A small wireless ISP owner who regularly complains about Net Neutrality and an industry friendly group that opposes broadband oversight were the handpicked guests at a hearing held today to investigate Net Neutrality.  Only one witness, Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge was there to defend the important consumer net protection principle.

The hearing, held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on IP, Competition and the Internet was among the first held in the new Republican-controlled Congress, which overwhelmingly opposes Net Neutrality.  It opened an opportunity for Net Neutrality-opponents to attack the watered down rules, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission last December.

Laurence “Brett” Glass, owner of Lariat, a wireless ISP in Laramie, Wyoming, is a familiar name to those who follow comment sections of public interest websites and newspapers.  Glass regularly attacks the concept of Net Neutrality and favors Internet Overcharging schemes, if only to protect revenues on his bandwidth-limited wireless ISP.

Glass told Congress adoption of even the FCC’s watered down regulations will put his company’s future at risk because they could be interpreted to allow “servers” on his network.  Andrew Schwartzman, a net-neutrality proponent and senior vice president at the Media Access Project, says the restriction could technically violate rules, but only if it was argued as a prohibition of attaching server hardware/equipment.

“He is describing a practice which would violate Michael Powell’s 4 principles from 2005 (I think) since it allows end users to attach any device,” Schwartzman said in an e-mail to The Hill.

Of course, the watered down Net Neutrality regulations exempt wireless networks, and Glass’ argument ignores the long-recognized concept of the Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits network activities that can create problems for the network itself or other customers.  The FCC moving in to crush Lariat over such a scenario is hard to imagine in any case.

Larry Downes, another witness, represents the Big Telecom-friendly TechFreedom, which loathes industry regulations that could impact big players like AT&T and Verizon.

Downes argued the Net Neutrality rules were slipped in during the Lame Duck Session to avoid Republican scrutiny on Capitol Hill and are completely unnecessary.  Downes argues:

• There is no need for new regulation because there were never any serious violations (ignoring the Comcast incident that interfered with network traffic and the subsequent adventures (by others) this year on the wireless side where content access is being repackaged and sold by third parties based on access and usage).
• Enforcement mechanisms are complex and expensive: It costs too much to investigate, so why bother?
• Exceptions reveal a profound misunderstanding of “the Open Internet”: Downes argues today’s well-accepted concept of speed equality and agnostic network management are simply popular with consumers and irrelevant to the technical workings of the Internet itself.
• The FCC lacked authority to issue the rules—and likely knew it: By not invoking appropriate authority, the FCC’s new Net Neutrality policies may fail to pass court scrutiny.

Downes favors a different kind of net freedom — one for corporations to treat the online ecosystem as they please and let the free market sort it out.  If you are served by two providers who believe in Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles, so be it.  If you’re lucky enough to be served by a provider that supports today’s online experience, lucky you.

The FCC evidently was not invited to testify about their own policy.  Instead, Public Knowledge’s Gigi Sohn argued for Net Neutrality, but even she complains the FCC’s current provisions of that policy don’t go far enough.  Public Knowledge is planning a pushback against Republican-led efforts to repeal Net Neutrality in a campaign launching later this week — The Internet Strikes Back.

(Click the image on the left to enroll in the campaign and participate in the effort to stand up for Net Neutrality this Thursday.)

Public Knowledge:

You – the Internet – are going to make it clear that ISPs cannot be gatekeepers and do not get to choose which websites work and which websites do not work.  You – the Internet – will tell all of Congress to join the 105 Representatives who have already come out clearly in support of a free and open Internet.

Just shy of one month after adoption, the Federal Communication Commission’s Net Neutrality rules face a legal challenge by one of the parties that helped write them.

Verizon Communications filed suit Thursday in the same federal court that in April threw out much of the authority the FCC thought it had over online telecommunications.

“We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,” said Michael E. Glover, Verizon’s senior vice president and deputy general counsel. “We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

Verizon’s lead attorney in the case in Helgi Walker, who will be a familiar face in the court — Walker successfully argued the original case Comcast brought against the Commission for trying to regulate its Internet service.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's cowardly cave-in on strong Net Neutrality was rewarded with... a lawsuit from Verizon to overturn the regulations the company helped write.

But Verizon wants an even greater shot at success, asking for the same panel of judges who ruled in the Comcast case to also hear its challenge.

“Verizon has made a blatant attempt to locate its challenge in a favorable appeals court forum,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director of the Media Access Project.

Outgunned.  Again.

The earlier decision in the Comcast case not only stripped the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband under a regulatory framework established under the Bush Administration, it derided the logic behind it.  During arguments, the FCC’s general counsel acknowledged he was likely to lose the case, and actually asked the Court for guidance on how to write better rules.

Remarkably, Verizon’s legal challenge comes after the company worked closely with the Commission to moderate Net Neutrality regulations.  The rules issued in December exempted wireless communications and were criticized by consumer groups for not truly representing a free and open Internet.

Rob Pegoraro, a Washington Post columnist, was incredulous the phone company was spending subscribers’ money fighting net policies that nearly mirrored the voluntary agreement it reached with Google last year.

“Okay, so you’re going to spend some of my money to fight a minimal set of regulations written to stop you from tampering with my Internet access? How is that supposed to make me feel comfortable doing business with you?

“(Note to Verizon: You are not only an enormous telecom conglomerate, you are The Phone Company. You don’t get to say “trust me.”)

“Then I got more annoyed.

“The regulations that Verizon regards as an affront to the Constitution match up closely with the proposal that Verizon published with Google in August–a suggested regulatory framework that many people, myself included, criticized for its minimal restrictions on wireless broadband services.

[…] “And not only did Verizon think that its proposed set of rules would be good for business last summer, it did so as recently as 2:25 p.m. Thursday, when a post on its public-policy blog favorably cited those suggestions.”

Nate Anderson at Ars Technica isn’t sure why Verizon is spending time fighting rules it supposedly agrees with either, and he produced a chart proving it:

Excerpted below are the main Verizon/Google provisions, followed by their matching item in the FCC’s “open Internet” order from December. All are exact quotes.

Despite the perceived rush to court, legal challenges against the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules were widely expected.  The FCC continues to tell the press (on background), it believes it has the authority to enact Internet-related regulations and policies.  But many court watchers familiar with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals think it is more likely than not Verizon will prevail on similar legal arguments Comcast used to win its case.

What then?

Pegoraro: “I’d like to think that it would be fitting if the FCC responded by returning to the regulatory strategy it should have adopted in the first place: putting broadband Internet services back under a simplified form of the “Title II” common-carrier regulation that most operated under until 2005.”

“But if the FCC couldn’t find the gumption to choose that more aggressive but more legally grounded option before, why would it now?”

Copps

A Statement from FCC Commissioner Michael Copps: The Lone Dissenter in Today’s 4-1 Decision Approving the Merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal:

Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal is a transaction like no other that has come before this Commission—ever. It reaches into virtually every corner of our media and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land. It is new media as well as old; it is news and information as well as sports and entertainment; it is distribution as well as content. And it confers too much power in one company’s hands.

For any transaction that comes before this Commission, our statutory obligation is to weigh the promised benefits against the potential harms so as to determine whether the public interest is being served. There are many potential harms attending this transaction—even the majority recognizes them. But all the majority’s efforts—diligent though they were—to ameliorate these harms cannot mask the truth that this Comcast-NBCU joint venture grievously fails the public interest. I searched in vain for the benefits. I could find little more than such touted gains as “the elimination of double marginalization.” Pardon me, but a deal of this size should be expected to yield more than the limited benefits cited. I understand that economies and efficiencies could accrue to the combined Comcast-NBCU venture, but look a little further into the decision and you will find that any such savings will not necessarily be passed on to consumers. When they tell you that at the outset, don’t look for lower cable or Internet access bills. As companies combine and consolidate, consumers have seen their cable bills out-strip the Consumer Price Index by orders of magnitude.

Many of the new commitments that have been added aim no higher than maintaining the status quo. The status quo is not serving the public interest.

It is also claimed that the duration of the commitments made by Comcast-NBCU are longer than any that have been attached to previously-approved mergers. That may be true—but it is also true that power is patient and that big businesses can bide their time when they have to in order to reap the fullest harvest.

While approval of this transaction was from its announcement the steepest of climbs for me, given my long-standing opposition to the outrageous media consolidation this country has experienced over the past few decades, I did meet with stakeholders on all sides to make sure I understood their perspectives on the matter. And I worked to develop ideas to minimize the harms and to advance at least some positive public interest benefits. I know my colleagues worked assiduously on this proceeding, too.

Commissioner Clyburn, for example, worked successfully to achieve commitments from Comcast-NBCU to improve diversity, expand broadband deployment in unserved areas and increase broadband adoption by low-income households. The Chairman and his team, led by John Flynn, and many, many other members of the FCC team put more effort into this transaction than I have seen put into any transaction during my nearly ten years here at the Commission. I also salute the unprecedented cooperation between the agency and the Department of Justice.

Comcast's Online Toll Plaza

But at the end of the day, the public interest requires more—much more—than it is receiving. The Comcast-NBCU joint venture opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet. The potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, access fees to reach end users, and a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real.

As for the future of America’s news and journalism, I see nothing in this deal to address the fundamental damage that has been inflicted by years of outrageous consolidation and newsroom cuts. Investigative journalism is not even a shell of its former self. All of this means it’s more difficult for citizens to hold the powerful accountable. It means thousands of stories go unwritten. It means we never hear about untold instances of business corruption, political graft and other chicanery; it also means we don’t hear enough about all the good things taking place in our country every day.

The slight tip of the hat that the applicants have made toward some very limited support of local media projects does not even begin to address the core of the problem. Given that this merger will make the joint venture a steward of the public’s airwaves as a broadcast licensee, I asked for a major commitment of its resources to beef up the news operation at NBC. That request was not taken seriously. Increasing the quantity of news by adding hours of programming is no substitute for improving the quality of news by devoting the necessary resources. Make no mistake: what is at stake here is the infrastructure for our national conversation—the very lifeblood of American democracy.

We should be moving in precisely the opposite direction of what this Commission approves today.

There are many other facets of the joint venture that trouble me. I worry, for example, about the future of our public broadcast stations. Comcast-NBCU has committed to carry the signals of any of those stations that agree to relinquish the spectrum they are presently using. Will public television no longer be available to over-the-air viewers? And, what happens when the duration of this commitment has run its course? Might the public station be dropped to make room for yet more infotainment programming? In too many communities, the public television station is the last locally owned and operated media outlet left. Public television is miles ahead of everyone else in making productive, public interest use of the digital multi-cast spectrum licensed to it.

Why in the world would we gamble with its future?

While the item before the Commission improves measurably on the program access, program carriage and online video provisions originally offered by the applicants, I believe loopholes remain that will allow Comcast-NBCU to unduly pressure both distributors, especially small cable companies, and content producers who sit across the table from the newly-consolidated company during high-stakes business negotiations for programming and carriage. Even when negotiations are successful between the companies, consumers can still expect to see high prices get passed along to them, as Comcast-NBCU remains free to bundle less popular programming with must-have marquee programming. Given the market power that Comcast-NBCU will have at the close of this deal over both programming content and the means of distribution, consumers should be rightfully worried.

In sum, this is simply too much, too big, too powerful, too lacking in benefits for American consumers and citizens. I have respect for the business acumen of the applicants, and have no doubts that they will strive to make Comcast-NBCU a financial success. But simply blessing business deals is not the FCC’s statutorily-mandated job.  Our job is to determine whether the record here demonstrates that this new media giant will serve the public interest. While I welcome the improvements made to the original terms, at the end of the day this transaction is a huge boost for media industry (and digital industry) consolidation. It puts new media on a road traditional media should never have taken. It further erodes diversity, localism and competition—the three essential pillars of the public interest standard mandated by law. I would be true to neither the statute nor to everything I have fought for here at the Commission over the past decade if I did not dissent from what I consider to be a damaging and potentially dangerous deal.

Hammer Time: MetroPCS introduces 4G/LTE service plans that establish pay walls for familiar web content.

Want a sneak preview of America’s Internet experience without real Net Neutrality?  Look no further than MetroPCS which has managed to turn the clock back to the early days of “mobile web,” where carriers pre-selected content and blocked much of the rest.  Want access anyway?  Then spend some time with a spreadsheet to figure out what service plan you’ll need and start counting out some ten dollar bills because MetroPCS promises a Long Term Expensive 4G  experience.

The business press focused on MetroPCS’ new pricing — delivering what the company calls “a selection of data access levels to meet customers’ lifestyles.”  But some public interest groups considered today’s announcement the first gauntlet thrown in the Net Neutrality war since the FCC voted to approve a watered down version of the open Internet policy last month.

MetroPCS called their new plans a boon to customers.

“Our customers told us they wanted more video, more sharing of their content and more Web browsing capabilities – they want to have it all with the value and no annual contract that only MetroPCS can deliver,” said Roger D. Linquist, president, CEO and chairman of MetroPCS. “Our 4G LTE network can deliver unlimited voice and mobile broadband data services and, with these new service plans, consumers are in the driver’s seat on how much additional data access and real-time entertainment content they want to pay for on a monthly basis.”

But many customers will discover the company’s road to good intentions pitted with potholes, toll booths, roadblocks, and diversions.

Just getting on this data highway to hell could be very confusing to customers who will need to think about what websites and services they need, want, or can live without, and then finding the corresponding service plan that makes it all work.

MetroPCS says it has three new pricing levels to consider:

• The $40 service plan offers unlimited talk, text, 4G Web browsing with unlimited YouTube access.
• The $50 service plan includes the same unlimited talk, text, 4G Web services and unlimited YouTube access as the $40 plan. Additional features include international and premium text messaging, turn-by-turn navigation with MetroNAVIGATOR™, ScreenIT, mobile instant messaging, corporate e-mail and 1 GB of additional data access, with premium features available through MetroSTUDIO™ when connected via Wi-Fi, including audio capabilities to listen and download music and access to preview and trial video content.
• The $60 service plan provides the same premium features as the $50 plan, plus unlimited data access and MetroSTUDIO premium content such as 18 video-on-demand channels and audio downloads.

You'll need a smart phone to figure out what pricing plan actually delivers the services you need.

A customer could be forgiven if they assumed the $40 plan provided “unlimited web browsing,” which will be interpreted to mean they can access all of the content contained on those websites, but they would be wrong.  Beyond YouTube, MetroPCS customers will need to spend at least $10 more to access embedded video and audio, play online gaming, and access other rich media services.  Want to view videos from a website that isn’t among the carrier’s “preferred content partners?”  Forget it.

What about Skype, Netflix and other popular services?  Nuh uh.

Only the $60 monthly plan delivers unlimited data, along with pre-selected video and audio you can access… or not.

Free Press Policy Counsel M. Chris Riley called MetroPCS’ foray into the toll highway business a profit padding scheme.

“In December, the FCC chose to disregard wireless protections in its Net Neutrality order, and MetroPCS’s new scheme is a preview of the wireless future in a world without protections on the mobile Web. Such blocking of websites, services or applications would clearly be prohibited and deemed unreasonable on a cable or DSL network. Are these the kinds of restrictions the FCC really wants to promote on wireless networks?

“The open Internet order approved in December stated that the FCC was not implicitly approving practices on the mobile Web that violate its rule against unreasonable discrimination – and now we’ll see whether the agency is willing to do anything about such practices. Silence in the face of ongoing violations is no different from outright approval. If MetroPCS is allowed to engage in rampant discrimination and blocking of Internet applications and services, will Verizon be next? Will AT&T extend its history of blocking services like VoIP and Sling on its LTE network in the future?

“MetroPCS’s plan will restrict consumer choice and innovation in a developing mobile market, all for the sake of further padding its bottom line. The FCC must not stand idly by while carriers are engaging in anti-consumer and anti-competitive behavior, and we urge the agency to investigate.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MetroPCS 1-4-10.flv[/flv]

It’s too bad the company that regularly lampooned their wireless competitors in witty commercials has now adopted the same “gotcha” tricks and traps that will leave customers trying to figure out why they can’t access the web content they thought they paid to receive.  Watch a series of amusing MetroPCS ads and a brief review of the company’s new 4G phone courtesy of TheStreet TV.  “Hello. Hello. Hello.”  (7 minutes)

No, don't get up. We've got it.

Want an example of the kind of lazy journalism you get from one of America’s largest news operations, about to become a part of the Comcast family?  Look no further than MSNBC’s Wilson Rothman, who shared some serious Net Nonsense in his piece: ‘Open’ Internet just a pipedream.

Rothman apologized in a tweet after publishing the essay, admitting it was “cynical.”  But we want to know where the apology is for being wrong on the actual facts.

The author tells readers it’s a Comcast world this winter:

As long as you buy Internet access via cable provider, wireless carrier or telecom, you’re going to have to play — or at least pay — by their rules. They’ll just have to make sure to tell you what those rules are. That seems to be the real gist of the FCC order that was ratified today.

[…]The only people currently getting throttled by their broadband providers are file-sharing pirates who wouldn’t be protected by any net neutrality regulation anyway; meanwhile, wired and wireless broadband networks are increasingly controlled by a smaller, more powerful cadre of competitors.

Tiered pricing has to happen

You can use as much electricity from the power grid as you want, but you have to pay by the kilowatt hour. If you think of the Internet as a utility — and why shouldn’t you? — network management should look something like that. Prices offered by regulated private companies should be competitive and reasonable, but highly metered. Sadly, that means no more flat-fee unlimited access.

[…]I don’t mean to sound cynical, but I come at this from a technology background, not a legal or political one. What I see are all the ways in which “public” access to utilities become profit centers for increasingly massive companies.

After the break-up of the Bells, the phone companies eventually consolidated and worked their way back together like some kind of liquid-metal Terminator. The good news? Instead of a single monopolistic phone company, we have two Leviathans and some smaller fish. Long-distance service used to be their cash cow; now it’s wireless and broadband, and they’re not going to let those slip so easily.

“Give that man a raise,” said Brian Roberts, Comcast CEO.

Seriously, Rothman might come from a technology background, but he sure doesn’t know his way around the broadband public policy debate. Digging into the reasons for today’s broadband mess would require actual reporting.

Rothman suggests Americans are effectively required to accept today’s decision from the Federal Communications Commission.  That’s akin to telling Time Warner Cable customers they should have just knelt down to the cable company’s 2009 pricing experiments.  Or that North Carolina needed to padlock community broadband networks until they could be sold on eBay to the highest Big Telecom bidder.  Or that Frontier can and should get away with a 5GB usage cap.

We said no.  You said no.  And we won all three of those battles.

Today’s FCC vote has relevance only until the first major cable or phone company (or interested third party) files a lawsuit.  The outcome is predictable — the same court that threw out the FCC’s authority earlier this year will do so again, for many of the same reasons.  For consumers, that isn’t all bad.

Rothman’s claim that only pirates are victims of speed throttling is demonstrably false, and nothing less than journalistic malpractice.  Innocent consumers are routinely throttled on wireless and wireline broadband networks using “network management” technology.  Are Clear’s customers all pirates?  How about Cricket’s clients?  Exceeding an arbitrary amount of usage on these networks guarantees you a spot in the dial-up-like doghouse.

The author also misses the point about increasing consolidation in the Big Telecom marketplace.  Cadre?  Sure.  Competitors?  Hardly.  Most Americans endure a broadband duopoly for reasonable Internet access — a cable and phone company.  Cable and phone companies have quite a deal.  They effectively charge around the same price for service and never have to worry about a third cable or phone company entering the marketplace.  Cable companies don’t compete with other cable companies.  Same for telephone companies.  Community broadband networks deliver the only real competition some areas have, which is why Big Telecom wants to ban these upstarts wherever they can.  Big Telecom believes Americans should not get to choose an alternative cable company if Comcast delivers terrible service.  Consumers living in small communities like Penn Yan, N.Y., live with Verizon DSL, if they are lucky.  Outside of the immediate town limits, there isn’t a cable competitor, much less another phone company.  That’s the real “take it or leave it” Americans contend with.

Rothman's electric utility analogy is as valid as charging for broadband by the foot.

Why shouldn’t Americans think of broadband as just another electric utility?  Because it isn’t.  This common talking point/analogy adopted by Rothman’s future employer has as much validity as pricing broadband by how many feet of wire was necessary to install it.

Broadband is neither a limited resource nor a product that requires a utility to purchase raw materials to perpetually generate.  His argument works only if a provider “generated” the actual content you consume online.  They don’t — they simply transport content from one point to another over a network that becomes enormously profitable once the initial construction costs are paid.  Rothman can discover this for himself reviewing the quarterly financials of broadband providers.  After billions in profits are counted, it’s clear this is one recession-proof industry that is hardly hurting.

It’s no mistake these analogies always leave out the one utility that is most comparable to broadband — telephone service.  You know, the one service that is rapidly moving towards unlimited, flat rate — talk all you want.  Providers using the consumption billing argument cannot afford to include phone service in their analogy, because then the ripoff would be exposed.  One would think a reporter for NBC News might have managed to figure that one out as well, but no.

The fact is, there is no healthy competition in broadband.  You know what that means — high prices for limited service.  Rothman seems ready and willing to take whatever Big Telecom wants to dish out, but then his paycheck is about to be paid by one of those companies, so he can afford to be cynical.

Unfortunately for his readers, Rothman is oblivious to the reasons why phone companies have consolidated and consumers are stuck with the results.  The recipe:

• A multimillion dollar lobbying effort that includes huge contributions to politicians, astroturf “dollar-a-holler” groups paid to front for Big Telecom’s agenda, and a mess of scare tactics predicting horrible things if they do not get their way;
• A supine media that simply accepts provider arguments as fact, deems the abusive practice that follow as inevitable, and apologizes later for being cynical;
• An uninformed public that decreasingly relies on media companies that also happen to have direct financial interests in the outcome of these public policy debates.

Consumers have more power than Rothman thinks when they take a stand with elected officials.  When taking AT&T money becomes more costly than voting for their constituents, elected officials will do the right thing.  That takes individuals letting elected officials they are watching them closely on these issues.

Consumers can also tell their local elected officials that the Big Telecom Money Party needs to come to an end.  A community-owned broadband network that throws out the online toll booths and creates a network for Main Street instead of Wall Street is the functional equivalent of handing unruly Verizon and Comcast their coats and escorting them the door.