Despite some denials last week that Verizon and Google were not married and cohabitating their political agendas, the two giants announced a shared vision of the Internet’s future — one that does not “purposely throttle or block content,” but reserves for themselves a new, super speed Internet for the two companies and their closest corporate friends that will make blocked websites the least of America’s broadband problems.

For Internet enthusiasts, the deal is nothing less than a complete sellout of one of the founding visions of the Internet – content judged on its merits, not on the deep pockets backing it.  It’s a complete betrayal of Net Neutrality and broadband reform by Google, which has some of the deepest pockets around and has apparently forgotten the story of its own founding — a story that would likely be impossible on an Internet envisioned by Big V & G. Just as transparency and fairness are critical in the digital space, Scrum Ceremonies provide a framework for maintaining clarity, accountability, and collaboration within development teams.

The Five Biggest Lies About Google and Verizon’s Net Neutrality Proposal

Big Lie #1: “For the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.”

That is a distinction no longer worth the difference should the two providers succeed in developing a special fast lane for their content partners.  If you don’t have the admission price or a favored pass to belong to the golden magic superhighway, not being purposely blocked or throttled on a clogged free lane offers little comfort when your start-up cannot compete with the bully boys that can outspend you into submission.

Both companies seek to invest millions in what is essentially a toll highway, incentivized by the potential returns offered by deep pocketed content producers willing to pay the toll.  With Wall Street following that money, those left behind on the slow lanes will find providers increasingly uninterested in throwing good money into necessary upgrades to keep the “free lane” humming.  The Internet that results will resemble the difference between a Chicago public housing project and the Ritz-Carlton.

Big Lie #2: “Reasonable” Network Management

The partnership’s declaration of support for its definition of  “reasonable” traffic management has more loopholes than Lorraine Swiss cheese.  For instance, “reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network to ensure quality service” for consumers already exists.  It’s called “upgrading your network.”  Now, it could also mean classic Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits, speed throttles applied to all “free lane” content, or billing schemes that “mitigate” congestion by charging extortionist pricing for broadband usage.  Using vague notions of “accepted standards” could be defined by any group deemed by Google and Verizon to be “recognized.”  Both have enough money to influence the very definition of “accepted standards.”

You don’t need a policy that reads like a credit card agreement to manage traffic on a well-managed, consistently upgraded broadband network.  Nothing prevents either company from providing such a network, but with no oversight and pro-consumer reform, nothing compels them to provide it either.

Big Lie #3: This preserves the open Internet.*

(*- excluding wireless broadband access to the Internet.)  As an increasing number of consumers seek to migrate some of their Internet usage to wireless networks, it’s more than a little unsettling Google and Verizon would exempt these networks from most of the “consumer protections” they have on offer.

Big Lie #4: The FCC gets its coveted authority to oversee the Internet.

Not really.  In fact, this agreement shares more in common with corporate interests that want less regulation and oversight, not more.  The suggested framework graciously grants the FCC the right to sit and listen to complaints, but strips away… permanently… any authority to pass judgment on the cases they hear and write regulations to stop abuses.

Clauses like “parties would be encouraged to use non-governmental dispute resolution processes” must give the arbitration industry new hope.  Already out of favor in many quarters, this proposal is tailor-made to bring a new Renaissance for “out of court arbitration” that heavily favors the companies that bind consumers and other aggrieved parties to using it.  The arbitration industry is no stranger to contributing to the right people to make them the only reasonable choice for dispute resolution.

Verizon and Google want nothing less than the right to define how their Internet will work — from the applications you can effectively use, the speed throttle you are forced to endure on the free lane, to the enormous bill you’ll receive for using those non-favored websites.

Big Lie #5: Google in 2006 — “Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.”

Google has come a long way, baby — in the wrong direction.  Demanding Google “not be evil,” something hundreds of thousands of Americans have already said today, is becoming so commonplace as to be cliché.  Still, being for Net Neutrality one day and throwing that concept overboard the next is the ultimate flip-flop.  When money talks louder than doing right by the millions of users who made both companies what they are today represents the ultimate betrayal.  Let’s make sure they realize it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg West Sees Tiered Web Pricing From Google-Verizon Plan 8-9-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports consumers will be stuck with higher broadband bills, especially if they dare to watch online video, on a broadband platform envisioned to saddle Americans with toll highways for Internet content.  (4 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Google Joint Internet Policy 8-9-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC echoed concerns about the Verizon-Google deal and its implications for the future of Internet applications.  (4 minutes)

Read the Verizon-Google Proposed Framework below the jump…

… Continue Reading

Verizon and Google have reached an agreement in principle to deal away Net Neutrality protections for American broadband users according to a late report in today’s Washington Post.

Cecilia King writes the agreement is days away from being revealed in public, but two sources verified Verizon and Google have agreed to a split the difference on Net Neutrality — abandoning the open Internet concept for wireless broadband, but protecting against service providers holding bidding auctions over the speed of web content delivery.

Verizon wouldn’t confirm that a deal was struck but said in an e-mail statement:

“We’ve been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy. We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the FCC. We are optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet and the investment and innovation required to sustain it.”

Specifically, Google and Verizon’s agreement would prevent Verizon from offering paid prioritization to the biggest bidders for capacity on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But any promises regarding open-Internet access wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement.

And Verizon could offer managed services — better quality to some Web sites such as those offering health care services, the sources said. But some analysts speculate that managed services could also include discounted YouTube and other services to FiOS customers at better quality.

Public interest groups, some occasionally accused of being in bed with Google, were outraged at the news.

“The fate of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google, or even the six companies and groups engaged in other discussions at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on similar topics,” said Gigi Sohn, president of public interest group Public Knowledge.

The clear distancing from Google’s settlement illustrates these pro-consumer groups are not simply shilling for Google’s public policy positions.

For Stop the Cap!, the implications are extremely disturbing.  As outlined, this compromise deal would relegate wireless broadband to usage caps, speed throttles, and content blockades indefinitely.  Should “improved quality” service on the wired side be an available option, it could allow the broadband industry to mount a devastating campaign to end would-be competitors, especially to their video businesses.  Cable and phone companies could pick winners and losers (with their products being the winners, and would-be competitors the losers) by prioritizing high quality video services, exempting their partners from Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, and subjecting would-be, “non-preferred” content providers to usage and speed-restricted broadband lines.

Offering preferred content producers discounted rates would also completely change the business models of content distribution and discourage investment in would-be challengers that could provide consumers with other video options.

More importantly, it provides an example of an Obama Administration ruthlessly willing to cut consumers out of the debate about Net Neutrality, while forcing them to live with the results.  King notes the priorities of Google and Verizon don’t exactly include consumers:

According to the sources, Verizon and Google have met separately to reach an agreement they will tout as an example of successful self-regulation. Once bitter opponents in the so-called net neutrality debate, the firms have grown closer on the issue as their business ties have also strengthened. Verizon partners with Google on their Android wireless phones.

Their actions could set a course for the FCC meetings and what ultimately the parties could present to lawmakers, analysts said.

Voluntary self-regulation worked so well with Wall Street banks and the housing market that a disconnected crowd inside the beltway is willing to give it another try with a broadband industry that is already a duopoly for most consumers.  Psychic abilities are not required to guess at the eventual outcome.

Update 12:30pm — The denials are flying over a NY Times piece that claims Google has agreed to pay Verizon’s asking price for prioritized traffic:

Google: “The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.”

Verizon: “The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.”

Cricket, the regional wireless carrier that claims to offer “unlimited” data plans that really are not, has jacked up prices on its wireless broadband plans and reduced wireless data usage allowances.

Cricket used to charge $40 a month for 5GB of monthly usage, $60 for 10GB.  No more.

Now the company wants you to pay more for less:

2.5GB for $40, 5GB for $50, and 7.5GB for $60 is hardly "respeKting" your wallet

Thankfully, existing Cricket customers are grandfathered into their existing $40 for 5GB plan, so they do not face the price hike and allowance cut.

Cricket’s claimed speeds up to 1.4Mbps are fiction — in our own tests we found service never exceeding 650kbps, and often averages 500kbps or less in the Rochester, N.Y. area.  When Cricket cell sites become congested, as they have in the southeastern part of the city, speeds can drop to 56kbps or less, making the service completely unusable.  While web page browsing and audio streaming are acceptable using Cricket, video streaming is not.  YouTube and other video multimedia was too painful to watch.

Cricket’s best advantage in the wireless broadband market was its pricing.  Customers accepted dramatically reduced coverage areas (don’t expect Cricket to work outside of the city, nearby suburbs, and adjacent major highways), slower speeds, and a “Fair Access Policy” that throttles your connection to dial-up speeds (or less) once you exceed your monthly allowance, all in return for service priced $20 less than most of the competition.  The modem is usually free or deeply discounted, and there is no contract requirement.

But at Cricket’s new pricing, consumers should take a look at Clearwire’s new 4G service, Comcast High Speed 2Go, or Road Runner Mobile instead.  Clear’s 4G-only plan offers unlimited access for $40.00 a month without a “Fair Access Policy” throttling your service to dial-up speeds, and much faster service than Cricket can provide.  The only downsides are the up front cost of the modem and being sure 4G is available in your area.

Clear, Comcast High Speed 2Go and Road Runner Mobile offer 4G service plans with a fallback option to 3G coverage for about $55 a month.  Clear and Comcast do not limit 4G usage, but do limit 3G access to 5GB per month before overlimit fees apply.  Road Runner Mobile offers unlimited access to both 3G and 4G service.

Cricket likes to claim it “respeKts your wallet.”  Raising prices and reducing usage allowances isn’t exactly a sign of respect.

Craig E. Moffett joined Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. as the Senior Analyst for U.S. Cable and Satellite Broadcasting in 2002.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst with Sanford Bernstein, is sounding the warning bells that if AT&T and Verizon assign usage caps to their forthcoming LTE wireless broadband services, they will never provide suitable competition for American consumers.

The implications of Internet Overcharging schemes in wireless broadband go well beyond the two companies’ broadband offerings.  Investors expect either AT&T or Verizon to attempt a buyout of DirecTV in the coming months, hoping to pair the satellite service with broadband packages delivered by DSL, fiber, or wireless broadband.  Because many DirecTV subscribers are located in rural areas where even DSL service is often not available, wireless broadband networks would be the most likely means of reaching customers, but not with onerous usage caps.

“If LTE networks are going to be usage-capped, then the last pretense that LTE networks can be positioned as a substitute for terrestrial broadband would seem to be gone,” Bernstein told his clients. “And if LTE can’t be offered as a replacement for wired broadband, then the notion of an out-of-region bundle of DirecTV and LTE is no more.”

Unlike earlier broadband technologies, WiMax, LTE, and other 4G broadband platforms can deliver far more data to subscribers at reduced costs.  With the increased efficiencies offered by the faster networks, carriers can provide customers with considerably more wireless broadband service, unlike heavily capped 3G networks, most of which are limited to 2-5GB of monthly usage before the penalty rates or speed throttles kick in.  While completely unlimited service is unlikely until capacity increases, there is plenty of room to allow customers to access 4G networks without thinking twice about everything they do on them.

Sprint is betting its comeback on its virtually-unlimited Clear WiMax 4G service, now becoming available in an increasing number of cities across the country.  Marketed as a replacement for wired broadband, Sprint is hoping customers will flock back to the carrier, especially if AT&T and Verizon’s 4G LTE offerings are capped.

But AT&T and Verizon have both made noises about usage capping their LTE offerings, if only to increase revenue.  These profit raising Internet Overcharging schemes come despite efforts by the Obama Administration to dramatically increase wireless spectrum available for wireless broadband services.  Dave Burstein from DSL Prime says Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski is betting the farm on wireless broadband being the best chance for increased broadband competition.

“The heart of the U.S. broadband plan is to release more spectrum – enough for 10-20 networks like Verizon’s LTE now building – and pray that will be enough competition in five to seven years to check price increases,” Burstein writes.

Making wireless an important substitute for DSL requires raising bandwidth caps from today’s typical 5-10 gigabytes to several times as high as LTE makes the cost reasonable. If Verizon follows AT&T with an abusively low cap of 2-5 gigabytes and Sprint etc. don’t clobber them, the whole broadband plan falls apart because that’s not enough for competition in the future.

I doubt Julius understands this, because he would be doing everything in his power to avoid low caps. It’s just one more strike against “affordable” broadband, like the recent Comcast and Verizon price increases. People need to laugh out loud when Genachowski says “affordable” while tolerating continuous price increases.

Dave Burstein, DSL Prime

While wireless broadband can deliver access to many Americans who have never had broadband service before, it’s not well-positioned to compete for customers seeking to use the next generation of high bandwidth Internet applications.

None of the current wireless services are suitable for high quality video streaming of HD TV shows and movies, a crucial application for many broadband users. Burstein also notes large uploads are painfully slow on Clear’s WiMax network because of limited upstream speeds, but he expects improvements in time, assuming carriers expand with demand.  If not, as more users pile on the next generation wireless networks, their suitability for high bandwidth services becomes even more questionable.

“How much wireless could compete with landlines, especially as all cable connections are moving to 50 meg, was a crucial question for the broadband plan,” Burstein writes. “The consensus of several good engineers is that 4G competes fine with DSL if not many people expect video or other high-bandwidth apps. Wireless certainly can’t keep up if many people want to watch their TV over the net, so it’s only a partial substitute.”

As for AT&T and Verizon, Moffett suspects both may have to take a pass on DirecTV, consumed with fighting against broadband reclassification and Net Neutrality policies in Washington.  Taking on a second battle to run another dog and pony circus to gain regulatory approval for a buyout of DirecTV may be more than they’re willing to deal with at the moment.

Rural Alltel wireless broadband customers are getting the axe as the company’s new owners have started pulling the plug on customers caught roaming too much with their service.

Not all of Alltel customers have become Verizon Wireless customers after Verizon bought Alltel in 2008.  In areas where Verizon Wireless already provided service, FCC rules required Alltel to sell its assets to other cell phone companies like AT&T or several regional providers.  One such company, Allied Wireless, bought the rights to use the Alltel name for its service.  But it’s not the same Alltel customers in southern Illinois remember.

Scott Sneddon, who lives near Benton, discovered that for himself when trying to log in using his Alltel Aircard.  When the service wouldn’t work, he called Alltel to learn they had unilaterally canceled his wireless broadband service because he was roaming off Alltel’s original network too often.  For the Sneddon family, that meant the Internet itself would no longer be available to them as they have no access to DSL or cable broadband service.  Sneddon received no warning and no second chance.

Sneddon is concerned because Alltel’s unlimited service plan did not carry the typical 5GB monthly usage allowance other providers enforce.  Despite having a two year contract, Alltel was able to pull the rug out from under his service because the company wanted to cut its roaming costs.  Although the Sneddon initially faced a $400 early cancellation penalty to switch providers, the media attention Alltel received made them relent — Alltel customers in similar positions who find themselves out in the wireless broadband cold will not have to pay a penalty to cancel all of their Alltel services.  Additionally, the company has promised to refund one month of service and refund all wireless broadband equipment charges incurred by dropped customers.

For rural America, incumbent wireless providers disconnecting service for customers they don’t want to serve is just another broken broadband promise.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSIL Harrisburg Alltel Drops Illinois Customers 6-27-10.flv[/flv]

WSIL-TV in Harrisburg, Ill., shares the stories of two Illinois families left without Internet service when Alltel suddenly canceled their service “for roaming too much.”  (4 minutes)