The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has issued new guidelines for consumers with complaints about their Internet Service Providers’ throttling practices that puts the burden of proof on the consumer to demonstrate an ISP is engaged in wrongful behavior before the CRTC will act.

The revised guidelines appear to come in response to complaints from consumers who have been subjected to dramatically reduced speeds when using Rogers Cable Internet service to play online games while also running file sharing software in the background. Rogers’ speed throttling technology appears to be unable to discriminate between game traffic, which is not subject to speed reductions, and file swapping traffic, which is.

The Canadian Gamers Organization filed a formal complaint with the CRTC this summer accusing Rogers of engaging in Network Neutrality violations.

The CRTC gave Rogers until today to fix the errant speed throttle or respond to the agency with an explanation for the delay.  As of this hour, Rogers appears not to have responded.

Last week, the CRTC began a crackdown of its own — against consumers bringing Internet complaints.  The CRTC modified the complaint procedure to instruct consumers to first work with their ISP and application developers to resolve any outstanding issues before filing complaints.  From the updated CRTC Guidelines:

How to make an Internet performance complaint

Before you complain to the CRTC about an Internet traffic management practice, you should first contact your Internet service provider to see if it can resolve the issue.

If your service provider doesn’t address your complaint to your satisfaction, and you believe that your service provider’s traffic management practices are not compliant with the CRTC’s policies, you can complain to the CRTC. Before doing this, make sure that you know your rights.

Rogers chokes the speed of undesireable peer to peer file traffic, but other applications like online gaming are also impacted. Consumers are complaining about the collateral damage.

What to include in your complaint

In your complaint, explain why you think your service provider’s traffic management practice doesn’t meet the requirements set out in their traffic management policy.  It is not necessary to provide technical details about the problem, but the CRTC needs enough information to understand the problem.  Please, clearly describe:

• What part of the traffic management policy you believe the provider has not followed
• When the problem occurred, and whether it is a recurring problem
• Which software program, or application, has been affected
• How the application has been affected
• The steps you’ve taken to try to resolve the issue with your service provider, including your provider’s response to your complaint

Consumer groups are not pleased the CRTC won’t engage directly in independent oversight of ISP speed throttling practices regardless of consumer complaints.

“We are not a consumer-protection agency,” the CRTC’s Denis Carmel was quoted as saying back in July.

“The CRTC must start enforcing its own policies,” says Canadian Gamers Organization co-founder Jason Koblovsky. “The CRTC needs to put a plan forth to ensure that regular audits are done on Internet Providers rather than relying solely on consumer complaints. We are asking the public to tell the CRTC that enough is enough: the Commission needs to take a much more proactive role in ensuring that Internet providers play by the rules. We are ready to act politically and force a solution here if need be.”

Koblovsky expanded his views on the subject in a blog entry:

We find this policy update to be more of an insult to consumers, and puts the responsibility of monitoring ISP’s use of [speed throttles] directly on the back of consumers. This is not acceptable by any means, and none of the policy recommendations we made that were thrown out by the CRTC in our initial complaint were taken into consideration, or for that matter seriously by the CRTC. This is a slap in the face to what we have been fighting for, and that is the CRTC has the responsibility to follow through, monitor and enforce its policies.

[…] Not one ISP has been found by the CRTC to be acting against net neutrality policy since they acted on this in 2009 with several complaints sent to the CRTC by consumers being dismissed due to lack of evidence over years of enforcement failure by the commission. There is no indication here that the CRTC is going to be dealing with a very high evidentiary thresh hold put on the consumer to launch a CRTC investigation in this policy update. All this update does is provide information on CRTC complaints procedures that are already in place, and consumers are already abiding by.

[…] Maybe it’s time we start acting politically on this issue instead, drop the CRTC from the picture to force the CRTC through legislation to listen to consumers, and start putting forth a much better effort on their responsibility to the public to enforce their policies. Or better yet, start billing the CRTC for our efforts on each complaint we become a part of.

Read this excellent analysis of game throttling and how Canadian ISPs master the art of Internet Overcharging.

Courtesy Kelvin Luffs

Several weeks ago, the Netherlands’ former state-owned telephone company — Koninklijke KPN N.V. — thought it would be a fine idea to charge their mobile customers extra subscription fees for accessing popular online services like Skype, YouTube, and Facebook.  KPN’s proposal would have added €3 a month for the privilege of using Skype.  Want to update friends on Facebook?  That will run €0.02 per megabyte.  YouTube?  €0.50 per hour.  Not a single Euro would be passed along to any of these companies, however.  KPN itself would bank the entire amount.

The Dutch Parliament reacted to news of this, and other recent controversy involving the country’s mobile providers, by introducing strong Net Neutrality regulation in Parliament — the second country after Chile to do so:

1. Providers of public electronic communication networks which deliver internet access services and providers of internet access services do not hinder or slow down applications and services on the internet, unless and to the extent that the measure in question with which applications or services are being hindered or slowed down is necessary:

a. to minimise the effects of congestion, whereby equal types of traffic should be treated equally;
b. to preserve the integrity and security of the network and service of the provider in question or the terminal of the enduser;
c. to restrict the transmission to an enduser of unsolicited communication as referred to in Article 11.7, first paragraph, provided that the enduser has given its prior consent;
d. to give effect to a legislative provision or court order.

2. If an infraction on the integrity or security of the network or the service or the terminal of an enduser, referred to in the first paragraph sub b, is being caused by traffic coming from the terminal of an enduser, the provider, prior to the taking of the measure which hinders or slows down the traffic, notifies the enduser in question, in order to allow the enduser to terminate the infraction. Where this, as a result of the required urgency, is not possible prior to the taking of the measure, the provider provides a notification of the measure as soon as possible. Where this concerns an enduser of a different provider, the first sentence does not apply.

3. Providers of internet access services do not make the price of the rates for internet access services dependent on the services and applications which are offered or used via these services.

4. Further regulations with regard to the provisions in the first to the third paragraph may be provided by way of an administrative order. A draft order provided under this paragraph will not be adopted before it is submitted to both chambers of the Parliament.

5. In order to prevent the degradation of service and the hindering or slowing down of traffic over public electronic communication networks, minimum requirements regarding the quality of service of public electronic communication services may be imposed on undertakings providing public communications ­networks.

The new bill, expected to pass the Dutch Senate as early as this week, would ban mobile providers from nickle-and-diming customers for the applications they run on their mobiles.  It’s a far different approach than Net Neutrality policies in the United States, which exempt cell phone companies.

van Dam

KPN’s original announcement that it was introducing extra charges for certain popular mobile applications raised privacy concerns in Parliament over exactly how KPN knew what their customers were doing with their phones.  That’s a question the Netherlands Consumer Authority wanted answers to as well.

KPN was accused of using “deep packet inspection” to monitor the activity of their customers.  In April, KPN discovered many of them were using an alternative messaging service called WhatsApp to bypass paying SMS text message charges.

Labour MP Martijn van Dam was unimpressed with KPN’s defense of its monitoring customer activity.  Although the company said the monitoring practice is widespread, it denied it was violating the privacy of its customers in the process.  van Dam suggested that would be akin to “a postal worker who delivers a letter, looks to see what’s in it, and then claims he hasn’t read it.”

van Dam is a co-author of the Net Neutrality bill that soon followed and is expected to pass over the objections of mobile companies, who claim they will be forced to raise prices in response.

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.

Phillip Dampier

Stop the Cap! reader Kimon discovered the debate over Net Neutrality is far from over when alerting us to a strong rebuke of the net policy in a number of newspapers published regionally by GateHouse Media.

Macedon, N.Y. resident Cheryl Miller doesn’t like the federal government involving itself in the Internet, and considers the “physical part of the Internet” the private property of Internet Service Providers:

When a progressive liberal takes up a cause, you can bet he’s found another way to undermine someone else’s liberty. The issue of “net neutrality” is a prime example of this rule.

The concept of net neutrality has piggybacked into recent public interest stories about groups with high-minded names like Free Press and Public Knowledge — stories about Internet-assisted food, clothing and book drives for the needy around the world, and other such humanitarian and environmental endeavors. It is sneakily implied that the success of such undertakings are the result of net neutrality principles, but they are not.

[…] Proposed net neutrality legislation would prohibit ISPs from charging different rates for various types of content or services, such as is done with cable and satellite television (think pay-per-view and premium channels). Restricting ISPs from operating in profitable ways is a disincentive to invest in more bandwidth to better serve customers, and likewise discourages innovations that could benefit consumers. More regulation will result in less profit, less competition, higher prices and a stunted Internet.

For Miller, any government policy that interferes with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast’s view of how the Internet should be ordered amounts to a government takeover of the Internet, especially when the government can tell providers they cannot prioritize traffic or charge customers different prices to access different content.

Here at Stop the Cap!, we were unimpressed with Miller’s arguments and partisan cheap shots, especially at the expense of public policy groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge.  Perhaps she does not realize conservative groups like the Christian Coalition of America are also supporters of Net Neutrality.  But we don’t necessarily blame her either, considering all of the money being spent by corporate-funded groups to distort Net Neutrality’s ultimate goal: to ensure the same formula that made the Internet a runaway success is kept firmly in place.

Our formal response appeared in the same newspapers this afternoon: