Earlier this year, some Stop the Cap! readers in North Carolina who attended the hearings on a pro-telecom (actually it was written by them) piece of legislation designed to stall statewide municipal broadband competition encountered strange protests from conservative groups arriving on buses.  They were there to stop “Obama’s government takeover of the Internet.”  The communities of Wilson and Salisbury, which have municipal broadband projects in progress, also encountered resistance from outside groups.  Salisbury residents even began receiving biased phone polls that turned out to be sponsored by a conservative political action group that was also involved in the conservative “tea party” movement.

"Critics say .... it appears that the group was a 'mouthpiece' for hire." -- St. Louis Post-Dispatch

These groups loaded mostly retirees, recruited from talk radio and websites, onto buses and sent them to the state capital with generic anti-government talking points and signs.

FreedomWorks, which is currently in the news for organizing protests at town hall meetings over what they call “Obamacare” health care reform, has also been busy adopting the industry-friendly position of opposing government involvement in broadband.  They oppose anything resembling regulation, any government involvement in the pricing or availability of broadband service, and recite industry talking points about the free market assuring Americans of the world’s best Internet service.  Unfortunately, these talking points come at the same time the United States slips further and further behind in international broadband rankings, and true competition in most markets is limited at best.

FreedomWorks’ position on broadband policy will sound eerily familiar:

The broadband market is dynamic and fast paced; new FCC regulations could hamper this growth and reduce the vital capital investments required to expand the nation’s broadband networks.  Rather than attempting to apply old monopoly based models to today’s competitive markets, the FCC should focus on removing barriers to competition, implementing competitive solutions to policy questions, and allowing the private sector to more effectively allocate scarce broadband resouurces [sic] to the most highly valued uses.  In addition, efforts to establish “net neutrality” should be avoided, because they threaten the ability to manage dynamic networks effectively.

That is paraphrased directly from the talking points the industry has presented about broadband policy for years.

Now many of these groups are attempting to recruit those who dislike the current administration to provide free shilling services for the broadband industry’s agenda, supporting positions that are directly opposite  consumers’ best interests.

FreedomWorks is hardly new at this.  Back in 2006, Fiona Morgan, writing for the Independent Weekly (North Carolina), covered another bandwagon of protesters who showed up at an arcane meeting of the North Carolina House Revenue Laws Study Committee, all wearing FreedomWorks t-shirts:

The details of telecom legislation like this are wonky, complicated and jargon-filled. But that hasn’t dampened the passions of citizens fed up with the de facto monopoly of TimeWarner, with its astronomical rates for “packages” of unwatched channels. Dozens of people from across the state showed up to a meeting in April of the House Revenue Laws Study Committee wearing T-shirts for FreedomWorks, a group clamoring for the proposed state franchises. FreedomWorks, which is connected with the anti-tax conservative group Citizens for a Sound Economy, is funded by telephone companies pushing for the bill–what you might call an Astroturf (phony grassroots) organization, but the passion of its members is very real.

With astroturfers like FreedomWorks, deregulatory principles that might garner legitimate debate and consideration are tainted when it turns out that advocacy is bought and paid for by directly connected business interests who have a dog in the fight.  That’s why FreedomWorks hardly represents the “grass roots.”  It’s an astroturfer that has a corporate-sponsored agenda, but hides behind good American conservative citizens who find themselves proverbially loaded onto buses and taken for a ride.

Those consumers had a right to be fed up with paying for unwatched cable channels, but their appearance at that meeting was the lowest form of manipulation, because the legislation under review had nothing to do with the issue those people were concerned with.

Instead, their presence was used by the telecommunications industry as illustrative of consumer discontent, and de facto support for their real agenda, which was removing oversight of the video service franchising process from local government and turning it over to an industry-friendly state body.  That would have created statewide cable and “telco TV” franchises that take away local control and oversight.

Chad Johnston of the People’s Channel, Chapel Hill’s public access station said all the passion around TV service is being used to mislead the bill’s supporters. “It’s funny, because many of the comments that the FreedomWorks folks brought up in this meeting were things that aren’t even included in this bill, like being able to chose your channel lineup–that’s a whole different issue,” Johnston says. “This notion that it’s going to bring us gobs of choices and lower prices it totally false, based on everything we know about deregulation and the telecom industry.”

Heartland Institute: "By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."

Now, another astroturf group that shares “researchers” with FreedomWorks, the so-called Heartland Institute, has an Op-Ed Tuesday in the conservative Philadelphia daily The Bulletin.  Of course, the Heartland Institute also has close ties not only to big telephone companies, but is a dependable friend of big cable as well.  Those close ties are, predictably, omitted from the article.

A typical horror story involves an ISP, at peak usage hours, gently slowing down a tiny number of bandwidth hogs so the vast majority of its customers can surf the Web and send emails at the speed they expect. Insisting such a policy is unfair is not only counterintuitive, it’s counterproductive to demand the government stop it.

The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 is poorly named because it would do nothing to preserve freedom. HR 3458 would strip ISPs of the right to manage traffic on the networks they have spent billions to build, market and manage. In their place would emerge a cadre of detached government bureaucrats—hardly an improvement on the status quo.

The takeaway word from the first section is “story,” as in fiction, because that is what that talking point represents.  Once again, the Us vs. Them strategy reveals itself, with stories of some guy next door sucking the neighborhood Internet lines dry downloading.  The true horror is some providers continue to earn healthy profits on their broadband revenue, complain about the growth of traffic on their networks, and actively reduce investment to expand that network.  That, of course, helps build the case for “controls” when consumers notice the slowdowns created by those neglectful policies.

The Heartland Institute advocates the provider be given the enviable role of the fox guarding the hen house.  Providers manage profits quite effectively, and just as some try to tweak pricing models to extract extra revenue from consumers, you can count on those same providers creating new revenue streams from “premium” prioritization of Internet traffic, for a price, while leaving everyone else in the slow lane.  Their own products and services carried on those lines will enjoy beneficial priority for free while direct competitors find they can’t obtain that level of service at any price.

The so-called “cadre of government bureaucrats” is anything but.  The truth is, there will be one set of clearly defined standards that will protect the level playing field the Internet deserves.  The piece makes it sound like there will be a government court to render judgment on every policy and practice, which is false.  The only thing Net Neutrality protects IS the status quo, a free and open Internet.

Today, if a broadband customer does not approve of the way an ISP manages Web traffic, he can readily switch to a competitor more to his liking. ISPs have an enormous financial incentive to retain existing customers and attract new ones, so the free market encourages best practices.

Tell that to Canadians who are enduring not only Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, but also throttled speeds that artificially reduce (by up to 99%) the advertised speed for certain applications, all for “good network management.”  Don’t like the throttle from Bell on your DSL line?  Switch to Rogers Cable and get more of exactly the same thing.  A free market cannot truly exist from the monopoly most rural residents face for broadband, and the duopoly most of the rest of us endure.  The current market doesn’t encourage “best practices;” it encourages informal collusion by providers who learn not to rock the boat, especially on competitive pricing.

ISPs have an enormous financial incentive to find ways to increase profits, which is precisely what Internet Overcharging is all about.

But under HR 3458, if a broadband customer is not satisfied, what near-instant recourse will he have? None after government forces every ISP to operate “equally” by replacing market-based incentives with bureaucratic mandates. This would ensure an inevitable slide to “equally” shoddy service.

One would assume a provider would want to make their service as robust and up to date as possible, yet in a world without codified Net Neutrality protections — the free market at work under today’s reality — we’re seeing continued evidence of price increases and a decline in investment in networks, and some providers continue to drag their feet on upgrades.  The only market based incentive at work here is the demand from Wall Street for greater revenue and return from providers, who face challenging times in their video and telephone businesses, but can always leverage the success of the broadband division.  Broadband continues to maintain customer loyalty, and the potential for greater return from price increases and forcing costs down by limiting service.

Net neutrality advocates want the government, not “the public,” to control the fate of the Internet. The ordered chaos of market forces may scare those who don’t understand it. But the market is efficient, quickly responsive to the needs and wants of consumers, and—in the proper sense of the word—free.

Actually, Net Neutrality advocates want the government to protect the “chaos” of the online world as it exists today.  Those who want to “organize” or “order” the online world aren’t Net Neutrality advocates, they are providers who don’t want people using “my pipes for free,” or cable interests who want to “organize” online video around a model they own and control, or who simply want to throw a Money Party by inventing new ways to charge people more money for exactly the same service they get today.

The claim that the market is “quickly responsive” to the needs and wants of consumers is demonstrably false for any consumer living in Wilson or Salisbury, North Carolina, where a duopoly of providers refused to provide the level of broadband service consumers and small business clamored for, so local municipalities finally threw up their hands and decided to build networks themselves.  Residents of Rochester, New York are threatened with a broadband backwater because the incumbent telephone company Frontier Communications has shown little interest in providing a fiber optic based 21st century broadband platform similar to one being constructed in virtually every other city of size in New York.  Customers even signed petitions begging Verizon to overbuild the Flower City to provide the service Frontier will not.

In April, Time Warner Cable “responded to the needs and wants of consumers” by attempting to ram an Internet Overcharging experiment down the throats of customers in four American cities, where not one consumer either needed or wanted such massive price increases.  Over a period of weeks, this provider did everything but respond to customer needs, until a wholesale consumer revolt erupted and Congress intervened.

The free market is working well for groups like FreedomWorks and The Heartland Institute, who enjoy healthy support from the telecommunications industry.  In return, finding where the telecommunications industry positions end and FreedomWorks’ positions begin is like staring into a mirror and trying to ascertain the differences between the reflection and yourself.

Phillip Dampier

Today is Stop the Cap!‘s first anniversary.  One year ago today, this website was launched with the news that Frontier Communications, the local telephone company in Rochester, New York and in dozens of mostly rural communities nationwide, had quietly changed its Acceptable Use Policy to define appropriate maximum usage of their DSL service at a measly 5GB per month.

The  boneheaded, out of touch decision was called out for what it was: a profiteering provider pilfering wallets of their broadband customers.

All the signs of a Money Party among cable and DSL providers at consumer expense were apparent last summer.  Time Warner Cable was experimenting with a consumption billing plan in Beaumont, Texas.  In Canada, rhetoric about “bit caps” was already being circulated, trying to convince Canadians that broadband service was somehow as difficult to provide there as it is in Australia and New Zealand, where such caps were already in place.

To bring limits, rationing quotas, and consumption based billing to the United States would require consumers to ignore massive profits broadband providers were harvesting quarter after quarter at existing prices.  But demands for big profits from Wall Street meant they had to come from somewhere, and for cable companies with eroding profits from their cable TV divisions, and telephone companies dealing with disconnect requests for wired telephone lines, broadband was their choice.

It seems that what was insanely profitable a decade ago, when cable modem and DSL service started to introduce Americans to broadband, would now simply be ‘piles of  cash stacked like cord wood’-profitable as traffic increased. As the broadband adoption rate increased, bandwidth costs plummeted, and several providers also proudly trumpeted their reduced investments in their networks as a hallmark of keeping “costs under control.”

Consumers began actually using their service for… broadband-specific services, at the encouragement of providers’ marketing departments, touting their “always on” connection at “blazing fast speeds” to download music, movies, play games, and more.  Network utilization increased, and providers want someone to pay for a “bandwidth crisis” that isn’t a crisis at all.  Responsible investment in network infrastructure should be a given, in recognition that at least a small portion of those growing profits must be spent on maintaining and improving service.

One year ago, I laid out what was before us:

Cable operators have been discussing implementing usage caps in several markets to control what they refer to as a “broadband crisis.” The industry has embarked on a lobbying campaign to convince Americans, with scant evidence and absolutely no independent analysis of their numbers, that the country is headed to a massive shortage in bandwidth in just a few short years, and that a tiny percentage of customers are hogging your bandwidth.

Frontier, ever the rascally competitor, has decided to one-up Time Warner’s Road Runner product by slapping on a usage cap now for DSL customers before Road Runner considers doing the same. And in a spectacularly stupid move competitively, they have implemented a draconian cap that even the cable industry wouldn’t try to implement.

Time Warner Cable “took one for the team,” according to industry-friendly Multichannel News, when it introduced a ludicrous Internet Overcharging experiment of its own announced this past April, which would have “saved” customers money by getting them to “pay for what they use.”  In fact, their plan proved my point last summer, following the same roadmap of “bandwidth crisis” to “heavy downloaders” to trying to squeeze customers for more money for upgrades they could easily have done with the enormous profits they already earn.

Their proposal would have made a deliciously profitable $50 a month Internet service now cost consumers $150 a month with absolutely zero improvement in service, speed, or performance.  But Wall Street would have been happy with the higher returns.

Some 400+ articles later, we’ve educated consumers across North America about the reality of Internet Overcharging.  Despite industry propaganda “education” efforts, astroturfing groups we’ve exposed as having direct connections with the telecommunications providers paying them to produce worthless studies, fear-mongering about Internet brownouts by equipment vendors with solutions to sell, and a hack-a-thon of formerly respectable broadband pioneers and ex-government officials who sold their credentials for a paycheck to lobby and spout industry propaganda, most consumers continue to reject overcharging for their broadband service.  Consumers instinctively know a cable company with a rate change always means a rate increase, and plans to “save people money” actually means they will “protect industry profits.”

We have achieved victory after victory in 2008-2009:

• Fought back against Frontier’s boneheaded plan, and convinced them that DSL can compete best on price and flexibility — no usage cap has ever been enforced at Frontier, and today they are using Time Warner Cable’s blundering profiteering experiment against them in their marketing materials.  For rural Frontier customers with no other broadband provider, that’s a major relief from being stuck with one broadband option that rations their usage to ludicrously low levels.
• Stopped Time Warner Cable’s experiment before it got off the ground in several “test cities.”  The people of Austin, San Antonio, Rochester, and the Triad region of North Carolina did Time Warner Cable customers nationwide a tremendous service in halting this experiment before it spread.  Our efforts even brought a United States Senator, Charles Schumer, to the front lawn of Time Warner Cable in Rochester to announce the nightmare was, at least for now, over.  We managed to even see an end to the overcharging of customers in Beaumont, Texas who lived through a summer, winter, and spring, overpaying for their broadband service.
• We raised hell in the North Carolina state legislature, coming to the aid of Wilson and other communities in the state trying to get municipal broadband projects off the ground.  Communities across the state faced anti-consumer corporate protectionist legislation written by the telecommunications industry, introduced by willing elected officials who took big telecom money, and sold out their constituents.  We killed two bills, forced a sponsor of one such measure to repudiate his own bill, and gave major headaches to legislators that thought they could just cash those big checks, vote against your interests, and you’d never know.  Those days are over.
• We helped bring legislation up in Congress to draw attention to the issue of Internet Overcharging, and have called out providers who want to use their marketing departments to lie to customers about their broadband costs and profits, while being considerably more honest with their shareholders in their quarterly financial reports.  Congressman Eric Massa’s legislation would demand companies show proof of the need to implement consumption based billing.  Indeed, as consumers find out how profitable broadband service is at today’s prices, they’ll never tolerate the profit padding providers seek with tomorrow’s caps/limits, penalties and fees, and unjustified tiers.

As you can see, Internet Overcharging is not a dead concept.  An educated consumer will recognize a swindle when they see one, and providers continue to test overcharging schemes in focus groups in different parts of the country.  They’ll use any analogy, from a buffet lunch to a toll road traveled by big trucks and little cars.  They’re looking for anything they can find to sucker you into believing paying more for your broadband service is fair.

Broadband service must be fast, affordable, and competitive.  In too many communities in Canada and the United States, a monopoly or duopoly marketplace has guaranteed none of those things.  In our second year, we must remain vigilant in our core mission to fight Internet Overcharging, but we also need to fight for more competition, regulation where competition does not exist, oversight over providers, and support for projects that will enhance broadband and make it more affordable than ever.  With your help, we can stand toe to toe with any provider, because the facts are on our side, not theirs, when it comes to Internet Overcharging schemes.

Welcome to Year Two!

The Internet Innovation Alliance claims to advocate for consumer interests, but has telecom backing.

The Internet Innovation Alliance released a report Tuesday telling you what you already know (thanks to Stop the Cap! reader ‘Bones’ for sending the link):

(1) Consumers receive more than $30 billion of net benefits from the use of fixed line broadband at home, with broadband increasingly being perceived as a necessity;
(2) With even higher speed, broadband would provide consumers even greater benefits – at minimum an additional $6 billion per year;
(3) Significant broadband adoption gaps exist between various groups of households;
(4) Among those who are connected to broadband at home, there is no significant valuation gap based on race, although there are valuation gaps along other lines;
(5) The total economic benefits of broadband are significantly larger than our estimates of the consumer benefits from home broadband.

Astroturf Thursday

In simpler terms, the IIA did a study that discovered consumers value broadband in dollar amounts higher than they currently pay for it.  To the general media, it will be interpreted as evidence that broadband is wonderful in the United States and may be underpriced.  That’s music to the ears of providers, who also study the gap between what a consumer would be willing to pay for a product versus what they actually pay.  That gap represents the wiggle room for providers to raise prices and safely predict consumers will not be outraged about it.

The IIA also trumpets the value of broadband in their study, entitled The Substantial Consumer Benefits of Broadband Connectivity for U.S. Households, for the benefit of their benefactors, who stand to gain substantially from broadband stimulus funding.  The IIA, one of the many astroturf organizations out there supported by the telecommunications industry, advocates for a “partnership” between private providers and government to deploy broadband.  In other words, they want the government to hand over tax dollars to private providers to construct broadband networks while preserving the completely deregulated “free market” broadband marketplace.  The “free market” concept now seems to include public taxpayer dollars subsidizing private business, all while providers demand no oversight or regulation to “hamper their innovation.”

Public money funneled to private business with no regulation or oversight = broadband goodness.

Still, it’s not all bad.  Even the IIA understands the obvious — providing faster broadband speeds not only enhances the perceived value of the product, consumers are also willing to happily pay higher prices to obtain it.  They didn’t study Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, consumption-based pricing, and other similar pricing schemes, presumably because the results would have shown dramatically dampened consumer enthusiasm.

What Is The Internet Innovation Alliance?

Who They Say They Are: “[A] broad-based coalition …committed to more widespread usage and availability of broadband through wise policy decisions.”
Who They Really Represent: Members include telecom business such as AT&T, and telecom trade associations such as the Information Technology Association of America.
What They Say They Do: “[A]ssist public policy makers to better understand new technologies and to promulgate smart policies that facilitate their growth.”
What They Really Want: To create a tiered Internet and allow broadband providers to charge web sites like Google and Yahoo! for the ability to reach their subscribers.
On the Web: http://www.internetinnovation.org/

The Internet Innovation Alliance runs a slick website dedicated to promoting broadband Internet policies that “will improve Americans’ lives.” While the Alliance claims to include “consumer advocates” in its coalition, no true consumer groups can be found anywhere in its membership list. But AT&T, one of the largest telephone companies in the country, is on the list. As recently as late 2004, the Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) did seem to be on consumers’ side on the issue of network neutrality – the principle that your Internet service provider shouldn’t be able to block or interfere with your ability to access any content or use any services on the web.

Take a look at IIA’s scathing statement after SBC Communications revealed plans to charge fees to web-based telephone providers (also called Voice-over-Internet-Protocol, or VoIP): “SBC’s charging of higher fees to VoIP providers …is discriminatory in nature and is a dangerous first step toward eradicating the vast array of benefits services like VoIP will provide to consumers. VoIP promises great consumer benefits provided it remains unburdened by regulations and access fees…. SBC apparently missed the memo or chose to ignore it in the face of larger profits.”

So where was the outrage a year later when SBC head Ed Whitacre told Business Week magazine that broadband Internet providers should be allowed to charge fees not only to VoIP companies, but to any web-based company or service? “Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. …We [the telephone companies] and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!,” argued Whitacre.

This time, the Internet Innovation Alliance was nowhere to be found. Why? Maybe because SBC Communications was in the final stages of a merger with AT&T—one of IIA’s “member” groups. IIA does not disclose how much its “members” contribute to the organization, but in the case of AT&T, it appears to be enough to have bought IIA’s silence. — Common Cause

Stop the Cap! reader Lance wrote this afternoon letting us know Google has a project running for the next few weeks to ask ordinary Americans, you know, the ones who don’t have their own astroturf groups, slick lobbyists, and Re-Education literature, what you and I want from broadband stimulus funding and a national broadband plan.

Submit your ideas for a National Broadband Plan
Google and the New America Foundation have teamed up to launch this Google Moderator page, where you can submit and vote on ideas for what you think the Federal Communications Commission should include in its National Broadband Plan. Two weeks from now we’ll take the most popular and most innovative ideas and submit them to the official record at the FCC on your behalf.

So do you have any good ideas? Submit them today — and you just might help change the face of broadband in the United States.

The operative word there is “might.” Without a massive deluge from angry consumers, the killer bee swarm of lobbyists and other special interests will surround and fly away with the honey pot of federal broadband stimulus funding. But you can’t win if you don’t play, so let’s get busy.

Here was my submission, which you can choose to give a thumbs-up to if you support it:

“A clear prohibition on Internet overcharging schemes! No usage caps, speed throttles, and consumption-based tiered pricing. Net neutrality enshrined into law, open competition, even if it comes from municipalities, and the more fiber, the better!”

Finding submitted ideas is best achieved by using the Search box at the top of the Google Moderator page. You can find mine with a search for “net neutrality.”

Some of the ideas from ordinary consumers that are already getting plenty of support are excellent, common sense winners in our humble opinion, so be sure to vote “thumbs-up” for these as well:

• “Install broadband fiber as part of every federally-funded infrastructure project. Most of the cost of deployment is due to tearing up/repaving roads. Laying fiber during public works projects already underway would dramatically reduce costs.”
• “Force real competition in any given market for broadband services from the same types of provider to eliminate monopolies (i.e. multiple cable providers competing in the same market).”
• “Charging per-data-rate (EG: per gb) is a bad idea. You don’t get charged per hour you watch cable on top of your monthly subscription and additional channels, why should you pay per hour or per gb for access to the Internet?”
• “Stop the ability of private companies to block local governments from trying to deploy their own broadband solutions. There have been numerous examples of this, and it really stifles broadband expansion.”
• “Place residential broadband under the same regulations as other utilities. Require companies to publish their tariffs, and forbid hard caps. Require a portion of the proceeds to be invested into improving the infrastructure.”
• “Recognize that high-speed, reliable and unfiltered Internet access in the 21st century is a civil right on par with free speech and a right to an education and not a simple luxury for those who can afford it. More federal funding, fewer monopolies.”
• “Get ConnectedNation out of the loop. Funded by telecos and cablecos and are lobbying congress using false and misleading data.”

How to participate:

1. You need to have a registered Google account. You have one already if you use Gmail or other Google services.
2. Visit this page to find the question.
3. You will find a login link at the bottom. Click it and you can login or get a new Google account.
4. You will be shown a list of ideas submitted by others. They often appear randomly.
5. On the right side of your screen, you will see a place to approve (checkbox) or disapprove (an “x” in a box) of various ideas.
6. Vote for as many or as few as you like.

You can also submit your own idea.

The most popular ideas will be part of Google’s submission to the FCC.

Let us know what idea you are voting for and if you submitted any of your own in the Comments section.

Click on the "Comments" link shown circled to go directly to reader comments, and share your own views!

For new readers, you can get involved in the conversation by clicking the comments link found as part of the heading of every article here, or just click the headline and scroll down the bottom of your screen where you can find a place to share your thoughts!

Here comes the Astroturf

Deborah Taylor Tate, a Bush-appointed ex-commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission is now earning her paycheck regurgitating telecommunications industry talking points of behalf of the astroturf group, the Free State Foundation.

In an editorial in today’s Washington Times (thanks to reader Mitchell for alerting us about it), Tate perfectly falls in line with the talking points Stop the Cap! readers can repeat in their sleep, right down to ripping off AT&T’s “grandmother” analogy from several weeks ago.  Her employer, the Free State Foundation, has a long history of advocating pro-industry positions in opposition to consumer interests.  Having a former credentialed FCC official doing the industry talk is designed to impress.

Tate, who was never impressive as an FCC commissioner and maintains her ongoing unimpressive credentials at FSF, phones it in with a fact-free piece entitled, “Paying for Use is Fair,” in which she directly advocates for Internet Overcharging schemes, attempting to convince readers it will somehow save them money on their broadband service.

Her efforts to tell the story of “paying for what you use” will be comical to those in the communities where such “experiments” were conducted, because Tate either doesn’t know or care about the details of the market experiments she writes about.

Most broadband consumers would be astounded that some members of Congress want to block our ability to pay for broadband Internet use in precisely the same way we now pay for other commodities: Pay more if you use more; pay less if you use less.

Most consumers would be astounded an ex-FCC commissioner got the basic facts wrong about the basis of such pricing schemes.  No broadband provider has ever offered a “pay for what you use” pricing scheme.  They have only offered “pay MORE for what you use, and a lot more if you use more than you thought.”

This comes on the heels of Time Warner’s rapid retreat from a pilot test of pay-for-use broadband pricing, bowing to congressional pressure and protests from consumer groups. Studies have indicated the top 25 percent of users have consumed 100 times more bandwidth than the bottom 25 percent. So, what is fair about one-price-fits-all if someone uses 100 times more than you do?

At least Tate barely acknowledges another basic truth about these pricing schemes: the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want this kind of pricing model, and more than half would leave their existing provider if they tried to force them into one.

The “studies” Tate writes about do not exist.  They are claims by the providers themselves, which have never allowed for an independent review of the raw data the companies claim to base their findings on.  Nor does it account for the industry’s “need” to increase every consumer’s broadband bill with overcharging schemes based on limited consumption allowances and credit card-like overlimit penalties and fees.  Indeed, this is an industry with profits well into the billions of dollars whose costs are actually declining, along with their willingness to invest in growing their networks.  One need only review quarterly and annual financial reports issued by the providers’ themselves to learn the truth.  These companies are not hurting for profits.

Even where monopolies exist, pricing has generally been based on the notion that customers are charged more if they consume more and less if they use less. Obviously, beyond basic necessity, they could exercise some self-control, and could even save money through metering that measured consumption. This is especially true in an environment where consumers have options for providers of broadband, cell phones and now, in many cases, electricity.

Broadband pricing has been flat rate since the service was launched by phone companies providing DSL and cable operators launched cable modem service in most areas of this country.  That’s because broadband has been cheap, capacity plentiful, and profits high.  Absolutely nothing has changed in that equation, except a desire by broadband providers to dramatically grab additional profits, reduce demand with threats of overlimit fees or service being cut off for overuse, and attempts to invest less in their networks.  Controlling online video is critical for most of the providers who find that a competitive threat to their television service business model.

Tate doesn’t bother to contemplate increased competition, seeming happy enough to acknowledge monopolies do exist and then moving on to something else.  That mimics the FCC’s position over the past eight years, so that comes as no surprise either.

Whether run by local co-ops, governments or profit-making firms, any network has substantial capital costs to build out infrastructure, provide service, expand capacity and meet higher demand, particularly at peak periods. The same network cost issues also apply to Internet service providers. Expanding bandwidth and capacity for the exponential growth of Internet traffic is expensive. Updating security applications to prevent cybercrime are increasingly necessary for government, business and individuals, driving up costs even further. The supply of fiber optic cable and computer servers is not infinite, and we are already facing network constraints. We have all experienced the network being slowed by periods of heavy usage. Broadband providers — just like wireless providers — should be allowed to use a consumption model without government interference as long as consumers know and understand what they are paying for.

To date, there has been a surprising uniformity in billing for broadband Internet service. But why should a grandmother who checks e-mail once a day or makes an occasional purchase online be charged the same monthly rate as a researcher downloading massive data files or teenagers watching full-length movies every day? Why not provide consumers the freedom to monitor and control their own use — and to benefit from volume-based rate packages?

AT&T should consider legal action against Tate for plagiarizing their talking points.  In fact, her entire argument is part of the grand Re-education campaign we’ve written about since Time Warner Cable temporarily shelved their overcharging scheme back in April.  The “exaflood” nonsense, the “it’s expensive to spend money to upgrade our networks” whining, and the hissyfit over consumers using their service just as these same providers marketed them are all in there.

Deborah Taylor Tate: The Marie Antoinette of Internet Pricing

At least Tate is consistent — she never cared about consumers like you and I during her stay on the FCC, and she still doesn’t care about consumers by doing the bidding of groups like the Free State Foundation.

What do Washington Times readers think?  Not much of Tate or her positions.  Among them:

“Wow, did you just pull a page out of the telecom’s lobbyist manual to come up with this article?  They are doing this to prevent new technologies from making them an antiquated model, and they are doing it to get more money out of the customer. I promise it has nothing and I mean nothing to do with saving your grandma a single cent.”

“Are you being paid by the cable co? Seriously. Do you even realize with the utter lack of competition and the fact that the cable company enjoys a monopoly in most all of their markets, pricing for use is utterly bad for consumers.”

“Bill is right, you’re just reading talking points at this point, and not looking at the actual economics or technology behind it.”

“Deborah, Please take a moment to think for yourself instead of shilling for an industry. Metered billing has nothing to do with customer choice, please don’t pretend that it does. This is about making more money off of existing usage, while avoiding upgrading of networks and services.”

“So for instance, using the same logic and same company, when I call for traditional phone service, they are quick to sell me an “Unlimited” minute plan for $40.00/month.”

“Metered usage is nothing more than a money grab by the content providers. Their current business model is being threaten by media content being available via streaming services.”

In the end, consumers like you and I pay part of our monthly broadband bill to providers that are cutting checks to astroturf groups to advocate against consumer interests.  Imagine if they spent some of that money on their network upgrades, and a little less funneled to inside-the-beltway hackery written by underwhelming ex-officials-turned-insider-special-interests.