Phillip Dampier

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski recorded a YouTube video to talk to Americans about the development of a national broadband plan for the United States.

In optimistic, flowery language, Genachowski invited Americans to submit their ideas and suggestions not only regarding broadband, but also the priorities Americans think the FCC should have in the future.

The most important part of the five minute video comes right in the beginning when Genachowski called broadband critical to the nation:

“Broadband is our generation’s major infrastructure challenge. It’s for us what railroads, highways and electricity were to past generations.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Genachowski would do well to remember America’s experience with all three of these important history lessons.  The broadband plan Genachowski envisions is subject to the same type of intrusive, anti-consumer tactics that wreaked havoc on past generations of consumers.

The railroad industry’s cartel of ownership and control is a familiar tale.  The Rise of Monopolies tells the story:

The need for all of these industries to stay successful was worrisome for railroad owners. To avoid the loss of production in any of these areas, large corporations attempted to stabilize their situations by pooling markets and centralizing management. By combining all of the fields into one conglomeration, the railroads had a new power, as they acquired control of many facets of the new economy. This body now had the ability to “squeeze out competitors, force down prices paid for labor and raw materials, charge customers more and get special favors and treatments from National and State government” (Chalmers). The railroads had all the power, because they controlled all the prices. Since the new residents of the West could not survive without the use of the railroads, they were forced to pay whatever rates the railroad companies set.

With these huge stores of capital, the railroad companies were able to finance political campaigns through whatever and whomever was needed in government. With this control in Washington, there was no way to stop the overwhelming control of this industry over society. The entire nation was subject to the whims of this monopoly.

It took direct government intervention to break up the railroad monopoly and protect consumers and businesses from the abusive practices of a transportation industry that can make or break you based on pricing and service, with little competition.

Public highways became an important asset that still pays off today.  The Eisenhower Administration’s deployment of the interstate highway system, at the size and scope required, would not have been accomplished by the private sector on its own.  Today’s federal highway system is largely self sustaining through the collection of gasoline taxes paid by drivers.

As Americans struggle with several incumbent providers that refuse to provide 21st century broadband technology, with little competition to drive that infrastructure investment, an uneven variety of broadband networks have emerged, from fiber to the home in some areas to an indefinite reliance on aging DSL slow speed technology for millions of rural Americans, or worse, inadequate satellite broadband.

It may be time to consider the same kind of national approach with a publicly owned fiber network private providers of all kinds can use to serve customers with a uniformly high speed, high quality user experience.

Electricity and the development of rural America is another very familiar tale to any rural broadband user.  From TVA: Electricity for All:

Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation’s consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity.

The Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the people, then it was the duty of the government to do so. Most of the court cases involving TVA during the 1930s concerned the government’s involvement in the public utilities industry.

In 1935 the Rural Electric Administration (REA) was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley.

Many groups opposed the federal government’s involvement in developing and distributing electric power, especially utility companies, who believed that the government was unfairly competing with private enterprise. Some members of Congress who didn’t think the government should interfere with the economy, believed that TVA was a dangerous program that would bring the nation a step closer to socialism. Other people thought that farmers simply did not have the skills needed to manage local electric companies.

Any community wrestling with a municipal broadband project to provide service the private market refused to offer is already acquainted with this familiar story.  So are many rural consumers who are waiting, and waiting, and waiting, for the private market to bring broadband to their communities.  Unfortunately for them, the private market has already written them off as “not profitable enough” to provide service.

The electrification of America did not lead to a socialist takeover of America.  It led to the development and sustainability of rural communities and their local economies.  Agriculture remains one of America’s most important success stories, and without widespread electrification, this story might not have been written.

Scare tactics and horror stories have come whenever a private monopoly or cartel faces the threat of competition, regulation, or a municipal option to provide needed services communities are denied by the private sector.

The fear mongering was there when the railroad monopolies faced investigation and regulation, the “socialism” scare was heard when government attempted to undertake public infrastructure projects of many kinds from highways to utility service, and the same kinds of rhetoric is heard today about “socialist takeovers of the Internet” and “municipal broadband unfairly competes with private providers,” and the logical opposite “the government can’t do anything right.”

Unfortunately, the FCC has a long history of cozy relations with lobbyists who understand how to work within the agency’s nearly-impenetrable bureaucracy.  A review of the broadband plan submissions to the FCC reveals a large  number of them come from lobbying groups and the providers themselves.  Most consumers were left typing comments into a box on the web submission form, with every indication those remarks will be deemed “not serious” by FCC staff.

This time, Chairman Genachowski has to show more than a YouTube video inviting consumers to share their input.  We’d like actual evidence the consumer point of view is actually being taken seriously for a change, and is not simply one tiny noise drowned out in a loud crowd of special interests with profit agendas to protect and public policy to influence.  The FCC already knows what consumers want: widely available, fast, reasonably priced broadband free from Internet Overcharging schemes protected with robust Net Neutrality policies enforced by law.

If the existing providers want to erect roadblocks to competition, oversight, and hell-or-high-water-broadband-deployment, it’s time to break them up and get them out of the way.  That’s broadband we can believe in.

Professor Rodney Tiffen

The Sydney Morning Herald ran a piece Friday morning that had absolutely nothing nice to say about the former leadership of Telstra, Australia’s “Private Telecom Monopoly.”

Sol Trujillo was the George W. Bush of telecommunications. For both, the American way was the only way. Being the biggest meant you did not have to do diplomacy, and both were better at starting wars than finishing them. Both used patronage and punishment to ensure a like-minded leadership group that made worse decisions more harmoniously.

Australians remain unimpressed with the tumbleweeds that routinely blow across the Land Down Under’s broadband superhighway — the result of a combination of failed government leadership, special-interest dominated public policies which put the interests of private companies ahead of their own citizens, and the predictable emergence of greedy telecommunications providers delivering the least possible service at the highest possible price for millions of Australians.

Rodney Tiffen, professor of government at the University of Sydney, calls out a succession of Australian governments which have repeatedly dropped the broadband ball, and have left the country with comparatively overpriced service with ludicrous Internet Overcharging schemes that punish citizens with usage caps, outrageous reductions in their broadband speeds or, worse, overlimit fees and penalties:

Australian consumers suffered particularly from the stringent caps placed on downloads and the high expense of exceeding the cap. While in nine of the countries no explicit caps were placed on broadband subscriptions, Australia was one of only four countries (with New Zealand, Canada and Belgium) where all survey offers included caps, and among these four was by far the most expensive when the caps were exceeded – an average of 11 cents per megabyte compared with 1 cent for the others.

Tiffen rejects the argument that Australians have to pay more because Australia has low population density.

“It should also be remembered Australia has a higher percentage of people living in large cities (defined as those with more than three-quarters of a million people) than any of the other countries (measured by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development),” Tiffen writes.

The key policy issue Tiffen identifies is: what is a natural monopoly and when does competition produce more dynamism and responsiveness to consumers? Since telecommunications reform came on to the public agenda about two decades ago, there had been a bipartisan failure to address this central question.

Tiffen wants Australia to recognize the mistakes America made dealing with its cable television industry — “replete with cases where a company controlling the delivery platform has favoured its own company’s channels over its competitors.”

“Indeed a private monopoly at a key gate-keeping point often leads to less competition in services than there would be with a publicly owned or regulated infrastructure,” Tiffen argues.

(Courtesy: Lab squad)

The broadband stimulus package advocated by the Obama Administration may become a feeding frenzy for waste, fraud, and abuse.  That’s the attitude of several public interest groups concerned about how public tax dollars are being used to study, map, construct, and deploy broadband networks to reach the underserved, and those without any broadband service at all.

Now the story has drawn the attention of the Associated Press’ technology reporter Peter Svensson, who along with Joelle Tessler, have written a piece exploring just where American taxpayer dollars are going on broadband mapping.

The $787 billion stimulus bill championed by the Obama administration set aside up to $350 million to create a national broadband map that could guide policies aimed at expanding high-speed Internet access. That $350 million tag struck some people in the telecommunications industry as excessive, compared with existing, smaller efforts. The map won’t even be done in time to help decide where to spend much of the $7.2 billion in stimulus money earmarked for broadband programs.

Svensson and Tessler talked to a variety of industry experts, as well as companies that often find themselves at a major disadvantage when trying to bid for mapping funds and discover the lowest bid for the best work isn’t always the determining factor.

The consensus is that the government is at risk for overspending up to 90% of the money set aside for mapping, and has vastly overestimated the actual costs:

Rory Altman, director at telecommunications consulting firm Altman Vilandrie & Co., which has helped clients map broadband availability in some areas, said $350 million was a “ridiculous” amount of money to spend on a national broadband map.

Even $100 million might be high. The firm could create a national broadband map for $3.5 million, and “would gladly do it for $35 million,” Altman said.

More concerning is the fact that some of the interests that have successfully won mapping contracts are infested with self-interested telecommunications company executives who have a vested interest in steering the findings of the mapping projects, as well as defending common industry practices of withholding data for “customer privacy” and “competitive” reasons.  Allowing the telecommunications industry to provide the raw data (considerably redacted), a practice defended by telecommunications executives sitting on the boards of some mapping firms winning bids, is a recipe for the production of industry-favorable maps.

Public Knowledge, a public interest group, has been particularly critical of broadband mapping strategies, essential to measuring the current availability and very definition of what is broadband service in the United States.  Art Brodsky, communications director of the group, has reported extensively on the issue for months.

Art Brodsky, for Public Knowledge:

It would be a shame if the stimulus mapping/grant program and the broadband plan were considered in isolation, because they are, together, pieces of the same puzzle. Certainly the telephone and cable industries are considering them together, and using the leverage on one to influence the other to reach the inevitable conclusion that no new broadband policies are needed and that everything will be just fine if we leave the companies in control. Ignore our slumping world rankings for broadband. Ignore the lack of choice. Let’s try to connect the dots into a long silver thread.

The first dot is broadband mapping. If the maps show there is no problem with broadband coverage, then there should be no need for legislation, regulation or any other policies that would immediately be branded a “solution in search of a problem” by the telecom industries. Connected Nation plays a key role here, because their maps will be constructed in at least a dozen states, perhaps more, under the broadband stimulus plan.

Unfortunately, the way the stimulus mapping program is going, that piece is falling nicely into place. By agreeing to the telephone and cable industry’s request – some might say caving into the industry’s demand – that broadband speeds not be reported, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) opened the door for all kinds of mischief. In public comments, NTIA officials said such an agreement was necessary to gain the cooperation of the telephone and cable companies. That’s one way to look at it. Another way is that by requiring the carriers to report broadband speeds – even if their reports were inaccurate – at least there would be something on the record that could be corrected, criticized or cited. Without speed data, the value of the program diminishes. Even under the old rules, all the carriers had to show was “advertised” speeds, so the carriers started advertising. The speeds agreed to by NTIA as “broadband” in the first place are relatively slow anyway.

Mark Seifert, oversees the broadband grant and mapping programs at the NTIA defends the spending proposals by the federal government.  Seifert told the AP that since much of the data will come from the providers’ themselves, NTIA plans to “independently verify” the veracity of the data it receives, which he claims could include door-to-door verification with individual residents and other unspecified verification procedures.

Meanwhile, critics of some of the industry-connected broadband mapping efforts say the groundwork may be laid for future challenges by the nation’s largest broadband providers (large telephone and cable companies) who almost uniformly avoided participating in the first round of stimulus grant applications.

Michael Tattersall, founder of the mapping company Stratsoft is concerned.  He told Public Knowledge incomplete or false map data could be used by providers to have other groups’ stimulus applications thrown out.

If the maps show there is more coverage in rural areas than there actually is, then Tattersall said, the “smaller, in-state broadband providers that are applying for funds that will be directly affected by the quality and integrity of state-commissioned broadband maps.” There could be challenges by the larger carriers, which didn’t apply for stimulus funds, to broadband grants from smaller rural, municipal or neighborhood based on already existing Connected Nation maps.

Disqualified applications based on discredited map data could throw the entire stimulus program into doubt, allowing telecommunications lobbyists for the big providers to argue the stimulus program is a failure and needs to be started over, with recommendations those large providers get the bulk of the money.

Indeed, several providers are already concerned with the prospect that stimulus funds could be used to bring competition to their areas — start-ups and projects funded by government money that could eventually directly compete against their existing offerings, designated as too slow or backwards for 21st century broadband.

With providers already trying to downplay expectations for what defines fast, robust broadband, it leaves incumbent providers keeping their communities in a perpetual slow lane in a much better position not to stick out like a sore thumb.  Brodsky again:

In addition to using the maps, telecom carriers are also trying to freeze the idea of advancing broadband into what exists today.

AT&T led the charge on this, in a remarkable filing that would, in essence, freeze broadband where it is now because that’s what the stimulus law directs the FCC to do when it formulates a broadband plan. AT&T said, “In other words, the definition of broadband must comprise services that can practicably be deployed in unserved and underserved areas—and must comprise services that today’s unserved Americans can and will actually adopt.”

Speedy internet connections have yet to take off in many parts of South Africa because of a shortage in bandwidth.

One leading internet provider says it is not to blame for the slow connection, but frustrations have led one IT group to adopt an unusual method of delivery.

Al Jazeera’s Haru Mutasa reports on the pigeon that beat the internet in Johannesburg.

Service providers across the continent blame the expensive and slow Internet reality for much of Africa on a shortage of connectivity, particularly between Africa and the rest of the world. One African-owned firm, Seacom hopes to change that with the introduction of a new fiber optic cable that went live in July. The new connection enhances service between much of East Africa, including South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Mozambique. The cable also provides a new path to reach Europe and Asia at speeds superior to what used to be common across Africa.

But while bandwidth may slowly be on the increase, savings are much harder to find. Businesses routinely pay $600 per month for 1Mbps service. But some providers suggest that does represent savings. Satellite service at the same speed is priced at an average of $3,000 per month.

Consumers in South Africa find broadband pricing very high, with most relying on Telkom, the nation’s primary phone company, for DSL service. Usage caps are prevalent across the continent as well, stifling the development of African broadband services and making services like online video all but unaffordable.

Africa's Internet Connectivity

Thanks to Stop the Cap! readers Jeff, Bones, Terry, and a few others who let us know about this story.

Phillip “Doesn’t Derive a Paycheck From Writing This” Dampier

I see it took all of five minutes for George Ou and his friends at Digital Society to be swayed by the tunnel vision myopia of last week’s latest effort to justify Internet Overcharging schemes.

Until recently, I’ve always rationalized my distain for smaller usage caps by ignoring the fact that I’m being subsidized by the majority of broadband consumers.  However, a new study from Robert Shapiro and Kevin Hassett at Georgetown University is forcing me to reexamine my personal bias against usage caps.

There’s a shock, especially after telling your readers caps “were needed.”

As I predicted, our astroturfing and industry friends would have a field day over this narrowly focused report that demands readers consider their data, their defined problem, and their single proposed solution.  The real world is, of course, slightly more complicated.

I used to debate some of my economist friends on why I thought metered pricing or more restrictive usage caps were a bad idea, but I couldn’t honestly say that my opinion was entirely objective.  My dislike for usage caps stems from the fact that I am a heavy broadband user and an uncapped broadband service is very beneficial to me since everyone else pays a little more so that I can pay a lot less on my broadband service.  But beyond self interest, I can’t make a good argument why the majority of broadband users who don’t need to transfer a lot of data should subsidize my Internet requirements.

Your opinion is still not entirely objective, George.  Your employer has industry connections.

Our readers, many of whom are hardly the usage piggies the industry would define anyone who opposes these overcharging schemes, all agree whether it’s 5GB or 150GB per month, they do not want to watch an Internet “gas gauge” or lose their option of flat rate broadband pricing that has worked successfully for this industry for more than a decade.  George and his friends assume this is an “us vs. them” argument — big broadband users want little broadband users to subsidize their service.

That’s assuming facts not in evidence.

What is in evidence are studies and surveys which show that consumers overwhelmingly do not want meters, caps, usage tiers, or other such restrictions on their service.  They recognize that a provider who claims to want to “fairly charge” people for service always means “everyone pays more, some much more than others.”  To set the table for this “fairness,” they’ve hired Washington PR firms to pretend to advocate for consumers and hide their industry connections.  Nothing suspicious about that, right?

Although George can’t make a good argument opposing usage caps, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any.  Among the many reasons to oppose caps:

• Innovation: Jobs and economic growth come from the online economy.  New services created today by U.S. companies, popular here and abroad, would be stifled from punitive usage caps and consumption billing.  Even the broadband industry, now in a clamor to provide their own online video services, sees value from the high bandwidth applications that would have never existed in a capped broadband universe, and they are the ones complaining the loudest about congested networks.
• Consumer Wishes: Consumers overwhelmingly enjoy their flat rate broadband service, and are willing to pay today’s pricing to keep it.  The loyalty for broadband is much greater than for providers’ other product lines – television and telephone.  That says something important — don’t ruin a good thing.
• The Fantasy of Savings: As already happened across several Time Warner Cable communities subjected to “experimentation,” the original proposals for lower consumption tier pricing offered zero savings to consumers who could already acquire flat rate “lite” service for the same or even lower prices.  Even when tiers and usage allowances were adjusted after being called out on this point, consumer outrage continued once consumers realized they’d pay three times more for the same broadband service they had before the experiment, with absolutely no improvement in service.  Comcast and other smaller providers already have usage caps and limits.  Pricing did not decline.  Many combine a usage allowance -and- lower speed for “economy” tiers, negating the argument that lower pricing would be achieved with fast speeds -and- a usage allowance.
• Justifying Caps Based on Flawed Analysis: The report’s authors only assume customer adoption at standard service pricing, completely ignoring the already-available “economy” tier services now available at slower speeds.
• Speed Based Tiers vs. Consumption Based Tiers: Consumers advocate for speed-based tiering, already familiar to them and widely accepted.  New premium speed tiers of service can and do already generate significant revenue for those who offer them, providing the resources for network expansion providers claim they need.
• Current Profits & Self Interested Motives: Broadband continues to be a massively profitable business for providers, earning billions in profits every year.  Now, even as some of those providers reduce investments in their own networks, they claim a need to throw away the existing flat rate business model.  Instead, they want paltry usage allowances and overlimit penalties that would reduce demand on their networks.  That conveniently also reduces online video traffic, of particular concern to cable television companies.
• Competition & Pricing: A monopoly or duopoly exists for most Americans, limiting competition and the opportunity for price savings.  Assuming that providers would reduce pricing for capped service has not been the result in Canada, where this kind of business model already exists.  Indeed, prices increased for broadband, usage allowances have actually dropped among some major providers like Bell, and speed throttles have been introduced both in the retail and wholesale markets.

More recently, building our colocation server for Digital Society has made me realize that usage caps not only has the potential to lower prices, but it can also facilitate higher bandwidth performance.  Case in point, Digital Society pays $50 per month for colocation service with a 100 Mbps Internet circuit, and at least $20 of that is for rack space and electricity.  How is it possible that we can get 100 Mbps of bandwidth for ~$30 when 100 Mbps of dedicated Internet bandwidth in colocation facilities normally costs $1000?  The answer lies in usage caps, which cap us to 1000 GBs of file transfer per month which means we can only average 3 Mbps.

One thousand gigabytes for $30 a month.  If providers were providing that kind of allowance, many consumers would consider this a non-issue.  But of course they are not.  Frontier Communications charges more than that for DSL service with a 5GB per month allowance in their Acceptable Use Policy (not currently enforced.)  Time Warner Cable advocated 40GB per month for $40-50 a month.  Comcast charges around $40-45 a month for up to 250GB.  Not one of these providers lowered their prices in return for this cap.  They simply sought to limit customer usage, with overlimit fees and penalties to be determined later.

Of course, web hosting is also an intensively competitive business.  There are hundreds of choices for web hosting.  There are also different levels of service, from shared web hosting to dedicated servers.  That is where the disparity of pricing is most evident, not in the “usage cap” (which is routinely more of a footnote and designed to keep Bit Torrent and high bandwidth file transfer services off their network). There is an enormous difference in pricing between a shared server environment with a 1000GB usage cap and a dedicated rack mount server located in a local facility with 24 hour security, monitoring, and redundancy/backup services, even with the same usage cap.

So the irony of a regulation intended to “protect” the little guy from “unfair usage caps” would actually force our small organization onto the permanent slow lane.

Actually, the Massa bill has no impact on web hosting usage caps whatsoever.  George’s provider friends would be his biggest risk — the ones that would “sell” insurance to his organization is he wanted assurance that his traffic would not be throttled by consumer ISPs.  I’d be happy to recommend other hosting providers for George if he felt trapped on a “slow lane.”  That’s because there is actual competition in web hosting providers.  If the one or two broadband providers serving most Americans had their way, it would be consumers stuck on a permanent slow lane with throttled service, not organizations like his.

So, who is in agreement with George on this question?  None of his readers, as his latest article carries no reader responses.  But fellow industry-connected astroturfers and providers themselves share their love:

• “This is the story that ISP’s have failed to tell effectively — that consumption-based billing may, in fact, be fairer for consumers.” — Michael Willner, CEO Insight Communications
• “Ars Technica reports on an interesting theory being floated by former Clinton economic advisor Robert J. Shapiro and Federal Reserve economist Kevin A. Hassett” — Brad, astroturfer Internet Innovation Alliance
• “The only way … is to introduce some form of equitable pay-as-you-use pricing.  And I could not agree more.” — Ulf Wolf, Digital Communities Blogs (sponsored by AT&T, Qwest, etc.)

PC Magazine reported even Robert Shapiro, one of the report’s authors, is not advocating for usage caps:

“We’re not talking about a bandwidth cap,” Shapiro said during a call with reporters. “We were looking simply at the different pricing models and their impact on the projections of broadband uptake based on these income sensitivities.”

The report does not specify how ISPs should implement pricing, Shapiro said. “The most important thing to me as an economist is the flexibility – that is, Internet Providers can better determine than I can the particular model that works best.”

That’s not the message astroturfers are taking forward, as they try and sell this as “pro-consumer.”