Cerf

Vint Cerf understands the Internet.  Widely recognized as one of the two “fathers” of what eventually grew into today’s Internet, Cerf has watched a network launched by the United States Department of Defense grow into an economic powerhouse driving a knowledge-based economy.

Today, Cerf works as an Internet evangelist for Google, promoting the company’s innovation in the next generation of the broadband experience.  He brings decades of advice to Internet Service Providers the world over: upgrade your networks.  But more importantly, he told attendees of Juniper Network’s Nextwork conference, upgrade exponentially, not incrementally.

Cerf’s remarks Wednesday targeted the conundrum of coping with increasing video traffic on the Internet.  Cerf pointed to his employer’s construction of a gigabit fiber to the home network in Kansas City as the best antidote to traffic congestion.

Simply put, Cerf believes bandwidth must be increased exponentially and not through incremental upgrades that try and stay one step ahead of demand.  Google intends to prove gigabit fiber broadband is cost-effective and within reach of providers.  A side benefit of building next generation networks is the opportunity for innovating new online applications.  Many of tomorrow’s online innovations are simply impossible on a constrained, incrementally upgraded network that often requires accompanying traffic limiting schemes.

“When you are watching video today, streaming is a very common practice. At gigabit speeds, a video file [can be transferred] faster than you can watch it,” Cerf said. “So rather than [receiving] the bits out in a synchronous way, instead you could download the hour’s worth of video in 15 seconds and watch it at your leisure. It actually puts less stress on the network to have the higher speed of operation,” he said. 

Wu

So far, many providers are considering Netflix and other video traffic a threat to their networks, and are attempting to collect tolls to allow Netflix content to reach subscribers (Comcast), or are considering Internet Overcharging schemes that combine usage caps with overlimit fees to discourage customers from watching too much (AT&T, Time Warner Cable).

At another session held Tuesday, Tim Wu, Columbia University law professor noted efforts by several U.S. providers to do away with all-you-can-use broadband.

Wu said phone companies like AT&T are ideally looking towards replicating the cell phone model on broadband — leaving users to guess how much usage they will rack up over a month, knowing most will be wrong.  As the consumer, he noted, you end up buying too much or you face steep overlimit fees for underestimating usage — either way “you are screwed.”  Wu called consumption-oriented pricing “abusive.”

Wu also said wireless carriers in particular are uneasy with the open, “ownerless” concept of the Internet.  Their instinct is to own, control, and manage networks.  Their only success so far is trying to advocate for fast, premium-priced traffic lanes, and slow “free lanes” for everything else — a key reason why many consumers advocate to preserve the open model of the Internet through enforced Net Neutrality.

Wu called these efforts by phone companies to control traffic “dangerous.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo

Legislation forcing carriers to tell the truth about their 4G wireless speeds is scheduled to be introduced today in Congress by its author and chief sponsor, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.)

The Next Generation Wireless Disclosure Act would require carriers to disclose the minimum data speed of their respective networks and better explain plan pricing and coverage.  While many consumers believe “4G” means vastly superior speeds and performance, in reality some wireless carriers have labeled even incremental network upgrades as delivering “4G” service, even if speeds are only incrementally better.

“Consumers deserve to know exactly what they’re getting for their money when they sign-up for a 4G data plan,” said Rep. Eshoo. “My legislation is simple – it will establish guidelines for understanding what 4G speed really is, and ensure that consumers have all the information they need to make an informed decision.”

Specifically, the legislation would provide consumers with the following information at the point of sale and in all billing materials:

• Guaranteed minimum data speed
• Network reliability
• Coverage area maps
• Pricing
• Technology used to provide 4G service
• Network conditions that can impact the speed of applications and services used on the network.

The legislation also requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to evaluate the speed and price of 4G wireless data service provided by the top ten U.S. wireless carriers in order to provide consumers with access to a side-by-side comparison in their service area.

“Consumers want faster, more reliable wireless data service, and I look forward to working with industry and consumer groups to achieve this goal,” Eshoo added. “We need to enhance transparency and ensure consumers are fully informed before they commit to a long-term service contract.”

The bill faces tough prospects in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and industry groups are likely to oppose the measure.  Eshoo has tangled with both in the recent past as a prominent supporter of Net Neutrality.

A major scandal in one of the nation’s most important gay civil rights organizations has inadvertently exposed AT&T’s public policy skunkworks — a dollar-a-holler operation to advocate for the company’s merger with T-Mobile, complete with pre-written advocacy letters, traded favors and promises of support from other board members, paid for with big financial contributions.

When it was all over, the president of Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) resigned, his ties to a Republican operative board member connected with AT&T were exposed, and the progressive gay and lesbian media outed the whole sordid affair — painting one of the clearest pictures yet of how civil rights groups get into the unenviable position of trading their good name for a piece of big business action.

As Stop the Cap! has reported for nearly three years now, there is a cottage industry in the non-profit sector collecting favors and contributions in return for letters on organization letterhead supporting the public policy agendas of their corporate sponsors.  Honest non-profit groups won’t engage on issues that have little or no connection to their mission statements, but other groups have relaxed those standards to meet fundraising goals or to deal with internal board politics.

The latter appears to be the most prominent reason for GLAAD’s poorly managed entry into the debate on Net Neutrality and AT&T’s merger targets — the first time the group has ever spoken up about a corporate merger.  Because so many in the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community are politically aware, it came as quite a shock when GLAAD suddenly dove into two issues most assumed were not relevant to the group’s mission:

GLAAD Net Neutrality Intrigue: On January 4, 2010, GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing “concern” about the implementation of formal protection of the open Internet through Net Neutrality.  At the time, nothing about Barrios’ letter seemed suspicious.  In fact, it was typical of the type and tone of concern trolling by certain groups that could pay a stiff price if rank and file members ever found out.  But several members did and raised hell with GLAAD’s leadership over the issue.  Barrios evidently panicked, quickly sending a follow-up letter to the FCC claiming his signature was forged and begging the ‘fake’ submission be withdrawn.  Ironically, he added the views in the original letter, unclear as they were, did not represent GLAAD’s position on Net Neutrality, whatever it was.

GLAAD Loves AT&T and T-Mobile’s Merger: On May 31st, Barrios joined the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in penning a joint letter advocating the merger because, apparently, gay people love 4G, artistic use of the Internet, and telemedicine.  Gay groups immediately pounced, some describing the letter bizarre, others potentially offensive.  The second letter ignited an all-out firestorm against GLAAD’s leadership, particularly considering AT&T has donated profusely to GLAAD over the years, and gay people have no more love towards AT&T and its business agenda than anyone else.

Signorile

Head scratching over why GLAAD was obsessed with delivering a helping hand to AT&T was soon followed by detailed investigations which began to uncover the important underlying facts.

One pivotal moment came from Michelangelo Signorile, a long-time gay activist and radio talk show host, who interviewed GLAAD’s former board co-chair, Laurie Perper.  Perper left GLAAD suggesting its board was in turmoil under the leadership of Barrios.  In her words, Barrios’ efforts to shore up his presidency included trading an AT&T advocacy letter for a company-connected board member’s continued support.

Perper also dismissed Barrios’ suggestion that the letter to the FCC about Net Neutrality was forged.  Instead, she claims, Barrios tried to blame it on his administrative assistant, Jeanne Christiano, who he claimed ambitiously sent the letter without his authorization.

Former GLAAD board co-chair Laurie Perper talks with Michelangelo Signorile about the connection between AT&T and GLAAD’s president. June 7, 2011. (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Since that interview, Barrios’ has come clean about who wrote the Net Neutrality letter.  According to Barrios, AT&T sent the talking points to include in the letter and he authorized it:

The letter’s origins lay with AT&T; the telecom giant sent Barrios suggested wording for another letter to the FCC. Barrios’ special assistant used the language verbatim to create the letter, signed his name to it, and sent it in.

Barrios recounts that he was at an airport when his assistant called him to go through some items on his agenda. In a hurry to board his plane, when she told him that “they” wanted him to send in the letter to the FCC, Barrios assumed he needed to resend his first letter again. He authorized her to send the letter without any oversight.

[…] “This was from a letter with language from AT&T suggesting that we support this, and at the time, it was not something I had seen,” Barrios said. “When I saw it, we withdrew it to reflect our perspective.”

Barrios: Now updating his resume

Further investigations uncovered AT&T-connected board member Troup Coronado. Many activists were surprised to learn learn Coronado is or was a paid consultant for AT&T and a Republican operative who used to work for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).  While involved in Congress, Coronado worked to install judges hostile to gay and lesbian rights on the federal bench.  Today, he is a board member overseeing one of the nation’s most important gay and lesbian rights groups.

That revelation went over about as well as one could expect, and within a week, Barrios submitted his resignation, and calls for Coronado to leave are growing louder by the hour.

The intrigue has thrown GLAAD into full scale damage control mode, even as former board members like Perper call the group hopelessly brand tarnished and advocate its disbanding.  It also embarrasses AT&T by further exposing the sock-puppetry operations it runs to build phantom support for its business and policy agenda.

How Former and Current FCC Employees Helped Other Gay Groups (Heart) AT&T

GLAAD is not the only LGBT group in the chorus conducted by AT&T.  The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce is no more friendly to consumer interests than any other Chamber of Commerce, and their participation in fronting for AT&T was to be expected.  But the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force is now repenting for their own involvement in AT&T’s bought and paid for parade:

“The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission on Jan. 5, 2010, about rules and regulations regarding net neutrality. The letter was a response to a request by AT&T,” she said. “However, we quickly realized that we had not gone through an appropriate internal process on such policy matters and that the Jan. 5 letter did not accurately reflect our views and was a mistake. As a result, on Jan. 14, the Task Force submitted an additional letter to the FCC clarifying the organization’s position on net neutrality.”

“The Task Force has established a clearer internal review process that applies to any request for sign-on or policy endorsement from any group, organization or corporate partner. We have not issued any additional letters on net neutrality. Additionally the Task Force has declined requests from our corporate partner AT&T for further action regarding this issue and declined requests to write a letter regarding the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.”

Perhaps even more disturbing, new evidence is emerging that the FCC itself may be encouraging some of these civil rights groups to participate in discussions about controversial industry events.  The Bilerico Project discovered FCC chief Bill Lake meeting with GLAAD to talk specifically about how the group could become involved in public policy debates:

What’s not disclosed, however, is that Robinson, Barrios and board member Anthony Varona met with FCC chief Bill Lake and Deputy Director Bob Radcliffe in mid-May of last year. Varona is a former FCC attorney.

“Rashad, Jarrett and Tony met with the FCC in May 2010 to discuss GLAAD’s involvement in present and future FCC proceedings (including broadband proliferation items, public interest programming initiatives, etc.),” according to Rich Ferraro, GLAAD’s Director of Communications. The group denies that they took a formal position on any matter pending before the FCC at the time.

If true, this could link corporate astroturfing and dollar-a-holler advocacy to FCC insiders currently at the agency, as well as those who used to work there.

A word to the wise: if your non-profit needs cash, ask for contributions from your members.  Don’t sell out your good name for a billion-dollar corporate merger.  The position you protect may turn out to be your own.

The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association this week took some time out to go all out for AT&T’s proposed merger with T-Mobile.  In addition to successfully navigating the FCC’s arcane comment filing system to submit their comments in favor of the merger, the group also penned a lengthy, favorable guest blog for Washington, D.C. inside-the-beltway-favorite, The Hill newspaper:

The expansion of next-generation wireless broadband envisioned by the T-Mobile and AT&T merger, for example, is critical for the next stage of rural America’s evolution and success. It will allow ranchers, farmers, and all rural residents who have been traditionally underserved to finally gain access to the best that mobile broadband has to offer, including faster and more reliable connections. We strongly encourage the Federal Communications Commission to support these developments as an investment in both the current and future generations of agricultural producers and small communities across rural America.

The cattlemen’s group has had a lot to say about telecommunications issues, especially mergers and acquisitions.  It was cited by Verizon as a supporter of its merger with Alltel in 2008, signed a joint letter in 2008 from industry-connected Connected Nation for a broadband plan compatible with the interests of the nation’s largest cable and phone companies, wrote a letter to the FCC opposing Net Neutrality in 2009, and submitted two pages of comments in May favoring the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.

Apparently there is plenty of free time on the ranch to ponder billion dollar telecommunications mergers.

The argument from the group is that permitting mergers and blocking open net policies like Net Neutrality will convince carriers to provide enhanced service in rural areas where cattle ranches predominate.  But facts in evidence illustrate how wrong-headed that argument is:

• Verizon’s merger with Alltel has done nothing to bring its LTE network to rural America.  Verizon is focusing LTE upgrades on the markets where it makes the most business sense, and that does not include rural Texas or Oklahoma;
• The National Broadband Plan has directed stimulus funding for rural projects that are most likely to reach their ranch members — wireless ISPs and rural DSL.  The cattlemen’s group has nothing to say about either provider;
• Net Neutrality and the policies of an open and free Internet have no real impact on rural broadband deployment.  The same companies refusing to provide service yesterday are still refusing to provide service today, and that includes completely exempted wireless providers;
• T-Mobile’s urban-suburban focus is a mainstay of its business plan.  T-Mobile has never prioritized rural America as a viable service area, relying on roaming agreements to fill in service gaps.  Combining its urban-focused wireless infrastructure with AT&T will add nothing to the rural wireless experience.

The Washington Post finds financial connections between AT&T and the cattlemen group.

Advocating for a merger with T-Mobile makes about as much sense as the group advocating for a T-Mobile merger with Leap Wireless’ Cricket or MetroPCS.  All have a record of indifference about providing service in rural areas themselves.

So why does the group persist in fronting for AT&T’s public policy agenda?  Cecilia Kang at the Washington Post tweeted the obvious answer — they receive support from AT&T.

The piece for The Hill was penned by Jess Peterson, the cattlemen group’s executive vice president.  But Peterson has a second career: president of Washington, D.C.-based Western Skies Strategies, a lobbying firm that promises “success and profitability to our valued clients every time.”

The concept of dollar-a-holler public advocacy is not new, but AT&T is the Master of the Astroturf Universe.  The Center for Responsive Politics notes that from 1989 to 2010, no single company spent more on campaign contributions than AT&T.  Since 2008, more than $1.25 million has been “donated” to politically-connected charities and those willing to lend their name and reputation to back the company’s public policy agenda.

Facts have a hard time penetrating piles of cash, but here are some anyway:

1. T-Mobile’s combination with AT&T may create additional capacity for the combined company, but almost entirely in urban and suburban areas that will do nothing to help rural wireless.
2. No telecommunications company has a track record of providing service in areas unprofitable to serve or fail return on investment demands.  No merger will change that.
3. Promises for network upgrades already committed in long-range business plans do not sweeten a bitter deal for Americans concerned about competition in the wireless marketplace.
4. T-Mobile’s track record as being the most market-disruptive in pricing and innovation will be eliminated in a merger with America’s lowest rated wireless carrier.
5. Any excitement for rural wireless broadband from AT&T is tempered when would-be customers realize the company enforces a 2GB usage cap with an overlimit fee on their smartphone data plans — an Internet Overcharging scheme more punishing than either Verizon or Sprint.

Vincent, one of our regular Stop the Cap! readers sent along a link to a story about the decrepit state of American broadband: it’s a real mess for those who can’t get it, can’t get enough of it, and compare it against what other people abroad are getting.

Cracked delivers the top five reasons why American broadband sucks.  Be sure and read their take (adult language), but we have some thoughts of our own to share:

#5 Some of Us Just Plain Can’t Get It

Large sections of the prairie states, the mountain states, and the desert states can’t get broadband no matter how much they want it.  That’s because they are a hundred miles or more from the nearest cable system and depend on the phone companies — especially AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink, and Windstream to deliver basic DSL.  AT&T is trying as hard as possible to win the right to abandon rural America altogether with the elimination of their basic service obligation.  Verizon has sold off some of their most rural territories, including the entire states of Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia.  CenturyLink has absorbed Qwest in the least populated part of America — the mountain and desert west.

Frontier and Windstream are betting their business models on rural DSL, and while some are grateful to have anything resembling broadband, neither company earns spectacular customer ratings.

So long as rural broadband is not an instant profit winner for the phone companies selling it, rural America will remain dependent on dial-up or [shudder] satellite fraudband.

#4 Often There are No Real Options for Service (and No Competition)

Cracked has discovered the wonderfully inaccurate world of broadband mapping, where the map shows you have plentiful broadband all around, but phone calls to the providers on the list bring nothing but gales of laughter.  As if you are getting service at your house.  Ever.  Stop the Cap! hears regularly from the broadband-deprived, some who have had to be more innovative than the local phone company ever was looking for ways to get service.  Some have paid to bury their own phone cable to get DSL the phone company was reluctant to install, others have created super-powered Wi-Fi networks to share a neighbor’s connection.  The rest live with broadband envy, watching for any glimpse of phone trucks running new wires up and down the road.

Competition is a concept foreign to most Americans confronted with one cable company and one phone company charging around the same price for service.  The most aggressive competition comes when a community broadband provider throws a monkey wrench into the duopoly.  Magically, rate hikes are few and fleeting and speeds are suddenly much better.  Hmmm.

#3 Those Who Have Access Still Lag Behind the Rest of the World

We're #35!

This is an unnerving problem, especially when countries like Lithuania are now kicking the United States into the broadband corner.  You wouldn’t believe we’re that bad off listening to providers, who talk about the innovative and robust broadband economy — the one that is independent of their lousy service.  In fact, the biggest impediment to more innovation may be those same providers.  Some have an insatiable appetite for money — money from you, money from content producers, money from taxpayers, more money from you, and by the way there better be a big fat check from Netflix in the mail this week for using our pipes!

Where is the real innovation?  Community providers like Greenlight, Fibrant, and EPB that deliver their respective communities kick-butt broadband — service other providers would like to shut down at all costs.  Not every commercial provider is an innovation vacuum.  Verizon FiOS and Google’s new Gigabit fiber network in Kansas City represent innovation through investment.  Unfortunately Wall Street doesn’t approve.

Still not convinced?  Visit Japan or Korea and then tell us how American broadband resembles NetZero or AOL dial-up in comparison.

#2 Bad Internet = Shi**y Economy

The demagoguery of corporate-financed dollar-a-holler groups like “FreedomWorks” and “Americans for Prosperity” is without bounds.  Whether it was attacking broadband stimulus funding, community broadband endeavors, or Net Neutrality, these provider shills turned broadband expansion into something as worthwhile as a welfare benefit for Cadillac drivers.  Why are we spending precious tax dollars on Internet access so people can steal movies and download porn they asked.  Why are we letting communities solve their own broadband problems building their own networks when it should be commercial providers being the final arbiter of who deserves access and who does not?  Net Neutrality?  Why that’s a socialist government takeover, it surely is.

It’s like watching railroad robber barons finance protest movements against public road construction.  We can’t have free roads paved by the government unfairly competing with monopoly railway companies, can we?  That’s anti-American!

The cost of inadequate broadband in an economy that has jettisoned manufacturing jobs to Mexico and the Far East is greater than we realize.  Will America sacrifice its leadership in the Internet economy to China the same way we did with our textile, electronics, appliances, furniture, and housewares industries?  China, Japan and Korea are building fiber optic broadband networks for their citizens and businesses.  We’re still trying to figure out how to wire West Virginia for 3Mbps DSL.

#1 At This Point, Internet Access is Kind of a Necessity

The United Nations this week declared the Internet to be a basic human right.  Conservatives scoffed at that, ridiculing the declaration for a variety of reasons ranging from disgust over any body that admits Hugo Chavez, to the lack of a similar declaration for gun ownership, and the usual interpretation of broadband as a high tech play-toy.  Some folks probably thought the same way about the telephone and electricity around 1911.

Yes, the Internet can be frivolous, but then so can a phone call.  Cursed by the U.S. Post Office for destroying their first class mail business, by telephone directory publishers, and those bill payment envelope manufacturers, the Internet does have its detractors.  But should we go back to picking out commemorative stamps at the post office?  Your local phone and cable company sure doesn’t think so.  We don’t either.