Blair Levin, broadband czar

Blair Levin is a broadband czar with a lot on his mind, and he unloaded a lot of it at a public conference this week.  He’s been spending his summer wading into more than 8,500 pages of comments the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received on the question of how to formulate a national broadband plan.  Individual consumers using the submission form like a blog’s comment section was the least of his concerns.  Levin has grown far less optimistic about the value of the comments as he digs deep into the pile before him.  His conclusion: at least some of the companies and groups that can afford the most expensive lawyers and professional presentations essentially pulled off an all-nighter let’s-wing-it-effort.

Levin particularly called out a “large telco” that submitted an extensive paper promoting its position loaded with intellectual sloppiness, right down to including a slide that contradicted the phone company’s own arguments.

Levin also claimed a lot of the submissions were loaded with platitudes and consensus about a model broadband society everyone would like to see, with no road map to actually achieve that goal.

The broadband czar reserved special criticism for the locust-like lobbyists who have descended on the comment process with self-serving proposals that are crafted with a “mine first” mentality that cuts out other players.  Levin claimed providers are much more interested in protecting their existing market and business plans before they consider how changes in the marketplace can increase the number of customers available to them.  That’s a mentality consumers are familiar with as broadband providers attempt to protect their video business models with attempts to limit or overcharge for broadband access.

He was upset that plans to open up new spectrum for next generation broadband services were met with resistance from other providers.  Wireless spectrum expansion for broadband projects was promoted as “essential” in one proposal, and attacked as a dangerous threat in another.  Levin characterized the turf war as, “get [the spectrum] from somebody else.”

Many of the major providers are treating the national broadband plan as a giant piggy bank, waiting to shower them with cash for vague projects or goals.  “Look I’ve got to say this — we are not going to be Santa Claus,” Levin said. “There’s actually very little in the 8,500-something pages that moves the ball forward,” Levin said.

Consumer advocacy group Free Press, which submitted an extensive pro-consumer broadband plan of its own, which Stop the Cap! supports, agreed with much of what Levin complained about in a new filing today, in response to Levin’s remarks.

Derek Turner, Free Press

Derek Turner, research director at Free Press, said “the FCC should not be duped by the incumbents’ self-serving claims. The national broadband plan must be built on a record of meaningful data and analysis — not on flimsy evidence and discredited arguments.”

Turner was pointing to telecommunications lobbying policies which reach not only the FCC, but elected officials.

Indeed, they are repeats of the same mantra over and over — “deregulation.”

“Incumbents have the largest pool of resources and broadband data at their fingertips, but their comments offer nothing more than the same old tired pro-deregulation arguments. It is clear from their recommendations that the phone and cable companies want the national broadband plan to simply be a ‘do-nothing’ plan — a strategy that has already proven to be an epic failure for consumers,” Turner added.

Incumbent carriers keep that pool of resources and data close to their vests, refusing to make it widely available for detailed independent analysis.  Instead, their “government affairs” lobbyists engage in astroturfing efforts to hoodwink consumers and policymakers with biased data and maps that help sell their agenda of deregulation and public financing of needed broadband projects, with little or no oversight or conditions.  Most important, they universally characterize today’s broadband offerings as excellent and evidence that the “marketplace is working,” even as the United States falls further behind other nations in access, speed, and low pricing.

While Levin is right to be exasperated at the special interest folderol, the FCC’s previous hands-off attitude during the Clinton and Bush Administrations set the stage for the ballet being performed today.  A deregulatory framework, started by the Clinton Administration and embraced on entirely new levels by the Bush Administration, combined with an agency timid to get involved in oversight potentially raising the ire of Congress, made it possible for 8,500 pages of generic happy talk and thinly disguised grant applications to weigh heavily on his desk.

Caught in the middle, as usual, are consumers.  Most of them were the ones typing their comments into the FCC comments submission page in “the big box,” instead of uploading a professionally prepared multi-hundred page PDF document.  Their needs are simple: affordable, fast, widespread broadband, with Net Neutrality embraced and Internet Overcharging schemes banned.  For those who already have the service, they want the FCC to make sure providers don’t leverage their monopoly or duopoly into a Money Party.  For those who don’t, they simply wonder how the most powerful country on earth cannot “get it done” without 8,500 pages and hundreds of millions of dollars potentially flushed away to feed special interest coffers while their needs are ignored or met with “this is good enough service for you” condescension.

Of course, no matter what Levin thinks, a lot of those providers with mixed up slides and Red Bull fueling their all-nighters know the FCC doesn’t have the last word on anything.  They’ll take the dog and pony show straight to Congress, with checks in hand to lubricate the conversation. Making sure Congress ultimately listens to their constituents will be up to voters like you and I.

Netgear’s Rangemax™ Dual Band Wireless-N Gigabit Router – Premium Edition (WNDR3700) will be Netgear’s first router to include usage monitoring capability built-in.

For many consumers asked, “how many gigabytes do you use on your Internet connection each month,” the answer is often a question: “what is a gigabyte?”

Because of efforts of Internet Service Providers to try and implement Internet Overcharging schemes, consumers who have no interest watching a company-provided web page “gas gauge,” will at least be given an independent way of assessing their monthly usage – through the router that often connects a cable or DSL modem to a home computer.

Netgear will introduce a new router this August that will include built-in usage monitoring tools.  The Netgear Rangemax™ Dual Band Wireless-N Gigabit Router – Premium Edition (WNDR3700) will sell for $190, and is targeted to high end users.  Netgear promises to introduce the feature on new router models going forward, eventually becoming a standard feature on every router sold by the company.  Software upgrades will be available to introduce the measurement tool to older equipment already in use.

Usage monitoring tools aren’t actually new.  Replacement “firmware” such as Tomato and DD-WRT, already measures usage, typically with a monthly consumption total.  That makes it much easier than some software measurement tools, which can only measure usage when left running (and only on a single computer).

Similarly, in the realm of website monitoring, the integration of log analysis tools has seen a parallel evolution. While Netgear’s upcoming router brings usage monitoring tools into the spotlight for network management, log analysis tools have long been at the forefront of web administrators’ toolkits. Just as Netgear plans to make usage monitoring a standard feature, log analysis tools have become an indispensable standard for dissecting website traffic patterns and ensuring optimal online performance. These tools offer a comprehensive view of website activity, surpassing the capabilities of basic software measurement tools, and have proven their value as essential assets in maintaining web functionality and security.

Most consumers are not interested in measuring usage, but with the threat of overlimit fees and penalties or service termination, router manufacturers have begun to include measurement tools to help consumers keep track just in case.

Some providers, like Comcast, provide a monthly allowance of 250GB and only actively pursue the top 1% of customers who wildly exceed that.  Others, as have been regularly documented on Stop the Cap!, create very low limits, and then overcharge consumers with penalty fees when they exceed them.  Time Warner Cable met extremely hostile opposition to their roundly-attacked “tier experiment” in April, and quickly shelved the proposal until a company “education” campaign can be run.  The importance of checking usage will vary depending on how draconian of a limit one’s provider sets for its customers.

Netgear’s announcement can be read both positively and negatively.  It’s positive because it allows customers to independently measure their monthly usage and expose any providers who “play with the numbers” and overbill customers for usage never consumed.  It’s negative because it plays into industry arguments that measurement tools are a necessary element to conduct business, and helps establish a foundation to implement Internet Overcharging schemes.  Critics call such schemes unnecessary, considering the highly profitable returns providers enjoy at current pricing.

Cisco Systems, which owns Linksys, another major router manufacturer, is also considering bandwidth measurement tools for its router line in the future.

Bronson Riley realized not long ago that he and his wife were paying way more for cable television than they were getting out of it. They watched only a few shows each week.

At the time, he was reading a book on personal finance. It mentioned purchasing services “a la carte” rather than as a package.

The Lincoln, Nebraska resident knew that wasn’t an option for cable TV. So he cut the cord about two months ago, canceling his cable subscription. Now the couple watch what they want, when they want — online.

The mainstream press has started devoting more attention to the plight of cable television executives pondering what to do about “parasites” like Bronson Riley, who they see as poaching their programming and watching it online… for free.

One of the unintended consequences of the unveiling of TV Everywhere, the Comcast/Time Warner Cable concept of permitting “authenticated” viewers to watch cable programming online, (as long as they already subscribe to a standard “cable package”) is an exploration of the phenomenon of  consumers cutting cable’s cord and doing without.

Riley touches on an issue that has bugged cable consumers for decades now — paying for channels they didn’t ask for and don’t want.  In the 1980s and early 1990s, talk about 500 channels of cable programming was dismissed as fanciful, but has since become reality when one includes on demand and music channels.  What has also become an increasing reality for cash-strapped consumers is the bill at the end of the month, which has grown annually faster than the rate of inflation.

A-la-carte, simply defined as paying only for those channels you watch, is an alarming concept for the nation’s cable television operators.  They have resisted the concept for more than 20 years, when it was first seriously raised in congressional hearings to deal with runaway cable bills.

Unfortunately for the industry, most consumers have suggested they have no need for most of the channels they receive today, and are tired of paying for them.  Many consumers would be happy with just six channels they routinely watch,  eager to pay only for them and nothing else.

With this in mind, some customers who also have broadband service from their cable provider have begun to discover many of their favorite shows are available, on demand, for free.  With more and more shows becoming available, a small, but growing minority of cable subscribers have decided to drop cable TV and watch video online instead, an issue the Omaha World-Herald explored:

Andrea Riley watches “Desperate Housewives” at ABC.com, which streams free full episodes of that and other popular shows such as “Lost” and “Grey’s Anatomy,” often the day after they air. The couple buy episodes of another favorite, “The Soup,” a revamp of “Talk Soup” on E! Entertainment Television, on Apple’s iTunes for $1.99 each with only a day’s wait.

Even paying for the handful of shows they can’t get free legally, Riley figures watching TV online saves money. The only thing they miss is flipping on CNN Headline News and the Weather Channel in the morning.

“It’s all getting to watch the TV shows you want to watch at a cheaper price, at your convenience,” he said.

In making the switch, the Rileys have joined a small but growing number of people who are tuning in online rather than over traditional network, cable or satellite pipelines. Some watch online occasionally to catch up on an episode they’ve missed or to track down old or obscure shows. Others, like the Rileys, watch online routinely.

For now, only a minority of web-aware consumers understand how to watch television online, but that’s changing.

“People are just figuring this out,” Jeremy Lipschulz, director of the University of Nebraska at Omaha School of Communication said. “Once people figure out that all this content is out there, you’ll see a more dramatic shift.”

Bobby Tulsiani, a senior analyst with the market research firm Forrester Research, agreed it’s still tech types who are making the change. Two years from now, more people will be doing it, he told the World-Herald.

Ann Shrewsbury, public affairs director for Time Warner Cable Nebraska, said their business trends nationwide show the same thing.

That leaves cable operators like Time Warner Cable in a quandary, and they’ve thus far responded with a trial to stream cable shows online, on demand, for their customers.  But the catch is one must remain a cable TV subscriber to access it.

Across many parts of Nebraska, served by Cox Cable, they’ll be left out of the online video revolution on offer from Time Warner Cable and Comcast, at least until Cox Cable can negotiate its way into the project being run by its larger brethren.

Riley said he generally doesn’t miss cable, having spent more of his time online or watching movies on demand, except for local weather from The Weather Channel and catching up with news on Headline News.  He doesn’t regret the savings either.  Most standard cable tiers are priced higher than his broadband service.

But Riley does recognize there is one way to put a stop to the revolution and end the parade to true, on-demand television viewing on a “pay per view” or free basis: limits on his Internet service.

With Internet overcharging schemes like usage limits, or charging overlimit fees for “excessive consumption,” cable operators might hope to stop the threat before it gets out of hand.

The Internet Innovation Alliance claims to advocate for consumer interests, but has telecom backing.

The Internet Innovation Alliance released a report Tuesday telling you what you already know (thanks to Stop the Cap! reader ‘Bones’ for sending the link):

(1) Consumers receive more than $30 billion of net benefits from the use of fixed line broadband at home, with broadband increasingly being perceived as a necessity;
(2) With even higher speed, broadband would provide consumers even greater benefits – at minimum an additional $6 billion per year;
(3) Significant broadband adoption gaps exist between various groups of households;
(4) Among those who are connected to broadband at home, there is no significant valuation gap based on race, although there are valuation gaps along other lines;
(5) The total economic benefits of broadband are significantly larger than our estimates of the consumer benefits from home broadband.

Astroturf Thursday

In simpler terms, the IIA did a study that discovered consumers value broadband in dollar amounts higher than they currently pay for it.  To the general media, it will be interpreted as evidence that broadband is wonderful in the United States and may be underpriced.  That’s music to the ears of providers, who also study the gap between what a consumer would be willing to pay for a product versus what they actually pay.  That gap represents the wiggle room for providers to raise prices and safely predict consumers will not be outraged about it.

The IIA also trumpets the value of broadband in their study, entitled The Substantial Consumer Benefits of Broadband Connectivity for U.S. Households, for the benefit of their benefactors, who stand to gain substantially from broadband stimulus funding.  The IIA, one of the many astroturf organizations out there supported by the telecommunications industry, advocates for a “partnership” between private providers and government to deploy broadband.  In other words, they want the government to hand over tax dollars to private providers to construct broadband networks while preserving the completely deregulated “free market” broadband marketplace.  The “free market” concept now seems to include public taxpayer dollars subsidizing private business, all while providers demand no oversight or regulation to “hamper their innovation.”

Public money funneled to private business with no regulation or oversight = broadband goodness.

Still, it’s not all bad.  Even the IIA understands the obvious — providing faster broadband speeds not only enhances the perceived value of the product, consumers are also willing to happily pay higher prices to obtain it.  They didn’t study Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, consumption-based pricing, and other similar pricing schemes, presumably because the results would have shown dramatically dampened consumer enthusiasm.

What Is The Internet Innovation Alliance?

Who They Say They Are: “[A] broad-based coalition …committed to more widespread usage and availability of broadband through wise policy decisions.”
Who They Really Represent: Members include telecom business such as AT&T, and telecom trade associations such as the Information Technology Association of America.
What They Say They Do: “[A]ssist public policy makers to better understand new technologies and to promulgate smart policies that facilitate their growth.”
What They Really Want: To create a tiered Internet and allow broadband providers to charge web sites like Google and Yahoo! for the ability to reach their subscribers.
On the Web: http://www.internetinnovation.org/

The Internet Innovation Alliance runs a slick website dedicated to promoting broadband Internet policies that “will improve Americans’ lives.” While the Alliance claims to include “consumer advocates” in its coalition, no true consumer groups can be found anywhere in its membership list. But AT&T, one of the largest telephone companies in the country, is on the list. As recently as late 2004, the Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) did seem to be on consumers’ side on the issue of network neutrality – the principle that your Internet service provider shouldn’t be able to block or interfere with your ability to access any content or use any services on the web.

Take a look at IIA’s scathing statement after SBC Communications revealed plans to charge fees to web-based telephone providers (also called Voice-over-Internet-Protocol, or VoIP): “SBC’s charging of higher fees to VoIP providers …is discriminatory in nature and is a dangerous first step toward eradicating the vast array of benefits services like VoIP will provide to consumers. VoIP promises great consumer benefits provided it remains unburdened by regulations and access fees…. SBC apparently missed the memo or chose to ignore it in the face of larger profits.”

So where was the outrage a year later when SBC head Ed Whitacre told Business Week magazine that broadband Internet providers should be allowed to charge fees not only to VoIP companies, but to any web-based company or service? “Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. …We [the telephone companies] and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!,” argued Whitacre.

This time, the Internet Innovation Alliance was nowhere to be found. Why? Maybe because SBC Communications was in the final stages of a merger with AT&T—one of IIA’s “member” groups. IIA does not disclose how much its “members” contribute to the organization, but in the case of AT&T, it appears to be enough to have bought IIA’s silence. — Common Cause

Stop the Cap! reader Lance wrote this afternoon letting us know Google has a project running for the next few weeks to ask ordinary Americans, you know, the ones who don’t have their own astroturf groups, slick lobbyists, and Re-Education literature, what you and I want from broadband stimulus funding and a national broadband plan.

Submit your ideas for a National Broadband Plan
Google and the New America Foundation have teamed up to launch this Google Moderator page, where you can submit and vote on ideas for what you think the Federal Communications Commission should include in its National Broadband Plan. Two weeks from now we’ll take the most popular and most innovative ideas and submit them to the official record at the FCC on your behalf.

So do you have any good ideas? Submit them today — and you just might help change the face of broadband in the United States.

The operative word there is “might.” Without a massive deluge from angry consumers, the killer bee swarm of lobbyists and other special interests will surround and fly away with the honey pot of federal broadband stimulus funding. But you can’t win if you don’t play, so let’s get busy.

Here was my submission, which you can choose to give a thumbs-up to if you support it:

“A clear prohibition on Internet overcharging schemes! No usage caps, speed throttles, and consumption-based tiered pricing. Net neutrality enshrined into law, open competition, even if it comes from municipalities, and the more fiber, the better!”

Finding submitted ideas is best achieved by using the Search box at the top of the Google Moderator page. You can find mine with a search for “net neutrality.”

Some of the ideas from ordinary consumers that are already getting plenty of support are excellent, common sense winners in our humble opinion, so be sure to vote “thumbs-up” for these as well:

• “Install broadband fiber as part of every federally-funded infrastructure project. Most of the cost of deployment is due to tearing up/repaving roads. Laying fiber during public works projects already underway would dramatically reduce costs.”
• “Force real competition in any given market for broadband services from the same types of provider to eliminate monopolies (i.e. multiple cable providers competing in the same market).”
• “Charging per-data-rate (EG: per gb) is a bad idea. You don’t get charged per hour you watch cable on top of your monthly subscription and additional channels, why should you pay per hour or per gb for access to the Internet?”
• “Stop the ability of private companies to block local governments from trying to deploy their own broadband solutions. There have been numerous examples of this, and it really stifles broadband expansion.”
• “Place residential broadband under the same regulations as other utilities. Require companies to publish their tariffs, and forbid hard caps. Require a portion of the proceeds to be invested into improving the infrastructure.”
• “Recognize that high-speed, reliable and unfiltered Internet access in the 21st century is a civil right on par with free speech and a right to an education and not a simple luxury for those who can afford it. More federal funding, fewer monopolies.”
• “Get ConnectedNation out of the loop. Funded by telecos and cablecos and are lobbying congress using false and misleading data.”

How to participate:

1. You need to have a registered Google account. You have one already if you use Gmail or other Google services.
2. Visit this page to find the question.
3. You will find a login link at the bottom. Click it and you can login or get a new Google account.
4. You will be shown a list of ideas submitted by others. They often appear randomly.
5. On the right side of your screen, you will see a place to approve (checkbox) or disapprove (an “x” in a box) of various ideas.
6. Vote for as many or as few as you like.

You can also submit your own idea.

The most popular ideas will be part of Google’s submission to the FCC.

Let us know what idea you are voting for and if you submitted any of your own in the Comments section.

Click on the "Comments" link shown circled to go directly to reader comments, and share your own views!

For new readers, you can get involved in the conversation by clicking the comments link found as part of the heading of every article here, or just click the headline and scroll down the bottom of your screen where you can find a place to share your thoughts!