Lebanese consumers and businesses are fed up with Lebanon’s archaic Internet infrastructure and the usage limits that come with it.

Now the country is waiting with anticipation as the government prepares to open up new bandwidth from a 3.84 terabit per second underseas cable that passes through the region, but has been left idle since last December.

Lebanon’s Internet is ranked among the slowest in the world, mostly thanks to an over-controlling state telecommunications authority that has priced broadband Internet access into the stratosphere.  Most Lebanese cannot afford the ridiculously slow and expensive “top speed” DSL connections offered by the country’s phone company, offering “up to 2Mbps” speeds for $200US per month.  Instead, most lower income households still use dial-up access, while Lebanon’s middle class settles for 256kbps DSL that still runs a ridiculous $25 a month.

But the 60 percent of the country choosing 256kbps Internet finds even those speeds less than useful when considering they come with a usage allowance of a paltry 3GB per month.  Going over that limit delivers an expensive lesson.  Excess usage is billed at $17 per gigabyte.

Ghanem

Lebanon’s Ministry of Communications, who made the announcement of the forthcoming access improvements, didn’t impress many consumers with word they would “double or triple” the usage cap to celebrate forthcoming speed increases.

“It [is] like entering [the knowledge economy] through a small window,” said Diana Bou Ghanem, head of the the ministry’s ICT office.

Even with the forthcoming improvements, government controls have kept Lebanon’s Internet in the dark ages.  Broadband statistics reveal war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq enjoy faster broadband than Lebanon, and some of the world’s poorest countries like Zambia and Tanzania enjoy speeds twice as fast as those found in downtown Beirut.

Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper covered the broadband debacle with some alarming reporting suggesting some of the government’s key officials on telecommunications barely grasp telecommunications networks, policies, and practical realities.

For example, former Telecom Minister Charbel Nahhas, a major booster of Lebanon’s forthcoming foray into 3G wireless broadband, seems to believe such networks will deliver up to 20Mbps to Lebanese cell phone users.

Nahhas considers 3G cutting edge for Lebanon, even as the rest of the world prepares to retire it for faster 4G wireless networks.

Telecom Minister Adviser Antoine Boustani seems to think broadband is a tangible resource that can be exported like oil, gas, or electricity.

“We will have an overflow of capacity with [the new underseas cable],” Boustani told the newspaper. “We could even distribute the excess to other countries.”

Ogero is the state-administered phone company in Lebanon.

The Lebanese government and state run phone company — Ogero — have even been willing to celebrate broadband achievements both have regularly failed to meet:

Ogero had planned to host a huge party announcing the [underseas] cable last December, under the auspices of then Prime Minister Saad Hariri. According to sources close to the affair, it was to feature a seated dinner for some 500 persons at the prestigious Pavillion Biel, prime time live television coverage and even Lebanese Opera singer Hiba Kawas, who was commissioned to write a song for the event, performed with a full orchestra. Despite the fact that the Lebanese leadership failed to deliver broadband to its citizens for the past decade, some 10 trophies were to be crafted by the Lebanese sculptor Rudy Rahme and distributed to various officials.

But all this was cancelled when then Telecoms Minister Nahhas received an invitation and challenged Ogero’s role in managing the [underseas] cable and the prime minister’s patronage of it.

Lebanon is following developments elsewhere in the region where broadband usage limits are becoming a thing of the past. When a cartel of Kuwaiti ISP’s threatened to introduce new usage caps in unison, a full-scale consumer revolt forced the government to ban usage caps in the country.

“The Internet has become a cornerstone in development, economy and everyday life in Kuwait,” the country’s telecoms minister, Salem al-Uthayna, said last month in explaining the decision to abolish caps.

Most observers place the blame for Lebanon’s snail-like broadband development at the feet of the government and the state-run phone company, which has blocked efforts to radically change broadband in the country.

Critics accuse both the government and phone company of fearing major market changes, preferring incremental development over a full-scale broadband revolution.  But not everyone is a critic.

“It’s better to look for solutions – play it in a positive way,” said Abu Ghanem, who has worked at the ministry for 15 years. “I don’t want to blame anyone. Just let us work and let us deliver.”

One member of the private sector trying to put Lebanon’s bottom-rated broadband in a different context suggested citizens look on the bright side.

“OK, we are last in Internet [speed] but we are better at other things,” the source added. “Look at the price of real estate in Beirut.”

Prime Minister Harper's government is facing an open revolt by Canadian consumers over Internet Overcharging.

A full-scale revolt among consumers across Canada has brought the issue of Internet Overcharging to the highest levels of government.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the government is very concerned about a decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that has effectively forced the end of unlimited use broadband plans across the country.

Both the Liberal and NDP parties have made a point of protesting the CRTC decision, which happened under the Conservative Party’s watch.  Harper’s Industry Minister Tony Clement stepped up his remarks this morning which hint the government is prepared to quash last week’s decision by the CRTC, which has already forced price increases for broadband service across the country.

“The decision on its face has some pretty severe impacts,” Clement told reporters in Ottawa after NDP and Liberal critics in the House of Commons repeatedly pounded the government on the issue of so-called “usage-based billing.”

“I indicated the impacts on consumers, on small business operators, on creators, on innovators. So that’s why I have to work through a process, cross my T’s, doc my I’s. When you’re dealing with a legal process, that’s what you have to do. But I will be doing that very, very quickly, and getting back to the prime minister and my colleagues very, very quickly,” said Clement.

As of this morning, more than 286,000 Canadians have signed a petition protesting the Internet Overcharging schemes.

The protest movement has now been joined by small and medium-sized business groups who fear the impact new Internet pricing will have on their businesses.

Richard Truscott, with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, normally a group that prefers less government action, said his members are demanding a stop to the pricing schemes before they get started.

“The vast majority of small businesses rely on reasonably-priced Internet service to conduct their operations,” he said. “Generally this is the sort of thing that hits the most innovative sector with higher costs.”

Most cable and phone companies are lobbying Ottawa politicians to keep the new usage-based billing schemes, and several are pretending the protest movement doesn’t exist.

AgenceQMI, a cable-company owned wire service, is also coming under fire for misrepresenting Clement’s positions on the pricing schemes in a news report issued yesterday.  The wire service claimed Clement supported the CRTC’s position, something Clement adamantly denied this morning.

The National Post, a self-described conservative newspaper, this morning published an editorial supporting usage-based pricing, claiming a handful of users were creating a problem that light users should not pay to solve.  But many readers leaving comments on the article strongly disagreed, claiming the newspaper is out of touch.

Although the regime of usage caps, speed throttles, and overlimit fees have been in place with most major providers for at least two years, the culmination of several events in the last six months have brought the issue to the boiling point:

1. The arrival of Netflix video streaming, which provides unlimited access for a flat monthly fee;
2. The ongoing limbo dance among several providers who are reducing usage allowances when competitive threats arrive;
3. The increase in providers now enforcing usage limits by billing consumers overlimit fees that spike broadband bills;
4. Recent examples of bill shock, which have left some consumers with thousands of dollars in Internet charges.

Bill Shock

Kevin Brennan, a graphic designer who works from home and downloads large files from clients, was first hit with extra charges in November, which cost him $34 above his usual Shaw bill.

“I’d never been contacted about going over before,” he told the Calgary Herald, adding he was also over in December. “Thirty-four dollars doesn’t seem like much, but over the course of a year it adds up.

“What concerns me, outside my own business, is the lack of innovation people will be able to do. And it makes Shaw a monopoly. . . . if you watch TV or the Internet, you pay more to them.”

Shaw reduced its usage allowance for customers like Brennan late last year from 75 to 60GB on its most popular broadband plan.  It also now enforces a $2/GB overlimit fee.

John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, told the Herald the concern isn’t just that smaller companies can no longer offer unlimited plans, which reduces competition.

“The phone and Internet and cable companies of the world are playing it both ways. They’re saying, ‘Well, there’s these big data hogs that are using too much, we’ve got to punish them to keep the price down.’ On the other hand they’re buying media companies so they have stuff to shove down the wires, which doesn’t count toward your cap,” Lawford said. “That’s anti-competitive.”

Most Canadian media companies are now tightly integrated with large telecommunications companies.  CTV, Canada’s largest commercial network, is now owned by Bell, the country’s biggest phone company.  Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron — the largest cable companies in Canada own cable and broadcast stations, newspapers, and magazines.  They also control cellphone companies, Wi-Fi networks, and have interests in satellite providers as well.

When a competitor like Netflix arrives to challenge the companies’ pay television interests, turning down consumers’ broadband usage allowances discourages cord-cutting.

The CRTC’s decision to allow Bell to charge usage-based pricing for wholesale accounts was the final death blow to unlimited Internet according to several independent service providers, because virtually all of them rely on Bell — a company that received taxpayer subsidies to build its broadband network — for access to the Internet.

Canadian Parliament

TekSavvy, a company that used to offer unlimited use plans, can do so no more.  In a statement to customers, TekSavvy laid blame on regulators for being forced to increase prices.

“From March 1 on, users of the up to 5Mbps packages in Ontario can expect a usage cap of 25Gb (60Gb in Quebec), substantially down from the 200Gb or unlimited deals TekSavvy was able to offer before the CRTC’s decision to impose usage based billing,” read a statement sent to customers.

TekSavvy spokeswoman Katie do Forno said the CRTC decision is a disaster for Canadian broadband in the new digital economy.

“This will result in unjustifiably high prices and a reduction in innovation,” said do Forno. “I think it’s going to change behavior about how people use the Internet.”

The company underlines the point by including “before and after” pricing schedules on its website, an unprecedented move.  Shaw, western Canada’s largest cable company, was heavily criticized for trying to hide their reduction in usage allowances.

Ottawa residents are planning direct action to protest the decision this Saturday.  Shawn Pepin is organizing the protest rally.

“What they’re doing right now looks like a cash-grab scheme, and people aren’t going to take it,” he said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Pay As You Go Tony Clement 2-1-11.flv[/flv]

Minister of Industry Tony Clement was pressed by CBC Television about the Harper Government’s stand on Internet Overcharging.  The CBC asks why Canadians are paying some of the world’s highest prices for broadband and why Clement is finally getting involved.  Watch as he mysteriously avoids stating the obvious: Canadians are in open revolt and politicians from competing parties are taking their side.  (9 minutes)

The Cowardly Lion is back.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski believes he has a sound legal basis to implement Net Neutrality policies to protect Internet traffic from provider interference, but has stopped considerably short of implementing his own proposed enforcement mechanisms.

Genachowski outlined his ideas to implement Net Neutrality reform in brief remarks before the Commission this morning.

“Broadband providers have natural business incentives to leverage their position as gatekeepers to the Internet,” the text of the speech says. “The record in the proceeding we’ve run over the past year, as well as history, shows that there are real risks to the Internet’s continued freedom and openness.”

Genachowski praised the progress the Internet has managed to achieve over the past decade, and said his efforts would ensure that progress could continue with a minimum of regulation.  In that spirit, Genachowski announced he would not move that the Commission re-assert its legal authority to oversee broadband by a process to reclassify the service under Title II, which governs telecommunications services.

Comcast successfully sued for repeal of the Commission’s original authority, implemented by Bush FCC chairman Michael Powell, which classified broadband as “an information service.”  A DC Circuit Court discarded the legal basis for Powell’s regulatory authority in a sweeping victory for the cable giant, which was sued for throttling down speeds for broadband customers using peer to peer applications.

Genachowski argued he has “a sound legal basis” to pursue his latest vision of Net Neutrality rules in spite of the earlier court case.  But critics doubt that and charge that the FCC chairman has capitulated to America’s largest broadband providers, including Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

Genachowski's view of the Internet does not meet the realities consumers face without Net Neutrality protection assuring a free and open Internet.

“By not restoring the FCC’s authority, Chairman Genachowski is unnecessarily placing his Net Neutrality agenda, and indeed his entire broadband agenda, at risk,” said Free Press executive director Josh Silver.

Boiled down, Genachowski now seeks just two major principles governing provider behavior:

1. No censorship of content.
2. Full disclosure of network management techniques so consumers know what providers are doing to their broadband connections.

Consumer groups are furious that the chairman has apparently discarded many of Net Neutrality’s most important consumer protections, and accused him of caving in to lobbyist demands and abdicating his responsibility to oversee critical broadband infrastructure.

Marvin Ammori, a cyber-activist and public interest law professor said the proposal also fell well short of meeting President Barack Obama’s repeated promises to enact strong Net Neutrality policies.

“It’s make-believe Net Neutrality,” said Ammori, who called Genachowski’s proposals “garbage” and “meaningless gestures.”

Now off the table:

A ban on Internet Overcharging schemes that allow providers to limit, throttle, or overcharge consumers who use more than an arbitrary amount of Internet usage per month. This exposes home broadband users to the same kinds of bill shock that wireless customers already experience.

A ban on using “network management” to artificially slow or block traffic the provider — at its sole discretion — determines is “harmful” or “congests” their network. Under Genachowski’s new proposal, the definition of “harmful” could be made by an engineering department on technical grounds or in an executive suite as companies ponder their financial returns. So long as they manage traffic without “unreasonable discrimination,” it’s okay with the Commission.

Built-in loopholes guarantee providers need only set rates high enough to assure only “preferred partners” can afford the asking price, and that only their competitors meet the definition of “harmful” traffic worthy of speed throttling.  The proposal also reportedly only covers video and voice traffic on wireless networks.  It’s open season on everything else if you access the web from a smartphone or wireless broadband service.

Actual legal authority to implement any broadband reform policies. It was Julius Genachowski and the FCC’s General Counsel Austin C. Schlick that argued without asserting legal authority under Title II, nothing the Commission did could be assured of withstanding a court challenge.  Yet today the chairman now claims his legal team has found some legal precedents that somehow will keep his policies in force after inevitable lawsuits are filed.  Former FCC chairman Powell thought much the same thing about his own idea of reclassifying broadband as “an information service.”  The DC Court of Appeals thought otherwise, something Schlick knows personally, having fought the Comcast case before that court.  In the end, Schlick correctly guessed his case was a train wreck, and was reduced to asking the court for legal pointers about how to draft regulations that could survive a court challenge.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/The Third Way The Future of Internet Policy in America 5-2010.flv[/flv]

This “other” Julius Genachowski from May of this year delivered remarks that carried a very different tone about the importance of restoring legal authority to oversee broadband.  But that was before AT&T put him on their speed dial, successfully reaching him personally more than a half dozen times in the last few weeks to argue their point of view.  Consumers don’t have Julius Genachowski’s phone number.  (4 minutes)

In short, Genachowski’s proposals represent near-total victory for providers, and any cable or phone company annoyed with the few scraps still on the agenda need only file suit arguing the Commission lacks the authority to stick its nose into their business affairs.  Without Title II authority in place, that lawsuit is probably going to result in a favorable ruling putting us back where we are today — with no Net Neutrality protections.  But by then, the Internet will be a very different place, loaded with toll booths from content providers and your ISP, who may ask for extra money if you want to watch Netflix or download files.  Your speeds may be reduced at any time, to any level, if a provider deems you’ve over-consumed your traffic allowance for that day, week, or month.

Worse, some providers will dispatch bills with overlimit fees that could run into the hundreds of dollars (or more) for those with a family member who left a high bandwidth application running while running out the door to catch the school bus.

Providers and their well-paid lobbyists celebrate their victory over consumers' wallets

So long as providers agree to abuse everyone more or less equally (excepting their own “preferred partners” of course), Julius Genachowski believes the next ten years of America’s online experience can be as great as the last.

In his dreams.  As Public Justice attorney Paul Bland said about dealing with ruthless companies like AT&T, assuming providers will behave favorably towards consumers puts you on the candy bridge into Rainbow Land.

Even with Genachowski’s proposed reforms, diluted to be point of being homeopathic, Republicans were moving in for the kill this morning.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said she would work to topple any FCC-led Net Neutrality order.

“This is a hysterical reaction by the FCC to a hypothetical problem,” she said, adding that Genachowski “has little if any congressional support” for the action.

To overturn any order, Blackburn vowed to reintroduce her bill to prevent the FCC’s policy making process.

Robert McDowell, one of two Republican FCC commissioners, called the move to enact reforms a defiance against Congressional will.

“Minutes before midnight last night, Chairman Genachowski announced his intent to adopt sweeping regulations of Internet network management at the FCC’s open meeting on December 21. I strongly oppose this ill-advised maneuver. Such rules would upend three decades of bipartisan and international consensus that the Internet is best able to thrive in the absence of regulation,” McDowell said in a prepared statement.

All this is taking place at the same time Comcast has foreshadowed America’s future broadband experience: charging backbone provider Level 3 extra for sending Comcast customers online movies and TV shows, censored a blog run by one of its customers trying to get around Comcast’s unresponsive customer service agents, stifled innovation by independent cable modem manufacturer Zoom Modems, has achieved a fever pitch in lobbying Washington to hurry up and approve its colossal merger deal with NBC-Universal, and has a lobbying team convinced it can achieve victory on all fronts from a favorable incoming Congress.

If they and other broadband providers succeed, it’s time to get out your wallet and count your money before handing it over.  A consumer revolt is all that stands between your Internet experience today and an endless series of pay-walls and stifled speeds tomorrow.

Dolan

Cablevision Systems CEO James Dolan warned cable executives the combination of rate increases and the poor economy could spark a consumer revolt, driving a legislative agenda that could force a-la-carte pricing on cable companies.

“At some point you reach a point where the consumer rebels,” Dolan said. “You’re likely to see that in a reaction in Washington on the government side because it will become a politically easy issue for politicians to jump on and a-la-carte [pricing] is an obvious answer. But the impact of a-la-carte on the programming industry would be devastating. It behooves all the participants to exercise restraint.”

Dolan pointed to high unemployment and a deterioration in earnings among those still employed combined with continuing rate increases as a potentially dangerous combination.  Dolan was especially concerned about payments for local broadcasters and major broadcast networks which have sparked high-profile carriage battles.  Earlier this year, Cablevision briefly dropped programming from ABC and Scripps Networks’ HGTV and Food Network.

Dolan was speaking at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Media, Communications & Entertainment conference in Newport Beach, Calif.

His comments come at the same time Cablevision is preparing for yet another carriage battle, this time with News Corporation.

On October 15th, Cablevision’s contract to carry FOX’s television stations in New York (WWNY 5 and WWOR 9) and Philadelphia (WTXF 29) will expire. Unless Cablevision renews its agreement with FOX, Cablevision may no longer carry the three over-the-air stations. Also impacted are several FOX Networks’ cable channels: FOX Sports en Español, Nat Geo WILD and FOX Business Network.

News Corporation’s website, KeepFoxOn, turned its attention to the dispute, urging viewers to contact Cablevision.  Viewers are being warned of the potential loss of the channels through advertising messages that began last weekend.

The issue of a-la-carte pricing, which allows cable customers to pick and choose individual channels, has been the nightmare scenario for cable systems and programmers, who fear it would force most niche channels out of business and dramatically cut earnings for cable systems.  The industry also warns it would force every cable subscriber to rent set top boxes to manage channel lineups for every television in the home.

But as programming costs continue to exceed the rate of inflation, relentless rate increases and restrictive contracts that keep most networks out of specialty programming tiers makes cable television a service many Americans are contemplating doing without.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Keep Fox On.flv[/flv]

FOX has begun informing Cablevision viewers they could lose access to their local FOX stations and several FOX-owned cable networks.  (30 seconds)