Is Rahm Emanuel the consigliere to a deal to sell out broadband consumers to big telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast?

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is said to so afraid of big phone and cable companies donating millions to Republican candidates, he told agencies like the Federal Communications Commission to go along with Verizon, AT&T, and Big Cable’s demands for an end to Net Neutrality and other pro-consumer broadband reforms.

That is the rumor industry expert Dave Burstein is hearing about the prospects of broadband reclassification actually happening at the FCC this year.

It seems Verizon’s CEO Ivan Seidenberg has become a frequent guest at the White House, appearing 16 times since President Obama took office.  Seidenberg is behind the notion that saddling giant telecommunications companies with Net Neutrality will force those firms to flood Republicans with unprecedented campaign contributions.  That’s fascinating news, especially since most politicians claim campaign contributions never make any difference in how they vote on issues.  Perhaps Verizon is just being extra charitable this year.  The Republicans, who fall lock-step in support behind the nation’s largest phone and cable companies, will be delighted to accept.

With politicians like Rahm Emanuel involved, the fix may already be in.  Rule number one in politics is to always follow the money.  Rule number two is that many politicians will always take the money and vote against their constituents’ best interests unless voters are paying attention.  When a politician is forced to weigh the consequences of accepting a fat check from a corporation and voting with them or infuriating their constituents to the point of potentially losing the next election, they’ll vote with their constituents.

Meanwhile, telecom companies are engaged in a divide-and-conquer strategy, with Verizon recently making gestures to Google, one of Net Neutrality’s strongest  proponents.  Burstein thinks that unless public interest groups and the public-at-large don’t force an end to these insider deals, Net Neutrality and other broadband reforms will become little more than a voluntary agreement not to be too evil (until they redefine ‘evil’ as ‘good’ and do it anyway):

Julius (Genachowski) has already agreed to almost everything [telecom lobbyists] really want, including loopholes wide enough to carry 350 TV channels. [Stifel Nicolaus] says there is still some opposition so that nothing is final and that the public interest groups are ready to assail Julius. Meanwhile, Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant.

This one is about power and money, not principle. The likely outcome is an agreement that will allow everyone to say noble things, will allow Julius to look himself in the mirror, and will essentially have no substance.  I hope I’m wrong.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Bloomberg’s Shields Discusses Net-Neutrality Battle 8-3-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reviews the regulatory landscape with the FCC’s secret weekend meetings to find a deal on broadband rules.  (2 minutes)

For consumer groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge, already furious over secret backroom negotiations between FCC officials and the nation’s large phone and cable companies, any deal that culminates in providers being allowed to tamper with Internet traffic, choosing favorites along the way, is tantamount to a deal with Tony Soprano.

Tim Karr from Free Press wrote a guest editorial in the Seattle Times Sunday warning there is a corporate deal in the making to take over the Internet:

On the one side, elected officials and regulators have heard from millions of citizens demanding that Washington protect this rule that preserves the Internet’s open architecture.

On the other is a lobbying juggernaut that seeks to dismantle online openness so that phone and cable companies can rebuild the Internet as a gated community that serves their bottom line.

The problem is that policymakers aren’t holding the line for the public. They seem content simply to cut a deal between companies with the most political and economic clout.

If that doesn’t worry you, it should.

Because the deal they’re cutting is over who ultimately wins control of online information. And it goes without saying that you’re not in the running.

Google, Verizon, AT&T and others are reportedly nearing consensus on an agreement that could radically redesign the Web, allowing the carriers to build priority access lanes that admit only large companies that can pay the toll.

Where will that leave the rest of us? Stranded on the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road, with slower service, fewer choices and limited access.

Here’s the kicker. The Federal Communications Commission, the one agency tasked with protecting your interests online, may be poised to sign off on this plan. The agency is reportedly convening closed-door meetings with these companies to strike a deal that would let Internet providers implement a “paid prioritization” scheme.

According to The Washington Post, the FCC’s chief of staff wanted to “seize an opportunity to agree on ways that carriers could “manage traffic” on their networks.

If recent articles by Amazon and AT&T execs are any indication, paid prioritization would allow carriers to ransom access to their customers to the highest bidder. AT&T’s top lobbyist, James Cicconi, wrote that such extortion was “not only necessary but in the best interest of consumers.”

Don’t believe it. The beauty of the open Internet is that anyone with an idea has a chance to take on giant corporations without first having to bribe network owners for access. Net neutrality is the rule that guarantees this openness.

It’s because of Net neutrality that great ideas like YouTube (which began in an office above a pizzeria in San Mateo) and Twitter (which grew out of a daylong brainstorming session among podcasters) blossomed to revolutionize how we connect and communicate with one another.

The paid prioritization deal under consideration wouldn’t allow for the next YouTube. And the next Twitter would likely never make it off the drawing board.

This scheme would let companies like Comcast and AT&T favor their own video services, voice applications and social media. It would let Verizon build a wide moat around its Internet fiefdom, insulating itself from competition by upstart innovators that want to show consumers how things can be done better and more cheaply.

Columbia Law Professor (and Free Press board chairman) Tim Wu has said that letting carriers choose favorites is “just too close to the Tony Soprano vision of networking: Use your position to make threats and extract payments. This is similar to the outlawed, but still common, ‘payola’ schemes in the radio world.

“If allowing network discrimination means being stuck with AT&T’s long-term vision of the Internet,” Wu concludes, “it won’t be worth it.”

Should any of this come to pass, it will mark the end of any credibility for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who will have sold out to the interests of big telecom and, more importantly, proved himself little more than another inside-the-beltway-liar.  The implications for the Obama Administration’s credibility on broadband issues are devastating.

It was Genachowski himself who promised this would be the most open FCC ever and that he would see to it that the open principles of the Internet were safeguarded.  It’s more than a little difficult to see that happening while Genachowski’s staff secretly meets with telecom lobbyists to conclude a deal that will turn over control of Internet traffic to a broadband duopoly.

Phillip Dampier

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

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

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

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

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

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

Usage-based billing makes providers very happy counting your money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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