With continued inaction at the Federal Communications Commission, some stakeholders in the Net Neutrality debate continue to file comments with the Commission trying to find a “third way” to bring about guarantees for online free speech and access while softening opposition to “network management” technology that allows providers to manipulate broadband traffic.

Among such filers is the Communications Workers of America, which seeks a “middle-ground approach” to protecting a free and open Internet.

The CWA has always maintained its feet in two camps — with consumers looking for improved broadband and with the communications companies that employee large numbers of the union’s members, who will build out those networks and provide service.

The union shares our annoyance with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his complete inaction on broadband policy thus far.  In short, the Commission keeps stalling from taking direct action to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, restoring its ability to oversee broadband policy lost in a federal appeals court decision earlier this year.

The CWA used a piece by David Honig from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) to echo its own position:

MMTC isn’t alone in being frustrated with the FCC’s disappointing attitude toward real action this past year. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressed impatience with the glacial pace of policymaking at his Commission. Although he mentioned that the FCC, under his direction, has implemented some notable reforms, he conceded that “there is still a lot to do.”

Unfortunately, regardless of how earnest the Chairman is in his desire to move forward with the business of policymaking, his actions speak much louder than his words. Indeed, his yearlong pursuit of network neutrality rules — first via a traditional rulemaking proceeding and, most recently, via an effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service — has cast a long and almost suffocating pall over many of the items that the Chairman wishes to act upon. His inaction on civil rights issues — especially EEO enforcement — is just one example of how paralyzed the agency has become.

Recent news that Congress will not move forward to address the regulatory questions that currently vex the Commission (e.g., whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband service providers) could embolden the Chairman to adopt the sweeping regulatory changes for broadband that he proposed earlier this year. Doing so in the absence of Congressional action would only invite immediate legal challenges that would mire the FCC in litigation, appeals, and remands for years to come.

To put it plainly, the FCC is stuck. Although it recently adopted some promising orders related to broadband (e.g., new rules for accessing new portions of wireless spectrum called “white spaces” and for enhancing access in schools and libraries), the Commission has failed to move forward with implementing core provisions of its monumental National Broadband Plan.

The union last week also submitted its latest round of comments requested by the Commission, this time to broaden its position on a proposed compromise.  We’ve delineated which of the proposals we believe are primarily pro-consumer (in green), pro-provider (red), and which fall straight down the middle (blue):

• First, wireline broadband Internet access providers (“broadband providers”) should not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices on the Internet.
• Second, wireline and wireless broadband providers should be transparent regarding price, performance (including reporting actual speed) and network management practices.
• Third wireline broadband providers should not engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.
• Fourth, broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks through appropriate and tailored mechanisms, recognizing the technical and operational characteristics of the broadband Internet access platform.
• Fifth, the Commission should take a case-by-case adjudication approach to protect an open Internet rather than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules.

The first and third principles are strongly pro-consumer, although as we’ve seen, providers have a tendency to want to define for themselves what is “harmful,” “unjust,” or “unreasonable” and impose it on their customers.  We’ve seen provider-backed front groups argue that the concept of Net Neutrality itself is all three of these things.  Any rules must be clearly defined by the Commission, not left to open interpretation by providers.

The second principle cuts right down the middle.  Consumers deserve an honest representation of broadband speeds marketed by providers (not the usual over-optimistic speeds promised in marketing materials), and transparency in price — especially with gotchas like term contracts, early cancellation penalties, overlimit fees, etc.  But providers can also go to town with abusive network management they’ll market as advantageous and fair, even when it is neither.  Just ask customers of Clear who recently found their “unlimited” wireless broadband service, marketed as having no speed throttles, reduced in speed to barely above dial-up when they used the service “too much.”  Clear says the speed throttles are good news and represent fairness.  Customers think otherwise, and disclosure has been lacking.

The fourth and fifth principles benefit providers enormously.  Network management itself is neither benevolent or malicious.  The people who set the parameters for that management are a different story.  A traffic-agnostic engineer might use such technology to improve the quality of services like streamed video and Voice Over IP by helping to keep the packets carrying such traffic running smoothly, without noticeably reducing speeds and quality of service for other users on that network.  There is nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. There is also nothing wrong with providing on-demand speed boosts on a pay-per-use basis, so long as the network is not oversubscribed.

But since providers are spending less to upgrade their networks, providers may seek to exploit these technologies in a more malicious way — too stall needed upgrades and save money by delivering a throttled broadband experience for some or all of their customers.  If customers can be effectively punished for using high bandwidth applications, they’ll reduce their usage of them as well.  That’s good for providers but not for customers who are paying increasing broadband bills for a declining level of service.

Some examples:

• Customers using high bandwidth peer-to-peer applications can have their speeds throttled, sometimes dramatically, when using those applications;
• Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and “fair access” policies can discourage consumers from using services like online video, file transfer services, and new multimedia-rich online gaming platforms like OnLive, which can consume considerable bandwidth;
• Preferred content can be “network managed” to arrive at the fastest possible speeds, at the cost of other traffic which consequently must be reduced in speed, meaning your non-preferred traffic travels on the slow lane;
• Providers can redefine levels of broadband service based on intended use, relegating existing packages to “web browsing and e-mail” while marketing new, extra-cost add-ons for services that take the speed controls off services like file transfer and online video, or changes usage limits.

The CWA runs the Speed Matters website, promoting broadband improvements.

It is remarkable the CWA seeks to allow today’s indecisive Commission to individually adjudicate specific disputes, instead of simply laying down some clear principles that would not leave a host of loopholes open for providers to exploit.

Big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have plenty of money at their disposal to attract and influence friends in high places.  If the Commission thought Big Telecom’s friends in Congress were breathing down its neck about telecom policy now, imagine the load it will be forced to carry when these companies seek to test the Commission’s resolve.

Opponents of Net Neutrality claim broadband reclassification will leave providers saddled with Ma Bell-era regulation.  But in truth, the FCC can make their rules plain and simple.  Here are a few of our own proposals:

1. Network management must be content-agnostic.  “Preferred partner” content must travel with the same priority as “non-preferred content;”
2. Providers can use network management to ensure best possible results for customers, but not at the expense of other users with speed throttles and other overcharging schemes;
3. Providers can market and develop new products that deliver enhanced speed services on-demand, but not if those products require a reduction in the level of service provided to other customers;
4. Customers should have the right to opt out of network management or at least participate in deciding what traffic they choose to prioritize;
5. Providers may not block or impede legal content of any kind;

In short, nobody objects to providers developing innovative new applications and services, but they must be willing to commit to necessary upgrades to broaden the pipeline on which they wish to deliver these services.  Otherwise, providers will simply make room for these enhanced revenue services at your expense, by forcing a reduction in your usage or reducing the speed and quality of service to make room for their premium offerings.

The industry itself illustrates this can be done using today’s technology.

The cable industry managed to accomplish benevolent network management with products like “Speed Boost” which delivers enhanced, short bursts of speed to broadband customers based on the current demand on the network.  Those speed enhancements depend entirely on network capacity and do not harm other users’ speeds.

Groups like the CWA need to remember that compromise only works if the terms and conditions are laid out as specifically as possible.  Otherwise, the player with the deepest pockets and closest relationships in Washington will be able to define the terms of the compromise as they see fit.

And that’s no compromise at all.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Larry Cohen on the Open Internet Jobs and the Digital Divide 9-14-10.flv[/flv]

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen outlined the union’s position on Net Neutrality before the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on Sept. 14, 2010.  (2 minutes)

Bigpond is Telstra's broadband service

Telstra, Australia’s dominant telecommunications company, is openly concerned about the prospect of Australians finally shedding themselves from Internet Overcharging schemes like low usage caps and throttled speed.  But instead of doing away with these profit-boosting schemes themselves, they’ve decided to argue that consumers don’t need the country’s newest 1TB usage allowance plans, calling them publicity gimmicks.

Of course, Telstra doesn’t offer a 1TB plan.

Heath Gibson tries to explain away Telstra’s Internet Overcharging in a company blog post:

A terabyte is a lot of data. One provider claimed it’s enough to download about 200 DVD quality movies and still have quota left over.  Whilst my inner geek is salivating at the possibilities, the analyst in me is questioning just how many people currently need, or could even use, a terabyte of data each and every month.

Gibson

Gibson believes the average Australian is better off plans like Telstra’s 50GB DSL service, running $49.30US per month on a two-year contract.  When all the charges and fees are totaled, Australians will pay Mr. Gibson’s company $2,364.50US for two years of service that slows to 64kbps once your monthly 50GB allotment is used up.

“Terabyte plans will have appeal to a special niche and demand for these plans will no doubt grow over time,” Gibson wrote. “But for now my advice to most people would be to look past the attention grabbing headline, check how big a plan you really need and keep in mind all the other things that go in to making a great ISP.”

Australians have already made that decision and they have been voting with their feet to other providers.  On the same day Gibson was dismissing the competition, Telstra CEO David Thodey was responding to it, recognizing the company has lost significant market share because of high prices and poor customer service.

He told The Advertiser improvements were underway.

“The focus on customer service is something that is innate within Telstra, but our delivery leaves a lot to be desired,” he said.

So is their pricing.  Gibson’s views defending rationed Internet service are similar to the arguments broadband providers in the States use to defend their failure to keep up in the global broadband speed race.  Only instead of dismissing the need for unlimited service, American providers try and convince customers they don’t need the faster speeds they don’t deliver.

Back in the 1980s, a group of ragtag rural home satellite dishowners with 10 foot dishes took on the cable television industry for forcing viewers to purchase a set top decoder unit ($395) and paying programming prices higher than what cable viewers paid.  It was all part of an effort by the cable industry, which had an ownership interest in most cable networks back then, to discourage consumers from purchasing satellite dishes to escape ever-increasing cable rates.

Back then, these consumers ran into the same kind of Congress we endure today — quick to listen to industry representatives bearing campaign contributions and slow to respond to the needs and interests of their constituents who elected them.  Indeed, in one infamous example, a call placed to then-New York Senator Al D’Amato resulted in a staff member asking “what company are you with?”

Despite the power and influence of corporate interests protecting their turf, earning enormous profits along the way, many satellite dishowners stayed in the fight, and as cable rate increases continued, major reforms were finally enacted in the 1992 Cable Act which made small satellite dish services like DISH and DirecTV possible.

The struggle for Net Neutrality reminds me of that fight, and the fact it would take time to overcome the special interests and obtain important reforms.  Here at Stop the Cap!, we’ve won more battles than we’ve lost thanks to a small army of consumers who despise Internet Overcharging schemes and are tired of paying outrageous high prices for broadband and other telecommunications services.  Giving up the fight is not an option.

As the 111th Congress draws to a close, efforts to enact Net Neutrality through legislation this year have come to naught.

We were also disappointed by Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  Despite his promising start at the agency, after more than a year watching his performance he has proven to be far better at making speeches than actually implementing policy.  His indecision and dawdling has resulted in a failure to deliver on his promise to reclassify broadband as — what it is — a telecommunications service.  That leaves standing a federal court decision that swept away the Commission’s authority to oversee broadband and stop abusive behavior.  For providers, that’s a dream come true.  Just consider this week’s story that Clear is throttling their customers despite marketing claims they would never do such a thing.

But not to worry, America.  AT&T is “committed to an open Internet,” proclaims the company in a new, feel-good advertisement.  AT&T’s public policy ad claims the company stands with the Obama Administration on delivering universal access to broadband by 2020.

“The future,” the ad claims, “has always been our business.”

The notion is just so warm and fuzzy, it makes me want to adopt puppies and kittens.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Public Policy Commercial.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s newest ad promotes the company’s public policy agenda, which opposes Net Neutrality while still claiming to respect its core principles.  (1 minute)

Of course, AT&T is not so warm and friendly in Washington.  This is the company that dwarfs all other Big Telecoms in spending its customers’ money on hardcore lobbying blitzkriegs on Capitol Hill, drowning Washington in cash and fooling consumers with fake front groups pretending to represent their interests.

Suz, a third-year graduate student at Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture and Technology (CCT) program, noticed some of our earlier coverage on the topic of AT&T and wrote this is a company with a history:

The ad really struck me because of its message and because of the medium. In another class I’m currently taking – The Development of Electronic Media – we just came to the chapter on the development of the telephone and the major influence that AT&T held over that field for the majority of the 20th century. In part because of government regulations supporting the idea of “universal service” and in part because of the desire to connect rural areas with urban areas on the same line of service, the federal powers – though they put a little pressure on after AT&T acquired Western Union with the threat of anti-trust lawsuit – eventually support AT&T’s decompetitive nature by insisting on a compatible network and blocking “duplicative” services, giving AT&T the far-and-away lead in the market.

“The future has always been our business – AT&T.”

Now, there was a lot of history between this “golden age” of monopoly for AT&T and its eventual position today. But what I find striking is the similar-sounding stance to then-CEO Vail’s mission statement of universal service. Their motive may not have been as altruistic as the motto was (one way to attain universal service is to place it in the hands of one provider), but it eventually convinced the government that its powers could be used for good, even at the expense of a competitive (and innovative) marketplace.

Welcome to AT&T v2.0.

AT&T’s dominance in landlines is now at an end, but its influence over the telecommunications medium of the 21st century — the Internet, is just beginning.

The timing could not be more ironic, either.  While AT&T supports the goal for universal broadband service, it is fiercely lobbying to abandon a promise it made a generation earlier to deliver universal landline telephone service.  For that earlier commitment to wire every home, it was granted monopoly status for much of the 20th century.

AT&T has promised to be benevolent if it can remain a completely unregulated mega-player in the broadband industry.  It won’t openly censor opposing viewpoints, but it reserves the right to slow them down to make room for its preferred content partners.  AT&T won’t control what you see or do online, but it does want the right to limit how much of the seeing and doing you can do without overlimit usage fees kicking in.  But no worries, America — AT&T promises full disclosure, so at least you will know you’ve been network managed and overcharged for service.

Jeffrey Burnbaum — writing for the Washington Post — notes AT&T was the gold standard of high powered lobbying and little has changed today:

In the 1980s, AT&T was known for having one of the largest and most skilled corporate offices in Washington. Its representatives were everywhere and well-regarded on Capitol Hill. I remember one encounter between a tall AT&T lobbyist and an elegant McLean matron at a congressional cocktail party. The woman pecked the lobbyist on the cheek and then teased him: “I see you’re wearing your sincere blue suit.” He laughed knowingly — as did the lawmakers standing nearby and with whom he held much sway.

But personal respect wasn’t enough to hold back the tide, either. The telecommunications act of 1996 demonstrated the growing clout of the Baby Bells and AT&T made one last stab at restoring its prowess. In 1998 it hired a former White House deputy chief of staff, James W. Cicconi, to reorganize its Washington presence.

The former aide to George H. W. Bush put together what stands to this day as the model of a contemporary lobbying campaign. Under his guidance, AT&T dispensed tons of campaign cash, formed coalitions with sympathetic-sounding organizations, hired some of the biggest names in downtown Washington as lobbyists and spent millions of dollars on television advertising.

Net Neutrality advocates believe broadband reform is essential in the marketplace duopoly that exists today for most Americans.  With limited options, providers must do more than commit to an open Internet — they must be compelled to deliver it.  The industry’s scare tactics of slowed investment, job losses, and lost innovation are as patently ridiculous — and offensive — as similar claims made by the company over its breakup in the early 1980s.  With the power and influence of lobbying, telecommunications deregulation has allowed them to start putting the pieces back together again.  They are richer and more powerful than ever.

But can they be overcome?  Considering the cable industry deeply underestimated the impact of a consumer outcry over the industry’s abusive practices in the 1980s and early 1990s, the answer remains yes.  Just like the speeds of AT&T’s DSL service, it is just going to take awhile.

Videotron last week unveiled 120/20Mbps broadband service loaded down with tricks and traps that will cost many Canadians far more than the $149.95CDN monthly asking price.

Québec’s largest cable operator introduced Ultimate Speed Internet 120 for “users who want to experience the fastest Internet access in Québec.”  But with a download limit of just 170GB per month combined with an upload limit of a paltry 30GB per month, what many Internet enthusiasts are also likely to experience is a huge bill.

Videotron is rolling out a high-speed Internet access service that will give residents of the Québec City area the fastest speeds in Canada. As of tomorrow, Ultimate Speed Internet 120 will support download speeds of 120 mbps and upload speeds of 20 mbps, a first for Québec City.

“Ultimate Speed Internet 120 pushes back the frontier for intensive Internet users,” said Robert Dépatie, President & CEO of Videotron. “Today, we are launching the high-speed Internet service of the future. With the pace at which users’ needs are changing, we are not so far from the day when 120 mbps will be a must-have convenience.”

Astonishing capacity
As of tomorrow, Ultimate Speed Internet 120 will be available in nearly 80% of the greater Québec City area, or to nearly 310,000 households and businesses. The service will be accessible throughout the Québec City area by December 31, 2010 and will then be gradually rolled out to other parts of Videotron’s service area.

Astonishing Overcharging

Yanette is going to the bank to withdraw more funds to pay her exorbitant Videotron broadband bill.

Unlike many other Internet Overcharging plans from Canada’s usage cap-happy providers, Videotron’s highest-speed plans don’t limit the amount of overlimit fees customers will be exposed to once their allowance is exhausted.  In little more than three hours of usage at near-maximum speeds, overlimit fees of $1.50CDN per gigabyte kick in until your usage allows resets the following month.  That’s more than $50 an hour in overlimit fees if running the service near top speeds.

Videotron’s press release says those limits are “well in excess of the current needs of heavy bandwidth users.”

Even worse, Videotron targets its highest speed broadband plan for “traffic management,” which throttles upload speeds dramatically for customers who “have uploaded a statistically significant amount of data,” which is never defined:

Every 15 minutes, a system checks the usage rate for each upload channel (each upload channel typically serves a few dozen modems). If the usage rate has reached a threshold beyond which congestion is imminent, the system identifies the USI 120 modems on that channel that have uploaded a statistically significant amount of data. Uploading from these modems is then momentarily given lower priority. Depending on the severity and duration of the congestion, uploading speed may be slowed for these modems.  […]The above measures are applicable at all times.

That assures customers of a less-than-blazing-fast broadband experience they have paid top dollar to receive.  In effect, this means Videotron’s customers who pay three times the regular price for a concierge-like-broadband-experience are pushed to the back of the line if they actually use it.

A Videotron customer on Broadband Reports wrote, “It’s like driving a jet-car in an alley. You can probably start the engine, but don’t open the gas too much!”

Another customer from Montreal noted it takes no time at all for customers to blow through those kinds of limits:

This is merely a political play to be able to advertise as “the fastest ISP in Quebec/Canada”. Obviously such ridiculous caps are nowhere near the needs of someone who would pay $150 for that kind of speed, but they don’t mind saying things like “well in excess of the current needs of heavy bandwidth users” because 90% of the population, even the journalists themselves, have no idea what gigabytes are in the first place.

Considering most recent games released on Steam/D2D can be over 20GB, one HD episode is 1.3GB to stream each, 170GB is very little.

The cable operator will also throw some small bones to their existing customers effective Oct. 13:

• Customers with Videotron’s standard High Speed Internet service ($42.95CDN – 7.5Mbps/720kbps) will get a 10 gigabyte usage allowance increase — to 40GB of usage per month.  The overlimit fee remains a stunning $4.50 per gigabyte, up to a maximum of $50 per month;
• Upstream speeds on Ultimate Speed Internet 50 service ($81.95CDN – 50/1Mbps) will be doubled from 1Mbps to 2Mbps with no price increase.  Considering that plan limits consumption to 125GB per month, the faster speeds mean unlimited overlimit fees of $1.50 per month will add up even faster.

Delivering high speed broadband at premium prices with usage limits and speed throttles is a business plan disaster.  Customers willing to pay the highest prices for fast broadband don’t seek those Cadillac plans to browse web pages.  They want to leverage the fastest possible speeds to make high bandwidth applications work better and faster.  In a business environment, those faster speeds save time, which saves money.  But broadband providers who engage in Internet Overcharging schemes that limit use and charge confiscatory overlimit fees destroy demand for their own products, because few customers are willing to pay the premium prices these plans charge -and- expose themselves to overlimit fees if they happen to exceed an arbitrary usage limit.

Further south in the United States, Americans are still rejecting overpriced DOCSIS 3-premium speed broadband plans, and they come with no usage caps.  Time Warner Cable’s DOCSIS 3 expansion delivers a premium price on the resulting faster speed tiers, and the company managed to sign up fewer than 2,000 customers as of January.

Now imagine a plan that commanded a premium price -and- slapped a limit on usage.

As they say in Québec: c’est ridicule!

Fashionably late, Verizon Wireless intends to change its wireless smartphone data plans to end unlimited usage in the next four to six months, according to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.

Seidenberg said Verizon Wireless’s new data plans, which he says will probably arrive in time for the holiday shopping season, will differ from AT&T’s but he refused to elaborate.

“We’re not sure we agree yet with how they valued the data,” he said at an investor conference Thursday.

The change has been widely anticipated in the wireless industry, as Verizon Wireless and AT&T, the nation’s largest and second largest carriers, charge nearly identical pricing for their wireless services.  Both carriers formerly charged smartphone customers $29.99 per month for unlimited wireless usage.  AT&T eliminated unlimited usage with two new plans unveiled in June with the introduction of the latest Apple iPhone.  One charges customers $15 a month for up to 200Mb of usage, and another charges $25 for up to 2GB of usage per month.  Customers exceeding the limits pay $15 for an additional 200Mb or $10 per gigabyte in additional fees.

Critics charge Verizon’s decision to slap usage limits and overlimit fees on customers is just another attempt to gouge wireless customers, made possible by the two providers’ market power.

Wall Street Journal reader Candace Kalish commented on the new limited usage attitude Verizon seeks to embrace:

What the carriers want is a tiered system with outrageous penalties for slight overages. The banks, car renters, airlines, and credit card issuers do very well with this. It is the most profitable business model since it requires careful underuse or disproportionate costs on the part of their customers. This is why they require people to guess their usage and impose punitive marginal costs on single byte transfers.

[…]I think the carriers’ actions indicate a much greater concern with short term profits rather than long term innovation and even great profitability.

[…]Since carriers impose rates on a take it or leave it basis, I don’t see rates improving much in the near future. I’ll stick with my ancient $30 a month plan and a cheap flip phone with an iPod Touch. When competition kicks in, possibly in the next 10 to 20 years, and they offer more for my money, I’ll consider a smarter phone. Right now the market is still what they used to call a natural monopoly, and the pricing structure proves it.

Seidenberg

Seidenberg made it clear the new Internet Overcharging schemes will arrive in time for the company’s introduction of its fourth generation data network – Long-Term Evolution, more commonly known as LTE.  Earlier, Verizon hinted to its investors it intends to market its LTE service at a premium price, anticipating customers will be willing to pay a higher price for faster service.  This, despite the fact LTE will deliver Verizon dramatically increased capacity at a lower overall cost, in terms of bang for the spectrum buck.

Company officials are still considering whether LTE pricing will carry a per megabyte charge with little or no usage allowance or a more common usage allowance plan with overlimit fees.  Either way, few expect wireless will offer an effective competing alternative to wired broadband service, unless one’s monthly usage is below 5GB.  Above that amount, overlimit fees could quickly accumulate, leaving customers with wireless bill shock.

Dave Burstein, publisher of DSL Prime, commented back in January about wireless data pricing:

Charging at the this level, if the other wireless carriers go along, is a blatant attempt to protect their other services. [A government agency] filing points out the likely reason: “The Commission also must keep in mind that the two largest US wireless providers, Verizon and AT&T, also offer wireline services in major portions of the country, raising the question of whether these providers will market these services as replacements for wireline services.”

If his prices carry the day, the […] broadband plan will accomplish very little. The [plan] implicitly counts on wireless for competition, because new wired networks are highly unlikely and their plan doesn’t change that. Wireless voice in the U.S. is a weak cartel, data a relatively strong cartel. [Verizon’s] signals may inspire the other carriers to also drastically cut the basic data allowance.  Or not.

If there’s a significant cut in the 5GB wireless allowance, then the broadband plan needs a huge redirection to measures that work [in] a telco-cable duopoly. That’s so tough I don’t know if Washington can do that.

Thanks to our regular reader Bones for sending word.