Plans by Frontier Communications to clamp down on “excessive usage” of their DSL service and overcharge customers who exceed 100GB of usage per month brought a strong negative reaction from a consumer group, who called Frontier’s limits “divorced from the underlying economics.”

Sources also tell Stop the Cap! the company is actively working on changing language in their Acceptable Use Policy that, as of this morning, is still misleading customers in Minnesota about their service.

A Frontier spokesperson also told an Oregon newspaper Frontier’s acquired FiOS service areas are not guaranteed cap-free service — the company may implement some restrictions there as well.

But first, Frontier Communications’ Acceptable Use Policy no longer matches reality for customers in Mound, Minnesota who are getting notified that their service is at risk of being shut off if they don’t agree to new, dramatically-higher priced service plans.  But such e-mails run contrary to several sections in the company’s own published policies:

Frontier’s Residential Acceptable Use Policy (Last Update: December 23, 2008) (PDF Archived 4/15)

The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier’s Supplementary “5GB” Addendum to their Acceptable Use Policy (PDF Archived 4/15)

Frontier has not implemented tiered usage plans and will continue to evaluate if and when they would be necessary. If and when Frontier implements a tiered usage plan pricing and usage information will be communicated to all High-Speed customers.

Does Frontier plan to limit my use of the Internet?
Frontier is providing (NOT LIMITING) all customers with a minimum of 5GB of usage on a monthly basis. The Company has made no decision at this time to charge for additional usage but wants to start to educate customers about their usage.

If I hit 5GB will my service be interrupted?
No. Your service will not be interrupted at 5Gb. You will continue to use our High Speed Internet service without disruption.

How will I know how many Gigabytes I am using?
Sometime in the future, Frontier will provide to all customers visibility as to what your usage is on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. We will also provide a the ability to estimate bandwidth usage for different types of activities – like streaming video downloads or file sharing. These tools will give our customers the ability to make informed decisions about broadband usage consumption.

Tell that to the customers in Mound who have 14 or fewer days and counting to either pay extortionist broadband pricing, curtail their usage, or go elsewhere for service (if they can).

It’s no surprise some customers in Mound are outraged when receiving the company’s e-mailed notification about paying higher prices for usage because it runs completely contrary to the published policies of Frontier’s broadband service.

That’s just one more mistake in a series of mistakes Frontier has made in marketing its broadband service, especially in areas where consumers can take their business elsewhere and not have to worry about exceeding Frontier’s minuscule usage allowance.

Wendy Davis at MediaPost quotes a statement released by Free Press research director S. Derek Turner: “While there may be a place for discussing reasonable usage-based billing, the scheme Frontier is testing is completely divorced from the underlying economics. Even worse than their price-gouging is Frontier’s assertion that a mere 5 gigabytes per month is a ‘reasonable’ amount of usage when just last month the National Broadband Plan reported that average Internet users with a fixed connection consume 9 gigabytes of data per month.”

Davis also managed to get a Frontier spokesperson on the record about the debacle, telling MediaPost, “the company is only trying to prevent some exceptionally heavy bandwidth users from degrading service for others on the network. She also says that people who received the letters were given an option of decreasing their bandwidth consumption or switching to a different, higher-priced plan.”

Yet the concept of DSL customers degrading the broadband experience of other customers on the network is itself controversial, as DSL providers have always emphasized they do not suffer from slowdowns like shared networks used by cable broadband providers.  While heavy consumption can theoretically congest “middle mile” networks that serve regional areas or connect telephone company switching offices, those congestion issues are not difficult to address when companies use fiber connections to connect them, as Frontier frequently does.  Indeed, Frontier is far more likely to suffer congestion issues when millions of former Verizon customers are piled on Frontier’s network.

Nowhere in Frontier’s e-mail does it tell customers they can reduce usage to retain service.  It only says “if you do not wish to switch to this new rate plan, you can have your service disconnected.”  Mound residents are faced with the prospect of immediately reducing usage from 100GB to just 5GB to stay within Frontier’s terms and conditions.  Under those conditions, they could do better with dial-up.

Meanwhile, those soon-to-be-discarded Verizon customers facing a transition to Frontier Communications may soon find themselves potentially impacted by some sort of usage limit as well, which could also apply to the areas served by FiOS.

Mike Rogoway at The Oregonian talked with Frontier spokesman Steven Crosby about Frontier’s plans:

I talked this afternoon with Frontier spokesman Steven Crosby, who said there won’t be tight bandwidth restrictions after Frontier acquires FiOS — but he indicated that there may be some restrictions.

Currently, Frontier’s user agreement sets a nominal 5 gigabyte cap on monthly bandwidth usage.

“You know, I know and everyone knows that’s a very low number,” Crosby said. “We don’t hold people to that.”

The letters that went out in Minnesota went to a small group of very heavy bandwidth users in one community, Crosby told me. It’s not meant to reflect a broader policy.

As Frontier prepares to take over Verizon’s operations in Oregon and other states — Crosby says the deal is on track and likely to close in late June or early July — Frontier is reviewing its Internet use policies.

I pointed out Comcast’s bandwidth cap, and told Crosby that it seems likely his company will do something similar. He left that possibility open, but said any Internet limits are still under discussion.

“I don’t know what that limit will be,” he said. “The one thing I do know is we don’t want to impact our customers.”

St0p the Cap! responds:

• This is the first time Frontier has hinted that usage limits could eventually apply to the FiOS fiber-to-the-home service it is acquiring from Verizon, a network constructed to manage 21st century broadband traffic Frontier now also seems willing to limit;
• Frontier does hold people to the 5GB usage cap when they are in violation of it, using it as an excuse to expose customers to far-higher-priced service plans or service disconnection.  If Frontier isn’t serious about it, why retain the language in customer agreements?
• If Frontier’s Mound e-mail notifications do not reflect a broader policy, than the only customers who will see a change in the Acceptable Use Policy will be those in the Mound, Minnesota area.  If customers elsewhere see a change, it -does- reflect a broader policy after all.
• As part of Frontier’s “review of Internet use policies,” the company should not defray expenses surrounding the Frontier-Verizon deal by dumping them on broadband customers with outrageously punitive pricing plans.
• As for not wanting to impact customers, our response is “too late.”  Frontier’s original introduction of the 5GB usage allowance in the summer of 2008 impacted customers far and wide, and for its largest service area — Rochester, NY, gave Time Warner Cable happy hunting grounds to experiment with a usage cap of their own.

Wendy Davis at MediaPost offers some food for thought:

Frontier’s letters could well trigger regulatory or judicial scrutiny, especially given the seeming disconnect between the company’s acceptable use policy and its recent actions.

Of course, the underlying problem is the lack of competition. If consumers had more options for broadband providers, a company that threatened to disconnect its customers, or charge $99 or $250 a month for broadband service, might quickly find itself dealing with more pressing problems than public criticism.

Verizon FiOS has upped the ad war against Comcast, one of its competitors in several northeastern cities.  In a new series of ads, Verizon is taking on Comcast’s “name change” to Xfinity, implying it’s the same old Comcast just using a new name.

Comcast may be fighting back, but not with a response ad.  Today, Broadband Reports hears word from a Comcast insider the company is planning on boosting broadband speeds later this year.

According to the source, the new Comcast tiers will be 12/2 Mbps, 20/4 Mbps, 50/10 Mbps, and 100/25 Mbps. Current 22/5 customers will be grandfathered, according to the source, and Comcast apparently hopes to get that 100 Mbps tier into about 20% of their footprint this year.

Comcast’s current speeds differ depending on whether you’re in a DOCSIS 3.0 upgraded market or not. Non DOCSIS 3.0 market customers currently have the choice of three tiers: 6/1 Mbps, 8/2 Mbps, and 16/2 Mbps. DOCSIS 3.0 upgraded markets have their choice of 12/2 Mbps, 16/2 Mbps, 22/5 Mbps, or 50/10 Mbps.  Much later this year it looks like Comcast users will also start seeing some faster upstream speeds.

Verizon FiOS has the capability to beat Comcast’s broadband speeds over its entirely-fiber-based network, but not everyone can sign up for FiOS.  Comcast may not want to give away the broadband speed store in areas where the now indefinitely-grounded FiOS service will never go.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FiOS Takes On Xfinitiy.flv[/flv]

Comcast’s new Xfinity brand is the target of a new round of advertising from Verizon FiOS.  (2 minutes)

Verizon Communications is indefinitely finished expanding FiOS — its fiber to the home triple-play package of broadband, phone, and TV — to new cities across its service area.  In short, if your community isn’t already engaged in franchise negotiations with the telecommunications company, there is no fiber from Verizon in your immediate future.

The company said after spending $23 billion upgrading its aging copper wire phone network, it needs to finish construction and improve its reach in existing FiOS-wired communities.  When the company ceases FiOS construction, it hopes to pass 18 million customer homes across its multi-state service area.

The decision to stop expansion of advanced fiber optics threatens to leave hundreds of communities behind, too late to the party or simply too far down Verizon’s priority list.  Among important cities Verizon will pass up include Alexandria, Virginia, Boston and Baltimore.

That concerns city officials, especially in Baltimore which already considers itself on the disadvantaged list.

“My take on it is that Baltimore is not equipped for the future,” Rev. Johnny Golden, past president of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance and an advocate for improved access to technology in the city told the Baltimore Sun. “We have a decent broadband system for today, but it does not have the infrastructure to take us into the future where we need to go.”

Despite the fiber bypass, the company will continue negotiations with about a dozen communities where negotiations were already underway – mostly in New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.  Despite company spin, the decision to drop the shovels and wheel away the spools of fiber does represent a dramatic change of plans, evidenced by the company’s decision to bypass the aforementioned lucrative urban communities.

For cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, Verizon’s announcement brings a sigh of relief.  Both cable operators handily beat Verizon’s DSL offerings and are swiping increasing numbers of Verizon’s phone customers who are disconnecting their landline service in favor of cell phones or “digital phone” service from the cable companies.

Both Time Warner Cable and Comcast have also kept a larger percentage of their customers than Verizon hoped.

In markets where FiOS is available, Verizon has only achieved 25% penetration for television service and 28% for Internet, far below the 40 percent penetration Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg hoped to achieve.  The reasons consumers didn’t switch to Verizon FiOS vary, but include:

• Pricing was not always lower than what the incumbent cable operator offered, and in many cases prices for some service were higher once the promotional rate expired;
• Cable operators in competitive areas improved service, offered more aggressively priced bundles, and increased broadband speed;
• Many cable operators locked their customers into two year “price protection agreements” which hold customers in place until agreements expire (if they don’t auto-renew);
• Installation can prove disruptive because of the elaborate rewiring required in many homes;
• Consumers didn’t see enough compelling reasons to switch.

Seidenberg

Still, Verizon has future-proofed their fiber optic service areas and are better positioned to deliver extremely high broadband speed and HD offerings than their cable counterparts.  But that has never impressed short-term focused Wall Street.  Many in the financial press have attacked Verizon for the costly fiber upgrades they believe will not work for the short-term investor seeking immediate return from their Verizon stock purchase.  With the rumor mill predicting upcoming retirement for Seidenberg, his likely successors are hardly FiOS fanboys.

John Killian, Verizon’s current chief financial officer, is a short-term results man.  Samuel Greenholtz, an analyst with the Gerson Lehrman Group, doesn’t see Killian sharing much of Seidenberg’s visionary long term thinking.  Lowell McAdam, another prospect for the top job, is currently the president of the Wireless Services division, and would likely bring a wireless “solution” for broadband customers left off the FiOS list.  Neither man seems particularly interested in restarting the push for fiber in the future.

For 2010, capital expenses are flat or down across the company except in the Wireless Services division.  Verizon already declared copper phone wiring dead, and has elected to abandon its rural and suburban customers,  systematically sold off to America’s “rural phone companies” Frontier, CenturyLink, or Windstream.  Those still with Verizon but without FiOS will find the future of their landlines increasingly perilous.  Greenholtz notes Verizon has terminated another 1,200 line technicians and the company intends to spend two percent less on its copper wire network this year over last.

Greenholtz witnessed first hand what happens when a company starts to ignore its legacy network — his residential phone line quit working:

Having worked at Verizon and its predecessors for over 25 years, I expected a fix would be swift and trouble-free.  Wrong. I was offered a two-week appointment date for repair people to come out and look at the problem. I might add here that my wife does not use the cellular device that she carries around anymore than necessary and certainly never uses it when in close proximity to the hardwired set. By resorting to measures that I certainly would never have thought of using 10 years ago, I was able to get attention brought to the problem much quicker — and the issue has been resolved satisfactorily.

It seems that Verizon’s residential repair and maintenance has sunk to a new low.  Neighbors and other people on copper cabling are often experiencing problems. If there is static on the line, subscribers are frequently told nothing can be done to correct the situation because they need to replace the cable or do cable maintenance – but there is no budget available to do the work.   So, repairmen take the brunt of the public’s unhappiness with the service they are receiving. In contrast, when I spoke with some friends regarding FiOS and its maintenance issues, I found a much better response time to any difficulties the customers were experiencing.

Shockingly for a Wall Street-focused “expert network,” Greenholtz was allowed to offer his belief the only real solution to phone companies ignoring their undesirable customers is to regulate the heck out of them.

What can be done to cure the situation with residential landline services?   Unfortunately, it is going to have to come down to regulation.  Verizon, and no doubt, AT&T, has been doing what they want for many years now.  The PUCs have given them a lot of opportunities to offer advanced services that the commissions thought would spread throughout the serving areas, but they are increasingly realizing that is not in the plans.  They are going to have to force these companies to be responsive to the needs of the entire footprint, not just the Fortune 500 territories — and the nearby residential homes.

[Update 4/1/2010: While working on another story, I was amused to discover we had written about Mr. Greenholtz before, back on April 15th, when he was telling his readers “do-gooders” forced Time Warner Cable to attempt usage caps on customers.  I wonder if we would have heard something different from him had his broadband service faced an Internet Overcharging scheme.]

Blind deregulation and legislative-friendly handouts to companies like AT&T and Verizon have never resulted in better service for consumers.  They haven’t proven to save consumers any money either.  Ultimately, the decision to provide FiOS and U-verse came with investor consent, and when the economic downturn threatened the value of the stock and dividends, no deregulation or statewide franchise agreement is going to keep the fiber party from coming to a close.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Verizon FiOS Winds Down 3-26-10.flv[/flv]

WSYR-TV in Syracuse reports on the demise of Verizon FiOS’ expansion plans, which have a significant impact on central New York where many communities will be left behind.  One saving grace for New Yorkers ticked off at Albany — they’re now off the FiOS list indefinitely.  (2 minutes)

American Salt Company's salt pile in Hampton Corners, just south of Rochester, N.Y.

Faithful Stop the Cap! reader Lance dropped us a note this afternoon alerting us that Syracuse is the latest Time Warner Cable city getting the benefits of increased speed from Time Warner Cable’s DOCSIS 3 Wideband upgrade.

While those in the Salt City can now sign up for 50Mbps broadband service, Time Warner Cable tells residents of the Flower City to go pound salt — there are no upgrades for you!

Why?

Thank Frontier Communications anemic (read that barely-existent) competition against Time Warner Cable in Rochester.  While the rest of upstate New York is being wired for fiber-to-the-home service from Verizon, Frontier Communications is relying on decade-old DSL service… indefinitely.  For residents like myself, that topped out at a whopping 3.1Mbps. That fails the FCC’s newly-proposed minimum speed to even be considered “broadband.”

Buffalo has been Wideband ready since early this month, and New York City launched service last year.

The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle must have noticed nearby cities were getting speed increases, but Rochester was not, so they contacted Time Warner Cable to find out why:

While those DOCSIS 3.0 products — called Wideband and Road Runner Extreme — are being made available in Buffalo and Syracuse, the company “has just begun its national launch of this product across its entire footprint, but with no additional locations determined at this time,” said spokesman Jeff Unaitis.

The company, however, does plan to roll out a wireless broadband product for the Rochester market before the end of 2010, he said.

(*) - As long as you don't live in Rochester, N.Y.

That’s the nice way of saying Rochester isn’t getting the speed increases because there is no competitive reason to provide it.  With Rochester left off the upgrade list, and no real incentive to run to Frontier (which can’t beat Road Runner’s existing speeds), this community falls behind the rest of the state in broadband speed.

To think last April Time Warner Cable was promising dramatically upgraded service, if the community agreed to accept their Internet Overcharging usage-based billing scheme.  Apparently no other upstate city was required to commit to ripoff pricing, and speed upgrades came anyway.  The fact Rochester is bypassed this year proves our contention their pricing experiment came to Rochester only because they faced no real competitive threat from Frontier then, and they still do not today.

As for the wireless product coming to Rochester, that will come courtesy of rebranded Clearwire service, which has had very mixed reviews.  Time Warner Cable and Comcast are both major investors in Clearwire, and are using their service to provide a wireless add-on.  It won’t come cheap, however, if North Carolina’s pricing also applies here:

• Road Runner Mobile 4G National Elite gives unlimited access to both Time Warner Cable’s 4G Mobile Network and a national 3G network (Sprint, presumably), for use when traveling.
  o $79.95 per month for Road Runner Standard or Turbo customers.
• Road Runner Mobile 4G Elite gives customers unlimited access to the Time Warner Cable 4G Mobile Network.
  o $49.95 per month for Road Runner Standard or Turbo customers.
• Road Runner Mobile 4G Choice gives light users 2GB of service on the Time Warner Cable 4G network each month.
  o Available for $39.95 per month to customers of at least one other Time Warner Cable service.  Additional $5 off if you have a  bundled service package.

As for Wideband pricing, Syracuse residents should expect to pay:

• 30/5Mbps: $25 more than standard Road Runner service;
• 50/5Mbps: $99 per month, but ask about promotional pricing, which may be available.

In Syracuse, Road Runner speed now matches Verizon FiOS on the downstream side, although Verizon can deliver better upload speed at 20Mbps.  Formerly, Road Runner maxed out at 15Mbps in central New York.

About 30 percent of the central New York division of Time Warner Cable is now Wideband-ready, including the entire city of Syracuse.  By October, the company expects to have the faster service available in 70 percent of the central New York area.

Dampier

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission formally introduced its omnibus National Broadband Plan to America, Congress, and the telecommunications industry.  The FCC seeks nothing less that a transformation of broadband to better meet the needs of Americans for years to come.

The 376-page plan recognizes broadband is no longer a novelty.  It’s now becoming one of the essential utilities of life — joining power, telephone and water service as something virtually every American will eventually have in their home.  But while the Commission lays the general groundwork for future regulatory policy to help achieve that goal, it ignores the historical reality that made universal service for utilities possible.

I am a strong believer in reviewing past mistakes to avoid repeating them in the future.  That is why Stop the Cap! occasionally turns back the clock and reviews history.  Railroad robber barons, telephone company monopolies, and electric service providers all abused their positions and consumers paid through the nose for service until the government finally broke up the anti-competitive trusts that limited competition.

Just like today’s broadband players, in the early 20th century, electric companies asked for and received favorable treatment by Congress.  The industry argued such treatment was required to make investors comfortable with the enormous amount of investment required to construct power generation facilities, run wiring to homes, and obtaining easy access to American streets and backyards.  Regulations must be kept to a bare minimum, providers demanded.  Anything else, they claimed, would discourage critical private investment, would create job losses, and slow deployment of service to millions of Americans.  Sound familiar?

By the time the American public realized electric companies were abusing their monopoly positions to charge outrageously high prices, the half-measures legislators proposed to control rates and improve service were often ineffective.

Just as with electric service, any broadband plan that seeks to tinker around the edges of the problem will not solve the problem.  Providers will find loopholes, lobbyists to help water down the provisions they dislike, and lawyers to mount endless legal challenges to stall reform.

The warning signs are already apparent in the FCC plan.  The agency seeks to cooperate with some of the biggest players in the industry that are responsible for what the FCC calls “the critical problems that slow the progress of availability, adoption and utilization of broadband.”

That ultimately means working with existing providers instead of creating the right conditions to welcome new players into the market.

America's broadband duopoly - just four percent of Americans have more than two providers to choose from

The anti-competitive, de facto duopoly pricing power available to cable and telephone companies has created an enormous digital divide for rural Americans who cannot pass “Return on Investment” means tests, prices broadband service out of reach for many, and seeks even higher pricing while proposing to limit service with Internet Overcharging schemes like “usage-based billing” and “usage limits.”

Where one lives is often the most important factor when considering broadband speed and service quality.  It’s the luck of the draw.  A customer on one side of the street may have the option of Verizon FiOS, a true fiber-to-the-home service providing equal upstream and downstream speeds far higher than the national average.  Across the street, a customer may only be served by another telephone company offering 1Mbps DSL with no alternatives.

Other Americans live within viewing distance of a utility pole where cable or telephone broadband service stops, giving them the choice of paying $10,000 to extend service, or living with dial-up or satellite fraudband.

Few phone or cable companies will ever consider invading another’s turf, even if customers begged.

But it gets worse.

The service customers can obtain from a provider varies even within its service area.  Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse is available in some neighborhoods, but not others.  What stops or slows service expansion?  Anything from a management decision on a whim to concerns by private investors, market conditions, cost controls, or changing revenue expectations that inhibit uniform service across the community.  Local governments used to manage this problem with franchise agreements that made approval conditional on supplying service across an entire community, but companies like AT&T lobbied their way to statewide franchising reforms that can eliminate local oversight.

The cable television industry has a better track record of providing uniform broadband service to customers in their respective service areas, but at what cost?  Time Warner Cable COO Landel Hobbs recently told a group of investors pricing for its Road Runner service can be increased at the company’s whim.  Comcast has already increased prices on its broadband service. Both companies have either tested or implemented usage limits and restrictions on their customers.

What makes these things possible?  Limited competition and insufficient oversight.

The FCC’s solution to limited competition includes vastly expanding wireless frequencies available to mobile broadband providers.  But here’s the problem.  The government will auction those frequencies off to the highest bidders, which are most assuredly the dominant industry players AT&T and Verizon.  For millions of Americans, that means no extra competition at all because their phone, broadband, video, and wireless service all come from these two companies.  The only way smaller players can compete in a bidding war is through consolidating mergers, which reduce the number of competitive choices in many cities.  If the government wants competition, it should provide incentives to spur its development.

Wall Street certainly won’t help much.  They loathe heavily competitive markets now, because inevitable price wars limit their returns.  Getting initial investment to construct new networks is problematic because investors don’t want excessive competition.  Providers howl it’s unfair for government to help their competitors, but their incumbency provides them with built-in benefits unavailable to new entrants.

The FCC recognizes the importance of broadband service as America’s next utility, but is afraid to regulate them as such.  They may have good reason not to try.  Comcast is presently suing the Commission in federal court, claiming they don’t have jurisdiction over broadband policy.  Should Comcast prove its case, the National Broadband Plan could be just another thesis for improved broadband, with no backing authority to implement its recommendations and regulatory changes.

That brings us to Congress.  While the FCC may bring its best intentions to the table with the National Broadband Plan, it’s very likely lobbying will force changes to what finally gets implemented, if anything.

The telecommunications industry never has a problem finding financial resources to hire lobbyists and spread lavish campaign contributions all over Washington.

They’ve already bought and paid for an enormous astroturf group called Broadband for America with 200 member organizations, virtually every single one backed by AT&T or Verizon money or personnel, or equipment providers who stand to earn substantially from broadband improvement.  They are running TV ads telling viewers private providers should be left alone to get the job done, something they’ve had a decade to accomplish with insufficient progress in key areas.

Many in Congress, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, will agree with BfA’s “hands-off” advocacy.  Early reaction from Republicans regarding the Broadband Plan is not favorable.  Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce communications, technology and the Internet subcommittee, told the Washington Post he wants the agency to stay focused on bringing access to people who don’t have it.

“I am concerned, however, that the plan may contain stalking horses for investment-killing ideas, such as so-called net neutrality mandates or a return to outdated, monopoly-era regulation,” he said.

Many Democrats with large telecommunications companies headquartered in or near their districts are likely also to advocate caution.

Regardless of what the FCC recommends, Congress will ultimately control the outcome.

Here are our recommendations you should consider sharing with your elected officials:

Congress and the FCC must be willing to stand up to the telecommunications industry which is not delivering world-class broadband service.  The United States is falling behind in access, pricing, and speed.  Simply accepting the provider argument that they should be left alone in an unregulated, duopoly marketplace is not an option;

Congress must deliver to the FCC clear authority to regulate broadband service and enforce Net Neutrality.  Recent court cases argue the Commission presently lacks that authority.  Congress should take every possible step to ensure the courts this isn’t the case.

Increased oversight of the broadband industry is essential.  Why does an industry making billions in profits need to consider usage limits and usage-based billing designed to deter residential use of broadband service?  Such limits are designed to protect cable-TV revenue that could disappear if Americans dump their television channel packages in favor of watching everything online on their existing broadband account.

Congress should not stand for an unregulated duopoly controlling a service that is becoming as essential as water, energy, and the telephone.  As broadband becomes an essential utility, why is the government not stepping in when the COO of the nation’s second largest cable company — Time Warner Cable, tells investors he can raise broadband prices on a whim?  Is this the 21st century version of the Robber Baron Era?  Robust competition guarantees no executive can make such a statement.  Congress must act to bolster competition, including financial and tax savings incentives for new providers willing to enter markets of all sizes;

Wireless mobile broadband spectrum auctions do not promote competition because the biggest incumbent players are sure to win the bulk of the frequencies, guaranteeing more of the same anemic competition.  Some of the newly available blocks of frequencies should be reserved for bidders who do not currently serve the market where those frequencies are available.  Only that guarantees new competition in wireless;

Free or deeply discounted access to basic Internet service at broadband speeds should be a part of any National Broadband Plan, to ensure access to every American who wants it.