Kyle McSlarrow

Once again, the telecommunications industry is threatening to run to the courts if it faces Net Neutrality regulation, claiming their corporate freedom of speech would be violated by protecting the rights of consumers to access the content of their choice on their terms.

Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the nation’s big cable operator trade association, delivered the warning at yesterday’s appearance at the Media Institute in Washington, DC.

In a speech clearly designed to put regulators on notice, McSlarrow dismissed Net Neutrality as a solution in search of a problem and a concept big cable would likely challenge in the courts.

“When all the dire warnings of the net neutrality proponents are stripped away, there really are no signs of actual harm.  Yes, there have been a couple of isolated incidents that keep being held up as examples of what needs to be prevented, but nothing that suggests any threat to the openness of the Internet,” McSlarrow said. “Internet Service Providers do not threaten free speech; their business is to enable speech and they are part of an ecosystem that represents perhaps the greatest engine for promotion of democracy and free expression in history.”

McSlarrow told the audience that the cable industry would be among the victims of Net Neutrality, claiming their rights to transact business on their networks could be trampled by an overzealous Federal Communications Commission.

Almost every net neutrality proposal would seek to control how an ISP affects the delivery of Internet content or applications as it reaches its customers.   This is particularly odd for two reasons:  First, there is plenty of case law about instances of speech compelled by the government – “forced speech” — that suggests such rules should be scrutinized closely. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is an almost completely unnecessary risk.  All ISPs have stated repeatedly that they will not block their customers from accessing any lawful content or application on the Internet.  Competitive pressures alone ensure this result:  we are in the business of maximizing our customers’ choices and experiences on the Internet.  The counter examples used to debate this point are so few and so distinguishable as to make the point for me.

Beyond the forced speech First Amendment implications, however, net neutrality rules also could infringe First Amendment rights because they could prevent providers from delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service.  While the FCC’s NPRM acknowledges the need to carve out “managed” or “specialized” services from the scope of any new rules, it also expresses concerns that “the growth of managed or specialized services might supplant or otherwise negatively affect the open Internet.”   Meaning what?  Well, the strong implication is some kind of guaranteed amount of bandwidth capacity for services the government deems important.

McSlarrow is focused front and center on the rights of providers, not consumers, when he speaks about the First Amendment.  His constituents are Time Warner Cable, Cox, Comcast, Charter, and the other NCTA members, namely big cable companies.  In his view, any regulation or interference in how providers decide to deliver service is a potential violation of their constitutionally protected rights.  That’s a side effect of the nation’s courts recognizing that corporations have rights, too.

McSlarrow predicts a laundry list of  ‘doom and gloom’ scenarios that would befall providers if Net Neutrality was enacted:

• Net Neutrality could prevent providers from delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service;
• Net Neutrality would prohibit ISPs and applications providers from contracting for any enhanced or prioritized delivery of that application or content to the ISPs’ customers.  Under the proposal, ISPs wouldn’t even be permitted to offer such prioritization or quality-of-service enhancements at nondiscriminatory prices, terms and conditions to anyone who wanted it.
• Net Neutrality may mean that they [content providers] can’t provide material in the enhanced form that they want.
• Net Neutrality could tell a new entrant or an existing content provider that it cannot enter into arrangements with an ISP for unique prioritization or quality of service enhancements that might enable it to enter the marketplace and have its voice heard along with those of established competitors.

McSlarrow doesn’t offer a shred of evidence to prove his more alarmist predictions, even as he demands it from those who support Net Neutrality.  The kind of unregulated, non-neutral net McSlarrow advocates already exists in places like Canada.  What you see there is what you’ll get here  — threats of usage caps unless speed throttles are permitted, arbitrary “network management” that reduces speeds for some services while “enhancing” or “exempting” certain other services (usually those partnered with the provider), and in the end usage caps -and- throttles -and- price increases.  In Canada, the story extends beyond the retail broadband market.  Wholesale broadband sold to independent ISPs comes nicely throttled and overpriced as well.

McSlarrow maintains a see no evil, hear no evil approach to his provider friends who pay his salary.  Comcast’s quiet throttling of peer to peer applicati0ns that blew up into a major scandal when the truth came out was evidently one of the “isolated incidents” he speaks about.  That’s only the nation’s largest cable operator — no reason to get bent out of shape about that.

Let’s break down McSlarrow’s concerns and read between the lines:

• Nothing about Net Neutrality impacts on a cable system’s ability to deliver its multichannel video programming.  What McSlarrow is hinting at is that cable may end up using some of the same technology that moves online video to your computer to transport television programming to your TV set.  AT&T does that today with its U-verse system.  It’s basically a fat broadband pipe over which television, telephone, and broadband service travels together over a single pair of wires.  There is no demand that broadband must usurp your cable television package.
• McSlarrow is trying to be clever when he describes “new services” that he defines as separate and distinct from Internet access service.  That usually includes “digital phone” products which providers already exempt from usage limits imposed on competitors like Vonage.  If “network management” throttles Vonage while exempting the cable system’s own phone product, is that fair?  What about the forthcoming TV Everywhere?  Could a provider throttle the speed of Hulu while exempting its own online television service?  What happens if a provider’s own service is exempted from these throttles and can deliver a higher quality picture because of that exemption?
• “Bandwidth is not infinite.”  That’s something I’ve heard providers argue for more than a year complaining about their congested networks and why they need to impose controls to “manage them.” McSlarrow wants providers to be able to “manage” those networks by selling enhanced speeds for applications that partner with the provider.  Unfortunately, because cable broadband is a shared resource, those premium enhanced speeds will consume a larger share of that resource, naturally slowing down everyone else who didn’t agree to pay. Providers will say they are not ‘intentionally’ slowing down the free lane, but that’s a distinction without a difference to the consumer who will find many of their websites slower to access.
• Today’s model asks consumers to make the ultimate choice. If they want a faster online experience, they can purchase a faster tier of service. Now providers want to change that by establishing a nice protection racket — pay us for “enhanced speeds” or your content may not reach your customers at a tolerable rate of speed.
• It’s ironic McSlarrow is suddenly crying about how unfair it is content providers can’t purchase these “enhanced services.”  That’s a change of tune from an industry that used to accuse the large number of content providers who support Net Neutrality as freeloaders trying to use “their pipes for free.”

Customer demand for higher speeds and more reliable service should be all the impetus the cable industry needs to deliver quality service, particularly considering consumers pay a lot of money for the service and remain loyal to it.

McSlarrow’s final argument is a testament to the arrogance of the cable industry on the issues that concern subscribers.  A-la-carte channel choice, equipment options and expenses, usage limits, rate increases, and service standards are all issues this industry has fought with regulators about.  What customers want is secondary, and can remain that way as long as consumer choice is kept limited.  McSlarrow’s valiant defense of the rights and freedoms of the cable industry to offer extra freedom of speech through enhanced speed-privileges to content partners is more important to him and his provider friends than the rights of customers to not have their service artificially degraded to make room for even bigger cable profits.

This is part one in a series of stories illustrating how telecommunications companies use a combination of public relations firms, professional lobbyists, friendly regulators, and outmaneuvered state officials to sell “improved service” to the public in return for regulatory “reform.”  Too often, that “reform” is loaded with loopholes and language that guarantees providers can break their promises, tie state and local regulators’ hands when bad service results, and ultimately stick you with the bill.

Over the past several months, several communities in New Jersey have been up in arms about Verizon’s reinterpretation of a state law originally written in the 1940s but “updated” just a few years ago, to mean it no longer has to pay telephone pole and infrastructure taxes to municipalities for using the public right of way.  Verizon’s “reinterpretation” of the state’s Business Personal Property Tax law surprised several municipalities who now face significant financial challenges as a result of the lost revenue.  New Jersey residents will likely make up the difference with a higher property tax rate.

On the surface, it might appear Verizon simply happened upon tax savings.  Verizon claims the law only requires it to pay taxes in communities where it has more than 51% of the area’s phone customers.  Despite protestations from local officials, Verizon has signaled its intent to carry on, estimating 150 communities will join the 50-60 already impacted by next year.

Changes in telecommunications public policy do not occur in a vacuum.  They happen when providers lobby for regulatory reform and bring gift baskets filled with promises for dramatically improved service.  Using a network of high priced lawyers and public relations campaign experts, companies can easily outmaneuver local and state regulators at every turn.  Unfortunately, by the time consumers (and sometimes regulators) realize they were left with a Trojan Horse filled with empty promises, it’s too late.

Some deals just bring consumers higher prices while others saddle communities with highly-leveraged, heavily indebted companies that eventually collapse in bankruptcy.

Just how did we get here?  In this series, we’ll look at New Jersey’s history with its largest resident phone company.  From New Jersey Bell to Bell Atlantic to Verizon, more than 20 years of questionable reform has left residents “touched” in their wallets.  The blame doesn’t rest entirely with the phone company, either.  Local and state officials were repeatedly won-over by professionally-run lobbying campaigns.  After repeated bad experiences, one might assume they’d know better by now.  Those communities no longer getting tax payments from Verizon can testify they haven’t.

Let’s turn back the clock to the dramatic changes in telecommunications that came with the 1984 breakup of Ma Bell and the Bell System.

Telecommunications Industry Sets the Stage for a Money Party

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/1977 The Bell System.flv[/flv]

In 1977, the overwhelming majority of Americans were served by “the phone company,” namely AT&T and its family of Bell companies providing local service. (2 minutes)

AT&T's Bell System in 1977 (click to enlarge)

For decades, telephone service was run largely as a monopoly by the enormous Bell System and several dozen smaller, non-Bell independent phone companies.  Telephone service was regulated by state and federal authorities who approved rate increase requests and made sure providers met service quality standards. Consumers did not own the telephone equipment in their homes – it was rented from the phone company.  Although often uninspired, Bell System telephones were often virtually indestructible, ranging from basic utilitarian black rotary dial phones to the flaunting Princess phone, which had a lighted dial and came in several colors.

As America began earnestly developing data transmission systems in the late 1960s and early 1970s, AT&T kept its monopoly intact there as well.  At the time, a cooperative arrangement between IBM and AT&T ensured most American businesses would probably deal with one or both companies for their data communications needs.

The eventual fall of the monopoly glory days of AT&T and its Bell System monopoly can be laid at the feet of corporate arrogance, particularly from one John D. deButts who became AT&T’s new Chairman and CEO on April 1, 1972.  deButts was AT&T born and bred, rising through the ranks over decades of employment with AT&T.  To him, anything smacking of competition was to be considered a duplication of effort and wasted resources.  AT&T, in his view, had already strayed too far from its past when Americans could go from coast to coast and deal with just one telephone system using uniform standards and practices of operations.  Consistency and quality should be the highest priority for AT&T, not squabbling with smaller competitors fighting with each other for customers.

A politically tone-deaf deButts infuriated a post-Watergate Congress hellbent on reform at a time when Americans had grown suspicious of big power players, be they political or corporate.  The confident AT&T executive delivered a speech before regulatory commissioners in the fall of 1973 that included within it, “[we must] take to the public the case for the common carrier principle and thereby implication to oppose competition, espouse monopoly.”

Not only did the speech irritate many members of Congress, it helped convince one of AT&T’s competitors, MCI to file a 22 count lawsuit against AT&T in March 1974, accusing Ma Bell of being engaged in illegal antitrust activities.

An even more important lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Justice Department on November 20, 1974.  The federal government also accused AT&T of antitrust behavior, claiming the company locked-up the telephone equipment business for itself, and was well-suited to crush any potential competitor from getting a serious foothold in the marketplace.  At the time, AT&T officials sniffed that the lawsuit was completely without merit and promised to fight back at all costs.

deButts ordered company lawyers to stall, delay, and roadblock the government’s case as much as possible, and the company enjoyed years of court delays.  The lawsuit dragged through several preliminary hearings and motions, until the then-presiding judge, Joseph Waddy, fell ill and had to reduce his caseload.  The United States v. AT&T was transferred to a newly-appointed District Judge named Harold Greene in September 1978.  The days of delay were over.  Greene quickly ordered the case to trial starting in September 1980.

While the court case saw some changes, AT&T did as well.  In February 1979, deButts was out, replaced with a far more conciliatory Charles Brown.  He changed AT&T’s tune, publicly welcoming competition into the marketplace, announcing “I am a competitor and I look forward with anticipation and confidence to the excitement of the marketplace.”

Having that attitude probably wasn’t helpful to defending AT&T’s case, and the company eventually threw in the towel, reaching a settlement with the government in 1982.  Overseen by Judge Greene, AT&T was promised it could keep its long distance service, Western Electric (which manufactured telephone equipment), and Bell Labs, the company’s research and development arm.  In return, it had to divest all 22 local phone monopolies.

America's newly independent regional telephone companies post-1984

Judge Greene, issuing a final consent decree to be effective January 1, 1984 formally broke up the Bell System.  The 22 local phone companies under AT&T were merged into seven Regional Bell Operating Companies, each to be run independently:

• Ameritech (acquired by SBC in 1999 – now part of AT&T again)
• Bell Atlantic (acquired GTE in 2000 and changed its name to Verizon)
• BellSouth (reabsorbed back into a newly reorganized AT&T in 2006)
• NYNEX (acquired by Bell Atlantic in 1996 – later to become part of Verizon)
• Pacific Telesis (acquired by SBC/AT&T in 1997)
• Southwestern Bell (changed its name to SBC in 1995, then acquired the remnants of AT&T in 2005, rechristening itself as the ‘new’ AT&T)
• US West (acquired by Qwest in 2000.)

The goal was to create several smaller regional companies not too large to face challenging competition from new independent providers entering the marketplace.

The result of all of this upheaval was competition in the long distance calling marketplace, but very little competition for local residential telephone service over phone company-provided telephone lines.

Still, for a time the post-breakup family of former Bell companies enjoyed stability and a less regulated marketplace, and several raised rates for local phone service, even while cutting long distance prices.  Customers could now buy and install their own telephone equipment, including answering machines and computer modems, and several competitors began to spring up to serve business customers.

By the 1990s, a new upstart appeared on the horizon that would potentially threaten the whole ‘arrangement.’  The cable television industry, subjected to a more regulated marketplace after years of monopoly abuse of customers, was looking for new unregulated add-on services they could provide to bring back the days of big profits they enjoyed just a few years earlier.  Two potential services: providing connectivity to the Internet and providing cable customers with telephone service.

When phone companies realized cable was planning to invade their turf, this meant war.

In part two, learn more about how the telephone companies went ‘back to the future’ and rebuilt the empire Judge Greene broke up.

Phillip "But I Don't Even Want The Golf Channel" Dampier

Time Warner Cable unveiled a new website this afternoon, RollOverOrGetTough, asking customers whether they want the company to “roll over” and pay the prices cable programmers demand or “get tough” and threaten to drop channels that demand too much.

This, of course, is rich coming from the company that loves to raise your rates every year, overcharge you for your broadband service with experimental usage caps and “consumption billing,” and has had a long history of owning and/or controlling many of those ‘greedy cable networks.’  Oh, and they won’t give you the choice of paying for just the channels you want to watch, either.

Want to send a message to the cable network bad-boys that demand too much?  Give your customers the right to opt out.

The cable industry has fought a long-running battle with cable programming networks over the fees they pay on a per-subscriber basis to carry those channels.  The revenue earned by those networks helps them acquire programming that is attractive to potential viewers, and the advertisers that follow.  Back in the 1970s and 1980s, most cable subscribers spent their time watching local broadcasters, “superstations” — imported TV stations from cities like New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles, and premium movie channels.  The basic cable networks back then didn’t run off-network TV shows.  Most ran cheaply produced documentaries, talk shows, imported shows from overseas, limited interest cultural programming, or music videos.  Sports programming rarely involved major teams, or major sporting events for that matter.

By the early 1990s, virtually every basic cable network was either owned outright or in part by one of the major national cable or broadcasting companies.  NBC and ABC dabbled in cable themselves, while CBS steered clear after being burned by a terrible experience with CBS Cable in the early 80s.  Launched as a cultural network devoted to opera, theater, and dance, it shut down a year after launching, having attracted minuscule audiences.

The lesson learned — create or buy programming viewers will actually want to watch.  That takes money, and the fees charged to cable operators for cable networks began rising rapidly.  Suddenly, off-network TV shows viewers used to watch on WPIX, WGN, WWOR, KTLA, or WTBS suddenly started showing up on basic cable instead.  The biggest turning point came when sports networks like ESPN started bidding for, and winning the rights to televise major league sporting events.  Nothing costs more than sports, and broadcast and cable networks have been bidding up prices ever since.

As basic cable networks became popular with viewers, their ability to make demands on cable operators grew exponentially.  Suddenly, certain cable networks demanded they be given low channel numbers, that cable companies had to also carry affiliated spin-off cable networks if they wanted access to their primary service, and that programming must always be carried on basic cable — not on some digital cable tier or other similar extra-cost tier.

For years, cable operators didn’t care too much as they just passed the increases on to customers.  Where could viewers go except to the cable company?  I recall the sticker shock customers had when basic cable first exceeded $20 a month, then $30.  Today it’s headed for $60 a month in many areas.  Cable companies attempted to placate angry customers by adding several new channels to the lineup just prior to the rate hike letter, telling them they were now receiving greater value than ever from their cable company.  The following year, those new channels wanted more money, too.

The “500 channel universe” that sounded promising a decade ago is now a nuisance for many subscribers, irritated they are paying for hundreds of channels they never watch.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIVB Buffalo Report on TWC Campaign 11-25-09.flv[/flv]

WIVB-TV Buffalo reported on Time Warner Cable’s fight against programming prices, but itself (along with sister station WNLO-TV) was thrown off Time Warner Cable’s cable lineup over a contract dispute for most of October, 2008.  LIN TV Corporation, owner of both stations, had reportedly demanded 25 cents per month per subscriber for permission to carry the stations on cable. (1 minute)

In a difficult economy, justifying a $150-200 cable bill for television, broadband, and phone service is harder than ever.  Consumers want new options.  Satellite television provided limited competition, and a few large phone companies are set to deliver a bit more.  But some subscribers have decided paying this kind of money for television every month is outrageous, and they have finally jumped off the merry-go-round.  Some younger people are never getting on, relying entirely on their broadband service to watch television programs and movies on demand.

Time Warner Cable’s attempt to enlist customers in their sudden war on programming rate increases is likely to be seen by many as a classic pot to kettle cable quandary.  The company that still wants to force Internet Overcharging schemes on their broadband subscribers and is now raising rates in many areas has some chutzpah asking customers to fight for them:

Orangeburg County, South Carolina has 12,000 Time Warner Cable customers

First North Carolina and now in South Carolina, Time Warner Cable has announced a statewide rate increase taking effect this December.

As has always been the case, Time Warner Cable officials blamed the increase on programming costs, particularly for sports programming.  The company also blamed local broadcasters, who increasingly demand fee-for-carriage arrangements.

Dan Jones, Time Warner vice president of government relations, told Orangeburg officials the price increases were given careful consideration.

“The value customers receive goes beyond the pure price,” Jones said in a letter to the city, reported by The Times and Democrat. “We’re offering customers more local programming, increased video on demand content, more high definition channels and enhanced cable television options.”

No explanation was provided for the increase in broadband pricing.

Orangeburg Mayor Paul Miller told the paper rate increases are out of the control of City Council.

Cable customers with the broadcast station package will see costs increase from $9.30 a month to $10.20 a month. The cable programming package will increase from $45.15 a month to $48.75 a month. Basic cable, which consists of both the broadcasting and cable programming, will rise from $54.45 to $58.95.

For Road Runner customers, the biggest increases come from Road Runner Lite, up three dollars from $24.95 to $27.95.  Other broadband package prices changes include:

• Road Runner Basic, bundled with cable or digital phone — from $32.95 to $37.95
• Road Runner High Speed online, bundled with broadcast cable, basic cable or digital phone — from $47.95 to $49.95
• Road Runner High Speed online, bundled with digital cable — no change
• Earthlink, bundled with broadcast cable, basic cable or digital phone — from $47.95 to $49.95
• Earthlink, bundled with digital cable — no change

Phillip "He Who Shall Not Be Named" Dampier

I’ve tangled with Todd Spangler, a columnist at cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News before.  This morning, I noticed Todd suddenly added me to the list of people he follows on Twitter.  Now I see why.

Todd is back with another one of his cheerleading sessions for Internet Overcharging schemes, promoting consumption-based billing schemes as inevitable, backed up by his industry friends who subscribe and help pay his salary and a guy from a company whose bread is buttered selling the equipment to “manage” the Money Party.

GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham and Broadband Reports’ Karl Bode don’t pay his salary, so it’s no surprise he disagrees them.  Oh, and I’m in the mix as well, but not by name.  Amusingly, I’m “the StoptheCap! guy, who’s making a career directing his bloggravation at The Man.”

Todd doesn’t consider himself “an edgy blogger type because, as everyone knows, I am The Man,” he writes.

Actually, Todd, you are Big Telecom’s Man, paid by an industry trade magazine to write industry-friendly cozy warm and fuzzies that don’t rock the boat too much and threaten those yearly subscription fees, as well as your paid position there.  I’ve yet to read a trade publication that succeeds by disagreeing with industry positions, and I still haven’t after today.

Unlike Todd, I am not paid one cent to write any of what appears here.  This site is entirely consumer-oriented and financed with no telecom industry involvement, no careers to make or break, and this fight is not about me.  I’m just a paying customer like most of our readers.

This site is about good players in the broadband industry who deserve to make good profits and enjoy success providing an important service to subscribers at a fair price, and about those bad players who increasingly seek to further monetize their broadband offerings by charging consumers more for the same service.  As one of the few telecom products nearly immune from the economic downturn, some providers are willing to leverage their barely-competitive marketplace position to cash in.

It’s about who has control over our broadband future – certain corporate entities and individuals who openly admit their desire to act as a controlling gatekeeper, or consumers who pay for the service.  It’s also about organizing consumers to push back when industry propaganda predominates in discussions about broadband issues, and we know where we can find plenty of that.  Finally it’s about evangelizing broadband, not in a religious sense, but promoting its availability even if it means finding alternatives to private providers who leave parts of urban and rural America unserved because it just doesn’t produce enough profit.

Let’s derail Todd’s latest choo-choo arguments.

“The idea of charging broadband customers based on what they use is still in play.” — That’s never been in play.  True consumption billing would mean consumers pay exactly for what they use.  If a consumer doesn’t turn on their computer that month, there would be no charge.  That’s not what is on offer.  Instead, providers want to overcharge consumers with speed –and– usage-based tiers that, in the case of Time Warner Cable, were priced enormously higher than current flat-rate plans.  Customers would be threatened with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding a paltry tier proposed by the company last April.  The ‘Stop the Cap! guy’ didn’t generate thousands of calls and involvement by a congressman and United States senator writing blog entries.  Impacted consumers instinctively recognized a Money Party when they saw one, and drove the company back.  A certain someone at Multichannel News said Time Warner Cable was “taking one for the team.”  At least then you were open about whose side you were on.

“Verizon just wants to make more money by charging more for the same service. What an outrage! It’s not like the company spent billions and billions to build out their network and needs to recoup that investment.” — Recouping an investment is easily accomplished by providing customers with an attractive, competitively priced service that delivers better speed and more reliability than the competition.  Provide that in an era when fiber optic technology and bandwidth costs are declining, and not only does the phone company survive the coming copper-wire obsolescence, it also benefits from the positive press opinion leaders who clamor for your service will generate to attract even more business.  Stacey’s comments acknowledged the positive vibes consumers have towards Verizon’s fiber investment — positive vibes they are now willing to throw away.

Verizon FiOS already gets to recoup its investment from premium-priced speed tiers that are favored by those heavy broadband users.  Most will happily hand over the money and stay loyal, right up until you ask for too much.  Theoretically charging your best customers $140 a month for 50Mbps/20Mbps service and then limiting it to, say, 250GB of usage will be an example of asking for too much.  Verizon didn’t get into the fiber optics business believing their path to return on investment was through consumption billing for broadband.

“Today’s broadband networks — not even FiOS — are not constructed to deliver peak theoretical demand and adding more capacity to the home or farther upstream will require investment.” — Readers, today’s newest excuse for overcharging you for your broadband access is “peak theoretical demand.”  It used to be peer-to-peer, then online videos, and now this variation on the “exaflood” nonsense.  It sounds like Todd has been reading some vendor’s press release about network management.  Peak theoretical demand has never been the model by which residential broadband networks have been constructed.  The Bell System constructed a phone network that could withstand enormous call volumes during holidays or other occasional events.  Broadband networks were designed for “best effort” broadband.  If we’d been living under this the peak demand broadband model, cable modem service and middle mile DSL networks wouldn’t be constructed to force hundreds of households to share one fixed rate connection back to the provider.  It’s this design that causes those peak usage slowdowns on overloaded networks that work fine at other times.

No residential broadband provider is building or proposing constructing peak theoretical demand networks that are good enough to include a service and speed guarantee.  Instead, cable providers are moving to affordable DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which continue the “shared model” cable modems have always relied on, except the pipeline we all share can be exponentially larger and deliver faster speeds.  Will this model work for decades to come?  Perhaps not, but it’s generally the same principle Time Warner Cable is using to deliver HD channels quietly ‘on demand’ to video customers without completely upgrading their facilities.  You don’t hear them talk about consumption billing for viewing, yet similar network models are in place for both.

“Is it fairer to recover that necessary investment in additional capacity from the heaviest users, who are driving the most demand?” Apparently so, because providers already do that by charging premium pricing for faster service tiers attractive to the heaviest users.  But Todd, as usual, ignores the publicly-available financial reports which tell a very different tale – one where profits run in the billions of dollars for broadband service, where many providers Todd feels urgently need to upgrade their networks are, in reality, spending a lower percentage on their network infrastructure costs, all at the same time bandwidth costs are either dropping or fixed, making it largely irrelevant how much any particular user consumes. What matters is how much of a percentage of profits providers are willing to put back into their networks.

Do people like Todd really believe consumers aren’t capable of reading financial reports and watching executives speak with investors about the fact their networks are well-able to handle traffic growth (Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable CEO), that consumption based billing represents potential increased revenue for companies that deny they even have a traffic management problem (Verizon), or that broadband is like a drug that company officials want to encourage consumers to keep using without unfriendly usage caps, limits, or consumption billing (Cablevision.)

“From 7 to 10 p.m., we’re all consumption kings,” Sandvine CEO David Caputo told Todd. “Bandwidth caps don’t do anything for you.” The implication of this finding is that “the Internet is really becoming like the electrical grid in the sense that it’s only peak that matters,” he added. — I would have been asking Todd to pick me up off the floor had Caputo said anything different.  His bread and butter, just like Todd’s, is based on pushing his business agenda.  Sandvine happens to be selling “network management” equipment that can throttle traffic, perhaps an endangered business should Net Neutrality become law in the United States.  His business depends on selling providers on the idea that sloppy usage caps don’t solve the problem — his equipment will.  Todd has no problem swallowing that argument because it helps him make his.  The rest of us who don’t work for a trade publication or a net throttler know otherwise.

What would actually be fair to consumers is to take some of those enormous profits and plow them back into the business to maintain, expand, and enhance services that deliver the gravy train of healthy revenue.  In fact, by providing even higher levels of service, they can rake in even larger profits.  You have to spend money to earn money, though.

Technology doesn’t sit still, which is why provider arguments about increased traffic leading to increased costs don’t quite ring true when financial reports to shareholders say exactly the opposite.  That’s because network engineers get access to new, faster, better networking technology, often at dramatically lower prices than what they paid for less-able technology just a few years earlier.  With new customers on the way, particularly for the cable industry picking up those dropping ADSL service from the phone company, there’s even more revenue to be had.

Or, do you think spreading the cost across all subscribers, thereby raising the flat-rate pricing for everyone, is the better option? Note that Comcast did this to an extent when it raised the monthly lease fee for cable modems by $2 (to $5), citing costs associated with its DOCSIS 3.0 buildout.

The industry already thinks so.  As we’ve documented, cable broadband providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast (and Charter next year), are already raising prices across the board for broadband customers in many areas.  Does that mean the talk about Internet Overcharging schemes can be laid to rest?  Of course not.  They want their rate increases -and- consumption based billing for even fatter profits.

If, on the other hand, you want to pretend that all-you-can-eat plans are sustainable at today’s price tiers, you’d be kind of clueless.

Every ISP maintains an Acceptable Use Policy that provides appropriate sanctions for those users who are so far out of the consumption mainstream, they cannot even see the rest of us.  Slapping consumption based billing on consumers with steep overlimit fees and penalties punishes everyone, and the provider keeps the proceeds, and not necessarily for network upgrades.

If Todd believes consumers will sit still for profiteering by changing a model that has handsomely rewarded providers at today’s prices, with plenty of room to spare for appropriate upgrades, he’ll be the clueless one.  The cable industry’s ability to overreach never ceases to amaze me.  Every 15 years or so, legislative relief has to put them back in their place.  It’s what happens when just a handful of providers decide it is easier to hop on board the Internet Overcharging Express and cash those subscriber checks than actually engage in all-out competitive warfare with one another – keeping prices in check and onerous overcharges out of the picture.

Nobody needs to know my name to understand this.  But some of his provider friends already know the names of our readers, because PR disasters do not happen in a vacuum.  They are also acquainted with two other names: Rep. Eric Massa and Sen. Charles Schumer.  If they want to go hog wild with Internet Overcharging schemes, that list of names will get much, much longer.