The Buffalo News ran a commentary piece from Massachusetts for readers in western New York

It is becoming more important than ever to break out Google when you find anti-consumer rhetoric in your local newspaper or online regarding Net Neutrality.  Too often, newspapers, local broadcast media, and online news sources don’t bother to fully inform their readers or viewers about inherent conflicts of interest found in those advocating opposition to Net Neutrality.

Case in point, a commentary in The Buffalo News titled “Policy meant to protect users could stifle innovation.”  The only thing Net Neutrality threatens to stifle is the author’s paycheck.

The writer, Susie Kim Riley, paints a Net Neutral-world of grainy online video, no more “lite” plans for those who only need to use the net to send and receive e-mail, uneven downloads, and bans on video conferencing for small businesses introducing new products.

Shame on you, dear readers, for wanting a free and open Internet without your provider interfering with your service to enhance their bottom line.

Remarkably, this blizzard of bull didn’t just turn up in the Buffalo newspaper.  Riley’s scaremongering also turned up nearly word for word in The Detroit News.  Apparently newspapers are hard-pressed to publish the views of local residents and are now regurgitating mass-mailed opinion pieces written in other states.

Most anti-Net Neutrality drivel shares common themes which we like to call industry talking points.  Their overall theme: the nasty government, without cause, wants to overregulate the Internet to tie the hands of innocent providers who seek better products for their customers.

Stop the Cap! readers have had plenty of experience with helpful providers who bring these appetizers to the table:

• Internet Overcharging schemes that claim “fair pricing” through usage caps and tiered billing, but in fact cost everyone more;
• Throttled broadband speeds, often causing a 90 percent or more reduction in advertised speeds for services targeted by providers;
• Schemes to monetize broadband products and services by providing “enhanced” service to those willing to pay to have their content “enhanced;”
• Exemptions from usage caps and meters for content partners;
• An unwillingness to make appropriate investments in highly profitable broadband networks, instead relying on traffic reduction schemes like caps, allowances, and high pricing to discourage “excess usage.”

Twice is Nice. The Detroit News ran the same guest editorial, nearly word for word, as The Buffalo News

Where Net Neutrality goes unprotected, providers begin rolling out Stifled Broadband.  Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and several other countries endure this today.  The only innovation this brings is new ways to charge consumers more money for worse service, making a handful of barely competitive providers very rich.  But such wealth empires aren’t created by providers alone.  Selling the equipment that fiddles with your Internet connection to throttle speeds, monetize usage, and cut off “abusers” is a growth industry as long as Net Neutrality protection is kept at bay.

Stifle it.

That’s where Riley comes in.  She is founder and chief technology officer of a company called Camiant, which bills itself a leader in “real time policy control.”  Control is right.  Camiant’s products and services are all about controlling your online experience.  Her company sells products like “Multimedia Policy Engines,” which can artificially impede or enhance broadband traffic at the whim of your provider.  Just add their “Fair Usage Management” (FUM) extension and your provider can begin spying on your usage: determining what you are doing with your broadband connection, measuring if you are a heavy user/abuser worthy of punishment, and then injecting the appropriate punishment — throttled broadband service, a bigger bill from usage penalties and fees, or even being kicked offline.  Your provider has a world of arbitrary, easy to configure limits, fees, and penalties at his disposal thanks to FUM.

In short, Camiant’s bread and butter is spread by the cable and telecom industry who buys the company’s products and services.  Is it any surprise Riley is opposed to Net Neutrality?  Pass it and Camiant either needs to develop a new line of products or subsist on selling their schemes abroad, where such protections might not exist.

Of course, newspaper readers don’t have any information about Riley’s very-vested interest in this debate.  Although both papers identify Riley as “founder and chief technology officer of Camiant, a technology firm in Marlborough, Massachusetts,” calling Camiant a technology firm is about as informative as calling Hurricane Katrina a weather event.  Lack of full disclosure does a great disservice to readers of both newspapers.  Instead, how about “Camiant markets and sells products that may be prohibited if Net Neutrality becomes law in the United States.”

Phillip Dampier

While reviewing coverage on Comcast’s new usage meter, I ran across a disappointing quote from an article in The Hill newspaper from Gigi Sohn, president of public interest group Public Knowledge:

But as more consumers are downloading movies and streaming TV shows on their computers, bandwidth use is inching up. Imposing caps on consumers can become a form of discrimination, said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, this morning at a panel I moderated about copyright and net neutrality.

“Public Knowledge doesn’t oppose usage-based pricing,” she said. “But if you set the cap low enough you discriminate against high-bandwidth applications. “If consumers have a finite amount of bandwidth each month, they could be forced to stay away from bit-hogging sites, like video high-quality video streaming services.

Sohn seems to grasp the very real risk of rationed broadband, but drops the ball completely in not opposing the scandal that “usage-based pricing” represents for broadband users.  It was a real disappointment to see a group fail to understand the implications of these kinds of Internet Overcharging schemes.  As the industry seeks to further monetize broadband usage, these pricing changes guarantee fatter profits and reduced costs for providers, and a higher bill for rationed broadband for consumers.

Comcast’s two year old 250GB usage cap seems generous by today’s standards, but note it has remained the same, despite growing overall broadband usage.  What was generous two years ago is slightly less so today, and could be downright stingy a few years from now.

For customers stuck with providers with a different definition of “generous,” it is even more worrisome.  Rochester, New York faced the prospect of a 5GB usage allowance from the local phone company’s DSL service, or a 40GB allowance from the local cable operator.  The latter called their experiment fair, consumption-based pricing, but in reality it would have tripled the cost of broadband service for residents seeking to maintain the same level of service they enjoyed previously.  There should be plenty to oppose in a $150 monthly broadband bill.

Usage-based billing makes providers very happy counting your money

Internet Overcharging schemes involve all the ways a profitable broadband industry, enjoying record revenue and declining costs, could force consumers to pay more for the exact same service they receive today:

• The arbitrary usage cap, which ranges incredibly from 5GB-250GB per month, depending on the provider.
• The false “consumption/usage-based pricing” model which doesn’t actually charge consumers for what they use, but rather confines them into ranges of data allowance plans that carry stiff penalties for consumers who exceed their limit.  Think cell phone plan for broadband, only markup the penalty fee by several thousand percent above cost.
• The overlimit penalty or fee, which seeks to punish and monetize usage at the same time.  Customers, most of whom don’t have a clue about what a “gigabyte” is, will pay a stiff price for not intuitively knowing how much they’ll use month to month, and pay an overlimit penalty of $1-5 per gigabyte for excess usage.  That’s far above the pennies per gigabyte large providers pay, but it’s a great way to make consumers think twice about daring to use high bandwidth services like online video.
• The overlimit insurance policy, which Bell Canada introduced to protect consumers from their own rapacious pricing.  They pocket the proceeds from the “insurance” as well, picking customer pockets at every opportunity.
• The usage meter, not subject to independent scrutiny or verification.  What they say you used, you used, even if you didn’t.  Customers have learned these meters aren’t as accurate as providers suggest they are.

The fact is, customers pay for access based on speed, which has its own natural built-in usage limits.  You can’t exceed certain consumption thresholds if your service doesn’t deliver the speed required to do so.  Heavier users naturally gravitate towards faster speed, often premium-priced tiers.  Lighter users often choose “lite” plans (when the provider makes them aware they exist) which deliver lower speed service perfectly adequate for web page browsing and e-mail.  Current pricing models remain highly profitable for providers, even more so than some of the other components of their “triple play” packages.  It’s the service consumers cancel last.

With a duopoly for wired broadband service in most American communities, tolerating “usage-based pricing” that isn’t (or will be overpriced even when offered) repeats the terrible mistake Canada made which today lives with the results — pricey, slow-speed broadband and a decline in broadband rankings.  Canadians are livid about handing over considerably more of their money for throttled, usage-limited Internet access.

Public Knowledge advocates for Net Neutrality.  In terms they might better understand, advocating for Net Neutrality while also not being opposed to the industry’s definition of “network management,” defined to create an exploitable loophole, makes Net Neutrality protection meaningless.

Without a ban on such pricing schemes, providers will keep their best possible tool to stop the threat of broadband video competing with their pay television offerings, and can favor certain content partners over others with exemptions from the dreaded cap ‘n tier system.

Matthew Henry, Internet Policy Counsel for Data Foundry, a database company, said on the panel that usage-based pricing presents serious “conflicts of interest” for cable companies that provide both cable TV and Internet services.

As people watch more cable content online, as both Comcast and Time Warner are pushing with their TV Everywhere services, more demands are placed on their broadband networks.

“Companies have a real incentive to force consumers to turn off the computer and pick up the remote,” he said.

Public Knowledge should carefully consider what happens in a Net Neutral world with onerous data caps and consumption pricing that exists for some, but not all online services.  It’s an end run around the kind of open Internet we all support.

A survey conducted by International Data Corporation on behalf of Zeugma Systems, a company that makes an edge router for broadband networks, shows that consumers simply hate bandwidth caps and will likely switch to another carrier if they have the option

Over the last year, over 600 articles here have documented the abuse of consumers’ wallets from such schemes.  We’ve also shown the real world consequences this pricing has in retarding development of new multimedia applications and higher bandwidth features.  Innovative high bandwidth services seeking funding in a usage-capped world are deemed untenable if usage limits or overpriced broadband make customers think twice about using them.  In the south Pacific, online video services have been literally shuttered simply because of data caps.  Australian broadband, littered with caps and consumption billing, has become so bad the government is proposing its own National Broadband Plan to provide relief to those down under.  Public Knowledge’s position would bring that broadband backwater to America if it became commonplace here.

Make no mistake — consumers are overwhelmingly opposed to such pricing, already pay higher-than-average costs for broadband, and are threatened with even higher bills if such schemes are imposed.

Public Knowledge needs to carefully reconsider its position and get on the side of consumers who recognize highly profitable broadband providers don’t need another major payday at their expense.  Free Press understands the implications.  We respect and appreciate Public Knowledge’s hard work for consumers on other issues.  We invite them to join the consumer movement to retain fair broadband pricing.

Robert F. McDowell

Two Republicans serving on the Federal Communications Commission told attendees at Saturday’s Tech Policy Summit that “usage-based pricing” for wireless broadband could be a solution to congested cell phone data networks.

“Pricing freedom has to be essential, because a small number of users take up the majority of bandwidth. So charging some of the heavy users for that bandwidth makes sense,” Commissioner Robert McDowell said during a panel discussion at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show.

“I think it’s time to let that happen,” he added. “Net neutrality proponents say it should be an all-you-can-eat price. But that will lead to gridlock.”

The discussion, Inside the FCC’s Communications Agenda, focused on the FCC’s agenda in light of the Obama Administration’s new policy initiatives and the current the impact technology has on regulatory policy.

McDowell was responding to industry reports that Verizon was prepared to abandon all-you-can-eat pricing for wireless data on its forthcoming 4G LTE wireless network, even though it doesn’t actually have such a plan in place at the time the panel discussion was held.

McDowell believes that since private money is constructing the networks capable of delivering LTE service, the company has a right to charge what it pleases for service, reducing demand with a correspondingly higher price for those who use the network more than others.

Meredith Atwell Baker

Consumer advocates argue that current profits in the wireless industry provide ample resources to build and upgrade networks without overcharging consumers with expensive usage based pricing designed to make customers think twice before using the service they pay good money to receive.  Unlimited use pricing is favored by consumers as well.  Most providers abandoned “all you can eat” plans at least a year ago.  Every wireless broadband plan carries some limitations somewhere in the fine print, particularly for plans that are designed for mobile netbooks or laptops.  Virtually all of them either limit usage to 5GB per month or throttle the user who exceeds that amount down to dial-up speeds for the rest of the month.

Meredith Attwell Baker, the newest Republican FCC Commissioner, seemed slightly out of her element in discussing the issue of consumption billing.

As panel moderator Kim Hart reported for The Hill newspaper, Baker has some novel ideas for easing congestion on wireless broadband networks.

“Maybe we move back to a world where people pay for roaming,” she said.

Comcast has agreed to settle a $16 million dollar class action lawsuit filed on behalf of broadband customers who experienced slowed speeds while using peer to peer applications.  The original lawsuit, Hart v. Comcast, accused the company of advertising broadband speeds that were unavailable to customers when using certain applications the company allegedly impaired from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008.  As part of the proposed settlement, Comcast denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to modify its “network management” policies and feels further litigation over the matter would not be in the company’s best interests.

Customers are eligible for a settlement up to $16:

If you live in the United States or its Territories, have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account, and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use:

• The Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008; and/or
• Lotus Notes to send e-mail any time from March 26, 2007 to October 3, 2007.

Starting January 5, 2010 affected customers can file a claim online or by mail for their share of the settlement.  Additional information is available on the settlement website P2PCongestionSettlement.com.

BitTorrent's peer to peer protocol was impacted by Comcast's speed throttle

The Comcast throttling incident helped make the case for Net Neutrality proponents that broadband providers would, in certain instances, be willing to impede traffic it deemed undesirable or burdensome.  Peer to peer traffic has been blamed by several providers for creating congestion problems on their broadband networks, particularly those that share a limited amount of bandwidth among hundreds of customers.  Unlike typical file transfers, which originate in one location and deliver content to consumers, peer-to-peer relies on groups of people sharing individual pieces of files with one another until everyone obtains the complete file.  Because many peer to peer networks consider it good etiquette to share as much as one receives, upstream bandwidth is consumed at a much higher than average rate.

For consumers who leave file sharing applications running 24/7, the amount of traffic can build to considerable levels.  Many providers consider such traffic a nuisance that clogs their networks, and some have sought to artificially reduce the speed of such traffic.

Redefining their "new position" to basically mean their "old position"

AT&T’s all-new position on Net Neutrality suspiciously sounds like its old position on Net Neutrality.

In a three-page letter addressed to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, James W. Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president for external and legislative affairs wrote in glowing terms about the Obama Administration’s efforts to expand broadband service and preserving the “open Internet.”  Those goals are shared by AT&T, according to Cicconi.  But are they?

AT&T has spent millions fighting Net Neutrality policies, calling them unnecessary and harmful to broadband innovation and investment.  Ed Whitacre, Jr., AT&T’s former chairman and CEO infamously kicked off a contentious debate when he declared content producers shouldn’t be allowed to use AT&T’s “pipes for free.”

Little has changed.

Yesterday’s letter to Genachowski brings nothing new to the table from AT&T.  In short, they still feel broad-based Net Neutrality regulations will be harmful to investment.  AT&T wants the FCC’s definition of Net Neutrality to be “flexible enough to accommodate the types of voluntary business agreements that have been permitted for 75 years.”  Flexible, in this instance, means gutting the clear, unambiguous prohibition against fiddling with Internet traffic and inserting loopholes that gut the policy’s effectiveness.  AT&T’s “voluntary agreements” never include consumers.

AT&T wants to provide “value-added” services to content producers who agree to pay more to obtain them.  That typically means additional speed or a guarantee of prioritized service.  Unfortunately, on a finite broadband network, those getting preferential treatment can reduce the quality of service for those who don’t pay.  By trying to refocus the FCC’s attention on obsessing over subjective interpretations of “unreasonable and anti-competitive” content discrimination, AT&T gets a free pass to configure a broadband protection racket and rake in money from content producers afraid to be stuck in the slow lane.

Cicconi

AT&T also continues to complain that such regulations would prevent the company from offering consumers “value-added” broadband services.  As long as those services do not discriminate, providers can freely provide network enhancements like faster speed tiers, “Powerboost” technology which temporarily speeds up connections, and even network management which keeps viruses, malware, and other junk traffic away from subscribers.

Ben Scott at Free Press, a consumer advocacy group, read between AT&T’s latest lines and saw a naked effort to gut Net Neutrality before being enacted:

“After leading a rabid anti-net neutrality lobbying campaign for years, AT&T now submits a letter to the Federal Communications Commission purporting to offer common ground,” Scott said. “What they are proposing would allow them to violate the core principle of Net Neutrality — letting them control the Internet by picking winners and losers in a pay-for-play scheme. That would destroy the free and open Internet, and the FCC should reject this false compromise out of hand.”

“Make no mistake, AT&T opposes Net Neutrality. Their proposed solution is a bait and switch. As bait, they ask to return to a standard of nondiscrimination that was long applied to the telephone network. But they fail to mention that this standard was part of a system of pro-competitive common carriage rules that they have railed against applying to broadband networks for years. They haven’t changed their mind about common carriage. They are simply cherry-picking one piece of the old rules and calling it a compromise. The entire Net Neutrality debate is about the creation of a new system of nondiscrimination that fits broadband networks, not telephone networks –a debate the telephone companies forced by stripping away consumer protection rules from broadband under the Bush administration,” Scott added.

Public Knowledge also called out AT&T in a statement from Gigi Sohn.

AT&T has tried to draw what is an imaginary line among types of discrimination. The company advised the FCC that while ‘unreasonable’ discrimination can be banned, any discrimination caused by ‘voluntary commercial agreements’ is just fine because the parties involved agreed to it. That is nonsense.

As we have said consistently, the Internet has functioned as well as it has because control of the crucial roles at each end of the network. Side deals made by a carrier like AT&T and a content provider or other company take that control out of the hands of the consumer.

Similarly, it is unfortunate that AT&T has resorted to the old tactic of threatening not to invest in its network if the company does not get what it wants in a rulemaking. The growth of the Internet will be driven by consumer demand, not by gimmicks. If the company is truly interested in consumers, it will allow consumers to remain in control.