Watching two governments — one in Ottawa, the other Washington — debate important broadband issues has been an illuminating experience for this American.  As Canada continues to deal with a firestorm of protests against broadband pricing ripoffs from usage-based billing, the debate over Net Neutrality achieved new levels of absurdity in Washington yesterday as a largely Republican crowd fought to overturn the FCC’s watered-down open Internet protection policies.

Watching and listening to a combined eight hours of hearings both north and south of the border this month has cast a striking contrast between our two governments.  After it was all over, I can forgive anyone who decides Congress is filled with a bunch of uninformed meat-heads who fight for the talking points attached to their fat contribution checks from the telecommunications industry.

It is unseemly watching Republicans fall all over themselves to impress AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast with their grasp of these companies’ arguments against an open and free Internet.  There are also some bad Democrats on AT&T and Verizon’s virtual payroll, but the hearings this week in the House of Representatives were over the top — a Republican Valentine’s Day present for Big Telecom, replete with clueless representatives who clearly don’t understand the concept of Net Neutrality beyond the 3×5 index cards handed to them by one of their respective staffers.  For the most reactionary members, handing out photoshopped-pictures of Leon Trotsky hugging Barack Obama in front of a spool of fiber optic cable would have been just as effective.

The deservedly-undercovered Judiciary Committee hearings featured a single wireless ISP (WISP) owner who appears to spend most of his free time writing in the Comment sections of major American newspapers and social media sites.  His concern?  A technicality in the current Net Neutrality rules about customers running web servers.  ServerGate.  There’s a hot button issue if there ever was one.  Brett Glass’ customers are much more interested in watching online video, a concept that frightens a lot of WISP owners into placing usage caps on their service to discourage them from doing that.

Chairman Walden

Another witness at that hearing came straight from a telecom industry funded think tank.  Inviting AT&T to appear themselves would have effectively cut out the middleman and saved everyone a whole lot of time.

Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge was left alone to stick up for Julius Genachowski’s cowardly-lion Net Neutrality rules, which in this author’s opinion are barely better than nothing, fatally flawed and one court decision away from oblivion.

Yesterday’s hearing featured FCC Commissioners on a partisan griddle as members of Congress asked softball questions of those they favored, and strafed the ones they don’t with long-winded lectures.

Republican members had no time for stories of Providers Gone Wild, particularly Comcast’s secret squeeze of its customers’ broadband speeds when running peer-to-peer software.  Such stories conflict with their talking point world view that broadband from the private sector should be run any damn way they please.  When some go to far, “they are isolated incidents” claimed Republican members, to the nodding affirmation of the two Republican commissioners.

Julius Genachowski was reduced to defending his homeopathic net regulations as a regulatory “light touch” — like a dew kissed raspberry on a summer morning.  But representing regulation as harmless didn’t do him any favors, because he forgot his audience.

Drive-by Hearing: For much of the hearing, C-SPAN cameras caught most of the seats empty as members came and went.

No argument about moderated government regulation is ever going to fly in a room with members like Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) who spent her five minutes of talk time scorching the FCC for holding up the Comcast-NBC merger with questions.  How. dare. they.

Congressional hearings used to be about fact finding and allowing members to educate themselves on the issues before casting their votes.  No more.  These days, hearings are an exchange of preconceived talking points as members switch between grilling or ignoring the witnesses they don’t like while fawning over those they do.

GigaOm called the entire affair “nauseating” and helpfully condensed the only three things you need to take from the hearings:

• FCC Chairman Genachowski said the Level 3 and Comcast debate over access to Comcast’s last mile subscribers is a business issue and not a net neutrality issue.
• FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell resurrected the ghost of unlicensed white spaces and set it up as a competitive threat to existing ISPs. He then used that threat of eventual competition to argue we no longer need net neutrality rules. I tend to agree that if we had robust broadband competition, we wouldn’t need network neutrality, but according to McDowell, white spaces aren’t dead. If they aren’t dead, that’s important.
• The FCC will keep the docket open on its effort to reclassify broadband, which would give the FCC the legal authority under existing laws regulate broadband as a transportation service (the so-called Title II authority). This is a good thing for network neutrality fans, as the existing net neutrality rules will likely be challenged in court, and keeping that docket open leaves a back door for the FCC to implement rules. However, the industry hates the idea of reclassification and will fight it tooth and nail. It also means more hearings, comments and arguments over the entire issue.

Contrast this with more than a week of hearings in Canada on usage-based billing.  The differences are nothing less than striking.  Members attending those hearings were well-informed about most of the issues surrounding the usage-based billing debate and aside from the occasional minor grandstanding and long-winded questions, got to the bottom of the issues at hand and were prepared to challenge assertions made in all sides of the debate.  They even pronounced everything correctly.  A 10 minute exchange over the pricing formulas for Bell’s wholesale Gateway Access Service (GAS) probably won’t get you a soundbite on the evening news, but it will enlighten a member of Parliament about just how unjustified these pricing schemes are.

Not so in Washington, where net policy nuance is a French word meaning “weakness” or “socialist takeover.”

Bell Canada must surely wish they lived in a country where the hired help in Congress can reflexively support whatever is on the company’s agenda… for the right price.  For the moment, they are stuck exchanging Valentines with their close friends at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, most of whom came from the industry they now regulate.

Minutes after Washington’s hearings ended, several Republicans, with their minds already made up, introduced a Joint Resolution to override the FCC’s authority on Net Neutrality and sweep the free and open Internet into a dustbin.  There are new owners of the Internet in town and it’s past time you got used to it — they are AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.  Your bill is in the mail.  You can thank us now or later.

Congress' Joint Resolution requires a simple majority -and- the President's signature to pass. Ironically, the Republicans touted the measure as "filibuster-proof," but considering the president is likely to veto it, a filibuster is the least of their problems.

Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry Science and Technology has taken an in-depth look at Internet Overcharging in an ongoing series of hearings to explore Bell’s petition to charge usage-based billing.  The request, earlier approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), would end flat rate, unlimited usage plans across the country, and mandate Bell’s proscribed usage cap regime on every ISP in Canada.

Remarkably, even Canada’s Conservative Party, which laid the deregulatory framework that allowed Canada’s barely-competitive market to stick it to consumers and small businesses, refuses to defend the overcharging schemes.

So far, the three hearings deliver everything Stop the Cap! has warned about since we began this fight in the summer of 2008:

1. Proof that usage caps, and consumption-based billing have nothing to do with cost recovery or fairness.  They are, at their root, economically engineered to discourage use of the Internet and protect revenue from the provider’s other businesses, especially video.
2. There is no evidence of a data tsunami, exaflood, or whatever other term providers and their financially-connected allies in the equipment business cook up to warn about an explosion of data usage mandating control measures.  Data usage is increasing at a slower rate than the development of new equipment and fiber pipelines to manage it.
3. Nobody ever saves a thing with Internet Overcharging schemes.  While Bell and other providers make up scary stories about “heavy users” picking “innocent” users’ pockets, it’s the providers themselves making all the money.  In fact, bytes of data have no intrinsic value.  The pipelines that deliver data at varying speeds do, which is why providers are well-compensated for use of them.  Levying additional charges for data consumption is nothing more than extra profit — a broadband usage tax.  Providers make plenty selling users increasingly profitable connections based on speed.  They do not need to be paid twice.
4. For all the talk about the need to invest in network expansion, Bell has reduced infrastructure spending on its core broadband networks the last three years’ running.  They are spending more on deploying Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), a service the company swears has nothing to do with the Internet or their broadband service (despite the fact it travels down the exact same pipeline).
5. Caps and usage billing never bring about innovation, except from providers looking for new ways to charge their customers more for less service.

I strongly encourage readers to spend an evening watching and listening to these hearings.  At least download the audio and let Canada’s broadband story penetrate.  You will laugh, cringe, and sometimes want to throw things at your multimedia player.

In the end, the hearings illustrate the points we’ve raised here repeatedly over the past three years, and it only strengthens our resolve to battle these Internet pricing ripoffs wherever they appear.  If you are a Canadian citizen,write your MP and demand an end to “usage-based billing” and make it clear this issue is paramount for your vote at the next election.  Don’t debate the numbers or waste time “compromising” on how much you want to be ripped off.  There is no middle ground for usage-based pricing.  It should be rejected at every turn, everywhere, with no compromises.  After all, aren’t you paying enough for your Internet connection already?

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 54 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 3, 2011

This video is encoded in the Windows Media format which presents some technical challenges.  Full screen or 200% zoom-viewing mode is recommended.

[For Windows users, right click the video and select ‘Zoom->Full Screen’ or ‘Zoom->200%’.]

This hearing was televised and had the most media attention.  Testimony from the CRTC was decidedly defensive, and almost entirely in support of usage-based billing and Bell’s petition.  The Commission found no friends in this hearing.

Appearing from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Konrad W. von Finckenstein, Chairman; Len Katz, Vice-Chairman, Telecommunications; Lynne Fancy, Acting Executive Director, Telecommunications.  (1 hour, 29 minutes)

If you want to take the hearing audio along for a ride, you can download the MP3 version.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 55 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 8, 2011

The second in a series of hearings exploring Usage-based billing included witnesses from independent Internet Service Providers who could face extinction if they are forced to pay higher prices for wholesale broadband access.

Appearing: Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of TekSavvy Solutions Inc., Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus Telecommunications Canada, and Jean-François Mezei, a Montreal-based telecommunications consultant who most recently petitioned the CRTC to repeal its decision. (120 minutes)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 56 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 10, 2011

The third in a series of hearings exploring Usage-based billing included witnesses from Bell Canada, which originally proposed the idea, and additional testimony from independent Internet Service Providers and their trade association, and consumer advocates who oppose the pricing scheme.

Appearing: OpenMedia.ca: Steve Anderson, Founder and National Coordinator. Bell Canada: Jonathan Daniels, Vice-President, Law and Regulatory Affairs; Mirko Bibic, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory and Government Affairs. Shaw Communications Inc.: Jean Brazeau, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs; Ken Stein, Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs. Canadian Association of Internet Providers: Monica Song, Counsel, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. MTS Allstream Inc.: Teresa Griffin-Muir, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs. Union des consommateurs: Anthony Hémond, Lawyer, Analyst, policy and regulations in telecommunications, broadcasting, information highway and privacy. Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.: Bill Sandiford, President; Christian S. Tacit, Barrister and Solicitor, Counsel. (128 minutes)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

EchoStar Corporation, which makes equipment and provides satellites for Dish Network, today announced it has agreed to buy Hughes Communications, Inc., for about $1.32 billion.

The deal means Dish, the second-largest U.S. satellite television provider, could be one step closer to providing a national data service to its customers.  Hughes operates a “broadband” satellite network, which almost entirely serves rural areas.

Much maligned by its customers, who consider the service’s high prices, low speeds and even lower usage caps “fraudband,” Hughes’ satellite service has been up for sale for some time.

The purchase “brings together the two premier providers of satellite communications services and delivers substantial value to our shareholders,” Pradman Kaul, chief executive officer of Hughes said in the statement.

Satellite television companies have increasingly been at a disadvantage because they cannot sell a true “triple-play” package of television, Internet, and phone service to customers who commonly bundle the three services together.  Instead, Dish and its larger competitor DirecTV have been relying on partnerships with telephone companies who provide phone and Internet service with a satellite television package.

The current generation of satellite broadband services are not well-rated by their customers.  Capacity shortages force providers to place strict limits on usage, which makes the service largely useless for high bandwidth applications — especially video.

The deal is expected to close later this year.

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

Watch HughesNet’s advertisement promising “blazing fast” speeds in contrast to an actual speed test completed by one of their customers, at a non-peak-usage time.  (2 minutes)

Prime Minister Harper's government is facing an open revolt by Canadian consumers over Internet Overcharging.

A full-scale revolt among consumers across Canada has brought the issue of Internet Overcharging to the highest levels of government.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the government is very concerned about a decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that has effectively forced the end of unlimited use broadband plans across the country.

Both the Liberal and NDP parties have made a point of protesting the CRTC decision, which happened under the Conservative Party’s watch.  Harper’s Industry Minister Tony Clement stepped up his remarks this morning which hint the government is prepared to quash last week’s decision by the CRTC, which has already forced price increases for broadband service across the country.

“The decision on its face has some pretty severe impacts,” Clement told reporters in Ottawa after NDP and Liberal critics in the House of Commons repeatedly pounded the government on the issue of so-called “usage-based billing.”

“I indicated the impacts on consumers, on small business operators, on creators, on innovators. So that’s why I have to work through a process, cross my T’s, doc my I’s. When you’re dealing with a legal process, that’s what you have to do. But I will be doing that very, very quickly, and getting back to the prime minister and my colleagues very, very quickly,” said Clement.

As of this morning, more than 286,000 Canadians have signed a petition protesting the Internet Overcharging schemes.

The protest movement has now been joined by small and medium-sized business groups who fear the impact new Internet pricing will have on their businesses.

Richard Truscott, with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, normally a group that prefers less government action, said his members are demanding a stop to the pricing schemes before they get started.

“The vast majority of small businesses rely on reasonably-priced Internet service to conduct their operations,” he said. “Generally this is the sort of thing that hits the most innovative sector with higher costs.”

Most cable and phone companies are lobbying Ottawa politicians to keep the new usage-based billing schemes, and several are pretending the protest movement doesn’t exist.

AgenceQMI, a cable-company owned wire service, is also coming under fire for misrepresenting Clement’s positions on the pricing schemes in a news report issued yesterday.  The wire service claimed Clement supported the CRTC’s position, something Clement adamantly denied this morning.

The National Post, a self-described conservative newspaper, this morning published an editorial supporting usage-based pricing, claiming a handful of users were creating a problem that light users should not pay to solve.  But many readers leaving comments on the article strongly disagreed, claiming the newspaper is out of touch.

Although the regime of usage caps, speed throttles, and overlimit fees have been in place with most major providers for at least two years, the culmination of several events in the last six months have brought the issue to the boiling point:

1. The arrival of Netflix video streaming, which provides unlimited access for a flat monthly fee;
2. The ongoing limbo dance among several providers who are reducing usage allowances when competitive threats arrive;
3. The increase in providers now enforcing usage limits by billing consumers overlimit fees that spike broadband bills;
4. Recent examples of bill shock, which have left some consumers with thousands of dollars in Internet charges.

Bill Shock

Kevin Brennan, a graphic designer who works from home and downloads large files from clients, was first hit with extra charges in November, which cost him $34 above his usual Shaw bill.

“I’d never been contacted about going over before,” he told the Calgary Herald, adding he was also over in December. “Thirty-four dollars doesn’t seem like much, but over the course of a year it adds up.

“What concerns me, outside my own business, is the lack of innovation people will be able to do. And it makes Shaw a monopoly. . . . if you watch TV or the Internet, you pay more to them.”

Shaw reduced its usage allowance for customers like Brennan late last year from 75 to 60GB on its most popular broadband plan.  It also now enforces a $2/GB overlimit fee.

John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, told the Herald the concern isn’t just that smaller companies can no longer offer unlimited plans, which reduces competition.

“The phone and Internet and cable companies of the world are playing it both ways. They’re saying, ‘Well, there’s these big data hogs that are using too much, we’ve got to punish them to keep the price down.’ On the other hand they’re buying media companies so they have stuff to shove down the wires, which doesn’t count toward your cap,” Lawford said. “That’s anti-competitive.”

Most Canadian media companies are now tightly integrated with large telecommunications companies.  CTV, Canada’s largest commercial network, is now owned by Bell, the country’s biggest phone company.  Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron — the largest cable companies in Canada own cable and broadcast stations, newspapers, and magazines.  They also control cellphone companies, Wi-Fi networks, and have interests in satellite providers as well.

When a competitor like Netflix arrives to challenge the companies’ pay television interests, turning down consumers’ broadband usage allowances discourages cord-cutting.

The CRTC’s decision to allow Bell to charge usage-based pricing for wholesale accounts was the final death blow to unlimited Internet according to several independent service providers, because virtually all of them rely on Bell — a company that received taxpayer subsidies to build its broadband network — for access to the Internet.

Canadian Parliament

TekSavvy, a company that used to offer unlimited use plans, can do so no more.  In a statement to customers, TekSavvy laid blame on regulators for being forced to increase prices.

“From March 1 on, users of the up to 5Mbps packages in Ontario can expect a usage cap of 25Gb (60Gb in Quebec), substantially down from the 200Gb or unlimited deals TekSavvy was able to offer before the CRTC’s decision to impose usage based billing,” read a statement sent to customers.

TekSavvy spokeswoman Katie do Forno said the CRTC decision is a disaster for Canadian broadband in the new digital economy.

“This will result in unjustifiably high prices and a reduction in innovation,” said do Forno. “I think it’s going to change behavior about how people use the Internet.”

The company underlines the point by including “before and after” pricing schedules on its website, an unprecedented move.  Shaw, western Canada’s largest cable company, was heavily criticized for trying to hide their reduction in usage allowances.

Ottawa residents are planning direct action to protest the decision this Saturday.  Shawn Pepin is organizing the protest rally.

“What they’re doing right now looks like a cash-grab scheme, and people aren’t going to take it,” he said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Pay As You Go Tony Clement 2-1-11.flv[/flv]

Minister of Industry Tony Clement was pressed by CBC Television about the Harper Government’s stand on Internet Overcharging.  The CBC asks why Canadians are paying some of the world’s highest prices for broadband and why Clement is finally getting involved.  Watch as he mysteriously avoids stating the obvious: Canadians are in open revolt and politicians from competing parties are taking their side.  (9 minutes)

Gary McCallum, a Shaw customer in Edmonton, Alberta, has received word his broadband service is about to get more expensive — a lot more expensive.

“Holy crap, it’s like text messaging [bill shock] all over again when your broadband bill arrives and you are now looking at hundreds of dollars instead of the $40 or $50 you used to pay,” McCallum told CTV News.

McCallum, and other designated “heavy users,” are receiving letters in the mail from Shaw notifying them they have been exceeding the company’s declining usage limits imposed on its broadband service.  If they exceed the limits again, they may be subject to penalty fees of as much as $2 per gigabyte.

“I’m upset about the backdoor tactics,” McCallum complains.  “They keep it secret and then lambaste you later.”

Most Shaw customers will be forced to confine their usage to 60GB per month, the limit on the company’s most popular broadband plan.  If they don’t, after some warning, they’ll pay a stiff fine.  Just 20GB of overlimit usage will more than double the average customer’s broadband bill, currently around $37 a month.

A house full of teenagers watching Netflix or downloading files could cost far more than that.

Company officials deny the potential revenue bonanza is unjustified.

Customers who use more will pay more, admits Terry Medd, vice-president of operations for Shaw Communications in Calgary.

“It’s video over the Internet that’s driving a lot of this cost,” he said. However, most Shaw Internet customers won’t hit their caps, Medd claims, suggesting it should affect fewer than 10 per cent of customers.

“The average user consumed about one-third of what the cap is. In other words, we’ve set the caps at three times the average usage. For the average user, there’s no concern here,” Medd said.

However, Shaw recently reduced their usage caps on virtually all of their Internet plans, making it more likely customers will be snagged by overlimit fees.

Some customers want to know what they will get if they use far less than their plan allowance.

Don McGregor believes Shaw’s plan to charge Internet users for the data they use is fair and equitable, so long as those who use less than the allowance get a break on their bills.

“Shaw should plan on refunding fees for any use of data below the contracted amount,” the Edmonton resident wrote in a letter to the editor published in the Edmonton Journal.  “Since 90 per cent of Shaw’s subscribers use less than the full GB capacity they pay for, I am sure these subscribers’ refund cheques are in the mail.”

Don, like other Canadians, is about to learn Internet Overcharging is never about fairness or saving customers money.  It’s about charging customers more for the same service they used to receive for less, without any improvements.  ISPs will not provide true “usage pricing” for consumers because it would slash revenue from their broadband service.

But western Canadians need not be victims of Shaw’s overcharging.  Telus, which sells landline-based DSL service in British Columbia and Alberta says it has upgraded its facilities to accommodate usage demands and won’t expose customers to overlimit fee bill shock.

Telus offers a way out of Shaw's Money Party hangover

Although Telus’ website does show usage limits, company officials claim they are rarely enforced, and not at the subscriber’s expense.

Telus could make a significant dent in Shaw’s customer base by dropping them altogether, which will save the phone company from these kinds of  silly legal gymnastics in their FAQ:

Why do you call your service unlimited, when my monthly usage is limited?
We refer to TELUS High Speed as being unlimited because you get unlimited hours of monthly access.

If you do not want to play Shaw’s Internet Overcharging game, perhaps spending time with a new Xbox 360 would be better?  Telus is giving them away to qualified new customers signing up for service.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV Edmonton Shaw Internet Overcharging 1-7-11.flv[/flv]

CTV News in Edmonton informs Alberta’s Shaw customers their broadband service could get a lot more expensive.  (2 minutes)