Phillip "Break Free from 'What's In It For Me'-AT&T" Dampier

[We are reprinting this because it succinctly and persuasively proves a point we’ve been making at Stop the Cap! since 2008.  Broadband is not just a “nice thing to have.” It is as important as a phone line, electricity, and safe drinking water.  News, education, commerce, and culture increasingly utilize the Internet to share information and entertain us. Essential utility services can either be provided by a private company operating as a monopoly with oversight and regulation, or operate strictly in the public interest in the form of a customer-owned cooperative, a direct service of local government, or a quasi-public independent non-profit.

In North America, broadband was originally considered a non-essential service, and private providers in the United States lobbied heavily to maintain absolute control of their broadband networks, free to open them to share with other providers, or not.  They also won sweeping deregulation and are still fighting today for decreased oversight.  The results have been uneven service.  Large, compact cities enjoy modern and fast broadband while smaller communities are forced to live with a fraction of the speeds offered elsewhere, if they have access to the service at all.

With broadband now deemed “essential,” local governments have increasingly sought to end the same old excuses with the “don’t care”-cable company or “what’s in it for me”-AT&T and provide 21st century service themselves, especially where local commercial providers simply won’t step up to the plate at all.  Suddenly, big cable and phone companies are more possessive than your last boy/girlfriend. The companies that for years couldn’t care less about your broadband needs suddenly obsess when someone else moves in on “their territory.” They want special laws (that apply only to the competition) to make sure your broadband future lies exclusively in their hands.

Susan P. Crawford understand how this dysfunctional, controlling relationship comes at the expense of rural America.  She’s a visiting professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. In 2009, she was a special assistant to President Barack Obama for science, technology and innovation policy. Her opinions were originally shared with readers of Bloomberg News.]

In cities and towns across the U.S., a familiar story is replaying itself: Powerful companies are preventing local governments from providing an essential service to their citizens. More than 100 years ago, it was electricity. Today, it is the public provision of communications services.

Susan Crawford

The Georgia legislature is currently considering a bill that would effectively make it impossible for any city in the state to provide for high-speed Internet access networks — even in areas in which the private sector cannot or will not. Nebraska, North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee already have similar laws in place. South Carolina is considering one, as is Florida.

Mayors across the U.S. are desperate to attract good jobs and provide residents with educational opportunities, access to affordable health care, and other benefits that depend on affordable, fast connectivity — something that people in other industrialized countries take for granted. But powerful incumbent providers such as AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc. are hamstringing municipalities.

At the beginning of the 20th century, private power companies electrified only the most lucrative population centers and ignored most of America, particularly rural America. By the mid-1920s, 15 holding companies controlled 85 percent of the nation’s electricity distribution, and the Federal Trade Commission found that the power trusts routinely gouged consumers.

Costly and Dangerous

In response, and recognizing that cheap, plentiful electricity was essential to economic development and quality of life, thousands of communities formed electric utilities of their own. Predictably, the private utilities claimed that public ownership of electrical utilities was “costly and dangerous” and “always a failure,” according to the November 1906 issue of Moody’s Magazine. Now more than 2,000 communities in the U.S., including Seattle, San Antonio and Los Angeles, provide their own electricity.

Today, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which advocates for community broadband initiatives, is tracking more than 60 municipal governments that have built or are building successful fiber networks, just as they created electric systems during the 20th century. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, for example, the city’s publicly owned electric company provides fast, affordable and reliable fiber Internet access. Some businesses based in Knoxville — 100 miles to the northeast — are adding jobs in Chattanooga, where connectivity can cost an eighth as much.

Meanwhile, less than 8 percent of Americans currently receive fiber service to their homes, compared with more than 50 percent of households in South Korea, and almost 40 percent in Japan. Where it’s available, Americans pay five or six times as much for their fiber access as people in other countries do. Fully a third of Americans don’t subscribe to high-speed Internet access at all, and AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said last month that the company was “trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America, and we’re not finding one, to be quite candid.” America is rapidly losing the global race for high-speed connectivity.

Tamping Down Enthusiasm

We've done something like this once before.

Like the power trusts of the 20th century, the enormous consolidated providers of wired Internet access want to tamp down any enthusiasm for municipal networks. Last year, telecom lobbyists spent more than $300,000 in a failed effort to block a referendum in Longmont, Colorado, to allow that city to provide Internet access. Time Warner Cable managed to get a North Carolina law enacted last year that makes launching municipal networks there extraordinarily difficult. The pending measures in Georgia and South Carolina are modeled on the North Carolina bill.

The Georgia bill is chock-full of sand traps and areas of deep statutory fog from which no local public network is likely ever to emerge. In addition to the ordinary public hearings that any municipality would hold on the subject, a town looking to build a public network would have to hold a referendum. It wouldn’t be allowed to spend any money in support of its position (there would be no such prohibition on the deep-pocketed incumbents). The community wouldn’t be allowed to support its network with local taxes or surplus revenues from any other services (although incumbents routinely and massively subsidize their networks with revenue from other businesses).

Most pernicious of all, the public operator would have to include in the costs of its service the phantom, imputed “capital costs” and “taxes” of a private provider. This is a fertile area for disputes, litigation and delay, as no one knows what precise costs and taxes are at issue, much less how to calculate these amounts. The public provider would also have to comply with all laws and “requirements” applicable to “the communications service,” if it were made available by “a private provider,” although again the law doesn’t specify which service is involved or which provider is relevant.

The end result of all this vague language will be to make it all but impossible for a city to obtain financing to build its network. Although the proponents of Georgia’s bill claim that they are merely trying to create a level playing field, these are terms and conditions that no new entrant, public or private, can meet — and that the incumbents themselves do not live by. You can almost hear the drafters laughing about how impossible the entire enterprise will be.

Globally Competitive Networks

Right now, state legislatures — where the incumbents wield great power — are keeping towns and cities in the U.S. from making their own choices about their communications networks. Meanwhile, municipalities, cooperatives and small independent companies are practically the only entities building globally competitive networks these days. Both AT&T and Verizon have ceased the expansion of next-generation fiber installations across the U.S., and the cable companies’ services greatly favor downloads over uploads.

Congress needs to intervene. One way it could help is by preempting state laws that erect barriers to the ability of local jurisdictions to provide communications services to their citizens.

Running for president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt emphasized the right of communities to provide their own electricity. “I might call the right of the people to own and operate their own utility a birch rod in the cupboard,” he said, “to be taken out and used only when the child gets beyond the point where more scolding does any good.” It’s time to take out that birch rod.

Perhaps the most the world ever hears about the tiny British island of St. Helena, a home in the South Atlantic for 4,000 residents, is the annual St. Helena Radio Day when the nation takes to the shortwave radio dial to say hello to friends on every continent.

Beyond that, St. Helena is mostly known as an out-of-the-way tourist destination and potential point of contact for ships traversing the South Atlantic between South America and southern Africa.  St. Helena’s residents live with three television stations, two radio stations, two newspapers, and a single satellite connection to the Internet providing one 10/3Mbps circuit shared by all 4,000 residents.

Signing up for “broadband” is an expensive ordeal.  Individual residents can purchase strictly usage-limited DSL Internet service at prices ranging from $31 a month for 128/64kbps service (limited to 300MB per month) to $190 for 384/128kbps service, with a 3.3GB monthly allowance.  Overlimit fees start at around $0.15 per megabyte.

St. Helena

Local residents find life without the modern day definition of broadband service a major hindrance, especially for education.  Students have left St. Helena for the United Kingdom to pursue studies.  Economically, self-sustained employment is next to impossible on the island.

“I’m an IT engineer and I would love to return to my island to start an IT business, but because of the slow, expensive and unreliable Internet connection this is simply impossible,” said Jonathan Clingham, an IT infrastructure engineer now working in Wiltshire, England.

Now a grass-roots campaign has been launched to help convince several telecommunications companies financing a new underseas fiber cable project laid between Brazil, Angola, and South Africa to reroute the cable slightly through the island of St. Helena, opening the door to modern broadband for the island.

The group is calling on supporters to help draw attention to the project, arrange for the British government to help underwrite the expense of an extra 50 kilometers of cable needed to reach St. Helena, and providing assistance to lease a circuit on the new cable:

• If you are an British citizen or UK resident please sign our e-petition to connect St Helena.
• Show your support by liking our Facebook page.
• Spread the word and let everybody know about our campaign.
• Ask the following entities/persons for support:
  • the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office
  • the UK Department for International Development
  • as a UK citizen your MPs and Lords

Phillip Dampier

Sometimes you have to wonder if some people have no shame.  Former Sen. Chris Dodd, who now collects a fat paycheck as chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, has his fur in quite the ruffle this morning, upset to learn thousands of websites have voluntarily gone offline in a one day protest against proposed copyright legislation bought and paid for by the industry he now represents.

“Some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging,” Dodd said in a statement.

Corporate pawns?  The irony of Dodd’s use of the revolving door between his public office and the special interests he used to oversee (and now earns a living from), was lost on him.  So was the fact the MPAA and its recording industry cohort the RIAA have spent the past several years alienating consumers extorting settlements out of those presumed guilty, under threat of being sued for much more.  With years of overreach and customer alienation under their belts, pardon America if they suspect Hollywood’s latest anti-piracy plan is more of the same.

Dodd served the people of Connecticut when the music and movie industry began a series of crackdowns on content theft that did more harm than good.  This is the industry that fought the right of consumers to record TV shows on home VCR’s for later viewing, wanted to tax blank media, raised prices on CD’s and DVD’s to the point it fueled piracy, for years refused to license legal online content in ways that would have undercut piracy, imposed “digital rights management” technology that effectively curtailed fair use of content consumers purchased for themselves, and sued customers it suspected of stealing — innocent or otherwise.

Dodd

But Chris Dodd doesn’t work for the American people any longer.  He works for giant corporate studios and now represents their interests.

Dodd is especially upset because the Stop SOTA protests may actually be effective at shutting down the railroading of the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” through Congress.

“It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information… A so-called ‘blackout’ is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals,” said Dodd.

The industry has spent millions trying to position their legislation as a solution to shady offshore counterfeiters and content thieves, but the bill’s most significant provisions hit much closer to home.

The proposed legislation would allow the Department of Justice and content owners to seek court orders against any site accused of “enabling or facilitating” piracy.  Since America’s long arm of justice can reach only between the states of Hawaii and Maine, this most important provision of the proposed bill would do little to curtail those “foreign criminals.”

SOPA also demands that search engines censor themselves to remove anything Hollywood suspects of infringing copyright from search listings.  As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has documented for years on its Chilling Effects project website, such powers have already been used within the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to wipe out listings that just reference copyrighted works, occasionally even by third parties that have no real standing to file the complaint.  At least websites responding affirmatively to DMCA complaints are protected from unknowingly violating copyright law.  Under SOPA, those protections are bypassed, potentially making even innocent infringement liable for civil action and search engine blocking.

Much of the enforcement, likely encouraged by companies Dodd now represents, will be done at the behest of Hollywood studios and other deep pocketed content producers.  Ultimately, most of the impact will be felt by consumers suspected of “infringing,” many who effectively lack the financial resources to prove their innocence.

Any web publisher would need to think twice about publishing anything online, if only because the financial risks of defending oneself against alleged copyright infringement would be onerous.

Since most of the criminal element Dodd claims to be concerned with is in it for the money, the most obvious solution is simple: remove the financial incentive.  A victim of copyright infringement need only seek a court order that bars financial transactions between theft-oriented websites and the online payment processors that supply the money.  Barring credit card companies, online payment services like PayPal, and other payment services from accepting money for copyright infringement puts the criminals out of business fast.  Existing provisions in the DMCA already force search engines to remove infringing content.

The alternative is turning the Internet over to the Hollywood copyright police, who along with the movie industry have demonstrated a long history of broad brush enforcement that cares little about the presumed innocence of the accused.

No need to be herded into a Verizon Wireless usage-limited mobile data plan.

New to Verizon Wireless and unhappy being constrained with a usage-capped wireless data plan?  Thanks to a loophole, customers can buy their way into an unlimited access plan Verizon was supposed to discontinue last July.

Some background: Verizon Wireless spent 2011 enticing customers to upgrade to their new 4G LTE phones which use the company’s much faster mobile broadband network.  One of the benefits early adopters received was a free, ongoing trial of Verizon’s mobile hotspot feature, which turns your phone into a Wi-Fi device your other devices (and friends’ phones) can share.  When Verizon elected to discontinue its unlimited data plans in July, the free trial of the mobile hotspot feature went with it.  In its place, Verizon pitched 4G phone owners an unlimited mobile hotspot feature add-on for $30 a month (in addition to the price of your data plan.)

Those who travel often or who want a backup Internet service in case their home or business Internet connection goes down found this a reasonable deal, especially because it carries no data limits or speed throttling, and works on both Verizon’s 3G and 4G networks.

But it turns out this little-known add-on promotion also unlocks the door to an unlimited smartphone data plan Verizon intended to stop selling last summer.

As we explained earlier, just signing up for the unlimited use mobile hotspot plan involved jumping through a few hoops.  But with the help of a feature code, any Verizon representative should be able to look it up and add it to your account.

When they do, something interesting happens.  Verizon cancels any existing usage-limited plan and converts it into an unlimited use plan ($29.99) they stopped selling.  That leaves you with Verizon’s Mobile Hotspot feature for $30 a month and unlimited smartphone data for $29.99 a month.  But here is the exciting part: you can quickly cancel the $30 mobile hotspot feature and will remain grandfathered on Verizon’s unlimited use smartphone data plan.

Slickdeals provides a helpful step-by-step guide, and it sometimes takes a few calls to reach a representative who can manage this successfully:

1. Dial *611 from your Verizon phone, or 1-800-922-0204 from any phone.
2. Wait for computer CSR to go through the main menu. You will need your Verizon phone # and account PIN or last 4 of SSN.
3. Hit option 4.
4. When it asks you what you would like to do today say “Add a feature.” You will be transferred to a live Verizon Customer Service representative.
5. If you have a 3G device (which includes all iPhones): Say you would like to add the $20 2GB 3G Mobile Hotspot FEATURE to your phone. When you add this MHS feature, you will be charged $20/month in addition to the $29.99 unlimited data plan.
   If you have a 4G device: Say you would like to add the $30 Unlimited 4G Mobile Hotspot FEATURE to your phone. According to http://stopthecap.com/2011/07/12/…r-account/ , they may be able to locate this feature via referencing feature code #76153. When you add this MHS feature, you will be charged $30/month in addition to the $29.99 unlimited data plan.
6. After one of the MHS features above are added to your account, you will now have the $29.99 unlimited data plan, which can be verified via the My Verizon app on your device or at http://www.verizonwireless.com/myverizon
7. {OPTIONAL – if you don’t want the Mobile Hotspot feature} Log into My Verizon and remove the Mobile Hotspot FEATURE from your account. It is recommended to wait at least a day to remove the feature. The $29.99 unlimited data plan should remain on your account.
8. If they say they can’t add that feature to your plan, or that you must bundle your data + mobile hotspot service together as a single data plan, tell them thank you, hang up, and repeat the steps above.

Updated 2:45pm EST:  Our regular reader Duffin reports this loophole may be in the process of being closed.  See this article from The Consumerist for further details.

Your modem needs an expensive upgrade, even if you own your own.

Stop the Cap! reader Paul in Illinois e-mailed us (along with several other readers) sharing news that Frontier Communications intends to charge their DSL customers a minimum of $6.99 a month for the rental of a DSL-ready modem-router, even if customers purchased and use their own equipment for Frontier’s High Speed Internet service.  Even worse, some customers are being told the monthly combined rental fee for the company’s wireless-ready DSL equipment is a whopping $14 a month — just for the equipment.

The bad news arrived in the form of a postcard notifying customers that their current modem is “out of warranty” and a new “modem support and warranty fee of $6.99 a month will appear on your bill as of 1/12/12.”

Frontier’s alarming notice tries to scare customers, telling them their existing outdated equipment represents a potential security risk, and explains only with their new mandatory “modem support fee” will customers get “unlimited support” and a replacement modem, if necessary.

Eric, a Stop the Cap! reader and Frontier customer notes Frontier has been piling on price increases in the form of mandatory surcharges and fees this year, including a monthly $1.99 “High Speed Internet Surcharge.”

“Former Verizon customers are now being gouged an additional $9.00 per month or $108 dollars per year,” Eric notes, adding up just the cost of the modem rental and the surcharge.

Paul is especially upset because he purchased his DSL modem direct from Verizon just before the phone company sold its business in Illinois to Frontier.

“In fact, the Verizon modem is more ‘advanced’ than the Westell equipment they want to rent me,” Paul says. “The security is better on Verizon’s unit, and I got it as part of a $29.99 ‘Internet for life’ special offer Frontier now wants to renege on.”

“Frontier is running a scam from top to bottom, offering you l0wball Internet pricing that never includes the outrageous add-on fees that you only find out about on your next bill,” Paul says.

Other Frontier customers on Broadband Reports’ Frontier forum are reporting Frontier has been inconsistent explaining the fees, and some are finding promotions that were supposed to protect them from price increases do nothing of the sort.

Stop the Cap! reader Isabella in Indiana wrote us to say her contact with Frontier customer service was likely going to be her second to last.

“Not only do they intend to collect the $7 a month from customers with their own equipment, those of us with wireless are being told it will cost $14 a month for two of their wireless routers we have on their ‘double DSL line’ promotion,” says Isabella.  “The price for their 3Mbps Internet, on special, was $14.99 a month with a multi-year agreement.  The add-on fees they never tell you about are more than the advertised price of the service.”

Isabella calls her Frontier service “bait and switch Internet” and says when the company applies any additional fees to her account, she will terminate her contract and will refuse to pay a penalty, claiming Frontier unilaterally changed the terms.

“The only ‘price protection’ Frontier offers is for the benefit of their bottom line; Frontier representatives told me there was no way for me to avoid these new fees, even though I am supposed to be guaranteed no price increase for two years,” she says.

Paul also ran into a brick wall with customer service.

“They will not exempt you from the fees — for my ‘convenience’ they will be automatically added to my bill starting next month, with or without the new equipment,” Paul shares. “I am beyond outraged.”

“I am contacting my state Attorney General on Monday to file a formal complaint against Frontier for cheating customers on ‘price protection’ plans,” Paul says.

Modem rental fees offer a lucrative opportunity for broadband providers to raise prices while still advertising a low monthly price for the service alone.  Equipment rental fees often run extra and are typically only disclosed in the fine print.  But must providers will exempt customers who purchase and use their own equipment.  Frontier is apparently ending this policy, forcing some customers to pay the fee for equipment they neither need nor want.  Frontier’s $7 a month fee is particularly steep, especially for equipment that can easily be purchased new or used for prices averaging $50 or less.  Frontier will earn back the cost of the equipment within the first year, with the rest simply padding profits.

One of our readers notified us Frontier customer service agreed to “note their account” to not send the new equipment or charge the fee, despite the fact the representative repeatedly encouraged the customer to “upgrade their router.”  But the customer isn’t so sure he believes the company, telling us an earlier victory getting them to waive the “HSI Surcharge” was hollow: Frontier simply began charging it anyway, and refused to remove it despite the earlier agreement.

“What is next — special fees for reading e-mail and visiting web pages?” asks Paul.