundancy/backup services, even with the same usage cap. For those seeking reliable and scalable hosting solutions, Voxfor’s offerings, including lifetime VPS plans and customizable management services, provide exceptional value and flexibility without the recurring costs.

So the irony of a regulation intended to “protect” the little guy from “unfair usage caps” would actually force our small organization onto the permanent slow lane.

Actually, the Massa bill has no impact on web hosting usage caps whatsoever.  George’s provider friends would be his biggest risk — the ones that would “sell” insurance to his organization is he wanted assurance that his traffic would not be throttled by consumer ISPs.  I’d be happy to recommend other hosting providers for George if he felt trapped on a “slow lane.”  That’s because there is actual competition in web hosting providers.  If the one or two broadband providers serving most Americans had their way, it would be consumers stuck on a permanent slow lane with throttled service, not organizations like his.

So, who is in agreement with George on this question?  None of his readers, as his latest article carries no reader responses.  But fellow industry-connected astroturfers and providers themselves share their love:

• “This is the story that ISP’s have failed to tell effectively — that consumption-based billing may, in fact, be fairer for consumers.” — Michael Willner, CEO Insight Communications
• “Ars Technica reports on an interesting theory being floated by former Clinton economic advisor Robert J. Shapiro and Federal Reserve economist Kevin A. Hassett” — Brad, astroturfer Internet Innovation Alliance
• “The only way … is to introduce some form of equitable pay-as-you-use pricing.  And I could not agree more.” — Ulf Wolf, Digital Communities Blogs (sponsored by AT&T, Qwest, etc.)

PC Magazine reported even Robert Shapiro, one of the report’s authors, is not advocating for usage caps:

“We’re not talking about a bandwidth cap,” Shapiro said during a call with reporters. “We were looking simply at the different pricing models and their impact on the projections of broadband uptake based on these income sensitivities.”

The report does not specify how ISPs should implement pricing, Shapiro said. “The most important thing to me as an economist is the flexibility – that is, Internet Providers can better determine than I can the particular model that works best.”

That’s not the message astroturfers are taking forward, as they try and sell this as “pro-consumer.”

There was quite a buzz this week over a story in The Business Insider reporting that Hulu reaches more viewers than Time Warner Cable (the nation’s second largest cable operator) has subscribers.  They found 38 million Americans watched Hulu and just 34 million Americans are Time Warner customers.

It’s interesting trivia, but really doesn’t mean all that much… yet.  In fact, Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator has 62 million subscribers, so Hulu has a long way to go to beat Comcast, not to mention websites like Google Video and YouTube, which have more than 120 million combined viewers.

More importantly, Time Warner Cable has no trouble monetizing its business, as any cable subscriber knows when that ever-increasing bill arrives every month.  The same cannot be said for Hulu, which originally depended on an advertising model to sustain itself, at the same time the domestic online advertising marketplace imploded with the near-economic collapse last fall.  If television networks and newspapers can’t sell their ad inventories, the online advertising market, still a novelty for many advertisers, is in even worse shape.

Time Warner Cable is not losing any sleep over Hulu at the moment, and if they do become a nuisance, that consumption billing concept (or hard usage cap) is always an option to deter people from watching too much.

Broadband providers who pass along video content to their customers, without any ownership interest in those videos, are stuck in the position of owning “dumb pipes.”  In the month of July alone, comScore estimated that more than 21.4 billion videos were viewed on American-owned video websites.  Those videos ranged from the five minute karaoke performance from the guy in Des Moines who posted his performance to YouTube, to hour long dramas watched on a network TV website.

What people didn’t watch were all of the most popular shows from cable networks.  Dedicated viewers who needed to watch the entire second season of A&E’s Crime 360 show had to head to Usenet newsgroups or Bit Torrent websites to ferret out someone’s personal recording collection uploaded to share.  A&E only streams one episode from the second season at a time.

That explains why the cable industry is in a hurry to test their TV Everywhere project.  Cable and other pay-television customers will discover a lot more videos hosted on cable network websites suddenly “authenticating” their subscription status, and locking out those who don’t have a subscription (or offering teaser videos or a much more limited menu of viewing choices).

The upsides for TV Everywhere include pleasing existing pay television subscribers with more online videos.  They also get to sell advertising to accompany these on demand videos.  Those cable network websites may also have ads on them and can also promote their other programming.  Perhaps even more importantly, the industry will have a new tool in their subscriber retention arsenal — the ability to delicately remind subscribers wavering over whether to continue their cable TV package that they can forget about replacing it with watching shows online for free. Owning or controlling the content (and the distribution network) is always better than simply being used to transport someone else’s content.  You can’t giveth and taketh away content you don’t own — you can just make it prohibitively expensive to watch with Internet Overcharging schemes.

The downside, at least in their eyes, is the amount of bandwidth these videos will occupy on their existing distribution platforms.  In 2008, the “big threat” that demanded usage caps and/or consumption billing came from Bit Torrent.  In 2009, it’s online video.

Of course, two of the nation’s largest providers that have “appreciated” consumption billing and usage caps — Comcast and Time Warner Cable — are also enthusiastic founding partners of TV Everywhere.  That presents a problem.  A video platform like TV Everywhere, which may one day usurp Google’s dominance in online videos, is being run by the same people trying to convince Americans of broadband capacity problems and the need to cap usage or switch to consumption billing schemes.  TV Everywhere effectively takes the wind out of that argument because, as any consumer will ask, if your platform is too congested to handle online video, why in the world would you seek to make the “problem” much worse?

That’s a rhetorical problem astroturf groups are being hired to explain away.  They apparently couldn’t sell it to consumers during focus group testing, so now they’ll try the sock puppets instead.

It’s your job to ferret out:

• Who is simply reading talking points without verifying if they are true or not?
• Who is the straightforward person playing it straight down the line?
• Who is the industry hack working for an Astroturfer paid by providers to sucker you into paying more for your broadband?

Bonus points for identifying and debunking the industry talking points from this misguided series of reports aired last year on KFWB Radio.  Answer in the Comments section!

The players:

• Larry Irving
• Chris Sedens
• Robb Topolski

If you are new to Stop the Cap! you can read and participate in our comment section by clicking the headline of any story.  You’ll find the comments at the bottom, along with a place where you can add your thoughts!

Astroturfers like Scott Cleland got all excited yesterday about another misinformed piece about broadband usage caps from George Ou, a technology blogger who previously gained infamy from his strident opposition to Net Neutrality and his ridicule of the “scare-mongers” who predicted throttled speeds, multi-tiered broadband service, penalties and blocks for using Voice Over IP services, and providers trying to control what you see on the net.

George Ou

Back in 2006, he wrote a three-pager on ZDNet lambasting Save The Internet, MoveOn, and other Net Neutrality proponents who didn’t agree with Ou’s position that this was simply a technology issue.  He accused the groups of hysteria at a fever pitch over their concerns Net Neutrality opposition was much more about politics, profit, and protection of the providers’ business models.

With positions like that, Ou need not ever worry about job security because his rhetorical stars are in perfect alignment with big telecommunications companies.  I’m sure as long as he joins the broadband tug of war on the side of AT&T and other big providers, some policy institute, astroturf group, or other industry-friendly job would always be there for him to take.

Oh wait.  He has.  But more on that later.

These days, Ou has been pondering broadband usage caps, our bread and butter issue on Stop the Cap!

You do not get a cookie if you guessed he’s all for them, because that would be too easy.

Ou decided that the recent comparison between broadband usage caps in Japan and the United States by Chiehyu Li and James Losey of the New America Foundation, was… problematic.  That usually means we are about to get a technological-jargon-cannon barrage in an effort to suggest those folks at the New America Foundation ‘just don’t understand how the Internet works.’

You decide:

Li and Losey point out that while Japanese ISPs caps the upstream; they are generous with unlimited downstream while American ISPs are beginning to cap both the upstream and downstream.  But this is a flawed analysis because capping the upstream effectively cuts to total downstream peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic to the same levels.  And because P2P is one of the most heavily used application on the Internet accounting for the vast majority of Japanese Internet traffic, cutting upstream usage greatly reduce all P2P traffic and all Internet usage which was necessary because their Internet backbones were severely congested.  I’ve argued that it is far more efficient to manage the network but until then the caps are needed.

Another problem with Li and Losey’s analysis is that it only looks at the usage cap without an analysis of the duty cycle and its ramifications.  When we compare the usable duty cycle between ISPs in Japan compared to ISPs in the U.S. derived from Li and Losey’s data, we see a completely different picture.  By splitting the U.S. ISP usage caps (some of these caps are only in proposal phase) into an upstream and downstream cap proportional to the upstream/downstream connection speeds, I was able to generate Figure 1 below.  What it actually shows is that U.S. broadband providers have usage caps that allow users to use their Internet connection far more frequently than users in Japan.  So while a user in Japan is capped to 40 minutes a day of upstream Internet usage, which indirectly caps download speed because it severely trims the number and generosity of P2P seeders.  AT&T’s proposed DSL usage caps (similar to other DSL providers) allow for 1111 minutes of usage per day on the upstream and 97 minutes on the downstream per day.  So broadband consumers who are dissatisfied with their tiny Time Warner usage caps can simply switch to their DSL provider.

I guess that wraps that up.  Or not.

Ou wants us to assume quite a bit in his own analysis.  His contention that the “vast majority” of Japanese Internet traffic is peer-to-peer is “proven” by linking to an earlier article… written by him… saying just that.  But let’s grant Ou the premise that peer-to-peer is at the epicenter of bandwidth congestion in Japan.  Ou defends Japanese providers for specifically targeting the upstream traffic, pointing out stingy torrent users that don’t give as much as they get will automatically be speed limited during downloads (Bit Torrent’s way of equal sharing).  But he never extends the upstream cap argument to the United States, where he implies a similar traffic overload is occurring.  Instead, he merely acknowledges that domestic providers are experimenting with caps that limit both uploading and downloading, impacting every broadband user, not just those “problem” peer to peer users.

Caps.  The necessary evil?

Ou is okay with the equivalent of dealing with a pesky fly in the kitchen by setting the house on fire.  Doing that might solve the fly problem, but makes living there unpleasant at best in the future.

In fact, the impetus for dealing with the peer to peer “problem” in Japan turns out to be as much about copyright politics as bandwidth management.¹

I also have no idea why Ou would spend time developing a “duty cycle” formula in an effort to try and convince Americans that those generous looking caps in Japan are actually worse for you than the paltry ones tested in the United States.  His formula is dependent on the speed levels offered by Japanese vs. American providers to work.  But then Ou tries to debunk the speeds on offer in Japan as more fiction than reality, and throws his own “duty cycle” formula under the bus as a result:

Li and Losey also paint a dire picture that Japan has 10 or more times the connectivity speed as the US, but the most accurate real-world measurement of Internet throughput in Japan according to the Q1-2009 results from Akamai’s State of the Internet report indicates that Japanese broadband customers only average about 8 Mbps.

Ou then exposes he is completely clueless about the state of broadband in some of the communities that actually cope with usage caps, or were threatened with them.  Ou’s suggestion that unhappy Time Warner Cable customers could simply leave a capped Road Runner for DSL service from the phone company leaves residents in Rochester, New York cold.  For them, that means coping with an Acceptable Use Policy from Frontier that defines 5GB per month as appropriate for their DSL customers.  In Beaumont, Texas, the limbo dance of caps last left residents picking between a cap as low as 20GB with AT&T or a 40GB “standard plan” from Time Warner Cable, before Time Warner dropped the “experiment” for now.

Ou should have just suggested customers in western New York and the Golden Triangle just pick up and move to another city.  It would have been more realistic than his “if you don’t like them, switch” solution.  It also presumes there is a viable DSL service to switch to, as well as whether or not the service can provide a sufficiently speedy connection to take advantage of today’s broadband applications.

And here is where you can draw lines between the special interests, astroturfers, industry-connected folks and actual real, live, consumers.

Ou brings out the shiny keys, waving them in consumers’ faces telling them to look somewhere else for answers:

So the reality is that usage caps isn’t what Americans should be focusing on and the priority should be to encourage more next generation broadband deployment.

Internet Overcharging schemes that charge consumers up to 300% more for their broadband service, with no corresponding improvement in service, is not the problem for Ou, but it certainly was for Time Warner Cable customers in several cities chosen for their Overcharging experiment.  The need to encourage more broadband deployment is fine, but American broadband customers will be broke long before that ever happens without some other pro-consumer solutions.

Ou has a problem though.  He has a new employer.

A corporate restructuring at ZDNet in the spring of 2008 meant Ou was free to pursue other professional interests, and wouldn’t you know, he turned up as Policy Director of “pro-commerce” Digital Society.  That’s a “free market think tank” website whose domain name is administered by one Jon Henke in… you guessed it, suburban Washington, DC (Arlington, Virginia to be exact).

The sharks are in the water.

Jon Henke

Henke, Executive Director of Digital Society, and presumably Ou’s boss, has quite the agenda of his own, and it’s not consumer driven.  He has a long history of involvement in conservative politics, which brings new questions about how Henke would approach “encouraging next generation broadband deployment.”  Does he favor broadband stimulus money?  How about municipal broadband competition?

In addition to his work with Digital Society, Henke also runs something called the DC Signal Team.  What’s that?  Let’s see:

DC Signal is a strategic intelligence and communications firm specializing in new media consulting. Based in the Washington, DC area, we work with a range of clients — corporations, trade associations, campaigns, and individuals — to craft and execute an effective online strategy.  We provide timely intelligence and analysis, as well as communications that can reach and resonate with key opinion makers, policy experts, and elected officials.

Our expertise in new media communications sets DC Signal apart, allowing us to filter out the background noise on the Internet to deliver just the most relevant information, make creative, appropriate recommendations based on that information, and target communications directly to the most influential audiences.

I love the smell of plastic grass in the morning.

That’s right, folks.  DC Signal is a classic PR firm that uses targeted communications to reach the most appropriate audience for their campaigns.  Need to reach consumers and sell them on a pro-industry position?  Set up a “grassroots” group to do it.  Need to baffle the media, lawmakers and opinion leaders with industry BS?  Set up “authoritative” websites to deliver carefully filtered “relevant information.”  What better way to do that than with a blog like Digital Society?

But wait, there’s more.

Henke is also working for an innocuously named group called Arts+Labs, which starts its mission statement out innocently enough:

Arts+Labs is a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today’s rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products and services to consumers. From the early development of motion picture technology, voice recordings and radio to today’s 3D computer graphics, streaming digital movies, “on-demand” entertainment,  online games, news and information, innovative technologies and creativity have always gone hand in hand to enrich our understanding and appreciation of arts, entertainment and culture.

Then things become more ominous.

At the same time, Arts+Labs is working to educate consumers about how net pollution – spam, malware, computer viruses and illegal file trafficking – threatens to transform the Internet from an essential catalyst to safely deliver this content to consumers, into a viral distribution mechanism that will choke off the Internet for consumers and future innovators and creators alike.

I can understand the threats from spam, malware, and computer viruses — what groups out there actually advocate for these? — but the “illegal file trafficking” thrown in at the end had me wondering.

I smell industry money, probably from providers who oppose Net Neutrality and want to throttle peer to peer applications, from Hollywood content producers who want to keep their content off The Pirate Bay, the music industry who is always paranoid about piracy, and of course equipment manufacturers who sell the hardware that does the bandwidth management.

So who “partners” with Arts+Labs?

• Viacom
• NBC Universal
• AT&T
• Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)
• Verizon
• Microsoft
• Songwriters Guild of America
• Cisco
• American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)

There you go.

Arts+Labs tries to be clever about its agenda, not so much with strident opposition to Net Neutrality, but instead promoting “consumer interests” by insisting that providers fully disclose the abuse about to be heaped on their customers.  In a press release in June, the group advocated its own national broadband strategy recommendations to the FCC:

A Safe Internet and Smart Management Will Boost Digital Society

It also said that a safe Internet must be a core part of a national broadband strategy and that the failure to protect online data and crack down on net pollution such as malware, spam, phishing and other Internet crime will erode the value of the Internet and discourage broadband adoption.

“To drive adoption and build a successful digital society that reaches every American, all of us must accept responsibility for minimizing online risks, protecting users’ privacy, and ensuring data security against malicious online activity and cybercrime,” A+L said.

It also urged the Commission to embrace “smart management tools and techniques.”

“Used effectively, smart management of our networks will stimulate broadband adoption by expanding the scope of activities available to consumers, by addressing network congestion, and by defending against hacking, phishing, identity theft and other forms of cybercrime,” the filing added.

But it said network operators must not abuse management tools to interfere with competitors or consumers rights and noted:  “In a digital society, network managers owe their customers transparency about their network management practices, including proactive disclosure of new policies or innovations that may affect users’ experiences.”

A+L Urges Collaborative Effort, Says Pragmatism Should Trump Ideology

It also urged the Commission to avoid unnecessary regulatory constraints that would interfere with the ability of content providers, network operators and other Internet-related businesses to experiment with new business models and to offer innovative new services and options to consumers.

Finally, A+L urged every Internet industry and every individual who uses the Internet to work together to achieve the nation’s broadband goals.

“Building an inclusive digital society and achieving our broadband goals will require all of us to think outside of silos, to choose pragmatic and effective policies over ideology, and to drive broadband adoption by encouraging the creation of exciting content, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring that the Internet is a safe place to be.  And, the guiding principle on every issue should be to find the solution that moves broadband forward,” A+L concluded.

Broadband throttles and Internet Overcharging aren’t anti-consumer — they are “new policies or innovations.”  As long as the provider discloses them, all is well.

The ideology reference in the press release is remarkable, considering the people who involve themselves in Arts+Media represent a veritable hackathon of the DC political elite, from Mike McCurry, former Clinton Administration press secretary, Mark McKinnon, who advised President George W. Bush, to the aforementioned Jon Henke, who was hired originally to do “new media” damage control for former Virginia senator George “Macaca” Allen and then went to work for the presidential campaign of Fred Thompson.

As usual, the only people not on Arts+Labs’ People page are actual consumers.

To wrap up this party of special interests, which consumers aren’t invited to, we wind our way back to the home page of Digital Society, which features a familiar roster of recommended blogs and websites to visit.  Among them:

• Arts & Labs blog (Henke works with them)
• Broadband Politics (run by Richard Bennett, who forgot he worked for a K Street Lobbyist, actually on K Street (read the comments at the bottom of the linked article)
• Cisco Policy Blog (also a partner with Arts+Labs, has a direct interest in selling the bandwidth management hardware)
• Verizon Policy Blog (also a partner with Arts+Labs, and an interested provider in this issue)

In the beginning of this piece, I recited some of the “scare mongering” Ou accused groups of engaging in on the Net Neutrality debate back in 1996.  The first major Net Neutrality battle was with Comcast over bandwidth throttles.  The barely-conscious FCC under Kevin Martin spanked Comcast (who sued, of course) and we’ve been in a holding pattern ever since.  But the predictions have become remarkably true north of the American border, where Canada endures all of the things Ou swore up and down in 1996 would never happen.

• Most major broadband providers in Canada throttle the speeds of peer to peer applications, reducing speeds to a fraction promised in their marketing materials.
• Most major broadband providers in Canada not only charge customers based on broadband speed, but also by the volume of data consumed, causing spikes in customer bills and a reduction in usage allowances in some cases.  Customers now face overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding the Internet usage ration they are granted each month.
• In 2006, Shaw Communications in Canada tried sticking a $10 monthly fee on broadband customers wanting to use Voice Over IP telephone service.  Vonage Canada complained loudly at the time.
• As far as controlling what you see online, that’s already in the cards in the States, if the cable industry has any say in the matter.

With a pliable FCC, what exists in Canada today will exist in the United States tomorrow without Net Neutrality protections enacted into law.

(footnoted material appears below the break)

… Continue Reading