The FCC today voted unanimously to begin writing a formal Net Neutrality policy to govern broadband services across the United States.  Three Democratic commissioners voted yes and applauded the concept of Net Neutrality.  The two Republican commissioners also voted to move the process forward, but signaled they would likely oppose the final draft of the rules.

Support for Net Neutrality, which would prohibit providers from slowing down, blocking, or charging higher pricing for favored access to web content, was spearheaded by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Genachowski said the rules were needed to protect consumers from abusive behavior by telecommunications companies that might seek to block or restrict access to broadband content, including telephone and video services.

“Internet users should always have the final say about their online service, whether it’s the software, applications or services they choose, or the networks and hardware they use to the connect to the Internet,” Genachowski said.

Other Democratic commissioners agreed with Genachowski.  Commissioner Michael Copps stated it was important to hear from everyone about the proposed rules.

“We need to recognize that the gatekeepers of today may not be the gatekeepers of tomorrow,” Copps said.

John McCain

Many Republicans were unconvinced of the need to establish Net Neutrality as formal policy.

“I do not share the majority’s view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks, nor do I believe that the government is the best tool to fix it,” Republican commissioner Robert McDowell said.

“These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace,” Sen. John McCain wrote in an opinion piece published by The Washington Times.

McCain compared Net Neutrality with the federal bailout of Wall Street and the American auto industry.

Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service:

1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;
3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;
4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers;
5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and
6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.

The draft rules make clear that providers would also be permitted to address harmful traffic and traffic unwanted by users, such as spam, and prevent both the transfer of unlawful content, such as child pornography, and the unlawful transfer of content, such as a transfer that would infringe copyright.

Today’s vote marks only a beginning of the process to begin writing the formal policy of Net Neutrality governing Internet use in the United States.  As with the ponderous debate on health care reform, what ends up defining “Net Neutrality” will be open to interpretation, and a barrage of lobbyists and arm twisting from politicians will be part of what comes next.

On the eve of the historic vote, Verizon Communications seemed to join Google in affirming some of the basic principles of Net Neutrality.

However, the devil is in the details, as is always the case in telecommunications policy.

Verizon supports its own interpretation of Net Neutrality, which is wrapped in a concept they call “innovation without permission,” which is code language for a deregulatory open free-market environment.  It broadly accepts the concept that telecommunications companies should not interfere with legal content, but the company doesn’t want a whole barrage of new regulations to specifically define what would constitute “interference.”  Verizon believes onerous rules would stifle investment, and that existing rules already in place at the FCC are sufficient protection.

Things get downright dicey when Verizon spells out its “network management” principles, warning the FCC overly specific rules in this area could have unintended consequences.

Broadband network providers should have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, “malware” and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future–so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers’ preferences, and don’t unreasonably discriminate in ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive. They should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television.

It is in this area where very specific rules are appropriate to write, because what one company defines as appropriate “network management,” could be discriminatory against selected content those providers seek to “manage.”

No broadband user has ever objected to network management that controls spam, “malware,” denial of service attacks, and other like-minded traffic.  In fact, most consumers wish more could be done to control these things.  Nothing in the current framework of telecommunications regulations or in those proposed have ever sought to impede this type of management.

No consumer minds having access to additional content, such as IP television.  But consumers do object when such content is used as an excuse to ram through Internet Overcharging schemes limiting broadband usage or imposing higher fees for using the types of services companies like Verizon now advocate.  “The broadband sky is falling” rhetoric about “exafloods,” overloaded “Internet brownouts,” and other such scaremongering nonsense often comes from the same providers that now want to provide IP television.  What they provide with their left hand, they want to limit with their right.

It’s anti-competitive, because the same companies with an interest in selling these pay television services (FiOS, cable television, fiber-telephone U-verse, etc.) also provide the broadband service that companies like Netflix and Hulu use to indirectly challenge their video business models.

Another concern is “traffic congestion” management, which all too often has meant speed throttles selectively imposed on “offending” applications, particularly peer to peer traffic.  There is good traffic management, such as routing equipment that provides even delivery of services like streaming video and Voice Over IP telephone calls, which rapidly deteriorate on loaded down networks, and then there is bad traffic management which selectively slows down the speed of whatever the provider deems to be of “lower priority.”  Allowing the customer to make the decision about which traffic gets priority is one thing.  Allowing a provider to do it without the consent of the customer is quite another.

Too often, the “unintended consequences” Verizon and Google speak about in the joint statement go to the provider’s favor, not to the consumer.  Overly broad, non-specific language opens loopholes through which providers will eagerly leap through.

Verizon also advocates transparency — “All providers of broadband access, services and applications should provide their customers with clear information about their offerings.”

Disclosure alone doesn’t suffice for consumers, particularly if there are few competitive places to take your business if you disagree with company policies.  Those rules should include realistic speed information (marketing stating “up to 10Mbps” that in reality only delivers 3Mbps would be one example).  It should not simply be an escape clause for providers to abuse their customers with throttled, slow service, and give them the excuse that “we disclosed it.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Federal Communications Commission Open Meeting

October 22, 2009

112 minutes

(Warning: Loud audio)

NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

The New York State Attorney General has slapped Frontier Communications with a $35,000 fine and ordered the phone company to refund up to $50,000 it wrongfully charged consumers in so-called “early termination fees” for telephone and broadband service — fees consumers were never properly informed about at the time they ordered service.

“Frontier failed to spell out in its contracts the existence of costly fees,” said Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo. “The company is now fixing the issue by providing written notices of these fees and paying back consumers who were wrongfully charged.”

Frontier, located on South Clinton Avenue in Rochester, provides high speed broadband Internet service (FrontierHSI) and local and long distance telephone service. Between January 2007 and September 2008, Frontier sold bundles of various services under one-, two- or three-year agreements known as Price Protection Plans that offered a lower rate than month-to-month service as well as a promise that the subscription rate would not increase during the term of the plan. However, Frontier charged early termination fees to consumers who terminated a service before the end of the term. These fees typically ranged between $50 and $400, depending on the contents and services included in the package.

The Attorney General’s investigation determined that consumers who purchased one-year bundle agreements were never provided with written notice of the term or the existence of an early termination fee. The investigation also uncovered that consumers were not notified in their monthly billing statement that their agreements contained early termination fees. Therefore, many consumers first learned about the fee only after they canceled their service with Frontier and the charge appeared on their final bill.

In at least one instance, Frontier automatically re-enrolled a consumer to a term commitment after the initial term expired and then charged an early termination fee when she canceled after the initial term.

This is not the first time Frontier’s promotions have faced scrutiny by a New York Attorney General.  In March 2006, Frontier agreed to pay $80,000 in penalties and around $300,000 in customer refunds for what former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer called “misleading advertising and marketing tactics.”

Frontier’s customer service centers have often provided uneven service to consumers calling for information about products and services.  Stop the Cap!‘s editor, yours truly, had a number of problems when sampling Frontier’s DSL service during the Time Warner Cable Internet Overcharging experiment.  In addition to inconsistent product information, pricing, and terms and conditions, customer service representatives were ill-equipped to properly describe their own lineup of products, at one point promoting their wireless wi-fi network service in Rochester as “wee-fee.”

After the company couldn’t provide DSL service to my residence at speeds better than 3.1Mbps, service cancellation did not result in an early termination fee, but did cause serious billing foul-ups that took multiple calls to sort out.

In 2008, Stop the Cap! helped many customers cancel their DSL service without incurring early termination fees when the company introduced a 5GB usage limitation in their Acceptable Use Policy, under the provision allowing customers to opt-out of materially adverse changes in their service.  The company later announced customers under their Price Protection Agreement would not be subject to any service limitations until those agreements expired.

In January 2009, Attorney General Cuomo’s Office began investigating Frontier Communications and its subsidiaries after receiving dozens of complaints from consumers who were unexpectedly charged early termination fees.

Through an agreement with Attorney General Cuomo’s Office, Frontier must pay up to $50,000 in refunds and credits of early termination fees paid by eligible consumers who filed complaints prior to December 31, 2008. The company has provided the Attorney General’s Office a list of those eligible for refunds or credits.

Frontier's headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Other consumers who believe they are eligible for a refund or credit may submit a claim to the Attorney General’s Office by December 21, which will review the claims and act as the final arbiter for eligibility for reimbursement. Consumers wishing to file a complaint should call the Attorney General’s Rochester Regional Office at (585) 327-3240.  A promised web-based claim form could not be located on the NY Attorney General’s website at press time.  Residents living outside of New York State are not eligible to participate, but you may want to contact your own state’s Attorney General and ask them to review the New York settlement agreement, which could provide the basis for similar settlements in other states.

Frontier must also pay $35,000 in fees and costs. Frontier will send written notices to all customers who subscribe to new services regarding early termination fees. The company will not collect any such fee until after the notice has been sent. Frontier must also include a written notice of the term of any service agreement on consumers’ monthly billing statement for any agreement with an early termination fee.

Many customers never realized Frontier automatically renewed their Price Protection Agreements without their explicit consent, generating early termination fees of $300 for some customers who left after more than five years of service with the company.

JuniPerez, a former Frontier customer, wondered whether Frontier was offering a Price Protection Lifetime Agreement: “I had Frontier’s DSL and phone service for about five to six years (phone service for much longer). After my last move, I switched to Time Warner’s phone, cable, and broadband package. Within two weeks of notifying Frontier of my service cancellation, they sent me my last bill — $300.00! This was for what they called an “Early Termination Fee”. After five to six years I had an early termination fee? I didn’t even get a chance to dispute it. Within days (not weeks or months) they turned the account over to a collection agency. They still dare to send me ‘come back to us’ flyers and specials.”

Some Frontier customers sign up for bundled packages of service to receive incentives, such as heavily discounted satellite television service or a “free” Dell netbook (after paying $45 in fees for taxes and shipping), in return for signing a two- or three-year Price Protection Agreement.  The agreement promises customers will not see any changes in pricing for the length of the agreement.  At the same time, the agreement “locks-in” the customer to stay with the company for the length of the contract, or face a penalty for canceling service early.  In many cases involving incentives, the early termination fee amounted to $300.

But Frontier appears to have made some changes even before yesterday’s settlement with the Attorney General.

As of at least this past spring, customers signing up for a promotion with a Price Protection Agreement were directed verbally to an e-mail copy of the agreement sent to them, urged to read it, and were required to electronically consent to the terms of the agreement in order to participate in the company’s promotions.  Follow-up e-mails were sent to customers who did not complete this process.  The contract also included provisions notifying customers that agreements were automatically renewed for an additional term unless the customer notified the company in advance they did not consent to automatic renewal.  In fact, customers could cancel the contract renewal almost immediately after electronically consenting to it.

Frontier’s e-mail was sent to the customer’s Frontier e-mail account, which some customers never used and never accessed.  For some, the terms amounted to “fine print” that many never read.  While the New York Attorney General ultimately found Frontier Communications responsible for failing to adequately notify customers about such fees, Stop the Cap! reminds the public they have a responsibility to carefully read and review the terms and conditions of all service agreements, especially those involving promotional giveaways tied to service commitments like Price Protection Agreements.  Many have historically carried steep cancellation penalties as well as automatic renewal provisions designed to keep you from switching providers.  Such agreements should be considered only if you are certain you are happy with your service provider.  If you are trying a service for the first time, inquire whether you can sample the service for a trial period and retain the right to cancel without incurring penalties.  Frontier traditionally offers a 30-day trial period for DSL service.  Always record the time and day you made the inquiry, and the name of the customer service representative you spoke with.  Should you be given incorrect or inconsistent information, being armed with this information may help convince the provider to agree to what you were promised.

Customers who are not satisfied with the response they receive from a customer service representative or their immediate supervisor should check the front of their telephone directory for the number of the “executive customer service office,” sometimes also called, “unresolved complaints.”  These special representatives are empowered to resolve complaints customer service representatives may not have the authority to fix.  Failing that, contact your state’s Public Utilities/Service Commission or the Attorney General’s office.

Two video news reports appear below the fold.

… Continue Reading

Viewers may have to stick with TV to watch the Olympics for free.

While the rest of the wired world gets ready to sit back and enjoy Olympics coverage from China, Americans are being told you can have the Olympics online, but you better not have metered broadband access.

When NBC partnered with TVTonic to provide NBC Olympics On The Go,  it had to specifically warn viewers with metered broadband access not to bother.   Streaming high quality video feeds can consume a significant amount of bandwidth, and can easily allow unassuming viewers to win the the gold in the Biggest Bandwidth Overlimit Fee competition.

TVTonic's warning to broadband users to not use the service if they are using a broadband provider with usage caps.

Content providers are starting to wake up to the real threat of the imposition of usage caps across the United States, limiting cable and DSL broadband customers from accessing content that was developed specifically for the broadband platform.

TVTonic is just one of several online services that could effectively be shut out of doing business in the United States because of broadband usage caps.   The company provides access to over 100 broadband Internet TV feeds, many transmitted in “high definition” quality, all of which would bring viewers ever closer to hitting their monthly limit.

Other providers such as Hulu and Joost provide legal access to hundreds of TV series, movies and specials at no charge to viewers.   But with bandwidth usage caps, will you be willing to spend your limited bandwidth watching?

Suspiciously, the “bandwidth crisis” that the industry continues to blame for the imposition of unreasonable usage caps stops at the water’s edge.   Customers in Japan and Korea enjoy broadband connections often a hundred times faster than what is available in the United States, at much lower prices and no restrictive caps.   In fact, outside of North America, nobody has heard of a bandwidth crisis.

While many broadband providers continue to reap handsome profits from their broadband services, demands for higher shareholder returns and struggling quarterly results from their other product lines in a stagnant economy have led many to decide investing in a lobbying scare campaign is a better use of their money.   It’s easier to try and convince Americans they are the problem, and limit service accordingly.