Jenkins

The Wall Street Journal attempted to attach its own conventional wisdom in an opinion piece about cloud-based streaming that suggests Canada “is just ahead of the U.S. in introducing usage-based pricing [and] has bloggers and politicians accusing Bell Canada of unconscionable ‘profiteering’ from usage caps. The company, they rage, is reaping huge fees for additional units of bandwidth that cost Bell Canada virtually nothing to provide.”

The author, Holman Jenkins, is a regular on the ultra-business friendly editorial page of the Journal, and has been raging against Net Neutrality and for higher Internet pricing for several years now.

Jenkins’ latest argument, just like his earlier ones on this subject, falls apart almost immediately:

This critique, which is common, could not more comprehensively miss the point. Another car on the roadway poses no additional cost on the road builder; it imposes a cost on other road users. Likewise, network operators don’t use overage penalties to collect their marginal costs but to shape user behavior so a shared resource won’t be overtaxed.

Jenkins needs to spend less time supporting his friends at companies like AT&T and Bell and more time exploring road construction costs.  If you are going to try and make an analogy about traffic, at least get your premise straight.

Before debunking his usage-based billing meme, let’s talk about road construction for a moment.  In fact, the kind of traffic volume on a roadway has everything to do with what kind of road is constructed.  In the appropriately named “Idiots’ Guide to Highway Maintenance,” C.J.Summers explores different types of road surfaces for different kinds of traffic.  Light duty roads in rural areas can get results with oil and stone.  Medium duty side streets and avenues are frequently paved with asphalt, and heavy duty interstates routinely use concrete.  Traffic studies are performed routinely to assist engineers in choosing the right material to get the job done.

Digital information doesn’t wear down cables or airwaves.  If broadband traffic occupies 5 or 95 percent of a digital pipeline, it makes no difference to the pipeline.  Jenkins is right when he says Internet Overcharging schemes are all about shaping user behavior, but for the wrong reasons.

Jenkins thinks Netflix and other high bandwidth applications face usage-based pricing to allow providers to keep their broadband pipes from getting overcongested:

Netflix is one of the companies most threatened by usage-based pricing, and it has quickly geared up a lobbying team in Washington. In a recent letter to shareholders, CEO Reed Hastings downplayed the challenge to Netflix’s video-streaming business. In the long run, he’s probably right—the market will settle on flat-rate pricing once the video-intensive user has become the average user.

In the meantime, however, Netflix shareholders had better look out.

In fact, providers are reaping the rewards of their popular broadband services, but almost uniformly are less interested in investing in them to match capacity.  It is as if the AT&Ts of this world assumed broadband users would consume    T H I S    M U C H   and that’s it — time to collect profits.  When upgrade investments don’t even keep up as a percentage of revenue earned over past years, the inevitable result will be a custom-made excuse to impose usage limits and consumption billing to manage the “data tsunami.”

Canadian providers did not slap usage caps on broadband users because Netflix arrived — they lowered them. Telling users they cannot consume the same amount of bandwidth they used a month earlier has nothing to do with managing traffic, it’s about protecting their video businesses by discouraging consumers from even contemplating using the competition.  Jenkins works for a company that understands that perfectly well.  News Corp., has a major interest in Hulu as well as satellite television services in Europe and Oceania.

The rest of Jenkins’ piece is as smug as it is wrong.  In attacking Net Neutrality supporters as “crazies” trying to defend their “hobby horse,” Jenkins claims public interest groups are pouting about usage-based billing, too:

All along, what the net neut crazies have lacked in intellectual consistency they’ve made up in fealty to the business interests of companies that fear their services would become unattractive if users had one eye on a bandwidth meter. That’s why opposition to “Internet censorship” morphed into opposition to anything that might price or allocate broadband capacity rationally. But such a stance is rapidly becoming untenable, whether the beneficiary is Google, with its advertising-based business model, or Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others who hope to capitalize on the entertainment-streaming opportunity.

All are betting heavily on the cloud. All need to start dealing realistically with the question of how the necessary bandwidth will be paid for.

Part of Jenkins’ theory calls back on his usual Google bashing — he perceives the company as a parasite stealing the resources bandwidth providers paid for, while forgetting the success of their businesses ultimately depends on content producers (who indeed pay billions for their own bandwidth) making the service interesting enough for consumers to buy.

But there is nothing rational about Jenkins’ support for Internet Overcharging.  North Americans already pay some of the highest prices in the world for the slowest service.  While providers attempt to lick the last drop of profits out of increasingly outdated networks (hello DSL!), their future strategy is less about expanding those networks and more about constraining the use of them.

Jenkins is ignorant of the fact several of Net Neutrality’s strongest proponents, Public Knowledge being a classic example, have not historically opposed usage-based pricing, much to my personal consternation.  As we’ve argued (and I submit proved), Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging go hand in hand for revenue hungry providers.  If they cannot discriminate, throttle, or block traffic they consider to be costly to their networks, they can simply cap demand on the customer side with usage limits or confiscatory pricing designed to discourage use.  That is precisely what Canadians are fighting against.

It’s all made possible by a broken free market.  Instead of hearty competition, most North Americans endure a duopoly — a phone company and a cable company.  Both, particularly in Canada, have vested interests in video entertainment, television and cable networks, and other entertainment properties.  As long as these interests exist, companies will always resist challenges to their core business models, such as cable TV cord cutting.  It’s as simple as that.

The “realistic” way bandwidth will be paid for escapes Jenkins because his quest for condescension takes precedence over actual facts.  Content producers already pay enormous sums to bandwidth providers like Akamai, Amazon, and other cloud-based distribution centers.  Consumers pay handsomely for their broadband connections, part of which covers the costs of delivering that content to their homes and businesses.  AT&T and other providers don’t deserve to get paid twice for the same content.  Indeed, they should be investing some of their enormous profits in building a new generation of fiber-based broadband pipelines to keep their customers happy.  Because no matter how much data you cram down a glass fiber, the ‘data friction’ will never cause those cables to go down in flames, unlike Jenkins’ lapsed-from-reality arguments.

Some of America’s largest media companies are starting to get nervous over reported stipulations Comcast and NBC-Universal must meet in order to win FCC approval of their merger deal.

The Wall Street Journal reports ‘all-lobbyists-on-deck’ as companies fear collateral damage to their own nascent online video businesses.

At issue is the FCC-proposed condition that would require Comcast to offer NBC programming to any online video service that has reached a similar deal for content from at least one of NBC’s competitors, such as Walt Disney Co. or News Corp.

That could create a highly competitive online video marketplace, with open access to video programming — content many companies want to tightly control.

Last week, lobbyists from Disney, News Corp., and Time Warner pelted the FCC with filings fearing Comcast-NBC deal stipulations could also impact their businesses, potentially risking exclusivity deals with firms like Netflix or Apple.  At the worst, such rules could permit the development of virtual ‘online cable systems,’ delivering hundreds of hours of programming daily — more than enough to potentially invite customers to turn away from traditional cable-TV or satellite packages.

Perish the thought, suggest some Wall Street analysts who are prepared to downgrade companies that cannot maximize revenue from a controlled online video marketplace.

The three companies, among others, have suggested language that limits any stipulations exclusively to the Comcast-NBC deal, or changing the terms to impact their own operations less.

Public interest groups continue to press their views that the proposed deal delivers nothing to consumers but higher bills and fewer programming choices.

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, joined with more than two dozen public interest groups urging a more careful review of the deal:

“We believe that a merger of this size and scope will have a devastating effect on the media marketplace,” a letter to President Barack Obama and Congress says. “It will result in less competition, higher consumer costs and fewer content choices. It also will give one company unprecedented control over innovative new media that offer news, information, entertainment and cultural programming through emerging technologies.”

Joel Kelsey, policy analyst for Consumers Union, said this proposed merger could have major consequences for consumers: “This merger would combine a major television network and film studio with the nation’s largest cable company and residential broadband provider, which could be a recipe for disaster. This merged giant has great potential to lead to higher cable and broadband rates for consumers, less competition in online video, and less diversity among the programming choices for viewers. There are no clear benefits to consumers from this merger.”

Comcast has agreed to several stipulations that are supposed to protect consumers.  Among them, a three-year requirement Comcast provide standalone Internet service to consumers for $49.95 a month.  But the deal says nothing about Comcast’s Internet Overcharging scheme — an arbitrary usage cap on their broadband service.

Comcast would also agree to adhere to Net Neutrality rules (as defined by the FCC) for up to seven years.  Since those rules are closely aligned to what Comcast volunteered to follow earlier, there was little reservation agreeing to them going forward.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcast Deal May Hang on Showing Rivals Online Video 12-23-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News’ Todd Shields explains the proposed conditions the FCC seeks to impose on the Comcast-NBC merger deal.  (12/23/2010 — 4 minutes)

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski sold President Obama's campaign pledge, his credibility, and you down the river in a sweetheart deal with Big Telecom.

The Federal Communications Commission voted today to pass what Chairman Julius Genachowski called “Net Neutrality” — reforms that will guarantee a free and open Internet.  But critics charge any similarity to actual Net Neutrality is purely coincidental.

In a 3-2 vote along party lines, the Democratic Commissioners approved Genachowski’s framework to keep providers from blocking access to websites.

Genachowski claims the rules will protect consumers from providers controlling the free flow of online content and will provide regulatory certainty for the broadband marketplace.  Providers, who have either lined up behind the chairman or have muted their criticism of the proposal in recent days, suggest they weren’t about to censor Internet content in the first place and that Net Neutrality is a cause in search of a problem.

Public interest groups were less than satisfied, dismissing today’s proceedings as “Net Neutrality-lite,” or “Net Neutrality with more (loop)holes than Swiss cheese.”  In particular, Genachowski’s willingness to exempt wireless broadband from the rules was a very sore spot among Net Neutrality proponents and some in Congress.

“Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) “If the FCC passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.”

Franken is convinced excluding wireless networks from open Internet rules is the first step towards a free speech calamity.

“If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.”

Craig Aaron, managing director at Free Press bemoaned today’s vote over rules he suggests were written by the industry itself.

“These rules don’t do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes, and they fail to protect wireless users from discrimination. No longer can you get to the same Internet via your mobile device as you can via your laptop,” Aaron said. “The rules pave the way for AT&T to block your access to third-party applications and to require you to use its own preferred applications.”

The Obama Administration is likely to claim credit for the new rules and declare Net Neutrality a campaign promise fulfilled, a claim that makes several net activists’ blood boil.

“Chairman Genachowski ignored President Obama’s promise to the American people to take a ‘back seat to no one’ on Net Neutrality,” says Aaron. “He ignored the 2 million voices who petitioned for real Net Neutrality and the hundreds who came to public hearings across the country to ask him to protect the open Internet. And he ignored policymakers who urged him to protect consumers and maintain the Internet as a platform for innovation. It’s unfortunate that the only voices he chose to listen to were those coming from the very industry he’s charged with overseeing.”

Aneesh Chopra, Obama’s chief technology officer said on Dec. 1 that the FCC proposal was an “important step in preventing abuses and continuing to advance the Internet as an engine of productivity growth and innovation.”

Genachowski’s two fellow Democratic commissioners agreed, noting the policies probably don’t go far enough, but it’s a start and they wouldn’t oppose them.  But Commissioner Michael Copps made it clear he remains unhappy with how the entire debate was managed.  He fears corporate control of broadband content will bring the same mediocrity large corporations have managed to deliver Americans over radio and television.

“I don’t want the Internet to travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gate-keeper control that other media and telecommunications industries — radio, television, film and cable — have traveled,” Copps said. “What an historic tragedy it would be,” he said, “to let that fate befall the dynamism of the Internet.”

If today’s mild net reforms are a step forward, it’s a small one say critics like the Center for Media Justice.  They suggest the FCC’s idea of Net Neutrality offers “minimal protections” for consumers.

“Our greatest fears have been realized,” said Malkia Cyril, Executive Director of the Center for Media Justice. “The Internet can only work if it’s a truly level playing field. Telecommunications companies have used their considerable wealth and lobbying might to exclude some of the most vulnerable communities from the only protection there is from their corporate abuses. These rules aren’t fair, and they don’t provide a path to equity or opportunity. We’re deeply concerned that today’s vote sends a clear message to our communities that if you access the Internet through your cell phone, you don’t count. The FCC has sadly shirked its responsibility to protect all Internet users equally.”

All of the debate may ultimately mean nothing should one of the providers decide to challenge the new rules in court.  The Commission failed to address an earlier court decision that ruled the Commission’s regulatory framework was based on nothing more than good intentions.  The agency was toying with the idea of reasserting authority over broadband using a different framework, but providers furiously lobbied against that, claiming it would “regulate the Internet” under rules designed for landlines.  The Commission’s decision to proceed under a foundation condemned by an earlier federal court ruling exposes an obvious weak spot providers could attack in additional lawsuits.

“We know these rules will be hotly contested,” said Betty Yu, MAG-Net Coordinator. “As they roll out, grassroots communities will continue to monitor the process, ensuring that the rights of wireless users are protected from the over reach and abuses of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other telecommunications companies. These rules are a compromise- unfortunately, what was lost in the deal are the rights of wireless users.”

Verizon may make things easier for Yu and other consumer groups to clear the playing field and start over again.  The company released a statement today that foreshadows a willingness to challenge the agency’s Net Neutrality rulemaking in court (underlining ours):

“While it will take some time for us to analyze the F.C.C.’s rules and the order once they are released, the F.C.C.’s decision apparently reaches far beyond the net neutrality rules it announced today,” the company said in a statement. “Based on today’s announcement, the FCC appears to assert broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband wireline and wireless networks and the Internet itself. This assertion of authority without solid statutory underpinnings will yield continued uncertainty for industry, innovators, and investors. In the long run, that is harmful to consumers and the nation.”

Net Neutrality Order Snippets

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

The Federal Communications Commission’s Open Meeting introducing Net Neutrality and includes a vote on the rulemaking.  (2 hours, 42 minutes)

Credo Action delivers flowers to the FCC

Over the last two days, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, their allies and other broadband activists have delivered more than two million signatures from Americans demanding the Federal Communications Commission adopt real Net Neutrality reforms.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is pushing a set of weak regulations that give just about everything to giant phone and cable companies, and leave Internet users with almost nothing.

We still have time to fix this toothless rule before it goes to a vote Dec. 21. Hence, the petitions.

The petition marathon comes as the FCC closes the public comment period on proposed Net Neutrality reforms.  Public interest groups ranging from Free Press, Common Cause, Credo Action, ColorofChange.org, and Public Knowledge, among others were involved in the petition relay.

Credo Action even sent flowers, protesting Genachowski’s apparent retraction on strong Net Neutrality.  Two massive funeral arrangements, one labeled “R.I.P. Net Neutrality” were delivered to the agency on Monday.

“The public will accept nothing less than real Net Neutrality,” said Misty Perez Truedson of Free Press. “No almost Net Neutrality, no half Net Neutrality and no fake Net Neutrality. And we hope that while he is considering his proposed rules, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski remembers that millions of people are expecting him to keep his promise to protect the open Internet.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/2 Million.flv[/flv]

Watch this compilation of videos from those delivering the petitions to the FCC and learn more about why Net Neutrality is important.  (22 minutes)

Copps

Julius Genachowski’s fellow Democratic commissioner Michael Copps is signaling discontent with the FCC chairman over his weak approach at Net Neutrality reform.

During a Thursday speech before the Columbia University School of Journalism in New York, Copps said several aspects of Genachowski’s proposed reforms are non-starters for him.

In particular, he objects to Internet toll-booths, part of the “paid prioritization” argument that would allow preferred content to get traffic priority, presumably in return for money.  Copps sees that as the Internet’s great un-equalizer, allowing deep pocketed content providers to gain a competitive advantage.

Copps calls such arrangements dangerous, insisting they “cannot be allowed to supplant the quality of the public Internet service available to us all.”

Copps also finds it unacceptable that wireless providers gained major concessions that would allow them to treat content unequally.

“Internet Freedom also means guaranteeing openness in the wireless world as well as the wired. As people cut their wired connections, why would we deny them openness, accessibility and consumer protections in the wireless world,” Copps asked.

None of the proposals Genachowski makes may withstand legal challenges, Copps says, if the Commission does not reclassify broadband under Title II of its regulatory authority, declaring the Internet a “telecommunications service.”

“If this requires reclassifying advanced telecommunications as Title II telecommunications — and I continue to believe this is the best way to go — we should just do it and get it over with,” Copps said.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BBC News The public is crying out for news and information 12-3-10.flv[/flv]

The FCC’s Michael Copps appeared on BBC America’s World News to discuss his concerns about the quality of American broadcast journalism and Internet policies.  (4 minutes)

Mignon Clyburn, the Commission’s newest Democratic member, is being lobbied heavily by public interest groups to join Copps in demanding a better deal for consumers.  But some analysts think she’ll be the easiest vote for Genachowski to get.

Clyburn is a strong proponent of Net Neutrality and has made the issue a centerpiece of several public appearances.

Genachowski may find his proposal ultimately will fail to win a majority vote, because Republicans are strongly opposed to it, and his fellow Democratic commissioners may find voting for what some are calling a capitulation to providers too unpalatable.

Republicans promise to try and derail any Net Neutrality reforms in the House of Representatives when they take control in January.

[flv width=”540″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Mignon Clyburn Open Internet Champion.flv[/flv]

Mignon Clyburn receives thanks from public interest groups for her support of an Open Internet.  (2 minutes)