Less than half of Americans surveyed by PC Magazine report they are very satisfied with the broadband speed delivered by their Internet service provider.

PC Magazine released a comprehensive study this month on speed, provider satisfaction, and consumer opinions about the state of broadband in their community.

The publisher sampled more than 17,000 participants, checking their actual broadband speeds, and questioned them about their overall satisfaction with their online access.

The findings indicate consumers live with what provider they can get.  Even lower rated providers scored “satisfactory,” in part because consumers don’t have many choices with which to compare.

Click to enlarge

In the war between coaxial cable modem vs. copper wire DSL technology-of-the-1990s battle, PC Magazine declared the cable industry the winner, consistently delivering faster speeds more reliably than possible with telephone company DSL.  Overall, the average cable speed was “688 Kbps, while the average DSL lets you surf at just 469 Kbps—cable connections, on average, are 47 percent faster.”  Those speed measurements are based on actual web page and content delivery, not on marketed available speed.

In fact, users rated DSL an unsatisfying service, with only 20% of rural and suburban customers very impressed with DSL.  But for many who have no other choice, 50% think it’s good enough.

Or better than nothing.

One DSL provider did extremely well speed-wise in PC Magazine‘s survey, however.  Frontier Communications was rated as the fastest DSL provider in the nation, averaging “real-world” speeds of 724 Kbps, according to the survey.  But even they could only score a 20% customer satisfaction rating, with 30% dissatisfied.

There was one technology that did much, much worse.  Satellite broadband, the last possible choice for many Americans between dial-up and going without, is provided by companies like HughesNet and WildBlue, and they are unmitigated disasters in consumers’ eyes.

Just 6% of Hughes customers were satisfied, with a whopping 74% dissatisfied.  That’s because satellite broadband is extremely slow, averaging just 145 Kbps, heavily capped, and very expensive.  But for some rural Americans who live too far away from their local phone company central office, and will never see cable television, it’s likely their only choice.  Even mobile broadband signals won’t reach many of these consumers.

So what is the good news from all of this?  There is one technology that, hands-down, beats all of the rest — fiber optics to the home.  The nation’s top-rated ISP in PC Magazine’s survey is Verizon FiOS, with 71% satisfied, and just 6% dissatisfied.  Other fiber optic providers, mostly smaller local, regional, or municipal systems, scored 61% satisfaction.  Just one cable company matched that rating – Cablevision’s Optimum Online.

AT&T, with a combination of DSL and their newer U-verse platform, did considerably worse, with 38% satisfied and 24% dissatisfied.

Clearly, subscriber satisfaction comes highest from fiber optic broadband.

Click to enlarge

In statewide rankings, it all boils down to where you live.  The more populated states and those with large cities often scored higher than those with lots of wide open rural areas.  The larger the community you live in, the better the chance for fast, quality service.  In states like Wyoming or South Dakota, where more than 57% of customers reported dissatisfaction, it’s more about living with what you’re stuck with.

The usually business-friendly editorial page of the Wall Street Journal published a surprising editorial this morning which threatens to cause a tear in the very fabric of space.  Why AT&T Killed Google Voice: Telecom Operators Are Yesterday’s Business — It’s Time for a National Data Policy That Encourages Innovation, strikes at the heart of the telecommunications industry’s business models, and dismisses them as increasingly outdated, anti-innovation and anti-consumer.

Welcome to our world.

Using the example of AT&T’s blocking Google Voice from iPhone users, which would allow them to bypass their AT&T plan to make long distance calls, author Andy Kessler, a former hedge fund manager, believes this was the moment America wakened to the realization that telecommunications companies and government policies block innovation and limit competition.

To that, I have to wonder, where has Kessler been the last decade?

Perhaps the Google Voice debacle impacted him personally, and that got his fur in a ruffle.  What AT&T did represents business as usual for those of us who have seen it all before.

Telecommunications companies have influenced most of the government policies that govern them, using high priced lobbyists, astroturfing friends, and bait and switch promises of magical service at dirt cheap prices, if only their legislative agenda becomes law.

Supporting them are many of the subscribers of the Wall Street Journal, investors and the investment media that tut-tuts new competitors or game-changing innovation that shakes up the marketplace, and launches price wars that threaten shareholder value. Legislation that hampers industry profits or enacts consumer protection is called “government interference” in most WSJ editorials, while deregulation that strips away oversight and ignores the abusive practices common in highly concentrated markets is advocated as the one-size-fits-all “free market solution.”

Apple has an exclusive deal with AT&T in the U.S., stirring up rumors that AT&T was the one behind Apple rejecting Google Voice. How could AT&T not object? AT&T clings to the old business of charging for voice calls in minutes. It takes not much more than 10 kilobits per second of data to handle voice. In a world of megabit per-second connections, that’s nothing—hence Google’s proposal to offer voice calls for no cost and heap on features galore.

What this episode really uncovers is that AT&T is dying. AT&T is dragging down the rest of us by overcharging us for voice calls and stifling innovation in a mobile data market critical to the U.S. economy.

I wonder what Kessler will think if AT&T’s market trials in Beaumont and Reno suggest they can limit his Internet access and then charge overlimit fees per gigabyte thereafter?  AT&T may have a lot more “dragging” capability than he realizes.

Andy Kessler

Is AT&T dying?  In the traditional wired phone line market, there is evidence they are headed into a slow decline as consumers dump overpriced and overtaxed phone lines for Voice Over IP or mobile phone service.  They certainly aren’t hurting in their mobile phone business.  They’ve become quite comfortable, thank you very much, splitting the majority of mobile telephone customers in the United States with Verizon Wireless.  The companies in real trouble are the smaller players fighting for the scraps thrown from the table — a declining Sprint, T-Mobile, Cricket, MetroPCS, among many others.  They are being told to merge with each other or die by Wall Street.

Is AT&T stifling innovation by being run badly?  Of course not.  They are leveraging their market power to limit potential competition or innovation that forces them into costly upgrades they’d prefer not to do.  With their expensive “public policy” initiatives (read that “K” Street lobbying), they’ve also got a lot of elected officials and government agencies on their side as well.  A Congress that doesn’t demand greater competition, strong antitrust oversight, and a ban on anti-consumer practices, coupled with a bunch of “don’t ask, don’t tell” oversight agencies that only respond to the most egregious abuses (until the media spotlight is turned off), represents the real problem here.

The trick in any communications and media business is to own a pipe between you and your customers so you can charge what you like. Cellphone companies don’t have wired pipes, but by owning spectrum they do have a pipe and pricing power.

True, except Kessler ignores the fact AT&T and Verizon do own wired and wireless pipes, from coast to coast.  Both companies are highly vertically integrated, often serving customers with everything from their basic telephone service to television, broadband, and mobile phone needs.  Customers are heavily marketed to pick up additional product lines from both companies — products not available from the smaller guys like Sprint, T-Mobile, and others.

Kessler also suggests it’s the bidding war for wireless spectrum that results in high prices for consumers.  Even if true, his free market friends would suggest that is the marketplace at work.  Of course, the real reason for high pricing in mobile service is the lack of competition coupled with the convenience of “stable pricing.”  Namely, the current carriers are quite comfortable not rocking the boat too much with one another, which explains why virtually all of them charge comparable prices for wireless data, text messages, and voice plans.  What they will fight for is handset exclusivity, because it never threatens price and service models.  In fact, it allows them to charge even higher premium pricing for highly-sought handsets and the mandatory service plans that sometimes accompany them.  The iPhone is a perfect example of that at work.

Kessler has four prescriptions to cure the American telecommunications ailment:

• End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network. Data flows freely.

• Transition away from “owning” airwaves. As we’ve seen with license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned. Cellphone coverage from huge cell towers will naturally migrate seamlessly into offices and even homes via Wi-Fi networking. No more dropped calls in the bathroom.

• End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies. TV channels are like voice pipes, part of an era that is about to pass. A little competition for cable will help the transition to paying for shows instead of overpaying for little-watched networks. Competition brings de facto network neutrality and open access (if you don’t like one service blocking apps, use another), thus one less set of artificial rules to be gamed.

• Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and phones. It should more than double every two years. To homes, five megabits today should be 10 megabits in 2011, 25 megabits in 2013 and 100 megabits in 2017. These data-connection speeds are technically doable today, with obsolete voice and video policy holding it back.

An end to phone exclusivity will require government regulation, something unlikely to gain much support from his free market friends.  An even better idea is to stop the cozy relationship between carriers and phone manufacturers by allowing phones to be sold independently, without customers being pressured into two year contracts to enjoy a phone subsidy.  Any phone, sold anywhere, with compatible technology (GSM, CDMA, etc.) should work on any network without a company trying to browbeat customers into contracts, even when bringing along their own phone.  That customer should also be allowed to reprogram their phone to work with another compatible carrier at any time.

Kessler is naive about “owning” airwaves.  Since the government decided it could profit from auctioning them off to the highest bidder, they’ve become monetized and highly valuable.  They are no longer truly licensed in the public interest — they’ve become private property, to be vigilantly protected from encroachment.  Be it satellite, wireless telephony, radio, television, or innovative new services not yet launched, the moment someone applies for a license to share spectrum with existing providers, a chorus of complaints about potential interference arrives at the FCC, with scare stories about potentially massive disruptions.  In reality, the grounds for these hissyfits are more frequently about the fear of competition.

It’s time to admit the concept of airwave auctions has been shortsighted.  While it may bring the government revenue, it will be recouped from consumers as part of provider pricing models.  The higher the bids, the higher the price providers will charge customers for that service.  Let’s consider granting licenses not based on who can bid highest, but rather who can provide the best possible service at reasonable prices to the public.  Those that fail to serve the public interest, or engage in bad behavior, have the very real opportunity of losing that license.  That’s quite an incentive to serve customers first.  It’s such a pro-consumer, novel idea, expect millions of dollars to be spent on lobbying to make sure it never happens.

Municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies ended in 1992 as part of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act (the only bill President George H.W. Bush vetoed that was overridden by Congress).  I know because I was integrally involved in fighting for that legislation.  In the last 17 years, there hasn’t exactly been a rush to wire up communities with competing cable companies, now has there?

Let’s be honest here.  Less regulation will not compel cable competition, no matter how much the astroturfers and special interest lobbyists promise it.  Construction and capital costs to “overbuild” a cable provider in most American cities are high enough to discourage investment from the private sector, particularly when they fear a price war will result and reduce profits, and shareholder value.  Overbuilders like El Grande in Texas had to sell themselves to a more capital-rich company just to find financing to build out their network.

I’m afraid without incentives like tax credits or other benefits, the prevailing attitude is that all but the largest cities will make due with one wired phone company and one wired cable company at best.  Only one major provider has seen fit to rewire their service areas with the most robust technological advancement – fiber to the home.  Verizon has done so, with considerable resistance from investors, in their effort to avoid the obsolescence Kessler foresees in the telephone line business.  But Verizon is only wiring limited areas, primarily in urban areas, but almost never in smaller communities.  For customers of other phone companies, particularly smaller independent providers, too bad for you.  Their only hope may be a publicly financed, or public-private partnership, fiber optic wiring project that acts as a common carrier.  Any provider can deliver their service over it, allowing customers to choose.

Because of the duopoly/monopoly state of cable and broadband service in the United States, Net Neutrality will never be protected through competition.  In Canada, when Bell throttled and interfered with Internet service, most cable competitors simply joined the party and did the same.  When a few upstarts, resold un-throttled Bell wholesale broadband service and made that a selling point, Bell simply throttled them, too, without warning.  That put a stop to that pesky competition problem.  Canada foreshadows what will likely happen in the United States without strong Net Neutrality legislation.

Finally, Kessler’s vision of what is holding back broadband speed totally ignores provider complicity in the slow momentum forward.  While some providers have a progressive attitude about speed, seeing faster broadband’s revenue earning-potential, others see it as an unnecessary expense that most consumers don’t really need.  Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second largest cable company, remains on record as being in no hurry to upgrade to DOCSIS 3 technology, unless one of their competitors threatens to beat their speeds.  In fact, they’ve expressed repeated interest in cost controls by experimenting with ways to limit data consumption, protect their video business model, and extract more revenue from customers at current speeds.

If Kessler was looking to the phone companies for an alternative, most Americans can forget it.  Most phone companies, especially smaller independents, have maintained a death grip on old school DSL technology, which provides 1-3Mbps service in rural areas, and “up to 10Mbps” (if you are very, very lucky) in urban and suburban areas.  They are rapidly losing wired phone customers and are holding out for whatever revenue they can grab from yesterday’s broadband technology, usually doing best only where cable doesn’t compete at all.  Some even want to limit consumption at the slow speeds those networks operate at today.  They are in no hurry to upgrade their existing copper wire networks, much less agree to the “double speed” plan Kessler has.

I’m sorry to say Kessler’s marketplace-based hopes and dreams for a better telecommunications world tomorrow are not forthcoming.  Without radical changes in the current “whatever the providers want is okay with us” regulatory approach we have today, the only innovation Kessler should expect to see is providers finding new ways to charge more money for the same service we have today.

We need a complete review and reality check about the total failure of the deregulation-solves-everything approach we’ve lived under for more than a decade.  If Kessler wants faster speeds, more competition, lower prices, and less market abuse, he will never find it without government involvement.  Remember, in the absence of real competition from those that actually want to compete to win, not just share the healthy proceeds from the status quo, we need stronger arguments than “the free market solves everything” and “won’t you please do it out of the goodness of your heart and civic duty?”

In a sorry development, Canada’s telecommunications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, today issued a rubber stamp approval of Bell’s proposal to impose Usage Based Billing and overlimit fees and penalties for “excessive use.”

The CRTC apparently breezed its way through Bell’s application, deciding it sounded good enough for them, and made only minor adjustments.  The CRTC’s short-sighted consumer protection angle was to demand that before Bell implemented any Internet Overcharging scheme on its wholesale customers (using the Gateway Access Service), namely those who purchase connectivity to provide independent ISP service to Canadians, they must first stick it to their own retail customers.

Like that represented a problem.

The Commission  approves on an interim basis the Bell companies’ proposed two new Gateway Access Service (GAS) speed options and rates. The Commission also approves on an interim basis their proposal to introduce UBB for GAS, effective 90 days from the date of this order.  The Commission further approves on an interim basis their proposal to introduce an excessive usage charge for GAS of $0.75 per GB in excess of 300 GB, effective the date the Bell companies notify the Commission in writing that they apply an excessive usage charge of $1.00 per GB in excess of 300 GB to all their retail customers on UBB plans.

After all, if you are going to overcharge some people for broadband access, why not overcharge them all!

Bell serves both the wholesale needs of independent service providers and retail consumers subscribing to DSL service.  Last year, Bell suddenly began throttling the speeds of their wholesale customers without notification, killing a major marketing benefit independent providers offered potential subscribers – a non-throttled broadband experience.  The remaining independent service providers that compete against Bell and many cable companies in Canada by offering unlimited access now find that marketing angle also rapidly becoming unavailable.  Such actions benefit the larger providers by making independents uncompetitive and force Canadians into all of the classic Internet Overcharging schemes, with no alternatives.

The result has been outrage by Canadians who have discovered, yet again, the CRTC represents the interests of large corporate telecommunications companies and not the common sense needs of ordinary Canadians for affordable, open Internet access.  While the CRTC continues to act like the cable and telephone industry’s BFF, Canada’s former leadership in broadband rankings continues its rapid deterioration, falling further and further behind other industrialized countries, all for the benefit of providers and their profits.

The CRTC remains impotent in promoting effective competition and consumer-friendly policies.  Broadband Reports notes that may be by design. Many staffers at the CRTC have past histories with the providers they are supposed to independently regulate.  They point specifically to vice-chairman Leonard Katz, whose amazing lack of consumer concern may partly result from his more pressing need to consider the interests of his former employers – Rogers Cable (17 years) and Bell (11 years).

Canadians can and must demand an end to the CRTC-Telecom Industry Friendship Festival that seems to be ongoing at their expense.  Contact your member of Parliament and demand some top to bottom changes in regulatory policy that are front and center focused on the needs of Canadian consumers, not on the interests of a handful of big telecom companies.  An investigation into possible conflict of interest is also warranted.  Exactly how many CRTC staffers come to the agency from the companies that are regulated by it, and how many find nice jobs waiting for them at those companies when they leave government service?

Stop the Cap! readers have seen the differences in broadband pricing between Japan and the United States.  The CRTC approval of Bell’s request makes a bad situation even worse across Canada, particularly in areas where there are no alternatives to Bell’s DSL service.

How low can they go?

Daryl Kramp, MP for Prince Edward-Hastings, announcing broadband initiative in eastern Ontario

Daryl Kramp, Member of Parliament for Prince Edward-Hastings, on behalf of John Baird, Canada’s Transport and Infrastructure Minister, and the Honourable Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for Ontario, announced that the construction of a 21st century broadband network is a step closer in Eastern Ontario. The Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario have together set aside up to $110 million for the project.

“Our Government is delivering on investments that help create jobs and build sustainable communities,” said MP Kramp. “The construction of a broadband network in Eastern Ontario will help to expand and improve local businesses and their services, and significantly boost our regional economy.”

“Delivering broadband to Eastern Ontario is a critical infrastructure investment that will bring more industry to the region and create the jobs that will help our towns and rural communities prosper,” said Leona Dombrowsky, Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

“Today’s announcement marks a major step forward in helping to secure the future prosperity of Eastern Ontario. Having a high-speed, high-capacity broadband network is one of the most important assets that we can utilize to assist us in unlocking the ingenuity and creativity of our people and businesses. We are extremely grateful to both the federal and provincial governments for their tremendous financial support for this project,” said Ron Emond, Chair of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus.

The governments of Canada and Ontario will each set aside up to one-third of total eligible costs of the project, to a maximum contribution of $55 million. Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) Incorporated and private sector partners will provide the remaining funding, with EOWC Inc. contributing up to $10 million. The total eligible costs of this project are estimated to be $170 million.

Once completed, the network will provide broadband service to the residents and businesses in many of the counties of Eastern Ontario (Hastings, Peterborough, Renfrew, Northumberland, Haliburton, Frontenac, Lanark, Prince Edward, Lennox & Addington, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry, the United Counties of Prescott & Russell and the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville) as well as the City of Kawartha Lakes.

Many of these areas already have rudimentary broadband service in the form of DSL and limited cable television penetration, but many DSL accounts are speed limited to 1-3Mbps, which the EOWC has determined to be woefully inadequate for broadband applications of the near future.

Canada’s broadband initiatives outside of the most rural communities are starting to define the bare minimum network speed at 10Mbps for downloading if the network is to sustain viability in the future.  With a goal of reaching up to 95% of eastern Ontario with broadband service in the next four years, a variety of technologies are likely to be considered depending on the population being reached.  Those living in the most rural areas are likely to find wireless service the most viable option, delivered with a form of WiMax.  Rural enclaves or neighborhoods outside of community centers may continue to be served by DSL service for some time.  But those in suburban and more urban community centers should have access to advanced forms of DSL, fiber optics, or high speed wireless service.

Many public Wi-Fi “hotspots” will be established at community gathering points, accessible to visitors at no charge.

The Government of Canada’s 2009 Economic Action Plan is accelerating and expanding the existing federal investment of $33 billion in infrastructure across Canada with almost $12 billion in new infrastructure stimulus funding over the next two years.

Through the 2009 Ontario Budget – Confronting the Challenge: Building Our Economic Future – the province is investing $32.5 billion in infrastructure for the province of Ontario over the next two years, including a $5 billion contribution from the federal government that will support more than 300,000 jobs and strengthen Ontario’s economy.

Phillip Dampier

Today is Stop the Cap!‘s first anniversary.  One year ago today, this website was launched with the news that Frontier Communications, the local telephone company in Rochester, New York and in dozens of mostly rural communities nationwide, had quietly changed its Acceptable Use Policy to define appropriate maximum usage of their DSL service at a measly 5GB per month.

The  boneheaded, out of touch decision was called out for what it was: a profiteering provider pilfering wallets of their broadband customers.

All the signs of a Money Party among cable and DSL providers at consumer expense were apparent last summer.  Time Warner Cable was experimenting with a consumption billing plan in Beaumont, Texas.  In Canada, rhetoric about “bit caps” was already being circulated, trying to convince Canadians that broadband service was somehow as difficult to provide there as it is in Australia and New Zealand, where such caps were already in place.

To bring limits, rationing quotas, and consumption based billing to the United States would require consumers to ignore massive profits broadband providers were harvesting quarter after quarter at existing prices.  But demands for big profits from Wall Street meant they had to come from somewhere, and for cable companies with eroding profits from their cable TV divisions, and telephone companies dealing with disconnect requests for wired telephone lines, broadband was their choice.

It seems that what was insanely profitable a decade ago, when cable modem and DSL service started to introduce Americans to broadband, would now simply be ‘piles of  cash stacked like cord wood’-profitable as traffic increased. As the broadband adoption rate increased, bandwidth costs plummeted, and several providers also proudly trumpeted their reduced investments in their networks as a hallmark of keeping “costs under control.”

Consumers began actually using their service for… broadband-specific services, at the encouragement of providers’ marketing departments, touting their “always on” connection at “blazing fast speeds” to download music, movies, play games, and more.  Network utilization increased, and providers want someone to pay for a “bandwidth crisis” that isn’t a crisis at all.  Responsible investment in network infrastructure should be a given, in recognition that at least a small portion of those growing profits must be spent on maintaining and improving service.

One year ago, I laid out what was before us:

Cable operators have been discussing implementing usage caps in several markets to control what they refer to as a “broadband crisis.” The industry has embarked on a lobbying campaign to convince Americans, with scant evidence and absolutely no independent analysis of their numbers, that the country is headed to a massive shortage in bandwidth in just a few short years, and that a tiny percentage of customers are hogging your bandwidth.

Frontier, ever the rascally competitor, has decided to one-up Time Warner’s Road Runner product by slapping on a usage cap now for DSL customers before Road Runner considers doing the same. And in a spectacularly stupid move competitively, they have implemented a draconian cap that even the cable industry wouldn’t try to implement.

Time Warner Cable “took one for the team,” according to industry-friendly Multichannel News, when it introduced a ludicrous Internet Overcharging experiment of its own announced this past April, which would have “saved” customers money by getting them to “pay for what they use.”  In fact, their plan proved my point last summer, following the same roadmap of “bandwidth crisis” to “heavy downloaders” to trying to squeeze customers for more money for upgrades they could easily have done with the enormous profits they already earn.

Their proposal would have made a deliciously profitable $50 a month Internet service now cost consumers $150 a month with absolutely zero improvement in service, speed, or performance.  But Wall Street would have been happy with the higher returns.

Some 400+ articles later, we’ve educated consumers across North America about the reality of Internet Overcharging.  Despite industry propaganda “education” efforts, astroturfing groups we’ve exposed as having direct connections with the telecommunications providers paying them to produce worthless studies, fear-mongering about Internet brownouts by equipment vendors with solutions to sell, and a hack-a-thon of formerly respectable broadband pioneers and ex-government officials who sold their credentials for a paycheck to lobby and spout industry propaganda, most consumers continue to reject overcharging for their broadband service.  Consumers instinctively know a cable company with a rate change always means a rate increase, and plans to “save people money” actually means they will “protect industry profits.”

We have achieved victory after victory in 2008-2009:

• Fought back against Frontier’s boneheaded plan, and convinced them that DSL can compete best on price and flexibility — no usage cap has ever been enforced at Frontier, and today they are using Time Warner Cable’s blundering profiteering experiment against them in their marketing materials.  For rural Frontier customers with no other broadband provider, that’s a major relief from being stuck with one broadband option that rations their usage to ludicrously low levels.
• Stopped Time Warner Cable’s experiment before it got off the ground in several “test cities.”  The people of Austin, San Antonio, Rochester, and the Triad region of North Carolina did Time Warner Cable customers nationwide a tremendous service in halting this experiment before it spread.  Our efforts even brought a United States Senator, Charles Schumer, to the front lawn of Time Warner Cable in Rochester to announce the nightmare was, at least for now, over.  We managed to even see an end to the overcharging of customers in Beaumont, Texas who lived through a summer, winter, and spring, overpaying for their broadband service.
• We raised hell in the North Carolina state legislature, coming to the aid of Wilson and other communities in the state trying to get municipal broadband projects off the ground.  Communities across the state faced anti-consumer corporate protectionist legislation written by the telecommunications industry, introduced by willing elected officials who took big telecom money, and sold out their constituents.  We killed two bills, forced a sponsor of one such measure to repudiate his own bill, and gave major headaches to legislators that thought they could just cash those big checks, vote against your interests, and you’d never know.  Those days are over.
• We helped bring legislation up in Congress to draw attention to the issue of Internet Overcharging, and have called out providers who want to use their marketing departments to lie to customers about their broadband costs and profits, while being considerably more honest with their shareholders in their quarterly financial reports.  Congressman Eric Massa’s legislation would demand companies show proof of the need to implement consumption based billing.  Indeed, as consumers find out how profitable broadband service is at today’s prices, they’ll never tolerate the profit padding providers seek with tomorrow’s caps/limits, penalties and fees, and unjustified tiers.

As you can see, Internet Overcharging is not a dead concept.  An educated consumer will recognize a swindle when they see one, and providers continue to test overcharging schemes in focus groups in different parts of the country.  They’ll use any analogy, from a buffet lunch to a toll road traveled by big trucks and little cars.  They’re looking for anything they can find to sucker you into believing paying more for your broadband service is fair.

Broadband service must be fast, affordable, and competitive.  In too many communities in Canada and the United States, a monopoly or duopoly marketplace has guaranteed none of those things.  In our second year, we must remain vigilant in our core mission to fight Internet Overcharging, but we also need to fight for more competition, regulation where competition does not exist, oversight over providers, and support for projects that will enhance broadband and make it more affordable than ever.  With your help, we can stand toe to toe with any provider, because the facts are on our side, not theirs, when it comes to Internet Overcharging schemes.

Welcome to Year Two!