Areas in yellow are Wireless ISP projects seeking funding to expand. Most of them are in the panhandle region of northern W.V. The areas shaded in purple are grant proposals to promote the benefit of subscribing to broadband service.

Frontier Communications has forced a West Virginia broadband improvement council to temporarily suspend plans to distribute $4 million in funding to independent ISPs planning to expand service in rural areas after a company official objected that the funding would duplicate broadband service Frontier already provides itself or through its satellite broadband partner.

The West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council ended up postponing its broadband awards program after Frontier Communications executive Dana Waldo, who serves on the Council, objected to the money being distributed.

Waldo noted state code prohibits the board from awarding grants for projects in areas already provided service.

That state code, passed by the West Virginia legislature in 2008, came courtesy of a coalition of phone, cable, and broadband equipment companies like Cisco working with then-Gov. Joe Manchin to push the broadband bill into law. Verizon was the most influential supporter, serving as West Virginia’s largest telecommunications company before selling its landline network to Frontier.

The code Waldo refers to:

The council shall exercise its powers and authority to bring broadband service to those areas without broadband service. The council may not duplicate or displace broadband service in areas already served or where private industry feasibly can be expected to offer services in the reasonably foreseeable future. In no event may projects or actions undertaken pursuant to this article be used to finance or support broadband or other services in competition with private industry.

The Council relied on broadband map data provided by Frontier Communications to help score and rank projects that appeared to be outside of Frontier’s broadband service area. When the project rankings were first announced in September, Frontier executives immediately claimed their map data was outdated and subsequently updated map data voluntarily supplied by Frontier, not independently verified, showed many of the high-ranking independent projects would compete with Frontier’s DSL service, disqualifying them from further consideration.

Waldo

Waldo declared he was not comfortable with the broadband awards because “many of those areas are currently served or can be reasonably served by Frontier.”

State officials were hopeful a new list of qualifying projects could be developed in accordance with the latest Frontier map data and were scheduled to be announced on Dec. 12.

But Waldo noted that Frontier could end up unhappy with many of those projects as well.

He noted Frontier technically already offers every household in West Virginia broadband access through its new partnership with a satellite Internet Service Provider. Frontier began offering rural customers satellite Internet service earlier this year.

“If our mission is to increase broadband access, we need to consider satellite,” he told the Council. “We have hundreds of [satellite] customers.”

While Frontier considers satellite broadband a solution in the most rural areas where it is unlikely to provide service anytime soon, it could prove even more valuable as a weapon against potential competition in a state that prohibits public funding of competing services.

The biggest losers should Frontier prove its case are rural Wireless Internet Service Providers, who have requested $3.1 million in grants to build antenna towers. An additional $923,000 was expected to fund programs that promote the benefits of signing up for high speed service. Frontier has ties to four of those projects, and has stated no objections to them.

Frontier has also not objected to the much larger $126 million federal grant to construct an institutional statewide fiber broadband network. Frontier is the primary vendor that will sell access on that network.

AT&T will begin sending out anti-piracy warning notices to subscribers caught downloading copyrighted content from torrent sites starting Nov. 28.

The new anti-piracy measures are part of a joint agreement between the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and five major national ISPs to help curtail content theft.

TorrentFreak obtained internal AT&T training documents that outline how AT&T will deal with customers suspected of illicit downloading. After a series of warnings, AT&T intends to block access to websites suspected of copyright infringement until a customer successfully completes a course on online copyright law. Eventually, those caught repeatedly downloading pirated movies and music could face legal action after AT&T turns over the identities of suspect customers. Gone from early draft proposals are suggestions that ISPs will throttle or suspend service altogether for repeat violators.

Late reports indicate that other ISPs participating in the copyright enforcement action — Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon — will also launch their own programs on the same date.

Most at risk are customers who frequent peer-to-peer file sharing sites. Tracking BitTorrent traffic is a priority for the newly-launched Center for Copyright Information (CCI) — a joint venture run by the ISPs in coordination with the MPAA and RIAA.

While not all peer-to-peer file traffic consists of illicit swapping of copyrighted works, some high profile torrent sites are among the first choices for consumers looking for free movies or music. CCI believes its Copyright Alert System (CAS) is primarily an educational tool for consumers who may not realize they are stealing copyrighted content. With its “six warnings” policy, CCI wants consumers to take action to protect themselves, their Internet accounts, and home networks well before any legal action is taken.

The latest implementation of the Copyright Alert System has watered down some of its earlier provisions, which could have put a customer’s Internet account at risk of being speed throttled or canceled. For now, consumers will receive six warnings about any suspected copyright infringement:

• The first three strikes carry no consequences and are intended to serve as informational warnings that the downloading of copyrighted content may be taking place;
• The fourth and fifth strikes will trigger forced browser redirects to a copyright education page and an online course on copyright law that must be successfully completed before the customer can once again visit suspect websites;
• Strike six means AT&T (and presumably other ISPs) will turn over the IP addresses of repeat offenders and comply with any subsequent court orders requesting the identity of the customer for possible legal action. AT&T does not say it will terminate the customer’s account, but does remind customers to be mindful of its Acceptable Use Policy, which does allow them to terminate service for illegal acts.

Edward Stroz

Consumers caught allegedly downloading copyrighted content can protest their innocence, but a $35 refundable filing fee is required to begin the arbitration process. If a consumer proves the files downloaded were not illegally obtained or that their account was flagged in error, they can have the warning canceled and get their filing fee refunded. But there are no penalties for CCI, its copyright tracking arm run by MarkMonitor, or the ISP if the copyright tracking system gets it wrong.

Critics of the copyright enforcement scheme claim it delivers too many benefits for CCI and its industry backers and insufficient protection for consumers misidentified during copyright infringement dragnets.

For-profit copyright tracking companies have made false allegations in the past, forcing CCI to hire an “independent and impartial technical expert” to verify the accuracy and security of the tracking technology used. CCI hired the firm of Stroz Friedberg as their expert.

Critics charge Stroz Friedberg is actually a recording industry lobbying firm, who worked with the RIAA for five years, earning $637,000.

Eric Friedberg

“It’s a disappointing choice, particularly in light of CCI’s professed desire to build public confidence in CAS and the fairness of its processes,” University of Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy told TorrentFreak. “It would have been refreshing to see an academic computer scientist or some other truly independent party appointed to fill that important role.”

Bridy calls CCI’s Copyright Alert System lacking in transparency and stacked in favor of copyright holders, not consumers.

Stroz Friedberg’s appointment has also raised eyebrows among others that suggest their past lobbying violates the spirit of a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all parties requiring “independent and impartial” oversight.

“CCI’s choice of a former RIAA lobbying firm makes it clear that the copyright owner parties to the Memorandum of Understanding were more interested in appointing someone they trust than in appointing someone the public can trust,” Bridy adds.

Network World columnist Steven Vaughan-Nichols worries this is just the beginning of another copyright enforcement overreach:

The name of their game is to monitor your network traffic, with the help of your friendly ISP. Their justification for this is the usual made-up “facts” that content theft leads to “more than 373,000 jobs, $16 billion in lost wages, and $2.6 billion in lost taxes.” Yeah, I’m also sure someone downloading copyrighted porn leads to cats and dogs living together.

One reason I can’t buy into all this is that, as TorrentFreak points out, the Center’s expert who vouches that this all works is none other than Stroz Friedberg, a former RIAA lobbyist. Oh yeah, he doesn’t have bias for paranoid copyright protection companies.

What this means for you is that if your ISP is AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, or Verizon, they’ll be watching your use of BitTorrent and letting CCI decide if you deserve some warnings, an end to your Internet service, or a full-out lawsuit.

[…] The RIAA, the MPAA, and other copyright “protectors” have never done anything for content creators. They’re all about protecting the businesses stuck with old, broken, pre-digital business models. Even that wouldn’t be so bad, except historically they’ve always vastly over-reacted.

We all know the stories of some poor slob who’s been slammed with tens of thousands of damages for downloading a song. What you may not know is that all the powers that be have to do is to claim something is copyrighted, whether it is or not, and multiple websites can be closed in minutes or your entire digital library can be destroyed.

Does that sound like paranoid fantasy? I wish.

[…] Oh yeah, I feel really sure that the CCI and friends are going to do a good job. Welcome to the new copyright world, same as the old, where you’re always considered guilty rather than that quaint idea of being considered innocent before proven otherwise.

CCI admits sophisticated pirates will probably never get caught by its Copyright Alert System, because most of them are moving to secured Virtual Private Network (VPN) technology that effectively masks their identities. TorrentFreak notes sales for VPN’s are skyrocketing, many headquartered far away from the reach of the United States in exotic, subpoena-proof locations like Cyprus, the Seychelles, Romania, and Ukraine.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/RT Thom Hartmann Copyright Alert System 3-20-12.flv[/flv]

RT’s Thom Hartmann presided over a debate about online copyright theft control measures proposed earlier this year by the entertainment industry and Internet Service Providers. Appearing with Hartmann are David Seltzer, Attorney & Mark Bledsoe. (March 20, 2012) (12 minutes)

Susan Crawford, President Barack Obama’s former Special Assistant for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy has the solution for America’s lack of universal broadband, and she solves it in just four Tweets:

• Step 1 gives private companies the push they need to get rural broadband financing within their existing Return on Investment formulas by reducing capital costs for unserved areas;
• Step 2 stops the corporate welfare legislation that protects the incumbent duopoly from publicly-owned competition that can ignore Wall Street’s insistence that more competition = fat profit erosion;
• Step 3 gives the ISPs access to public land and infrastructure either at no or low cost in return for recognizing they are benefiting from that taxpayer-owned infrastructure, so they better not abuse the privilege;
• Step 4 makes ISPs common carriers that have no financial interest in the content transported down broadband lines, thus no incentive to favor their own services while discriminating against others.

Whether such policies can withstand court challenges claiming violation of corporation free speech rights is, of course, another matter. But Crawford’s ideas create incentives for broadband providers to aggressively wire their respective service areas while avoiding monopolizing what travels down those broadband pipelines.

Phillip “Tollbooths are not innovation” Dampier

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski last week wrote a guest editorial on TechCrunch espousing the benefits of faster broadband networks, but the advances he celebrates often come with innovation-killing usage caps and overlimit fees he continues to ignore.

We feel the need – the need for speed. As Tom Friedman and others have written, in this flat global economy a strategic bandwidth advantage will help keep the U.S. as the home and most desired destination for the world’s greatest innovators and entrepreneurs.

[…] But progress isn’t victory, particularly in this fast-moving sector. Challenges to U.S. leadership are real. This is a time to press harder on the gas pedal, not let up. The first challenge is the need for faster and more accessible broadband networks. We need to keep pushing because our global competitors aren’t slowing down. I’ve met with senior government officials and business leaders from every continent, and every one of them is focused on the broadband opportunity. If we in the U.S. don’t foster major investments to extend and expand our broadband infrastructure, somebody else will take the lead.

We need to keep pushing because innovators need next-generation bandwidth for next-generation innovations – genetic sequencing for cancer patients, immersive and creative software to help children learn, ways for small businesses to take advantage of Big Data, and speed- and capacity-heavy innovations we can’t yet imagine.

We need to remove bandwidth as a constraint on our innovators and entrepreneurs. In addition to steadily increasing broadband speed and capacity for consumers and businesses throughout the country, we need – as we said in our National Broadband Plan – “innovation hubs” with super-fast broadband, with speed measured in gigabits, not megabits.

[…]Some argue the private sector will solve these challenges itself, and that all government has to do is get out of the way. I disagree. The private sector must take the lead, but the public sector has a vital though limited role to play.

Among the policy levers government needs to use is the removal of barriers to broadband buildout, lowering the costs of infrastructure deployment with new policies like “Dig Once” that says you should lay fiber when you dig up roads. The President recently issued an Executive Order implementing this idea, suggested in our Broadband Plan. Government must promote competition, which drives innovation and network upgrades.

We must ensure the Internet remains an open platform that continues to enable innovation without permission.

Genachowski

Genachowski’s vision for faster broadband has the noble goal of maintaining competitiveness with the rest of the world and putting the United States back on top in broadband rankings and innovation. But while hobnobbing with his industry friends at recent industry conventions, he may have gotten too close to one of the biggest impediments holding us back — big cable and phone companies merrily working their magic to create a comfortable duopoly with pricing and service plans to match.

Back in the late 1990s, most cable operators thought of broadband as an ancillary service easy enough to operate, but probably hard to monetize. Just like digital cable radio services like Music Choice and DMX, “broadband” would likely appeal only to a tiny subset of customers.

“Back in the 1990s, Time Warner was primarily a TV company in a TV industry.  Broadband then was an innovating and radical thing, and a lot of people thought it was stupid and wouldn’t work,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said in April, 2009.

The launch of “Road Runner” was not the most auspicious marketing effort undertaken by the cable operator. In fact, the service was rarely targeted for price adjustments, hovering at around $40 a month for a decade.

When the Great Recession hit the United States, something unexpected happened. Cable operators discovered people were willing to cancel their cable and phone services, but not their broadband. In fact, as high bandwidth online video became an increasing part of our lives, the cable industry realized they were in the catbird seat to deliver the best broadband experience, and be well-paid for it. With little competition, increasing prices brought little risk and, thanks to the insatiable drive to boost revenue and reduce costs, implementing usage caps to control “excess” usage and costs were within their grasp.

In 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, only a handful of ISPs had usage caps. Now most providers, with the exception of Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cablevision, and a handful of others, all have usage allowances and overlimit fee Internet Overcharging schemes to further pad their bottom lines.

Innovation: Rationing Your Internet Experience — Stick to e-mail and web pages.

Genachowski has completely ignored the growing pervasiveness of usage caps, and even excused them as an experiment in marketplace innovation. But limits on broadband usage will also limit the broadband innovation revolution he wants, especially when most Americans have just one or two realistic choices for broadband service:

1. Usage caps are the product of artificial scarcity. Rationing Internet usage, even with now-pervasive cost-effective upgrades like DOCSIS 3, simply does not make sense (but it will make dollars). Cable operators are switching off analog television service to free up bandwidth to provider faster Internet speed and fatten the pipeline that delivers it. They have plenty of capacity, but continue to proclaim they must limit usage for “fairness” reasons, without providing a single shred of evidence to prove the need for usage caps. Consumers will self-ration just to avoid the prospect of being cut off or handed a bill with overlimit fees.
2. Usage caps make faster speeds irrelevant. Selling customers premium-priced, super fast broadband speed is hardly compelling when accompanied by usage caps that constrain the benefits of buying. Why pay $20-50 more for faster speeds when customers cannot take practical advantage of them. Customers using their Internet service to browse web pages and read e-mail have no interest in upgrading to 30+Mbps. Customers streaming video or moving large files do.
3. Usage caps retard innovation. Google’s new 1Gbps fiber optic network was built on the premise that usage caps were unnecessary on a fiber-based network and would retard innovation. Developing the next generation of innovative apps that Genachowski celebrates will never happen if developers are discouraged by Internet usage toll booths and stop signs. The cost to provide the service is not largely dependent on customer usage. It is the initial price of last mile infrastructure that really matters. Both cable and phone companies have reduced their investments to upgrade their networks, and AT&T and Verizon both contemplate getting rid of their rural landlines. Most cable operators paid off their networks years ago.
4. Usage caps create a whole new digital divide.  Time Warner Cable’s discounted Internet Essentials program delivers only a $5 discount with a harsh 5GB usage cap. For an income-challenged home compelled to switch to a provider’s budget plan, the result is a different Internet experience than the rest of us enjoy. Imagine if your home broadband account was limited to 5GB a month. What online services would you have to avoid to stay under the provider’s limit? Traditionally, operators sell the lowest speed tiers with the lowest usage allowances. Slower speeds already offer a disincentive to use high bandwidth services, but many providers typically drive that disincentive home even harder with a paltry allowance that will cost plenty to exceed.
5. Usage caps harm our broadband standing. While Genachowski celebrates increasing broadband speeds, he ignores the fact the rest of the world is moving away from usage caps even as the United States moves towards them. Both Australia and New Zealand elected to construct their own national fiber networks in large part because the heavily usage-capped experience was holding both countries back. Usage caps are a product of a barely competitive market.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bandwidth Caps 7-2011.flv[/flv]

Tech News Today debunks providers’ claims that usage caps are fair and control those who “overuse” their networks, noting the same phone companies (AT&T) pushing for usage caps are also moving voice calling to unlimited service plans. (August, 2011) (4 minutes)

America’s worst-rated cable company is facing an apparent customer backlash on two fronts — its introduction of usage caps and at least one disgruntled unidentified citizen who mailed Mediacom a white powdery substance that forced a temporary closure of one hospital and left two Mediacom employees and two Washington County, N.C. sheriff’s deputies quarantined Wednesday.

Deputies launched an investigation after Mediacom employees handled and opened a plain envelope that was found to contain an unknown substance. Employees unintentionally exposed two sheriff’s deputies to the material after they responded to the incident. As a precaution, Mediacom’s Plymouth office was evacuated and both employees and police were decontaminated in an area hospital also placed on lockdown.

All are reportedly doing fine and the unknown substance was sent to Raleigh for further examination. Authorities won’t release further details about the envelope or its contents as the investigation is ongoing, but did say the substance turned out not to be harmful.

Earlier this month the cable company announced it was introducing variable usage caps for customers who either add or change broadband services after August 1. Current customers will be grandfathered under Mediacom’s informally uncapped usage plans, but cannot make changes to their packages without choosing one of several new usage-limited plans. (Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Curt for sending along the details.)

The caps range from 150GB for Mediacom’s lightest-use plan Launch, which offers 3Mbps downstream, 250GB for the popular 15/1Mbps Prime plan, to 999GB for the company’s 50/5 Ultra and 105/10Mbps Ultra Plus plans.

A Mediacom representative explained the company’s reasons for the usage caps:

“We’ve implemented the usage allowances to ensure we can deliver on our promise of Always Faster Internet,” said “Chad” — from Mediacom Social Media Relations in Gulf Breeze, Fla. “In reality, only 2% of our users exceed our usage allowances. This 2% can use over 19 times what the average household would use, and this can dramatically impact the service you experience in your home. It could cause us to raise our rates for everyone, just to accommodate the excessive use of a few.”

Unfortunately, not every Mediacom customer currently has access to a company-developed usage measurement tool. If a customer exceeds their limit, Mediacom will charge a flat $10 for every 50GB segment over that amount.

Mediacom’s need to implement usage caps is open to debate, however.

The company’s latest 10-Q report filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, Mediacom admits it has already increased rates for its broadband customers – heavy users and otherwise. At the same time, Mediacom admits its costs to operate its broadband service have dropped 18.7%, principally due to lower connectivity costs.

In fact, the largest costs Mediacom faced included:

• Field operating costs, which grew 13.7% as the company increasingly relies on outside, third-party contractors;
• Marketing costs increased 13.8% to pay for the company’s rebranding, junk mail marketing, and advertising;
• Employee costs increased 23.5%, primarily to beef up its marketing and direct sales to potential business customers.

Nothing in Mediacom’s required declarations to the SEC show any impact by so-called “heavy users” on its broadband service costs or revenues. If they represented any potential threat to the company’s value to investors, disclosure as a “risk factor” is required by law.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNCT Jacksonville Investigation continues following Mediacom Powder 8-8-12.flv[/flv]

WNCT in Jacksonville, N.C. covers a potential anthrax scare when an unidentified person mailed a plain envelope to Mediacom in Plymouth containing a white, powdery substance.  (2 minutes)