Despite some denials last week that Verizon and Google were not married and cohabitating their political agendas, the two giants announced a shared vision of the Internet’s future — one that does not “purposely throttle or block content,” but reserves for themselves a new, super speed Internet for the two companies and their closest corporate friends that will make blocked websites the least of America’s broadband problems.

For Internet enthusiasts, the deal is nothing less than a complete sellout of one of the founding visions of the Internet – content judged on its merits, not on the deep pockets backing it.  It’s a complete betrayal of Net Neutrality and broadband reform by Google, which has some of the deepest pockets around and has apparently forgotten the story of its own founding — a story that would likely be impossible on an Internet envisioned by Big V & G.

The Five Biggest Lies About Google and Verizon’s Net Neutrality Proposal

Big Lie #1: “For the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.”

That is a distinction no longer worth the difference should the two providers succeed in developing a special fast lane for their content partners.  If you don’t have the admission price or a favored pass to belong to the golden magic superhighway, not being purposely blocked or throttled on a clogged free lane offers little comfort when your start-up cannot compete with the bully boys that can outspend you into submission.

Both companies seek to invest millions in what is essentially a toll highway, incentivized by the potential returns offered by deep pocketed content producers willing to pay the toll.  With Wall Street following that money, those left behind on the slow lanes will find providers increasingly uninterested in throwing good money into necessary upgrades to keep the “free lane” humming.  The Internet that results will resemble the difference between a Chicago public housing project and the Ritz-Carlton.

Big Lie #2: “Reasonable” Network Management

The partnership’s declaration of support for its definition of  “reasonable” traffic management has more loopholes than Lorraine Swiss cheese.  For instance, “reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network to ensure quality service” for consumers already exists.  It’s called “upgrading your network.”  Now, it could also mean classic Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits, speed throttles applied to all “free lane” content, or billing schemes that “mitigate” congestion by charging extortionist pricing for broadband usage.  Using vague notions of “accepted standards” could be defined by any group deemed by Google and Verizon to be “recognized.”  Both have enough money to influence the very definition of “accepted standards.”

You don’t need a policy that reads like a credit card agreement to manage traffic on a well-managed, consistently upgraded broadband network.  Nothing prevents either company from providing such a network, but with no oversight and pro-consumer reform, nothing compels them to provide it either.

Big Lie #3: This preserves the open Internet.*

(*- excluding wireless broadband access to the Internet.)  As an increasing number of consumers seek to migrate some of their Internet usage to wireless networks, it’s more than a little unsettling Google and Verizon would exempt these networks from most of the “consumer protections” they have on offer.

Big Lie #4: The FCC gets its coveted authority to oversee the Internet.

Not really.  In fact, this agreement shares more in common with corporate interests that want less regulation and oversight, not more.  The suggested framework graciously grants the FCC the right to sit and listen to complaints, but strips away… permanently… any authority to pass judgment on the cases they hear and write regulations to stop abuses.

Clauses like “parties would be encouraged to use non-governmental dispute resolution processes” must give the arbitration industry new hope.  Already out of favor in many quarters, this proposal is tailor-made to bring a new Renaissance for “out of court arbitration” that heavily favors the companies that bind consumers and other aggrieved parties to using it.  The arbitration industry is no stranger to contributing to the right people to make them the only reasonable choice for dispute resolution.

Verizon and Google want nothing less than the right to define how their Internet will work — from the applications you can effectively use, the speed throttle you are forced to endure on the free lane, to the enormous bill you’ll receive for using those non-favored websites.

Big Lie #5: Google in 2006 — “Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.”

Google has come a long way, baby — in the wrong direction.  Demanding Google “not be evil,” something hundreds of thousands of Americans have already said today, is becoming so commonplace as to be cliché.  Still, being for Net Neutrality one day and throwing that concept overboard the next is the ultimate flip-flop.  When money talks louder than doing right by the millions of users who made both companies what they are today represents the ultimate betrayal.  Let’s make sure they realize it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg West Sees Tiered Web Pricing From Google-Verizon Plan 8-9-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports consumers will be stuck with higher broadband bills, especially if they dare to watch online video, on a broadband platform envisioned to saddle Americans with toll highways for Internet content.  (4 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Google Joint Internet Policy 8-9-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC echoed concerns about the Verizon-Google deal and its implications for the future of Internet applications.  (4 minutes)

Read the Verizon-Google Proposed Framework below the jump…

… Continue Reading

Google today launched a new website which could become a major advocacy center to promote fiber broadband service across America.

Google Fiber for Communities opened with a thank you message for the enormous number of submissions it received for its experimental 1Gbps fiber broadband network.  Google expects to announce the winning application(s) for its experimental  network sometime this year.

But in the meantime, Google also acknowledges what big telecom companies keep trying to downplay and dismiss — “people across the country are hungry for better and faster broadband access.”  That is… better and faster service than their current provider is willing to supply.

The new website provides hints as to its greater purpose:

1. The name itself.  Notice “communities” is plural.
2. The site intends to mobilize for fiber networks across the country, starting with lobbying for pending federal legislation that would require installation of fiber conduit as part of federal transportation projects.
3. The site’s links heavily promotes municipal broadband advocates and organizations, including the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the Fiber to the Home Council, the Baller Herbst Community Broadband Page, the Broadband Properties Municipal Fiber Portal, and Muni Networks.  Outside of the Fiber to the Home Council, which has some big telecom company members and isn’t above advocating for their interests, the rest of the list suggests Google advocates that communities do for themselves what their local phone and cable companies won’t do — deliver world class broadband service at non-duopoly prices.

Stop the Cap! shares many of these goals with Google, as we are strong advocates for community fiber-based broadband, and believe additional competition is highly needed in America’s broadband marketplace to break up an anti-consumer duopoly that delivers slow broadband service (or none at all) at the highest prices companies can get away with.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Jerry here in Rochester for sending word.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

For more than a year, Stop the Cap! has been covering the issue of broadband mapping, warning against allowing incumbent telecommunications companies from being able to control or influence statewide maps that show who has broadband, and who does not.  A perfect example of why we repeatedly call out telecom-connected groups like Connected Nation being granted a piece of the mapping action can be found this weekend in a guest editorial published in the Fort Worth Star–Telegram written by Todd Baxter, vice president of government affairs and general counsel for the Austin-based Texas Cable Association — the Texas cable lobby:

Newly released maps show that broadband — high-speed Internet — is widely available in Texas. They also underscore that the broadband stimulus program has been ill-conceived and poorly executed by the federal government.

That’s because the federal government put the cart before the horse.

It gave out more than $270 million of your money to a dozen projects in Texas before actually determining where current broadband operators provide service. Common sense would say to find out where broadband is, or isn’t, available before spending the money.

The feds also should better define “underserved,” since the money is intended to help both unserved and underserved areas. It sounds like a riddle — how many broadband providers have to serve a household before it isn’t considered “underserved”? So far that riddle has no answer, and it is costing you, the taxpayer, a lot of money.

Without the data or the definition, how can the federal government make sure it is spending taxpayer money wisely and where it is really needed?

Now that we have the maps, we can see that more than 99 percent of all Texans can access some form of broadband, whether wired, wireless or mobile, from more than 123 providers. Yet — without this information — the federal government awarded hundreds of millions in grants and loans to the Texas projects, with possibly more to come before the broadband stimulus program wraps up in September.

The Texas Cable Association formally objected to seven of the dozen Texas projects when in the application stage, because the areas addressed are already covered by existing broadband providers. We don’t believe the areas are unserved or underserved.

Just a few weeks ago, the Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, with great fanfare, unveiled the current state of broadband in Texas.  Connected Texas, a subsidiary of Connected Nation joined forces with the state government to perform a broadband census across the state, based on voluntary information provided confidentially by existing service providers.  The result was the stunning “achievement” that 97 percent of Texas already had broadband access, quite a revelation to the scores of consumers who aren’t served by cable companies and cannot get DSL service from the phone company, even if the Broadband Map of Texas says they can.

Texas Broadband Map (click to enlarge)

Kelly from Childress, located in the Texas panhandle, is a perfect example.  She writes Stop the Cap! to tell us how thrilled she was to see the phone company had finally brought DSL service to her street just on the outskirts of town.  She had nagged everyone she could for more than three years about her lack of broadband.  The cable company offered service, if she paid $9,300 for installation of an extended cable line to reach her.  The phone company, despite serving her neighbors less than 1/2 mile away, said she was not “qualified” to receive DSL service.  Today, her husband and two kids do access broadband service, albeit from the equivalent of the broadband black market.  Her nearest neighbor has rigged a souped up Wi-Fi system that allows her family to share the neighbor’s DSL account.  A directional antenna mounted on the roof of each home provides line-of-sight access.  They split the cost of the account and Kelly, an accomplished baker, keeps her neighbors well-supplied with some great pies in gratitude.

Connected Texas collected the information about where broadband service was supposedly available in Texas

Texas has a well-deserved reputation for neighbors helping neighbors to solve problems they’ve long since decided the government can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t solve for them.  Now that neighborly spirit has taken a high-tech approach to share broadband.

With the release of the new broadband map, Kelly thought the days of sharing accounts was over, and she called the phone company to sign up for service.  But, in no surprise to us, broadband availability to her home changed only on paper, not in reality.  No, she was told, she could not sign up for DSL service today or tomorrow for that matter — the company had no plans to extend service her way… indefinitely.

For others, the map is inaccurate because it shows service from dominant cable and phone companies, but ignores the competition.  Regular Stop the Cap! reader Michael Chaney noted, “I know for a fact this map is inaccurate. They show no fiber to the home coverage in Cedar Park, Williamson County, even though I’ve had residential fiber service for almost two years.”

In 2009, Public Knowledge released a report highly critical of Connected Nation, the group responsible for broadband mapping across many states.  Among the findings:

In order to be effective, a national broadband data-collection and mapping exercise should be conducted by a government agency, on behalf of the public, with as granular a degree of information as possible and be totally transparent so that underlying information can be evaluated.

Connected Nation is none of those and represents none of those characteristics. It is an organization sponsored by the telephone and cable companies and represents their interests in deciding what data to collect and how information should be displayed. They are quite up front about their company sponsorship and, in fact, believe it is an asset, if in a way counter to solid public policy.

It would be a setback for our broadband policy if Connected Nation were to take a prominent role in broadband mapping and data collection if it continues on its present policy course because the organization does not represent wise public policy and because it distorts its results.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) was correct in April, 2008, when he vetoed a $2.4 million appropriation for Connect Kentucky, which until then had received almost $7 million from the commonwealth. Beshear said that the program was being rejected for state financing because it had asked for funds “without specifically identifying any services to be rendered to the state or providing for any oversight, control or performance measures relative to the services being rendered.”

The group’s close association to incumbent cable and telephone company interests were easily apparent just from the national organization’s board which has 12 outside directors, eight of whom are well known cable and phone company lobbyists or those with direct interests in the industry:

• James W. Cicconi – AT&T senior executive vice president-external and legislative affairs
• Steve Largent – CTIA – The Wireless Association president and CEO
• Joseph W. Waz – Comcast senior vice president, external affairs and public policy counsel
• Larry Cohen – Communications Workers of America president. CWA is in frequent agreement with telecom companies on policy issues.
• Thomas J. Tauke – Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communication
• Walter B. McCormick – United States Telecom Association president
• Kyle E. McSlarrow – National Cable and Telecommunications Association president
• Grant Seiffert – Telecommunications Industry Association president. (The members are the equipment makers who sell their gear to the telecom industry.)

These individuals, and others, are listed as “national advisors” on the Connected Nation Web site. They are listed as “directors” in their filing with the Kentucky Secretary of State.

The implications of allowing incumbent service providers to influence broadband mapping can be seen in Baxter’s editorial.  If Texas cable and phone companies can declare broadband service available even in areas where it is not, they can then argue against broadband stimulus projects to expand availability as an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money.  The answer to Baxter’s riddle is, unfortunately, too often “none.”  Areas that declare access to wireless broadband, cable and DSL often have access to none of these options.  The cable company doesn’t wire that Texas ranch located too far away from the phone company for DSL and is in an area that just can’t get a good wireless signal.

In smaller communities in rural Texas, efforts by local entrepreneurs to launch needed local broadband services often meet fierce opposition from incumbent interests who declare communities already served, backed up with a map that shows coverage, and therefore should not be allowed to receive stimulus funding.  Often, objections from existing providers effectively disqualifies stimulus applicants and the result is a continued blockade for rural broadband.

The dividend Connected Nation hands to the Texas Cable Association is the political argument that there is no broadband problem in Texas — nearly 100 percent of homes can already access it.  That means broadband stimulus is, in the eyes of the cable lobby, just another federal government giveaway — wasteful spending of tax dollars.  Just look at the Texas Broadband Map and see for yourself.

The Texas Department of Agriculture failed the people of Texas by relying on a group with a vested interest in not finding a broadband availability problem.  And even worse — taxpayers nationwide effectively picked up the $3 million dollars in grant money given to Connected Nation for its map.  That’s a waste of tax dollars that Baxter didn’t bother to bring up.  Somehow I knew he wouldn’t.

Although not too far from Winston-Salem and Greensboro, Caswell County has a population of just over 23,000 people

In a painful display of callous disregard for the broadband needs of rural North Carolina, where half the state’s population lives, nine Republicans and two Democrats on the House Public Utilities committee voted down a bill to deliver service to 60 percent of Caswell County that currently goes without.

HB2067, introduced by Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange/Caswell) would have allowed the rural county to provide broadband service to unserved residents and businesses.  What Rep. Faison did manage to put in HB2067 was initiative towards 21st Century technology.  The bill would have authorized Caswell County to install better technology, both up and down, where Centurylink offers slow DSL as the only option.  In introducing the bill, Faison explained that recent broadband data showed only 40 percent of Caswell County had access to broadband.

Already suffering from the exodus of textile jobs that used to provide an economic base for the area, the failure to obtain broadband has proven disastrous to the work of the county’s 21st Century Group, trying to restore Caswell County’s economy with a higher-tech future.  Six years of work was blocked by CenturyLink — the local phone company and 11 legislators, who told residents they don’t deserve anything better than they already have (which is often nothing.)

Without HB2067, Caswell County cannot even apply for federal stimulus broadband grant funds because the state law doesn’t provide specific authority to deliver the service.  Faison’s bill would correct that oversight and encourage public/private partnerships to get busy bringing broadband to the region.

CenturyLink and its top lobbyist Steve Brewer would hear none of it — Goliath was afraid that David would install better technology and force Centurylink to upgrade or hit the road.

Brewer was given more than half the available time for discussion about the proposed bill to fill the ears of committee members with half-truths.

CenturyLink, Brewer claimed, was more than willing to work with the county to provide the kind of speed its business park needed, yet failed to mention its long history of refusing to expand service to unserved areas.  Brewer’s claim that 70 percent of Caswell County is served by CenturyLink doesn’t mean the company offers broadband to all of those customers.  His further claim that 90 percent of those areas include equipment that is “DSL capable” also doesn’t mean those areas are providing the service today, just that they could… someday.  Many factors can disqualify a potential customer from getting DSL service, especially in rural areas where line quality is not always the best.

Bartlett Yancey House Restaurant and Gallery, a famous landmark in Caswell County.

Faison sought to explore exactly what Brewer defined as “broadband” service.  Brewer claimed DSL service offered anywhere from “1.5 to 6Mbps,” admitting speeds decline with distance and is untenable more than three miles from the telephone company switch facility.

Of course, Caswell County’s large rural expanse puts many of the unserved beyond the maximum distance DSL can work without additional equipment.  Many rural areas that can get DSL are typically offered between 768kbps-3Mbps service.  Caswell County is so rural, it met the Rural Utility Service’s (RUS) classic definition of an underserved community.  That allowed the county to technically qualify for first round federal broadband grant funding.

Unfortunately, legislators are not always as informed as they need to be to recognize statements riddled with loopholes and asterisks.

For instance, Rep. Daniel McComas (R-New Hanover) asked whether he could get high speed Internet over a phone line.  Although Brewer answered yes, what qualifies as “high speed” was left unanswered, as was exactly how many Caswell County residents requested DSL service, only to be refused by CenturyLink.  Yes, you can get DSL broadband over a phone line — but that doesn’t mean you will in Caswell County.

“The only definition of high speed Internet in North Carolina is from a statute from 10 years ago,” Faison noted. “You would have to admit that what was high speed Internet 10 years ago is not high speed Internet today.”

Just as the call for a vote was made, Brewer delivered an uninvited closing argument — probably unnecessary since no consumers were invited to speak on the issue.  If you don’t have broadband in Caswell County, 11 legislators on that committee weren’t interested in hearing from you anyway.

Brewer said the bill was completely unnecessary, because “federal broadband grants were no longer available,” and besides, it was unfair competition for the county to deliver broadband service better than what CenturyLink provides.  Of course, broadband grants -are- still available from the RUS, and few on the committee probably understood the irony of a phone company demanding that Caswell County not be allowed to deliver quality broadband service CenturyLink refuses to provide.

The substitute Committee bill would have protected CenturyLink from their fears of "unfair" competition by not allowing the county to build out broadband service where CenturyLink already provides it if it was not better service, but the company remained adamantly opposed to the county providing broadband service even in areas where they refuse to deliver it themselves for fear they would have to offer real broadband to Caswell County.

CenturyLink also claimed the county would have ‘secret insider information’ about CenturyLink’s every move through the permit process.  The glacial pace of the phone company’s broadband expansion is hardly a secret to the residents who live there.  Besides, permits are not required for the phone company to work in their own right-of-way.  Unlike cities who control the rights of way in their corporate limits, the state owns and controls the rights of way going through the unincorporated parts of the County.  Brewer’s comments were intended to scare legislators, not inform them.  It was a flat out lie.

The vote illustrates the disconnect many in the state legislature have about broadband.  Most of those in favor of the of the bill were Democrats mostly from rural sections of the state.  Two of the “no” votes came from Democrats in urban Mecklenburg County, which includes the city of Charlotte.  Representatives Beverly Earle and Becky Carney already have several choices for broadband service where they live.  Shame on them for condemning their rural neighbors in the north to a broadband backwater.

Mecklenburg County legislators were sure in a big hurry a few years back to do the bidding of AT&T, opening the doors to their kind of competition with statewide video franchising.  U-verse, which is available in parts of Charlotte, was supposed to put a stop the relentless rate increases and deliver competition.  So far, they’ve managed to sign up around 13,000 residents out of a potential 4 million plus in North Carolina, and the rate hikes just keep on coming.

The Republicans on the committee voted lock-step against the bill, even those from rural regions of the state.  Most of them are grateful recipients of big telecom money or are not running for re-election.  None of them can be bothered to ponder better broadband for their constituents unless it comes from a company cutting them a campaign contribution check.

When the vote was over, AT&T’s lobbyist Herb Crenshaw warmly shook McComas’ hand and congratulated him for a job well done. AT&T’s next check to McComas’ campaign fund will likely be bigger than the $500 he collected during the first quarter of this year.

The hit job on the broadband needs of rural Caswell County was complete.

The Members of the House Public Utilities Committee Voting Against Better Broadband for Caswell County & The Reasons Why
…and these amounts are just from the 1st quarter of 2010!

Rep. Harold J. Brubaker (R-Randolph) — Big Bucks Brubaker ran to the bank with $4,000 from AT&T, $4,000 from CenturyLink, $2,000 from Time Warner Cable, and $2,000 from Verizon.

Rep. Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke) — Blackwell accepted $500 from AT&T and $250 from Time Warner Cable.

Rep. Becky Carney (D–Mecklenburg) — AT&T and Time Warner Cable both cut checks for $500 each for Ms. Carney.

Rep. Beverly Earle (D-Mecklenburg) — She’s nice at half the price, with a grateful CenturyLink cutting a check for $250.

Rep. W. Robert Grady (R-Onslow) — Zippo.  He’s not running for re-election.

Rep. Jim Gulley (R-Mecklenburg) — Nada.  He’s not running again either.

Rep. Julia Howard (R–Davie/Iredell) — She gets around.  AT&T found her $500, CenturyLink provided a cool $2,000, and Time Warner Cable did even better with $2,500.

Rep. Linda Johnson (R-Cabarrus) — A double mint.  AT&T $500, Time Warner Cable $500.

Rep. Daniel McComas (R-New Hanover) — AT&T gave him $500, Time Warner Cable doubled that with $1,000.

Rep. Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) — Walking around money — AT&T $500, Time Warner Cable $500.

Rep. Wil Neumann (R-Gaston) — AT&T $500, but thanks to this year’s hefty rate hike, Time Warner Cable could afford $1,000 for Mr. Neumann.

Representatives Who Supported Rural North Carolina’s Need for Better Broadband, Voting For HB2067

Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange, Caswell)

Rep. Kelly Alexander, Jr. (D–Mecklenburg)

Rep. Angela Bryant (D–Nash, Halifax)

Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford)

Rep. Marvin Lucas (D-Cumberland)

Rep. Nelson Cole (D-Rockingham)

Totals for 2010 (so far) for Telecom Contributions in the North Carolina General Assembly

AT&T $72,740

CenturyLink $51,750

Time Warner Cable $20,450

Verizon $10,500

(All figures are from the North Carolina State Board of Elections website, from candidates filings.)