Phillip Dampier

While western New York was dealing with a rare bout of tornadoes, another storm began brewing online when AT&T customers discovered their access to a website devoted to the posting of images, 4chan, had been blocked.

The 4chan site has become notorious over the past year for its “anything goes” policies about content, particularly in its “random board” /b/. The site has generated a number of controversies, including staged pranks, swarming other websites, and unfortunately, occasional malicious activity by a minority of its users. Since the site permits anonymous posting, and has traditionally been more “self-regulating” than moderated, it’s a polar opposite of most corporate-run online communities.

When 4chan enthusiasts discovered their site was being blocked by AT&T, it represented the online equivalent of of course, you know this means war. AT&T was blasted in the blogosphere, called out by some tech-minded online culture websites, and made a virtual pawn in the Net Neutrality debate. A few angry 4chan enthusiasts even set up a “rioting/’war’/protest” site to launch counteraction against AT&T.

AT&T eventually admitted it was blocking the site for “security reasons” and issued two early statements:

CentralGadget:

AT&T has confirmed that they are “currently blocking portions of the internet site 4chan.org”, but states that they are “following the practices of their policy department.”

AT&T went on to say that they did contact (or, at least, attempted to contact, they wouldn’t clarify) the owners of 4chan. They say that they have specific reasons why they blocked these parts of the site, but they would not disclose them to CentralGadget.com. AT&T states that they have requested specific things and changes from 4chan’s owners, and that 4chan has not complied.

Regardless, without a clear explanation of specific rationale for blocking 4chan… both 4chan and CentralGadget.com encourage you to continue calling AT&T technical support, and filing your complaints there (escalate as high as possible, we have heard reports that Tier 1 support agents are being told to incorrectly state that AT&T doesn’t block any web site).

Broadband Reports:

Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org. To prevent this attack from disrupting service for the impacted AT&T customer, and to prevent the attack from spreading to impact our other customers, AT&T temporarily blocked access to the IP addresses in question for our customers. This action was in no way related to the content at img.4chan.org; our focus was on protecting our customers from malicious traffic.

Overnight Sunday, after we determined the denial-of-service threat no longer existed, AT&T removed the block on the IP addresses in question. We will continue to monitor for denial-of-service activity and any malicious traffic to protect our customers.

Since the end of the weekend, access to 4chan has been restored by AT&T, but the site is performing slowly as it presumably gets attention from a large number of visitors who learned of the site from the controversy, but never heard of it before Sunday.

AT&T’s clumsy explanation fired up a new chapter in the Net Neutrality debate, with various groups and 4chan enthusiasts, and even the DailyKos website, calling this an example of a violation of Net Neutrality — providers denying equal access to all website traffic regardless of its source.

Unfortunately, this is much more an instance of jumping the gun.  Indeed, there is credible evidence 4chan, in addition to its free-wheeling atmosphere, also attracts quite a few malicious attacks, presumably from disgruntled members of the site.  “Denial of service attacks” which throw limitless requests at a web server to slow it down until it essentially crashes under the jamming traffic load, are not uncommon on 4chan.

AT&T’s technical team claims it placed blocks on the impacted IP address(es) to keep the traffic from impacting their own network, and the issue blew up only when AT&T’s non technical customer support staff did a poor job of explaining what was going on to customers.  There are also an open question whether AT&T needed to block -all- traffic on its network to 4chan, or whether blocking just the offending portion would have been sufficient.

Assuming the facts are in AT&T’s favor, and other ISPs have confirmed the attack as being authentic, this is less a case of Net Neutrality abuse, but rather standard procedure at most web hosting companies and service providers to contend with denial of service attacks and other malicious activity.  The hosting providers that provide service to Stop the Cap! engage in the same practices.  One of the hosting companies we use once shut off access to a group of websites it hosted to deal with an attack on just one website.  Once the targeted site was isolated and traffic blocks placed, service resumed for everyone else.  When the attacks were stopped or blocked by other providers down the line, service for the targeted site resumed as well.

But AT&T is not blameless.  A major national ISP like AT&T should have had a rapid and clear response ready for inquiring customers about the 4chan matter.  It was the absence of information initially, and the poorly phrased statements later that created the feeding frenzy of online speculation.

There is a thin line between “network management” policies that deal with malicious traffic and its impact on customers on one side and disingenuously labeling high bandwidth uses of its network (peer to peer, etc.) as requiring “network management” of its own (throttles, etc.).  Historically network technicians have always been given latitude to protect their employer’s network from purposely malicious traffic like “botnets,” “spam servers,” and “denial of service attacks.” They should continue to have that latitude until such time they are shown to be abusing it.

4chan’s own internal policies, and their unwillingness to control some user excesses, also make it very difficult to rush to their defense, particularly when the site owner acknowledges many of those excesses.

There are many legitimate battles to be fought for Net Neutrality.  An ISP dealing with a denial of service attack, barring any new evidence that credibly challenges AT&T’s response, should not be one of them.

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.

Is this worth $350 million of your taxpayer dollars?

North Carolina residents should be outraged at Rep. Bill Faison, the Democratic chairman of the state House Select Committee on High-Speed Internet Access in Rural Areas.  He’s set to do for North Carolina broadband what Hurricane Katrina did for urban renewal in New Orleans.  Faison, along with some other cronies, are examples of what is wrong with broadband stimulus planning when certain elected officials open their doors on big special interests, and slam them on the fingers of actual consumers.

Eight years ago, the North Carolina legislature commissioned the state to produce accurate, detailed broadband maps, depicting who has access to what broadband services, if any, across the Tar Heel State. e-NC, an organization of excellence recognized worldwide, set about not only doing broadband mapping, but also advocating for consumer and business interests across the state by pushing for higher quality and faster service.  e-NC’s mapping standard has been recognized by the European Commission, Microsoft, and IBM for its detailed, accurate depictions of broadband service.

e-NC has had its work cut out for it.  AT&T and other North Carolina telecom providers have stonewalled the group since day one, refusing to disclose “private company information.”  Where e-NC could obtain agreements, they came with ludicrous non-disclosure agreements that were the equivalent of ‘here is the information you requested, but you cannot use it in your maps.’

That’s where Faison comes in.  He sends out an invitation to the media to announce North Carolina finally has a broadband map available, and then proceeds to slam e-NC because it produced maps that, at one point, he compared with “swiss cheese.”  Faison is fully aware that e-NC had been complaining about provider stonewalling, and he did nothing to stop it.  But then he did something even worse: he praised the very providers who did the stonewalling and are now in charge of producing the “detailed maps” that the providers want the legislature to see.

Faison said, “In the face of legislation recommended by the Committee which would have required the providers to disclose precise information to the Legislature for our staff to generate a detailed map of availability, the providers have come together and collectively decided to provide the information through Connected Nation, to not only provide the “street address” map but also to make the map both accessible and interactive through the internet. Special recognition should be given to AT&T, Embarq, Sprint, Time Warner Cable, The Cable Association, the Telephone Co-op association, and Alltel for their work on this matter.”

Shameful.

Of course, Faison’s anti-consumer efforts on behalf of his good friends in the telecommunications industry are no secret to our North Carolina readers.  Faison was one of the proponents of the anti-consumer nightmare legislation S1004, which was hand-crafted by big cable and telephone companies to stop municipal broadband projects across the state.  Faison is a menace for consumer interests in North Carolina.

Faison doesn’t care, of course.  He has his eyes on some of that $7.4 billion in broadband stimulus money he hopes to grab for the state AT&T, Embarq, Sprint, Time Warner Cable, and any other provider that will try and use their own maps to “qualify” for the tax dollars you and I are going to hand over for broadband development.

Faison said: “North Carolina will be one of only six states with a detailed “street address” interactive map of broadband availability. It positions us advantageously to obtain a portion of $7.4 billion in Stimulus money available for broadband deployment. A map, such as ours, is now a precondition for obtaining this portion of the Stimulus money. The collaborative work of the Committee and the providers has now postured North Carolina in the most favorable of positions to not only obtain this portion of the Stimulus money, but also to advance broadband deployment for our people.”

In other words, by replacing reality with the telecom industry’s own version of reality, they hope to sneak through applications that look good on paper, whether or not they accurately depict the real “on the ground” state of broadband in North Carolina.  If I were a grant application reviewer with this kind of “detailed” conflict-of-interest map work, I’d disqualify the entire state from getting one penny.

As the excellent investigative piece by Art Brodsky points out over on Public Knowledge (thanks Stop the Cap! reader Michael for showing the way):

AT&T stiffs the state, and then makes up its own map, which state legislators accept. There is no transparency, no verification, no nothing. (But it is interactive.) The only way in which this can not be a total conflict of interest is to recall the (perhaps) apocryphal story of the Maryland state legislator who also owned a liquor store. He introduced a bill to help liquor stores and was asked if this bill was a conflict of interest. “How does this conflict with my interests,” he was said to have replied. Exactly.

Meanwhile, the oh-so-aptly named (well-)Connected Nation, packed to the rafters with big cable and telephone company lobbyists, is busily doing its part to flush $350,000,000 of taxpayer funding down the drain with its own “broadband maps” which resemble the crayoning work your 1st grade son brought home from school.

Connected Nation, a creature of AT&T, spent $7 million dollars of your taxpayer money to commission Connect Ohio, an affiliate, to map broadband availability in that state.  The result was a map you could have drawn yourself during a TV show commercial break.  I think I’ll use Light Pink myself.

Connect Ohio's "Broadband Map" for Summit County, Ohio

No, the blue speckles are not from blueberry pie stains.  Those are bodies of water.  What exactly does Connect Ohio’s map say?  Not a whole lot.  Basically, it claims the areas in beautiful pink are locations where broadband service is supposed to be available.  The whitish areas are outta luck.

Seven million well spent dollars there!

Meanwhile, here is a map from Strategic Networks Group, a company that was never eligible for federal mapping grant money:

Map from Strategic Networks Group, that didn't cost taxpayers a cent

Which map would you prefer to rely on?  The $7 million dollar boondoggle from Connect Ohio or the zero taxpayer dollar map from Strategic?

Why didn’t Strategic get the contract?  Because Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois custom wrote language into the Broadband Data Improvement Act, that specifically defined who received the award money.  Basically, it came down to only those well-connected politically with state governments (Connected Nation) getting the lion’s share.  No merit-based mappers need apply.

Strategic’s maps were apparently too good. Take a look at this exceptionally detailed map they produced for just western Akron, Ohio (and notice this is page four of a series of detailed maps):

Unlike Connected Nation's maps, you WILL have to click to enlarge!

Stop the Cap! stands with Art Brodsky and Public Knowledge regarding this travesty:

The government notice setting out the terms for the mapping grants was sadly deficient. Even if one grants that Connected Nation was wired in under the terms of a misguided bill, the agency notice of funds availability had no conflict-of-interest safeguards. There are no requirements for transparency or for verification of information. There are no standard data sets to make sure all the maps measure the same things. Instead, there are what appear to be protections for “confidential” information that could render the process useless.

Perhaps some of these deficiencies can be cured at the program moves forward. Perhaps not. In either case, these cautionary tales are getting a bit tiresome. Jury-rigged RFPs, no-bid contracts, hot-wired legislatures and state agencies are no way to run a program as important as broadband.

The stimulus broadband mapping program is set up for massive failure unless changes are made. Congress has to allow more competition for grants. The Durbin argument that private, for-profit companies shouldn’t do public work like broadband mapping, while non-profits should, falls apart when one considers the advantages of an independent company vs. a compromised non-profit. The agencies responsible need more detailed criteria to protect the public investment. Consistency, transparency, public verification and less protection of information are needed. Maybe then can an #epic fail can be avoided.

The Communications Workers of America (CWA) has been running a project I have subscribed to for awhile now, called Speed Matters. Today I received this e-mail from them:

What’s next for SpeedMatters? Growing our movement.

Dear Jason,

Time’s up. Pencils down.

How did you do on the SpeedMatters.org speed test?

Believe it or not, you had one of fastest connection speeds in the country – and you’re probably paying a pretty penny for it. The majority of people who took the test didn’t come close to scoring as high as you did.

But fact is, even some of the fastest internet connections in the United States pale in comparison to many of our global competitors like Korea, Sweden, and Japan. These countries have average speeds that are almost ten times faster than the United States — at about 1/12 the cost to the consumer.

FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps has admitted “America’s record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country.”

It’s time to fix this problem, and the first step is determining exactly where our current high speed networks reach — and who is getting left behind.

You’ve already helped us begin to gather this crucial data by testing your Internet speed.

So what’s next? Now you can help grow our movement and educate as many people as possible about the importance of improving our country’s high speed Internet access. That way, when we demand our elected representatives take action, they’ll hear us loud and clear.

Forward the message below to everyone you know, and ask them to join you in getting the U.S. up to speed.

Thank you,

Beth Allen
speedmatters.org Online Mobilization Coordinator

P.S. Don’t forget to sign up for our weekly SpeedMatters.org blog update email to stay up-to-date on the nationwide effort to expand high speed Internet access and the amazing things that people are doing with the improved technology.

Dear Friend,

Americans are charged more for slower internet speeds, and our current high-speed networks don’t even reach millions of households. It’s time for that to change — and you can play a part. Testing your own speed will help make our new community research project, SpeedMatters.org, a success.

We’re falling behind in the global economy because we won’t invest in the technology to bring the benefits of this telecommunications revolution to most of our population. We’re the only industrialized country without a national policy to promote high- speed Internet access.

That’s why you’re getting this email. Testing your connection’s speed now will help us better understand the American average — and craft an effective public policy and awareness campaign.

Take the speed test:

High speed Internet means more than smooth web videos or fast downloads.

Advanced high capacity communications networks can increase democratic and civic participation, improve the delivery of health care, education, job training, public safety and other vital services.

What are we waiting for? It’s time to close the digital divide.

Thanks!

What I found interesting was the quote from FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, “America’s record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country.”

Commissioner Copps is right. It is an outrage. When the rest of the world is moving on average 10 times faster and at 1/12 the cost to consumers, I am a little more then outraged. Speed does matter and I urge you all to join and spread the word about Speedmatters.org.  They have a lot of useful information at their site, including speed by state and listing of broadband initiatives.

I took the speed test here in Greensboro, North Carolina, using Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner Turbo and my results were 11.114Mbps download and 4.85Mbps upload.  What is your speed?

I know here in Greensboro, the CWA had tried to to unionize the local Time Warner Cable workers and the company pushed back and won. Now a lot of those same TWC employees have been pink slipped in favor of non-union contract workers or demoted to lesser positions with less pay. I am sure this isn’t the only city this is happening in.  Just goes to show that TWC isn’t just effecting your families with their greed, but their own workers’ families too.

The only downside to this organization I see is that they have a partnership with Connected Nation, which is the cable/telecom industries mapping group.  I would urge the good folks at the CWA to tread lightly with Connected Nation.  They are Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and the other companies in disguise.  They have their own interests at heart.  This is what Connected Nation is doing here in North Carolina.

The quest for fiber-based broadband service from consumers has reached the point where many have decided to accept or decline offers to purchase property in new housing developments based on whether they’ll have access to fiber or not.  Those were the findings in a study from the Fiber to the Home Council, which surveyed more than 600 existing fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) customers and 600 other broadband customers nationwide.

The results clearly show consumers love fiber optic broadband, far more than cable modems or DSL service from the phone company.

For example, 67% of FTTH users were very satisfied with their broadband speed compared to 58% of cable modem users and 46% of DSL users. A total of 70% of FTTH users were very satisfied with their Internet service up time compared to 64% of cable modem users and 55% of DSL users.

Consumers also reported that FTTH service was faster… much faster than competing technologies.  The median tested download speed from FTTH users was 10.4Mbps. FTTH tested download speed was 51% higher than cable modem service and 593% higher than DSL (DSL has abandoned the speed war, having lost that race to competing technologies, and now prevails only on price and where other alternatives are not available).

Upload speeds offered by FTTH users blew away the competition.  The average subscriber had 2.4Mbps of upload speed, which is 380% higher than cable modem users and 500% faster than DSL.

The survey also showed that robust competition, with at least one provider bringing true fiber to the home service to consumers, meant an average of six percent lower broadband bills.

Some cable and telephone industry executives downplay the lust for speed by consumers, claiming that most don’t understand the differences in speed, and don’t utilize services where speed matters most.  But the FTTH survey found entirely different results.  Not only are FTTH customers extremely loyal and happy with their service, they are reluctant to move to places that don’t offer it.

When asked to imagine purchasing a new home and given a list of five real estate development amenities, both current and non FTTH broadband users rated “Very high speed Internet from a direct fiber line” more important than other amenities such as green space/walking trails, 24 hour neighborhood patrol, a community pool, and a fitness center/club house. 69% of non FTTH users and 82% of current FTTH users said “Very high speed Internet” would be an important factor in buying a new home.

Even in this difficult economy, 49% of FTTH users said their broadband service would be the “last thing” they would give up.  Only 11% said it would be among the first things to go.

The demand is there, but the competition is not in many American communities.  Unless consumers reside in an area where an aggressive provider such as Verizon is willing to deploy fiber to the home, the chances of service arriving anytime in the near future is dismally low.  Few telephone companies are interested in deploying widespread fiber networks to consumers, and most cable operators believe their existing hybrid fiber/coaxial cable networks are “good enough” for consumers.  Only when a third player arrives in town, be it a private competitor or a municipally-owned fiber network, do telephone and cable providers get interested in performing their own fiber upgrades.

AT&T believes in its own copper-wire-based U-verse technology.  Smaller independent telephone companies are doing only limited experiments with fiber deployment, primarily to multiple dwelling units like apartment buildings and condos, and other uniform, expansive new housing developments.

Until prevailing attitudes among providers change, consumers hungering for fiber may simply have to pack up and relocate to the lucky communities that already have it, or will soon.