The CTIA is the wireless industry's lobbying group

While the phone and cable companies attempt to fight off broadband reclassification at the FCC, the wireless industry has been pulling its own weight in an effort to convince legislators everything is wonderful in wireless, and no consumer protection regulations are necessary.

The CTIA, the wireless lobbying group, has been blogging on overdrive lately, trying to sell the idea Americans are already soaking in broadband options and competition that keeps prices low and innovation high.  Why regulate an industry that isn’t broken?

If only it were true.

While Americans in larger communities do have choices for broadband, for most it’s a matter of picking the phone or cable company for service.  That’s called a duopoly.  In the wireless marketplace, it’s hardly much better.  The nation’s largest wireless phone companies, AT&T and Verizon, have essentially colluded with near-identical pricing and service plan requirements that demand customers add mandatory “options” like data plan add-ons that raise wireless bills higher than ever.

The smaller providers eke out an existence mildly competing over pricing, but with their inherent coverage limitations or history of providing poor customer service, many consumers won’t consider doing business with them.  Relying on most wireless providers for broadband threatens the kind of huge bills you see on TV news reports, as carriers limit consumption to 5GB per month, and most charge enormous overlimit fees to customers exceeding the limit.

The Federal Communications Commission recently found one in every six Americans suffer “bill shock” syndrome — that all-too-familiar panicky feeling when you open a cell phone bill and discover an extra zero on the end of the dollar amount due.  More than a third of people who experienced bill shock said their bills jumped by at least $50 — around 23 percent said the increase was $100 or more.

Settles

That amounts to more than 30 million Americans, but the CTIA’s “see no evil, hear no evil” blog carries on claiming life is good for wireless consumers.  Besides, writes Steve Largent, president of the CTIA, consumers who took their complaints to the Better Business Bureau had them resolved 97.4 percent of the time.

Of course, that begs the question why consumers had to approach the BBB about their poor service experience in the first place.

I’m not the only one asking questions.  Craig Settles, an industry analyst, co-administrator of Communities United for Broadband and author of the report “Fighting the Next Good Fight: Bringing True Broadband to Your Community,” is also pondering the industry campaign to block broadband reform.

Settles penned a piece in today’s Roll Call exposing the fallacies from the industry’s PR machine:

The state of broadband — for consumers, businesses and nonprofits — isn’t the rosy picture the industry powerhouses attempt to paint. Ignoring this reality can lead to bad policy decisions and bad legislation.

[…]

Most states may technically have 60 to 80 Internet access providers. However, in practically every state, the combined statewide market share of all but the top five or six providers might total 5 percent, if you’re lucky. In at least half of the states, data show the combined market share of the top two providers ranges from 70 percent up to 95 percent. That represents near or actual duopolies, most often with one wireless and one cable provider as the undynamic duo.

Life at the local level, which is where your true subscriber options exist, further challenges the industry’s claim that people have choices. If you count “having choices” as living in an area where several companies advertise broadband service, or consider dial-up speed as broadband, OK.

But go door to door in rural counties and small towns. The reality you often find is one major carrier providing fair to poor service to some and no service to the rest, plus some small local providers with 2 percent or 3 percent market share struggling to provide decent service in the face of endless efforts to smite them from the planet. If you’re in one of the few states with four or five providers that each have statewide market share of 8 percent to 15 percent, it’s likely each provider is concentrated in a portion of the state, creating a local reality that’s worse than state statistics.

Settles notes that claims of “billions invested” only invites more questions about what carriers are doing with all that money.  Settles questions whether its wise to brag about spending $20 billion on infrastructure costs when municipal broadband projects in states like North Carolina, with IT staffs of fewer than 12, have built superior networks delivering 10 times the speed of its competitors.

The CTIA loves to tout the innovation wireless providers bring to customers, but in many cases they are claiming credit (and often getting a cut in the action) for someone else’s innovation, especially from the third-party apps market.

Too often the real innovations in wireless broadband have often come in spite of carriers that have sought to block, control, or “manage” someone else’s vision.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Freedom CTIA Ad Spot 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Watch as the CTIA wireless lobby tries to sell Americans on wireless innovation, much of which didn’t come from wireless companies at all.  (1 minute)

Take the money and run

The Federal Communications Commission’s approval of Frontier’s takeover of 4.8 million Verizon landline customers in 14 states comes a year after the company announced the deal.  Frontier joins three other independent phone companies — FairPoint Communications, Windstream Communications, and CenturyLink zealously trying to grow their companies with additional mergers and acquisitions to avoid being swallowed up themselves.

What is common among all four companies is they rely heavily on dividend payouts to keep their stock price as high as possible.  That was a formula for disaster for FairPoint, the first of the four to end up in bankruptcy after a similar deal with Verizon in northern New England caused the company to falter.  Service and billing deteriorated, customers fled, and promises for better broadband were broken.  Now Frontier is following in FairPoint’s footsteps with more than 4.8 million new customers Frontier hopes they can swallow.

The FCC’s statement approving the merger reads like a press release for all involved, and delighted FCC Chairman Genachowski, who called these meager requirements “robust”:

Coming one week after the final state approval for the transaction, the FCC’s Order holds the applicants, Verizon and Frontier, to enforceable voluntary commitments, including:

• Extend faster broadband to more Americans: Frontier will significantly increase broadband deployment for the lines involved in this transaction, only 62 percent of which are broadband-capable today. Specifically, Frontier will deploy broadband with actual speeds of at least 3 Mbps downstream to at least 85 percent of transferred lines by the end of 2013, and actual speeds of at least 4 Mbps downstream to at least 85 percent of the transferred lines by the end of 2015, with all new broadband deployment offering actual speeds of at least 1 Mbps upstream.

Frontier's Fast One: 3 Mbps DSL Service with a 5GB Monthly Usage Allowance

Frontier’s broadband commitment gives the company a full five years to meet the bare minimum speed considered to constitute broadband in the National Broadband Plan.  One hopes Frontier doesn’t break into a sweat offering a piddly 3 Mbps service to homes using yesterday’s DSL service until then.  While Verizon’s rural castoffs get stuck eventually with 4 Mbps DSL, many of the company’s remaining customers are enjoying 50Mbps service over an all fiber network.  The FCC is accepting an urban-rural divide for broadband which will benefit the phone companies while leaving rural customers in the dirt.

Deploy fiber to libraries, hospitals, and other anchor institutions: Frontier will launch an anchor institution initiative to deploy fiber to libraries, hospitals, and government buildings, particularly in unserved and underserved communities.

Fiber for these locations sure, but no fiber for you or I.  Frontier, like most other telecom companies, loves to promote the benefits of fiber without actually deploying it to homes.

Promote competition: Frontier and Verizon have made a series of commitments to protect wholesale customers, including honoring all obligations under Verizon’s current wholesale arrangements that are in effect at closing.

Since wholesale customers often depend on the same network other customers do, if a company doesn’t deliver robust broadband into a state like West Virginia, there isn’t a robust service to sell to those wholesalers.

Improve data quality and collection: Frontier will make available to the Commission data on its broadband deployment progress at an unprecedented level of detail to enable effective monitoring of Frontier’s compliance with its commitments.

The Commission concluded that the commitments that applicants have offered, coupled with monitoring and enforcement by the Commission, will minimize the risks of harm and ensure that this transaction is in the public interest.

Phillip "Living on the Frontier" Dampier

Considering how weakly the FCC is committing itself to protecting rural customers from being dumped into the broadband backwater Frontier has on offer (complete with the 5GB monthly usage allowance), does collecting statistics help when things go sour?  Regulators collected statistics in New England when FairPoint failed, but that didn’t get service levels back until Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont threatened to toss FairPoint out.  Now the company is in bankruptcy and regulators are negotiating which of the promises FairPoint made can be let go ‘for the sake of the company.’

That’s why it’s so ironic to read editorials that proclaim the FCC is on some sort of power grab when they seek to restore what meager authority they exercised over broadband before a DC Court effectively excluded broadband oversight from their portfolio.

It will be a good day when federal agencies like the FCC start worrying first and foremost about consumers instead of how to make a parade of overpriced mergers and acquisitions succeed for the companies involved.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne Verizon hanging up on local landlines 5-24-10.flv[/flv]

WANE-TV in Fort Wayne warns viewers their landline company is about to change asVerizon vacates the area by July 1st.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Verizon Dont Take the Money and Run in WV.flv[/flv]

Too late.  The Communications Workers of America ran this ad spot asking the West Virginia governor to intervene and stop the sale.  (1 minute)

Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T)

The digital divide in broadband has never been just a rural issue.  Some of America’s largest cities are filled with families who cannot afford the prices some broadband providers charge for access.  So it came as quite a surprise that at least eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) decided to oppose the Obama Administration’s efforts to move forward on its telecom agenda of better broadband and Net Neutrality.

It also disturbed James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org, whose 600,000 members are part of America’s largest African-American online political organization.

Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas/AT&T) circulated a letter opposing regulatory intervention in broadband around Capitol Hill looking for additional signatures from members of Congress.  Green’s letter, directed to Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, is the public policy equivalent of a biggie-sized series of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations.  Green is so proud of his efforts, constituents can’t find word one about it on his website. Instead, Green claims he is working “to expand Internet access and improve Internet competition, in order to reduce access prices and close the ‘Digital Divide’ between those online and those who are not.'”

Sure he is.

ColorOfChange urged members of Congress not to co-sign Green’s letter:

This letter is not the first time we’ve seen deceptive language or outright misinformation used to advocate against protecting network neutrality. In fact, the telecom industry has for years been engaged in a well-coordinated and massively funded campaign to intentionally misinform the public, Congress, and public interest groups about net neutrality, successfully confusing the issue to their advantage. The industry has spent millions of dollars on advertising, public relations, and lobbying efforts — using industry front groups, ads in Capitol Hill newspapers, and lobbyists. Sadly, the industry in recent years has also managed to enlist members of Congress and advocacy organizations rooted in communities of color to echo misleading and false arguments about net neutrality. This too has been a concern for many ColorOfChange members and has been the subject of our campaign work. While it has a right to engage in the public discourse about this issue, the telecommunications industry has demonstrated a disinterest in honest debate, spreading misinformation that plays on ignorance about the issue, and the somewhat confusing, technical language that surrounds it.

Several of the advocacy groups involved take substantial contributions from telecom companies — notably AT&T and Verizon, or have telecom interests serving on their board of directors.  When a minority advocacy group suddenly starts parroting AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast talking points, just follow the money.

Unfortunately, 74 Democrats, including eight members of the CBC aren’t listening to ColorOfChange or their constituents, and co-signed Green’s letter.  James Rucker notes:

Last week, I urged black members of Congress not to sign this letter. But we quickly learned that Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Lacy Clay (D-MO), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Greg Meeks (D-NY), Bobby Rush (D-IL), and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) didn’t get the message.

Those wondering why these eight members were in such a hurry to disconnect their constituents’ interests need only consider the enormous campaign contributions sent to them by the phone and cable industry:

Source: Opensecrets.org

That’s only for this year — and we’re only five months into 2010.  Co-signing Green’s letter could add an extra zero to the amount on the next check.

Rep. Green himself is no stranger to campaign contributions from telecom companies.  So far in 2010, he’s accepted money from both AT&T, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.  Since 2000, every time a major public policy debate fires up over telecommunications issues, AT&T (and its predecessor SBC) increased the amount on Green’s check.  During the 2004-2006 cycle, when SBC sought a merger with AT&T, SBC contributed $11,500 to Rep. Green.  During the first round of the battle to secure Net Neutrality in 2006-2007, AT&T was Green’s top donor with a $15,000 contribution.

ColorOfChange.org today announced a new campaign directed towards the eight CBC members who co-signed Green’s letter.

“Our members are deeply concerned that by signing Green’s letter, black members of Congress are taking a stance that fails to secure our digital rights,” said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. “Some CBC members have perhaps signed Rep. Green’s letter without fully understanding what is at stake while others seem to know, but are serving other interests. There is a significant correlation between those leading the charge and those accepting significant contributions from the industry which stands to benefit from the FCC being rendered impotent. In either case, our members are eager to make clear how important this issue is to our community and to Americans in general, and to explain why they see this as a 21st century civil rights issue.”

The group is calling on members to place more than 1,750 phone calls to all eight representatives, urging they stop representing the interests of phone and cable companies and start representing the interests of their constituents.  ColorOfChange is asking everyone to ask these members to promptly remove their names from Rep. Green’s letter, which represents little more than propaganda talking points from big telecom.

Last month, a federal court removed the FCC’s authority to enact the most basic consumer protections over broadband given its current classification, which was decided upon by a previous set of commissioners. The court ruled that the agency did not have the authority to institute the desired protections while broadband was designated an information (or Title I) service, over which the FCC has limited jurisdiction. The ruling prevented the FCC from implementing proposed rules on network neutrality and cast a cloud of uncertainty over its authority to implement portions of the National Broadband Plan intended to close the digital divide.

Earlier this month, the FCC announced it would reassert its authority to enact limited regulation of broadband by reclassifying it as a communication (or Title II) service. In response, telecommunications industry lobbyists have stepped up their efforts to influence lawmakers. Rep. Green’s letter parrots long-debunked arguments that serve the interests of major industry players and threaten the FCC’s ability to make rulings that would expand broadband access.

Phillip "Will Wait for it to Hit Netflix" Dampier

Hollywood studios have a proposition to make.

How would you like to gain access to the latest Hollywood releases on your cable, satellite, or broadband connection even while those movies are still playing in area theaters?

The Motion Picture Association of America says it’s willing to let you watch first-run Hollywood blockbusters from home, but in return, they want the right to control what you can do with your television set.

Time’s up for you to make up your mind.  The Federal Communications Commission has decided you were going to say “yes” to this proposition anyway, so they went ahead and approved it on your behalf.

Specifically, the MPAA appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to get approval for its proposed Selectable Output Control technology.  You probably never heard of that, but the concept actually has been around for a few years now.  When movie studios float trial balloons about enabling the technology, public interest and consumer groups start hollering and it typically gets shelved for awhile.  Not this time.

While the public policy debate continued, chances are the manufacturer of your television set or monitor manufactured after 2004 has probably already included some support for SOC — just waiting to hand over control of your television to Hollywood studios, cable, satellite, or IPTV companies.  On May 7th, while we were debating Net Neutrality, the FCC released its order approving the Hollywood Remote Control Confiscation Act (my name sounds far better than the FCC’s — Petition for Waiver of the Commission’s Prohibition on the Use of Selectable Output Control.)

Here’s how it works:

Let’s say your cable company wants to offer you Iron Man II through pay-per-view starting today.  It’s a movie currently playing in many theaters nationwide.  The MPAA believes there is compelling demand among the elderly, the home-bound, and the too-lazy-to-haul-themselves-to-the-Movieplex to make it available in the comfort of your own home on early pay per view.  However, Hollywood and your local cable company don’t want you making copies of the movie to hand out to all your friends.  With SOC technology, that becomes less of a problem because the cable company can selectively disable the outputs on the back of your television that don’t use copy control technology.  That means old fashioned analog outputs can be disabled for up to 90 days during SOC-enabled programming, making sure you cannot record any of the content without the approval of the studio or your cable company.

Is it worth losing control of your television to watch Iron Man 2 before it arrives on DVD?

Certain digital outputs will still function, as long as they support robust anti-recording/copying technology.  No more time-shifting SOC-protected content on digital video recorders to watch later, no more analog VCR taping of shows the industry doesn’t believe you have a right to record anyway.

For decades, Americans have fought for fair use rights that permit home recording and copying for personal use.  The entertainment industry has never fully accepted that, and have eroded away the ability for consumers to make legitimate personal use of content they have already purchased with digital rights management schemes, copy protection, region coding, and other limiting technologies.

SOC technology effectively forfeits all of your rights.  The only consumer protection the FCC provides is a requirement that your cable, satellite, or broadband provider warn you when they are employing SOC anti-recording technology.  At least you’ll know when your home recording rights are being trampled.

If your television set doesn’t have support for SOC built-in, the FCC just made your television set obsolete.  Write and thank them.  While initial deployment of SOC is only expected to be used for “early pay per view,” don’t believe for a moment such powerful controlling technology available to entertainment companies won’t be used in the future for other types of content they don’t want you recording.  Premium movie channels like HBO or Cinemax would be obvious examples.  TV networks that would like to sell you their network shows on DVD or through online services might find it worth their while to disable your ability to record your favorite shows.  If you don’t have an SOC-capable set, it’s likely you won’t be able to access protected programming at all.

With the ongoing convergence of broadband, television, and other forms of home entertainment distribution, SOC is a foot in the door to permit third parties to make decisions about how you can view or use content you’ve already paid to receive.  That’s a bad precedent.  The FCC approval of this gift to the entertainment industry is a travesty that needs to be reversed.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City FCC Ruling Could Bring New Movies Into Homes 5-16-10.flv[/flv]

KCTV-TV in Kansas City ignored the consumer’s loss of control over their own television set to focus instead on the implications for theater owners, who may become natural allies with consumers in opposition of SOC.  (1 minute)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Public Knowledge – Selectable Output Control.flv[/flv]

Public Knowledge developed this web-ready video that takes a less formal look at SOC and its impact on your consumer rights.  (3 minutes)

[Looking for more great examples of industry-backed dollar-a-holler front groups opposing Net Neutrality? Just click here and set your scroll wheel on turbo because we’ve compiled some examples you won’t believe!]

Americans for Prosperity's claim that grandma will face a $300 broadband bill will only become reality if Internet providers get away with Internet Overcharging schemes that would triple the price you pay for broadband service.

Americans for Prosperity, the group that harassed residents of Salisbury, North Carolina last year with push polls and recorded phone messages opposing municipal broadband, is renewing its effort to sign up the tea party crowd to oppose Net Neutrality reforms.

Ostensibly representing those favoring “less government,” AFP is actually a corporate front group founded by oil billionaire David Koch but also backed by telecom interests.  The group shills for large phone and cable companies to keep them deregulated, and opposes consumer reforms.  The group’s spokesman on Net Neutrality is Phil Kerpen — a regular on Fox News — appearing on Glenn Beck’s program to nod in agreement to wild claims that Net Neutrality is Maoist.

Now the group has unveiled a new advertisement opposing Net Neutrality and is spending $1.4 million dollars in its first ad buy.  The 30-second ad targets legislators with wild claims about Net Neutrality that don’t pass even the most rudimentary truth tests.

Comparing Net Neutrality with Washington-directed bailouts of banks and the auto industry, the group claims Washington wants to “spend billions to take over the Internet.”  Apparently the Internet is available for purchase on eBay.

In reality, the only group with the deep pockets is this debate is America’s telecommunications companies, who are among the biggest spenders for lobbyists, astroturf campaigns that claim to represent consumer interests, and writing big campaign contribution checks to state and federal elected legislators.

Establishing Net Neutrality protections doesn’t cost billions.  Fighting against establishing Net Neutrality might.

In fact, the biggest expense the Federal Communications Commission faces in its efforts to adopt Net Neutrality reforms will come from legal expenses brought about by continuous provider lawsuits.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Americans for Prosperity Dont Regulate the Internet Ad 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Americans for Prosperity’s anti-Net Neutrality advertisement claims Washington is spending “billions” to “take over the Internet.”  (30 seconds)

An amateurish animated video accompanying the ad on AFP’s YouTube channel extends the lies into the ionosphere:

• The video claims the government is preparing to take over the Internet, which is false.
• It implies the majority of Americans oppose Net Neutrality, also false.
• The video suggests that businesses will be prohibited from purchasing faster broadband, because under Net Neutrality, everyone will share the exact same broadband speed, both of which are totally false.
• Grandma, who “only uses the Internet to check e-mail,” will be prohibited from buying cheaper access under Net Neutrality.  More deception.

The video ends with a bleeped expletive.  Real professional.

[flv width=”641″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Americans for Prosperity Animated Anti Net Neutrality Video 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Americans for Prosperity’s animated anti-Net Neutrality video makes wild claims that don’t come close to being h0nest with the viewer. [Warning: Loud Video — Turn Down Volume Before Playing] (1 minute)

Let’s Get Real.

FACT: If anyone is trying to “take over the Internet,” it’s a handful of corporate providers who won’t agree to common sense regulations that guarantee they will not block or impede web traffic.  If they have no intention of engaging in bad behavior, why spend millions of dollars to fight the regulations?

FACT: Americans favor Net Neutrality protections that guarantee net freedom and keep providers from further increasing your broadband bill by monetizing every aspect of the Internet.

FACT: Americans buy broadband based on speed tiers.  Net Neutrality does nothing to change this model.  Any business seeking faster service can continue to acquire it, if they can find a provider to sell it to them.  What Net Neutrality prohibits are Internet Service Providers artificially slowing down your website traffic unless and until you agree to protection payments to take the speed throttles off.

FACT: Most providers sell “Lite” broadband service to those seeking cheaper access or who only need the Internet for basic web browsing or e-mail access.  Some communities even offer basic Wi-Fi access to the Internet for free, and the Obama Administration is proposing to modify the Universal Service Fund to help economically disadvantaged Americans obtain basic web access at a more affordable price.

FACT: The only way a broadband bill is going to achieve the $300 price tag found in this video is if providers are permitted to run roughshod over their customers with Internet Overcharging schemes.  Some earlier proposed broadband “pricing experiments” would effectively triple the price for broadband service Americans pay, but that has nothing to do with Washington.  That can be laid directly at the feet of the same broadband providers who are writing enormous checks to astroturfers like Americans for Prosperity to hoodwink Americans into supporting things directly opposed to their best interests.

Don’t be Americans for Prosperity’s sucker.