Suddenlink broadband customers in Lubbock and Midland, Texas will soon have a new option to boost their broadband speed to 36Mbps.  Dubbed MAX36, the new tier leaps over the cable company’s former top broadband speed of 20Mbps.  Upload speeds get a boost as well — to 2Mbps.

Multichannel News reports pricing for the new tier depends on how many other Suddenlink services you have.  Standalone pricing is $75 per month.  Bundle it with television or telephone service and the price drops to $65.  Take all three services and MAX36 costs $60 a month.

Suddenlink serves portions of these Texas communities

If that is too rich for your blood, Suddenlink next week will be providing existing broadband customers in Lubbock and Midland free speed upgrades:

• 1Mbps service increases to 1.5Mbps
• 8Mbps upgrades to 10Mbps service
• 10Mbps service becomes 15Mbps

The new speeds are possible because of DOCSIS 3 upgrades underway at the nation’s ninth largest cable operator.  Suddenlink has focused on DOCSIS 3 upgrades for many of its Texas systems, including Abilene, Bryan/College Station, Georgetown, Lubbock, Midland, San Angelo and Terrell.  The operator also deployed the technology in Beckley, Charleston and Parkersburg, West Virginia, as well as Jonesboro, Arkansas, Humboldt County, California, and Nixa, Missouri.  The company hopes to upgrade 90 percent of its cable systems within the next two years.  Nationwide, Suddenlink reaches 1.3 million subscribers.

Last summer Suddenlink introduced a usage meter for subscribers in Clovis, New Mexico and included a chart of what constituted average usage for its customers.

Suddenlink's national service area

The company openly admits it limits customer use of its broadband service is several communities where bandwidth upgrades have yet to occur, but at least drops communities from the usage limit list after expansion is complete.  As of February 4th, communities impacted by usage limits include:

• Arkansas: Charleston, Hazen, Mt. Ida, Nashville
• Kansas: Anthony, Fort Scott
• Louisiana: Ville Platte
• Missouri: Jefferson City, Maryville
• Oklahoma: Fort Sill, Healdton, Heavener, Hughes, Idabel
• Texas: Albany, Anson, Brenham, Burkburnett, Caldwell, Canadian, Center, Claredon, Crane, Dimmitt, Eastland, Electra, Hamlin, Henrietta, Junction, Kermit, Monahans, Nocona, Olney, Paducah, Rotan, San Saba, Seymour, Sonora, Trinity, Vernon, Wellington

Suddenlink also admits it engages in “network management” techniques which may spark controversy with the ongoing Net Neutrality debate, despite its declaration it “allows customers to access and use any legal Web content they prefer, thus honoring the principles of network neutrality.”

In addition to “mitigating network congestion, which can interfere with customers’ preferred online activities,” Suddenlink also discloses it “prioritizes certain latency-sensitive traffic such as voice traffic.”

Still, performing system upgrades to put a stop to usage limits and allowances is a move in the right direction, one that other providers seeking to monetize broadband traffic with Internet Overcharging schemes are loathe to take.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Suddenlink Ads.flv[/flv]

Watch some of Suddenlink’s more creative and amusing advertising. (2 minutes)

For months now, several groups purporting to represent the interests of minorities have busily been attacking Net Neutrality as beside the point for the poor and unserved consumer who has been left out of the broadband revolution.  To varying degrees, several of these groups have been spouting broadband industry talking points to the Federal Communications Commission, members of Congress, and the public at large.

For them, and the profitable broadband industry they indirectly represent, providing access at affordable prices is much more important than making sure providers don’t lord over the network they provide to customers.

Access vs. Openness

Consumers are perplexed by this either/or proposition.  For us, both issues are vitally important.  In urban, income-challenged areas, affordability is a crucial issue.  In rural areas, access to anything resembling broadband comes before worrying about the price.  For all concerned, making sure the Internet is not subject to corporate content control, either through direct censorship or through the far-more-common practice of pricing and policy controls, is just as important.

Providers have their self-interest on display when they promote broadband expansion — they want to receive the public dollars available from the broadband stimulus package to pay for that expansion.  Of course, every step of the way they have their fingers all over the process, from broadband mapping that protects incumbents from potential competition, defining what constitutes broadband to be as slow and as cheap to provide as possible, to implement usage rationing through Overcharging schemes like usage limits and usage-based billing, and to advocate for public policy that keeps the Money Party of fat profits running as long as possible without oversight.

The entry of minority interest groups into the debate is nothing new.  Groups of all kinds, including many who one would think wouldn’t have an opinion on Net Neutrality, are all part of the discussion.  Debates ensue, statements are fact-checked, back and forth discussion ensues.  What disturbs me is the small handful of groups who are willing to deal the race card when their own views and statements are challenged and they are threatened with losing the argument. Ill-equipped to argue the merits of their case in detail and withstand the scrutiny of fact-checking, some have introduced race into the debate to obfuscate the issues.

While I don’t doubt their sincerity and passion advocating for increased access and affordability, too many of these groups hurt their own case by accepting generous contributions (or advisory board members) from the telecommunications industry.  Consumers who witness the near total alignment of views between these groups their corporate benefactors are right to be concerned.  Many are asking if those views represent true conviction or “a dollar a holler” advocacy.

The Black Agenda Report, which created this graphic, ponders the same questions many consumers are asking

As Stop the Cap! documented just a few months ago, Broadband for America is a great example of industry-funded astroturf in action.  Large numbers of groups with no apparent connection to the broadband policy debate have found their way onto the roster of members.  From a cattle association to a Native American group that also has a burning interest in sharing their views about corporate jet landing rights, the one thing in common with virtually every last one of them was a financial contribution and/or board member working for big cable or telephone companies.  Thus far, debating a cattle association has not brought charges of being anti-cow, although I suspect consumers are anti-bull.  Debating the merits of Net Neutrality with Native American groups has not brought charges of anti-Native American bias.

Stop the Cap! itself has been on the receiving end of racial rhetoric offered by one of the anti-Net Neutrality advocates out there, Navarrow Wright.  Wright is a former corporate executive at Black Entertainment Television, and spends his days now as a self-proclaimed social media and branding expert. Last year, after exiting as CEO of Global Grind, a hip hop social network, Wright launched Maximum Leverage Solutions, which claims to be a full service consulting firm specializing in social media strategy and Internet Consulting.

Just a few months later, Wright suddenly discovered a big interest in the concept of Net Neutrality.  While he doesn’t disclose his client list, would it surprise anyone if a telecommunications company hired his services for their own “social media strategy?”

Since last fall, Wright has been generating a mix of provider talking points, Google bashing, and attacking groups that support Net Neutrality.  He’s called supporters of an open Internet “digital elites,” the FCC a player of “dangerous games” by ignoring the anti-Net Neutrality public, Free Press a group that wallows “in crazy claims and race-dividing rhetoric,” and tries to connect support for Net Neutrality as somehow representing opposition to increased broadband adoption.

Challenging and debunking his talking points isn’t difficult — they are precisely the same ones the broadband industry has used for several years now.  We invited Wright to a full, in-depth discussion about the merits of Net Neutrality and broadband adoption.  We even got the discussion started, but that’s exactly where it ended.

Wright is also incredibly defensive about the issue of industry-backed mouthpieces and astroturf efforts in general.  Suggesting Wright’s views are inaccurate brings his resume in response, which I suppose was designed to impress readers with suggestions of his built-in expertise, belied by his silence on these issues prior to last year.  In Wright’s original comment, he took our comments about economically disadvantaged Americans and made it an issue of color:

Our piece:

The letter represents the groups’ concerns that broadband for many in America is simply not available, especially for the economically disadvantaged.  They’ve been swayed by industry propaganda to characterize Net Neutrality as a threat to addressing the digital divide by making service ultimately even more expensive.

His response:

Phil, I know (at least I hope) your intent wasn’t to suggest that people of color have been “swayed by industry propaganda” and aren’t capable of thinking for ourselves on technology issues.

James Rucker, executive director of Color of Change added to the debate in late January, wondering why some civil rights groups are only too willing to support discredited industry talking points and advocate against Net Neutrality.

Rucker discovered the same thing we did.  Challenging these groups to explain their positions brings forth repetitious inch-deep talking points and total silence when a rebuttal is offered.  If pushed, they obfuscate with claims their views are being disrespected, when in reality they are only being fact checked.  Perhaps inconvenient, and even slightly embarrassing, but it’s completely appropriate for consumers to ask whether a conflict of interest exists when a group advocates for the positions of the same industry that is sending them big contributions.

The risk, of course, is to tie an organization’s good name to demonstrably false provider propaganda that some groups are willing to repeat, nearly word for word.

Take for instance Wright’s claim that Net Neutrality will force providers to spend money they would otherwise invest for the benefit of the rural, the downtrodden, and the unserved:

That brings me to the other corporate interests: the Internet service providers. It is the ISPs who must invest in, upgrade, maintain and build out the networks that allow us to receive these cool applications. While I don’t find the network side as sexy as the content side, I do know that we have to have it and ISPs need capital to build and maintain it. So the question remains who is going to pay for maintenance and upgrades to the network if Google gets a free ride? Basic economics tells us that if government requires ISPs to give Google a free ride, there’s only one other place to look for the money: consumers like you and me. What’s more, there are those who want to make it even more unfair by insisting that your big-bandwidth-using neighbor should not have to pay more than you, even if all you want to do is check email and watch some YouTube. Who will all of this hurt the most? Low-income consumers.

The only color that really matters here is green

Wright doesn’t know his American telecom history.  Let’s discuss this fiction:

1. Bruce Dixon, a writer for the Black Agenda Report says it better than anyone: “Phone companies invented the digital divide more than a century ago as their core business model, preferring to extend service to affluent areas where they could levy premium charges, rather than building networks out to reach everybody.”  The cable television industry “franchise” requirement came as a direct result of cable industry redlining, the practice of wiring wealthy neighborhoods for cable while bypassing urban and rural areas deemed “unprofitable.”  It’s the same story for broadband, and Net Neutrality is beside the point.  The number crunchers look for Return On Investment (ROI) when considering who gets on the right side of the digital divide.  If they can’t make a killing on you, they’re not going to provide you service.  If you can’t afford their asking price, which is increasing regardless of Net Neutrality, why serve you?  Ultimately it is consumers who overpay for these networks, priced well above cost, generating literally billions in profits.  Why ruin a good thing with altruistic broadband expansion at a fire sale price?
2. Regardless of what Google is doing, providers are seeking new ways to further monetize broadband service, enriching themselves even further.  Prices go up even as the costs to provide the service go down.  The old chestnut about the next door neighbor being a usage piggy is just more of the same “us vs. them” propaganda from providers who want consumers to fight amongst themselves while they run to the bank with the money.  Grandma doesn’t want her broadband service limited either, and she’s way too smart to believe a provider promising dramatic savings for less service from companies that jack up her rates year after year.
3. The best way to guarantee affordable access to broadband service is to develop a national broadband plan that provides the same kinds of “lifeline” services already available for economically disadvantaged phone customers, legislative policies that force markets open to additional competition, government oversight to ensure providers are required to provide service throughout their respective service areas, and stimulus or Universal Service Fund assistance for projects that assure access to those who simply will never pass ROI tests.  Or we can solve everything by not passing Net Neutrality?  Please.
4. Google doesn’t have a free ride.  First, consumers -pay- providers for connectivity.  Ultimately, they are the customers — content producers are not.  Nothing prohibits an ISP from offering hosting services to content producers at competitive prices.  If Google, Amazon, Netflix, or Hulu want to host their content on servers owned by Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, or AT&T, nothing stops them.  Google pays for its own connectivity to the Internet.  Customers pay for accessing it.  Now providers want to get paid again.  It’s like triple-charging for snail mail – you pay for a stamp to mail it, the person you wrote pays to receive it, and the airline that flew the letter cross country has to pay to transport it.

Remember, it’s the content that drives broadband adoption. ISP’s honestly don’t fret as much about traffic as they claim.  They just care whether they can own it, control it, and profit from it.  The evidence to back this up comes from cable and phone companies in a big hurry to stream video content over their TV Everywhere projects.  Nothing consumes bandwidth like online video, yet there they are enthusiastically embracing it.  They have to, because if they don’t control it, it could eventually lead to people dropping their cable TV subscriptions in favor of online viewing.

Wright’s blog promotes another industry favorite — the dreaded phony “exaflood” which threatens to bring chaos and disorder to our online world… unless we totally deregulate broadband and let them do whatever they want to “solve it.”  That’s more of the same.  We’ve seen the results of that for more than a decade now, and the very digital divide that Wright complains about comes as a direct consequence to letting broadband providers serve, or not serve customers as they please at the prices they want.

Wright and other civil rights groups can throw as many race cards as they like against consumers who see right through their corporate-backed agenda.  That’s because consumers know Net Neutrality isn’t an issue of black or white.  The only color that really matters here is green.

Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal today published an article reviewing the landscape of flat rate broadband service and how some Internet providers want to change it.

The article quotes me on the issue of Internet Overcharging becoming a political football in the Net Neutrality debate.

“This could come down to carriers saying, ‘If you don’t allow us to manage our networks the way we see fit, then we will just have to cap everything,’ ” says Phillip Dampier, a consumer advocate focusing on technology issues in Rochester, N.Y. “They’ll make it an either/or thing: give them more control over their network or expect metered broadband.”

Mr. Dampier was among those who forced Time Warner Cable to shelve a metered Internet pilot program in several cities last year. The company, which had argued the plan would be a fairer way to charge for access, acknowledged it was a “debacle.” It won’t say if it plans to revive the trials.

Unfortunately, the article never bothers to mention Stop the Cap!, the website dedicated to fighting these overcharging schemes.

AT&T weighs in on their experiment to overcharge consumers in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada, and analysts think Net Neutrality arguments may give providers an excuse to expand those experiments, launch price increases and blame it on Net Neutrality policies:

“Some type of usage-based model, for those customers who have abnormally high usage patterns, seems inevitable,” an AT&T spokesman says. AT&T declined to provide more details on its trials.

“Unquestionably, the carriers erred in their initial selling of broadband with a flat rate,” says Elroy Jopling, research director of Gartner Inc. “They assumed no one would use it as much as they do now, but then along came high-definition movies. They’re now trying to get around that mistake.”

Network neutrality deals primarily with ensuring that Internet providers don’t favor any online traffic over any other. Still, Mr. Jopling and other analysts argue, the net neutrality debate might provide the carriers with an opening to argue for changing that pricing.

“With network neutrality enforced, the only other option for carriers is to charge by the byte or to raise the flat-rate pricing,” says Johna Till Johnson, president of Nemertes Research. “Right now they’re just deciding which one to do. Just be prepared to pay more.”

It's "Rep. Eric Massa," Not 'Joe Messa'

The article has several flaws.

• It mis-identifies Rep. Eric Massa (D-New York) as “Rep. Joe Messa.”  Rep. Massa introduced legislation to ban Internet Overcharging when companies cannot produce actual evidence to justify it, particularly in the limited competitive marketplace for broadband in the United States.
• The article fails to mention the usage limits proposed by smaller broadband providers, including Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage definition in their Acceptable Use Policy.  This is a very important fact to consider when the article quotes Professor Andrew Odlyzko, an independent authority on broadband usage, as stating the average broadband consumer uses triple that amount (15 gigabytes per month).
• The quotation about the number of e-mails or web page views available under plan allowances that routinely appear in such articles ignores the increasing use of higher bandwidth applications like online video.  Telling a consumer they can send 75 million e-mails is irrelevant information because no consumer would ever need to worry about usage limits if they only used their account for web page browsing and e-mail usage.  They very much do have to be concerned if they use their service to watch online video from Hulu or Netflix, or use one of the online backup services.
• The article makes no mention of publicly available financial reports from broadband providers like Time Warner Cable that prove that at the same time their profits on broadband service are increasing, the company’s costs to provide the service continue to decline, along with the dollar amounts they spend to maintain and expand that network to meet demand.  Providing readers with insight into the true financial picture of a broadband provider, instead of simply quoting the public relations line of the day would seem particularly appropriate for The Wall Street Journal.
• The article doesn’t make mention that the same providers arguing increased Internet traffic is creating a problem for them are also working to launch an online video distribution platform that will rival Hulu in size and scope.  TV Everywhere will consume an enormous amount of the broadband network they claim can’t handle today’s traffic without Internet Overcharging schemes being thrown on customers.  Of course, such usage limits are very convenient for companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T, which are now in the business of selling pay television programming to consumers.  Should a consumer choose to watch all of their television online instead of paying for a cable package, a usage allowance will help put a stop to that very quickly, as will planned restrictions that only provide online video to “authenticated” existing pay television subscribers.

One thing remains certain – providers are still itching to overcharge you for your broadband service.  Consumers and the public interest groups that want to represent them must stand unified in opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes and for Net Neutrality protection, and never accept sacrificing one for the other.

John Boehner (R-Ohio)

Eighteen Republican senators joined twenty House Republicans in a letter writing campaign to get FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to drop Net Neutrality from the agenda at the Federal Communications Commission, calling the policy “counterproductive,” and would create a “chilling effect” on broadband investment in the future.

Many GOP members signing the latest round of letters also took issue with Net Neutrality a few years ago when it was a hot topic in Washington.

After Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s aborted attempt to de-fund FCC enforcement of Net Neutrality regulations, the past month has seen a full frontal assault on Net Neutrality by many Republicans.  Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (Virginia) co-authored a letter to President Barack Obama suggesting he intervene to drop Net Neutrality policies and instead focus on the national broadband plan.

Any regulations that would prohibit Internet service providers from managing their networks, they said, would discourage those companies from investing the billions of dollars needed to expand broadband access.

“We believe that network neutrality regulations would actually thwart further broadband investment and availability, and that a well-reasoned broadband plan would confirm our view. So to hastily begin the process of adopting network neutrality rules months before issuing such a plan implies that politics are driving the FCC’s decision-making process.”

Ranking Member of the House Communications, Technology & the Internet Subcommittee, Rep. Chris Stearns of Florida fired off a letter to Genachowski echoing the same sentiment:

Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)

“At first glance, net neutrality regulations may appear reasonable and harmless, but, a deeper examination reveals that net neutrality is neither reasonable nor harmless. These mandates would harm consumers, reduce competition, and discourage new investment and innovation at a time of tremendous technological growth.”

“The FCC bears the responsibility to prove a market failure, especially since its 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007 decisions on cable modem service, digital subscriber line service, broadband over power line service, and wireless broadband service were predicated on the notion that the broadband market nationwide is competitive and that regulation is unwarranted,” Stearns wrote.

Of course, during the years he cites, the Republicans enjoyed a majority on the Commission that made that finding.

Stearns and his colleagues suggest that the FCC could only intervene if substantial evidence existed the broadband marketplace was collapsing.

The Senate Republicans, led by Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, questioned the need to adopt new regulation, suggesting only two abusive incidents have occurred in the last five years that would have been prohibited by the regulations.

“It appears your decision to create new commission rules is outcome-driven. Your promulgating network neutrality rules seems to emanate from a fear that there may be some problems related to openness in ‘the future.’  Our view is that it is harmful for the commission to impose industry-wide rules based upon speculation about what may occur in the future.”

“Such a major policy shift should be contemplated with only all of the FCC Commissioners involved,” they wrote. “To do it with just one party reduces the confidence the public and Congress has in the proposal.”

Pro Net Neutrality groups had none of it:

Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge:

It is truly unfortunate that the House Republican leadership has put itself in the position of trying to slow down the greatest economic engine for job creativity and innovation ever created. Under the neutral, non-discriminatory Internet, thousands and thousands of new businesses were created and millions of dollars were invested.

The latest House Republican letter asking for the FCC to slow action on preserving an open, non-discriminatory Internet is simply another attempt at a delaying tactic by those who favor big telecom and cable companies over competition and innovation.

The letter also has fatal flaws, such as when it asserts that Net Neutrality would make investment more difficult, or that Net Neutrality would result in lower speeds and higher prices for consumers. Both of those claims are false. Billions of dollars were invested in the Internet ecosystem, not only by carriers, but by companies doing business on the Internet, and by consumers subscribing to Internet services. That is the investment we seek to expand. There is nothing in banning discrimination on the basis of source, ownership or destination of bits would create lower speeds or raise prices. Those are simply distractions.

Net Neutrality is about big telecom, cable and wireless companies (which are often the same) picking winners and losers on the Internet. It has nothing to do with online services, consumer electronics or applications. The FCC should proceed to guarantee the freedom of the Internet that all consumers and businesses deserve.

Markham Erickson, Open Internet Coalition:

This issue has been under debate since 2005 when the Supreme Court issued its Brand X ruling. The previous Republican-led FCC engaged in ad-hoc enforcement in the Comcast case. To suggest this is a radical policy u-turn is simply incorrect.

The Internet existed for more than 25 years under a neutral regime. During that time, a national data network was built out by telcos and cable providers, despite a neutrality requirement. To suggest that a return to that status quo threatens broadband investment is not borne out by experience. In fact, it is critical to investment that this issue be addressed sooner rather than later — further delay in addressing this core policy issue will harm investment flows into new and innovative technologies.

“

Verizon Wireless and Google this morning surprised the wireless mobile industry when it went far beyond a much-anticipated agreement between Verizon and Google to market smartphones using Google’s Android operating system, and instead seemed to embrace Net Neutrality for unrestricted use of online services on Verizon Wireless’ network.  Is this a consumer-friendly about face or a strategic effort to take the wind out of the sails pushing for formal adoption of Network Neutrality regulations?

Today’s announcement represents a complete reversal for Verizon Wireless, which announced opposition for wireless Net Neutrality in September.  Tom Tauke, Verizon’s executive vice president of regulatory affairs said then: “We believe that when the FCC reviews the record and looks at the facts, it will be clear that there is no current problem which justifies the risk of imposing a new set of regulations that will limit consumer choices and affect content providers, application developers, device manufacturers and network builders.”

Google and Verizon have been on opposite sides of the Net Neutrality debate for several years now.  The phone company spends millions of dollars lobbying Washington to keep Net Neutrality off its back, in direct opposition to Google’s strong advocacy for the consumer-friendly open network rules.  One might anticipate a joint webcast between the two companies would be reserved in tone at best.

It wasn’t.

In fact, Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam and Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt fell all over themselves praising one another, and attacked Verizon’s nemesis AT&T.

McAdam took a shot at AT&T for the recent controversy over their decision to block Google Voice and other Voice Over IP services from working with AT&T’s wireless network.

“Either you have an open device or not. This will be open,” McAdam said.

Schmidt praised Verizon Wireless’ nationwide mobile broadband network, calling it “by far the best in the United States.”

AT&T understood the implication of the partnership between its biggest rival and the super-sized Google and announced it was reversing its decision to block Voice Over IP applications on its network.

Ralph de la Vega, chief executive of AT&T’s consumer wireless unit, said “the iPhone is an innovative device that dramatically changed the game in wireless when it was introduced just two years ago.  Today’s decision was made after evaluating our customers’ expectations and use of the device compared to dozens of others we offer.”

That’s a remarkable statement coming from a company that has routinely ignored the wishes and expectations of its iPhone customers for less expensive, higher quality, less restrictive service.

AT&T’s reversal was praised by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who is pushing for adoption of Net Neutrality as part of FCC broadband policy.

“When AT&T indicated, in response to the FCC’s inquiry, that it would take another look at permitting VoIP on its 3G network I was encouraged,” Genachowski said. “I commend AT&T’s decision to open its network to VoIP. Opening wireless services to greater consumer choice will drive investment and innovation in the mobile marketplace.”

Have AT&T and Verizon suddenly realized taking a customer-friendly position of Net Neutrality is better for their corporate image?

Perhaps, but one might also consider the reversals to be part of a strategic effort to demonstrate a lack of need for Net Neutrality rules in a ‘remarkably open and free competitive wireless marketplace.’  Expect to see that line or something akin to it coming from the anti-Net Neutrality lobbying campaign within hours of today’s events.

AT&T has also spent millions on lobbying efforts in Washington to keep Net Neutrality and other telecommunications legislation at bay.  The prospect of a sudden role reversal for two of the biggest spenders on influencing public policy would be remarkable, if it actually happened for consumers’ sake.

Verizon Wireless & Google Joint Webcast — October 6, 2009 (18 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.