Home » broadband service » Recent Articles:

Still Fighting for Net Neutrality: Does the Internet Belongs to Corporations?

Phillip Dampier

Stop the Cap! reader Kimon discovered the debate over Net Neutrality is far from over when alerting us to a strong rebuke of the net policy in a number of newspapers published regionally by GateHouse Media.

Macedon, N.Y. resident Cheryl Miller doesn’t like the federal government involving itself in the Internet, and considers the “physical part of the Internet” the private property of Internet Service Providers:

When a progressive liberal takes up a cause, you can bet he’s found another way to undermine someone else’s liberty. The issue of “net neutrality” is a prime example of this rule.

The concept of net neutrality has piggybacked into recent public interest stories about groups with high-minded names like Free Press and Public Knowledge — stories about Internet-assisted food, clothing and book drives for the needy around the world, and other such humanitarian and environmental endeavors. It is sneakily implied that the success of such undertakings are the result of net neutrality principles, but they are not.

[…] Proposed net neutrality legislation would prohibit ISPs from charging different rates for various types of content or services, such as is done with cable and satellite television (think pay-per-view and premium channels). Restricting ISPs from operating in profitable ways is a disincentive to invest in more bandwidth to better serve customers, and likewise discourages innovations that could benefit consumers. More regulation will result in less profit, less competition, higher prices and a stunted Internet.

For Miller, any government policy that interferes with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast’s view of how the Internet should be ordered amounts to a government takeover of the Internet, especially when the government can tell providers they cannot prioritize traffic or charge customers different prices to access different content.

Here at Stop the Cap!, we were unimpressed with Miller’s arguments and partisan cheap shots, especially at the expense of public policy groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge.  Perhaps she does not realize conservative groups like the Christian Coalition of America are also supporters of Net Neutrality.  But we don’t necessarily blame her either, considering all of the money being spent by corporate-funded groups to distort Net Neutrality’s ultimate goal: to ensure the same formula that made the Internet a runaway success is kept firmly in place.

Our formal response appeared in the same newspapers this afternoon:

Canandaigua, N.Y. — The most ironic part of Cheryl Miller’s commentary, “The Internet is no place for neutrality” (May 17 Daily Messenger), is that the Internet itself was created by the government. Government can do some things right, and succeeded with the Internet’s founding principle that all content was to be treated equally — judged on its merits, not the asking price some Internet service providers want to charge for unimpeded access.

Miller has fundamentally misunderstood what “net neutrality” is all about, and that may not be her fault. Millions are being spent by big cable and phone company lobbyists and their “dollar-a-holler” advocacy groups to distort net neutrality’s guarantee of a free and open Internet. This is not a government takeover of the Internet. It’s an insurance policy that keeps rapacious phone and cable companies from finding new ways to raise prices for Internet access and control which websites get priority and which go to the back of the line.

The concept is simple. You already pay plenty to your local phone or cable company to cover their costs providing access to the Internet and the online content you enjoy. Our website, along with every other, contributes our fair share by paying a web hosting company to make that content available online. Now big cable and phone companies want to be paid twice to deliver that content — once by you and once again by me. Imagine paying for a long-distance call and learning AT&T also wants to bill whoever answers.

What happens if a website refuses to pay? They can block access, artificially slow it down or charge a pay-per-view fee each time you visit, on top of your monthly Internet bill. Here’s the real kicker. They could charge you extra to read this newspaper online, and keep all of the proceeds for themselves.

That sure sounds like making money off someone else’s hard work. I’m sure Miller would be displeased if I billed everyone $5 to read her column in a newspaper I don’t own.

The truth is, companies like Verizon and Time Warner Cable are well-paid, overpaid if you ask me, to deliver broadband service they collectively earn billions in profits providing. But anyone who pays a cable bill already knows it’s never enough. These are the same companies that want the right to charge you for every website you visit while opposing letting you pay for only the TV channels you want to watch.

Phillip M. Dampier of Brighton is the editor of Stop the Cap!, a consumer broadband advocacy website.

Organized Labor Assisting Group Pushing for Verizon FiOS Expansion in Buffalo

Phillip Dampier May 19, 2011 Broadband Speed, Verizon, Video 2 Comments

Buffalo’s communications labor unions are behind an organized effort to push Verizon Communications to expand its fiber-to-the-home service to the city of Buffalo, despite the fact the telecom company has a moratorium on service expansion beyond its existing commitments.

Buffalo AFL-CIO Central Labor Council President Michael Hoffert and CWA (Communications Workers of America) Local 1122 President James Wagner teamed up with the city’s elected officials and community advocates to pressure the phone company to expand service beyond several suburbs that currently get the service.

A professionally designed website, DontBypassBuffalo.com, is the home of the campaign, collecting signatures from interested residents and sharing late-breaking developments.

Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service.

“Verizon’s FiOS service is a cutting-edge technology that brings ultra-fast internet and superior video programming over fiber optic cables that run directly into customers’ homes,” reads a statement from the coalition. “While Verizon is deploying FiOS throughout many of the suburbs of Buffalo, they are not building FiOS in the City of Buffalo.  The residents of Amherst, Tonawanda, Kenmore, Orchard Park, Hamburg, West Seneca and Lackawanna, where Verizon has built FiOS, are, taken as a whole, more affluent and less diverse than Buffalo residents.  The deployment of broadband technologies is a key to economic redevelopment in the City, especially since health care and higher education, both very dependent on cutting edge technologies, are leading employers in our area.  If Verizon continues to bypass Buffalo, residential consumers, children, and area businesses won’t be able to thrive in the 21st century economy.”

The union shares an interest in bringing the advanced service to more residents across Erie County as it collectively represents some of the Verizon employees who will service the fiber network.  Three western New York chapters of the CWA – Locals 1122, 1115 and 1177 – represent nearly 750 Verizon Workers across Erie, Genesee and Niagara counties, as well as across the Southern Tier, including field technicians, central office technicians and clerical staff.

Curry (WIVB-TV)

Verizon stalled new rollouts of its fiber optic network more than a year ago, and has consistently said it would only expand service in areas where it already has signed agreements with local communities.  In many regions, Verizon has completed agreements with towns and villages before reaching accommodations with larger urban areas.  Buffalo is not alone in protesting for improved broadband service.  Washington, D.C., Baltimore and Boston have also complained about being bypassed.

Last week, Coalition Director Janique Curry stepped up the pressure on the phone company at a press conference in front of Verizon’s Elmwood Avenue headquarters.

“Verizon’s lack of commitment to the minority population in the city of Buffalo is unacceptable,” Curry said.  “This community deserves an equal opportunity as our neighbors in the suburbs experience.”

Verizon’s FiOS network in New York State currently serves parts of metropolitan New York City and suburban areas around Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/DontBypassBuffalo Apr-May 2011.flv[/flv]

Here are three reports on the protests: WIVB-TV and WKBW-TV’s coverage of the protest in April, and WIVB’s most recent story covering last week’s return to Verizon headquarters to apply additional pressure on the company.  (3 minutes)

United Arab Emirates Forecast to Achieve 100% Broadband Penetration by 2012

Phillip Dampier May 17, 2011 Broadband Speed, Competition, Public Policy & Gov't, Rural Broadband Comments Off on United Arab Emirates Forecast to Achieve 100% Broadband Penetration by 2012

United Arab Emirates

While North American broadband providers complain about the costs of wiring America’s rural expanse, the United Arab Emirates is on track to deliver 100 percent of its citizens with high speed broadband service by the end of next year.

The UAE made fiber optic broadband a priority, despite the fact the individual emirates that make up the federation are often separated by vast, rural salt pans, sand dunes, and mountain regions.

Sultan Bin Saeed Al Mansoori, UAE’s Minister of Economy told attendees at the Abu Dhabi Telecoms CEO Summit that despite the fact the country is already a mature market for telecommunications products, healthy competition is driving providers to temporarily reduce revenue expectations as they invest heavily to deliver better service to the UAE’s 8.3 million residents.

Broadband providers in the UAE already deliver a vastly superior experience than most customers in North America receive, and the country is currently measured as the world’s fifth fastest by Akamai.  The average broadband connection speed in the UAE exceeds 25Mbps, and that is before fiber-to-the-home service becomes available to nearly every home in the Emirates.

Al Mansoori

Providers are spending considerable sums of money to improve their networks to deliver faster, more reliable service to even the most rural communities.

”Customers definitely have gained from this diversity,” noted Al Mansoori.  “For operators, revenues have dropped in the short term but I understand this was something anticipated, and which the industry is well-equipped to eventually absorb.”

The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) reports 2011 may be the biggest year ever in communications spending, with the world’s fastest growing telecommunications markets being in the Middle East and Africa.

The UAE’s largest phone company, Etisalat, is now a major player in 18 markets across the Middle East and North Africa and has over 100 million customers.

Al Mansoori noted that fiber-to-the-home service was best equipped to deliver UAE world-class broadband service at an affordable rate to consumers.  He further recognized that robust competition inspired the country’s telecommunications companies to choose that technology to best compete with other players in the market — wired and wireless.

“Superior infrastructure that enables social and economic growth that keeps the UAE in the forefront of technology is an integral part of our development vision,” he declared.

New Study Proves What You Already Knew: Satellite Fraudband Is No Replacement for the Real Thing

The Rural Mobile and Broadband Alliance (RuMBA) USA released a whitepaper this week concluding that satellite-delivered broadband is more promise than results.

“When measured against the prevailing definition of broadband, satellite technology falls far short of conventional wired and wireless alternatives, mainly due to latency, bandwidth, price, performance and service shortcomings,” the Alliance wrote in a statement.

In other words, everything.

“Given the limitations of satellite Internet service detailed in this report, RuMBA cannot consider satellite a viable solution for rural communities who are increasingly cut off from mainstream America by the lack of access to affordable broadband service,” says Luisa Handem, founder and Managing Director of RuMBA USA.

“There is every indication that America’s reliance on broadband is only going to increase, especially in the areas of business, education, healthcare, government and entertainment, so it is vital that America’s rural communities have all the facts before deciding on broadband access, and delivering those facts is what this paper is about,” says Sascha Meinrath, Director of Open Technology Initiative, New America Foundation.

Among the Key Findings:

  • The latency inherent in satellite Internet connections limits their use for standard broadband functions such as Voice over IP (VoIP) and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).
  • The capacity limits of satellite Internet service rule out broadband functionality taken for granted by Americans living in communities served by cable, fiber optic, and DSL services. These functions include automatic software updates, online backup, streaming video, telecommuting, and website hosting.
  • Notwithstanding those limitations satellite Internet service is less affordable than wired Internet service.

While Stephen Cobb, author of a whitepaper on the subject, considers satellite Internet access an amazing technology, it has proved to be a poor substitute for ground-based, wired alternatives, including DSL.

More than 20 million rural Americans live without any access to the Internet, despite the country’s growing reliance on broadband service.  Those that do subscribe to satellite service generally report a dismal experience, in part because of a punitive usage limit that dramatically lowers already-slow speeds when exceeded.  Weather disturbances and heavy snow can also disrupt satellite signals, and contract terms often carry hefty termination fees if one cancels before the end of the contract.

Mexican Cities Getting Multiple Fiber to the Home Providers While You Are Stuck With 3Mbps DSL

Phillip Dampier May 11, 2011 Broadband Speed, Competition 1 Comment

Telefonos de Mexico is known as Telmex, the country's largest telecommunications provider.

Mexico’s largest phone company Telefonos de Mexico SAB is not about to allow themselves to be outgunned by upstart competitors like mobile-phone carrier Grupo Iusacell SA, which is installing fiber to the home broadband service in up to 40 cities offering 100Mbps speeds.  Now they are working on a fiber to the home network of their own, planned to reach up to one million Mexicans by the end of this year.

Mexico’s broadband expansion is coming on all fronts.  Cablevision (no relation to the U.S. company with the same name) is delivering cable broadband service to an increasing number of cities.  But news that consumers will soon have the choice of not one, but two fiber to the home networks has the country buzzing with excitement.

“Fiber-to-the-home is the best technology that exists,” Martin Lara, an analyst at Corp. Actinver SAB in Mexico City told Bloomberg News. “It’s going to be good for the consumer.”

The broadband speeds in Mexico will rapidly exceed those in the United States if the two fiber providers end up in a speed and pricing war .  For now, Telefonos plans on offering packages of 10, 20 and 50Mbps to subscribers.  That may increase to 100Mbps if competitors make an issue about maximum available speeds.  That’s quite a change from traditional DSL packages from Telefonos, which range from 1-5Mbps in most areas.

Upstart Iusacell is Mexico's third largest cell phone provider, but it has big plans for fiber-to-the-home service.

Iusacell, mostly known for its cell phone service, is building its own quad-play of wired fiber broadband, television, and telephone service — wireless and wired.  It’s Totalplay package risks Telefonos’ decades of dominance in the Mexican telecommunications marketplace, so the phone company is investing to compete.  The company’s Telmex landline customers are switching to wireless just like customers in the United States and Canada, so developing an attractive multi-element package is critical to keeping customers.

Mexico’s telecommunications laws are different from those in the United States.  Mexico’s dominant phone company has traditionally been prohibited from offering video services to their customers — a policy designed to protect cable providers and other competitors from heavyweight competition.  Those policies are likely to be revisited as a result of competitive fiber initiatives.  Additionally, Mexican providers have not been required to wire entire communities as part of operating agreements, and many don’t.  Instead, most cable and fiber providers build in lucrative neighborhoods where higher income residents live, often leaving poorer neighborhoods unwired. Foreign investment is also common in Mexico, with American and British companies joining Mexican super-billionaire Carlos Slim in financing and/or building out the advanced networks.

Mexico’s decision to adopt the latest fiber technology straight to customer homes increases questions about why American providers are mostly unwilling to do the same.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!