The Republican party platform on technology gives little credit to the Obama Administration’s handling of all-things-high-tech and demands a wholesale deregulation effort to free the hands of service providers, get rid of Net Neutrality, and sell off wireless spectrum to boost wireless communications.

The platform authors are particularly incensed about Net Neutrality, a policy that requires providers to treat Internet content equally on their networks. Some Republicans have previously called that “a government takeover of the Internet,” telling providers what they can and cannot provide customers. Vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) fiercely opposes Net Neutrality. In 2011, he supported a resolution disapproving of the policy and in 2006 he voted against an amendment to a bill that would have codified it into federal law.

“The most vibrant sector of the American economy, indeed, one-sixth of it, is regulated by the federal government on precedents from the Nineteenth Century. Today’s technology and telecommunications industries are overseen by the FCC, established in 1934 and given the jurisdiction over telecommunications formerly assigned to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which had been created in 1887 to regulate the railroads. This is not a good fit,” the Republican platform states. “Indeed, the development of telecommunications advances so rapidly that even the Telecom Act of 1996 is woefully out of date.”

Mitt Romney is an ardent deregulator. Under a plan favored by the Republican presidential candidate, agencies like the Federal Communications Commission would be required to offset the cost of any new regulations by eliminating existing regulations. Additionally, Romney plans to issue an executive order as president telling all agencies they must notify Congress about any forthcoming regulations and wait for the House and Senate to approve them before they could take effect. With the current level of Congressional gridlock, a consensus to approve any new regulatory policy is unlikely. The end effect would likely be a near-moratorium on government regulation.

The Republican platform also attacked the Obama Administration for failing to expand broadband to rural areas, but offered nothing beyond generalities about “public-private partnerships” on how to expand broadband to the unserved.

Romney

“That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers,” the platform said. “We encourage public-private partnerships to provide predictable support for connecting rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

One can infer from the language in the document Republicans are opposed to public broadband initiatives.

The Republicans also promise to accelerate public spectrum sell-offs to private companies through auctions to expand the number of frequencies available for wireless communications.

The Obama Administration defends its telecommunications policies, noting the FCC’s National Broadband Plan and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s broadband stimulus program have identified unserved areas, despite provider obfuscation, and targeted funding to open up new broadband opportunities. The administration also says it has effectively reformed the Universal Service Fund into a new Connect America Fund that will underwrite prohibitively expensive rural broadband expansion projects.

The White House also defends its spectrum policies noting existing spectrum still has licensed users that face lengthy and often costly transitions to other frequencies to clear space for cell phone companies. Still, President Obama ordered the FCC to find 500MHz of spectrum to reallocate to wireless communications and the FCC plans the first ever incentive auction that will let TV stations voluntarily surrender their frequencies in return for financial incentives.

Both the Obama and Romney campaigns oppose efforts to internationalize Internet regulatory policy through organizations like the United Nations or the International Telecommunications Union. Some governments have stepped up their efforts to lobby for a transition away from Internet policies they see dominated by the United States.

Democrats are also considering Internet language in their party platform for the party’s upcoming convention next month.

Phillip “At Least They Are Transparent About Robbing You” Dampier

The unassailable truth is that if there is a right way for a company to treat its customers and a wrong way, AT&T will always choose the wrong way. It’s the primary reason I refuse to do business with them.

The company’s recent decision to block Apple FaceTime for customers who refuse to be herded to one of AT&T’s new Mobile Share plans is another shot across the bow of Net Neutrality, which declares customers should be able to use the applications and services of their choosing — particularly on networks where they pay for those choices.

Principal #1 of Net Neutrality: Companies should not be playing favorites with applications or services by blocking or restricting those a provider does not favor.

AT&T’s response: ‘Whatever.’

The predictable outrage of customers should have come as no surprise to AT&T, but somehow it did.

The company picked testy senior vice president for regulatory affairs Bob Quinn to mount a rapid defense against the pitchfork-and-torch-yielding throngs on AT&T’s Public Policy Blog. That was their second mistake.

Quinn, who spent last December valiantly defending AT&T against its too-precious CupcakeGate mini-scandal, conjured up this pretzel-twisted logic tap dance to explain away its latest boorish behavior:

Providers of mobile broadband Internet access service are subject to two net neutrality requirements: (1) a transparency requirement pursuant to which they must disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services; and (2) a no-blocking requirement under which they are prohibited, subject to reasonable network management, from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.

AT&T’s plans for FaceTime will not violate either requirement.  Our policies regarding FaceTime will be fully transparent to all consumers, and no one has argued to the contrary.  There is no transparency issue here.

Nor is there a blocking issue.  The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones.  Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps.  Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services.   AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps.  But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”)  Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

A company lecturing its customers for daring to question its decisions is always a good way to enhance those warm and fuzzy feelings people have about America’s least-liked wireless phone company. Quinn first scolds customers and consumer groups about their “knee jerk reaction,” for being upset about the issue. Then he declares they have “rushed to judgment,” using a turn of phrase not heard since O.J. Simpson’s defense team pounded it to death, and look where that ultimately got us.

The crux of AT&T’s argument is they get a free pass to “block and herd” because Apple FaceTime was pre-installed on customer phones. Therefore, since AT&T didn’t block you from downloading an app you already had, it cannot possibly be a Net Neutrality violation. Because as we all know, Net Neutrality is only about download blocking.

At least AT&T is keeping their promise to be transparent. They have, indeed, fully informed you they are mugging you while in the process of mugging you. Full disclosure… matters.

Somehow, I missed the “preinstalled does not count” section in the Federal Communications Commission’s December 2010 order to providers telling them to preserve the free and open Internet. So I spent last night with this legalese page-turner (194 pages to be exact) to refresh my memory.

Nope, it isn’t in there. You can read it for yourself from the link above.

So it isn’t me. It is them, making up the rules as they go, again.

Quinn graciously offers customers one concession: AT&T will allow you to use Apple FaceTime over your own home Wi-Fi network. Gosh thanks!

For customers addicted to FaceTime, AT&T’s solution is an expensive plan change. An average customer currently paying $70 for 450-barely used voice minutes and 3GB of data will find FaceTime off-limits on AT&T’s network unless they “upgrade” to AT&T’s $95 Mobile Share plan, which gets you only 1GB of data, but endless voice minutes you don’t want and unlimited texting you don’t need.

Result: Pay $25 more a month and get your data allowance slashed by 2/3rds. That’s a deal — AT&T-style.

But it is one some customers are through taking. Nalin Kuachusri:

The new FaceTime restrictions will usher in the end of my 12+ year relationship with AT&T. I’m tired of the consistent manipulation of plans and features to extract more and more money for services I don’t need. For example: there used to be several text-message options (200, 1000, 1500, unlimited) so I could choose and pay for the one that fit my usage best. Then there was the option to move from unlimited data to 2GB/month to save $5. That was great for me and fit my usage. Then I was forced to move back to $30/month if I wanted to add tethering where I’ll get an extra GB that I’ll never use. Finally, after 12 years as a customer with an account in good standing, I was not allowed to unlock my phone for my 10-day trip to Europe so I could get a local SIM. I couldn’t be happier to give you one final $200 payment as an early-termination fee so I can move to Verizon.

Unfortunately for Kuachusri, the bosses at Verizon Wireless are likely slapping themselves silly because they did not come up with the idea first.

AT&T and Verizon: The Doublemint Twins of Wireless

In an unsurprising move, AT&T has followed Verizon Wireless and announced it has discontinued subsidies for wireless tablet devices.

Engadget received word from an AT&T insider the company has withdrawn subsidies often amounting to $150 off the devices in return for a two-year contract. The subsidies helped defray the more costly ($400+) 3G/4G-capable units most consumers bypass in favor of less expensive Wi-Fi-only tablets. Verizon Wireless stopped subsidizing tablets in June.

Consumers can still buy the devices at full price from AT&T, and in another move, AT&T slightly reduced its DataConnect pricing by $5:

• 250MB for $14.99
• 3GB for $30
• 5GB for $50
• Tethering to an existing shared data plan is available for an extra $10

AT&T also announced it was planning to limit the use of Apple’s FaceTime exclusively to those who agree to switch to the company’s new “Mobile Share” plans. AT&T will not allow customers with older individual or family use plans to use the popular video conferencing service over its mobile broadband network at any price.

The official statement, first reported by 9 to 5 Mac:

AT&T will offer FaceTime over Cellular as an added benefit of our new Mobile Share data plans, which were created to meet customers’ growing data needs at a great value. With Mobile Share, the more data you use, the more you save. FaceTime will continue to be available over Wi-Fi for all our customers.

AT&T is able to introduce these types of restrictions because of the failure of the Federal Communications Commission to enforce Net Neutrality protection on wireless networks. Net Neutrality would require carriers to treat online content, applications, and services equally, allowing customers to use and pay for the services of their choice.

Wireless carriers fought Net Neutrality claiming it would harm efforts to technically manage their networks and would ultimately discourage investment. But AT&T’s arbitrary, non-technical restriction of FaceTime suggests the company is actually pushing customers to the more-profitable service plans AT&T favors.

Wood

Consumer group Free Press policy director Matt Wood:

“These tactics are designed with one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money each month by handicapping alternatives to AT&T’s own products.  If customers want to use FaceTime on AT&T’s mobile network, then they have buy a more expensive monthly data plan with extra voice minutes and texts they’ll never use thrown in. Blocking mobile FaceTime access for much of its user base may be a win for AT&T but it’s a losing proposition for the rest of us.

“It’s not supposed to be this way. The Net Neutrality protections in place today for wireless are too weak, but at least prevent carriers from blocking these types of apps. The FCC’s rules prohibit such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by wireless companies. Such behavior would be a problem no matter what Internet platform you choose. It would be unimaginable on your home broadband connection. Apple’s FaceTime comes pre-installed on a Macbook Pro, too, but no home broadband provider would dream of blocking the app there unless you’d signed up for a more expensive data plan.

“The FCC’s Open Internet order aside, AT&T’s latest scheme to make you pay more for less would never fly if we had real competition in the wireless marketplace. Instead, we have Ma Bell’s twin offspring running amok and forcing consumers onto ridiculous plans that make them pay for the same data twice. It’s only going to get worse until lawmakers recognize the problem and act to solve this competition crisis.”

While AT&T will block many customers from using FaceTime, a competing service from Skype remains unaffected.

An Australian Internet Service Provider that caps customer usage and charges extra if you want to exceed your allowance has taken to the company’s blog to argue that usage caps are fair, even as their customers start departing for competitors offering unlimited service.

iiNet chief technology officer John Lindsay defends the company’s usage-based billing scheme, which charges more than $30 a month for DSL service with a 20GB usage cap.

“Service providers in favour of a two-speed Internet argue that there is limited capacity on the Internet and that those using the most bandwidth by delivering rich content or transferring large files should pay more,” wrote Lindsay. “In Australia, we have a different business model for the Internet. ISPs operate on a pay-as-you-go model, which also shapes the consumer market. Here, consumers can choose a plan with upload and download quotas to fit their usage and pay according to their needs – the more you use, the more you pay.”

Lindsay

Unfortunately for Lindsay, an increasing number of Australians don’t agree and are switching to providers like TPG and Dodo, which have become enormously popular selling flat rate, unlimited broadband service.

Lindsay warns that if Australia adopts the flat rate service model popular in the United States, a Net Neutrality debate will be sparked as customers discover ISPs are unable to handle the traffic and start prioritizing their own content.

“Operating a quota based business model ensures we’re not responsible for policing activity online – our customers pay a fair price for the services they receive and we can focus on more important issues than where their traffic is coming from,” Lindsay argues. “While US providers argue about a two-tier system, our priority is to provide awesome customer service and ensure our customers enjoy a seamless experience online, whatever it is their Internet connection means to them.”

Of course, Lindsay’s characterization of the American broadband landscape is fact-challenged, because most broadband providers have plenty of capacity to deliver content. Some simply want to earn a new revenue stream from content producers for managing that traffic, even though paying customers already compensate them for that service.

Australia’s data caps have traditionally been onerous because of the higher costs and limited capacity of underseas cables that handle traffic inside and out of the Pacific Basin. But Australians have complained about the low caps for years — so loudly that the Australian government has made construction of a super-capacity fiber to the home network a national priority for the country as international capacity also increases.

Customers were not fooled by Lindsay’s rhetoric.

“This is nonsense,” wrote Lachlan Hunt. “Australia’s model of capped usage limits with higher prices for higher caps, and of ISPs including yourself offering free zones where such data doesn’t count towards the monthly quota is exactly the problem that Net Neutrality advocates aim to deal with. It treats data from companies who choose to partner with you to get their content in the free zone as privileged compared with everyone else, and similarly with other ISPs.”

Hunt complains iiNet’s caps were “ridiculously low” and interfered with his career in the web development industry. Today he lives and works in Europe, where usage caps are increasingly a thing of the past.

“I’m really hoping that you will eventually wake up and realize that usage caps go together with Non-Neutral internet, and with the introduction of the [national fiber to the home network], which brings both higher speeds and capacities, you should be able to lower prices, abolish usage caps and offer a fair model with pricing tiers based on the chosen speeds.”

Stop the Cap! also addressed Lindsay:

[…] We have learned dealing with this issue for several years that ISPs are terrified of their own argument if carried to its fullest extension. If iiNet wants customers to fairly pay for only what they use, they should be billing them on exactly that basis. A flat charge per gigabyte — no allowances/quotas, no penalty overage fees or speed throttles, no wasted, unused quota at the end of the month.

But they don’t dare. If you charged $1/GB (still a crime-gouge compared to the wholesale price), those customers currently paying $30 for up to 20GB service might suddenly be paying $5-15 instead.

[…] If you asked your customers whether they prefer unlimited service or your current cap system, most will clamor for unlimited, even if it costs them a bit more, just for the peace of mind of never facing overage charges or speed throttles.

This argument has never been about capacity. It’s about what it always is about: money.