This Idaho Town Lets You Switch Between Cheap Fiber ISPs In A Matter Of Seconds

from the build-it-and-they-will-come dept

In 2009, the FCC funded a Harvard study that concluded (pdf) that open access policies (letting multiple ISPs come in and compete over a central, core network) resulted in lower broadband prices and better service. Of course when the Obama FCC released its flimsy, politically timid "National Broadband Plan" back in 2010, this realization (not to mention an honest accounting of the sector's limited competition) was nowhere to be found.

Since then, "open access" has become somewhat of a dirty word in US telecom, and even companies like Google Fiber -- which originally promised to adhere to the concept on its own network before quietly backpedaling -- are eager to pretend the idea doesn't exist. But building core infrastructure (sometimes with government's help, sometimes not), then forcing ISPs to come in and compete in layers remains a compelling idea America wants nothing to do with.

Well, most of America. Back in 2016, the city of Ammon, Idaho (population 16,500) decided to build an open access broadband network that let multiple private ISPs offer service to customers over city-owned fiber. The resulting competition has, several years later, resulted in (surprise), better, faster, and cheaper access to broadband. As a result, this city in Idaho now boasts better broadband infrastructure than most US "tech hubs" like San Francisco and Seattle, both of which have flirted with the idea but never followed through:

“If you were to ask me what the key component of Ammon is, I would say it’s a broadband infrastructure as a utility,” says Bruce Patterson, Ammon’s technology director and one of the key drivers behind the network. “We’ve just found a way to make it a true public infrastructure, like a road."

The city of Ammon manages the network the same way it handles water services or road maintenance. “If we could simply come to a point as a nation where we would say internet infrastructure is essential and we’re going to make sure that everybody has access to it,” Patterson says, “that would be a huge step forward.”

Through software virtualization, users on the network are allowed to switch ISPs with just a few clicks. Don't like prices or an ISP's privacy or net neutrality practices? You just switch. You can start to see why giants like AT&T and Comcast aren't particularly keen on this idea:

"By offering residents and businesses the option to own their own fiber, either paying up front (about $3,200) or $20 per month for 20 years, Ammon forces providers to compete for customers. There are eight local ISPs, and users can switch among them instantly without requiring a “truck roll” (a visit from the ISP to adapt hardware at the customer’s location), because Ammon uses software to “virtualize” the network.

To be clear community broadband isn't some mystical panacea where this will inevitably happen every time a community gets involved. These efforts are like any other business model, and require a solid plan and good people involved if they're going to succeed. The thing is, this is a decision that should be left up to towns and cities and their voters. Instead, we've let giants like AT&T and Comcast literally write the law in roughly 20 states banning your town or city from making up their own minds, preventing any exploration of creative alternatives to the status quo.

Huge swaths of the US government not only refuse to address the country's broadband competition issues; many insist there is no problem. Instead, they embrace mindlessly eliminating oversight of giants like Comcast under the false premise this somehow results in better service. When communities frustrated by terrible service then try to do something about it, they run face first into protectionist laws literally written by telecom giants. People then stand around with a dumb look on their face, wondering why US broadband is aggressively mediocre and expensive. The answer? Corruption and regulatory capture.

Filed Under: ammon, broadband, competition, fcc, idaho, municipal broadband, open access

AT&T Jacks Up TV Prices Post Merger After Repeatedly Claiming That Wouldn't Happen

from the price-hikes-for-everyone dept

You may be shocked to learn this, but nearly all of the promises AT&T made in the lead up to its $86 billion merger with Time Warner wound up not being true.

The company's promise that the deal wouldn't result in price hikes for consumers? False. The company's promise the deal wouldn't result in higher prices for competitors needing access to essential AT&T content like HBO? False. AT&T's promise they wouldn't hide Time Warner content behind exclusivity paywalls? False. The idea that the merger would somehow create more jobs at the company? False.

This was all laid out to US District Judge Richard Leon during the trial (twice), who ignored all of the warnings and rubber stamped the deal without a single condition. At absolutely no point did Leon in his absurd ruling recognize the threat of AT&T owning both a monopoly over broadband and a massive media empire in charge of content needed by competitors. And when lawyers and economists warned him that kind of power would only lead to higher rates, he almost happily ignored them.

Fast forward a year or so and AT&T is already imposing another significant hike on its TV customers (both traditional and streaming). New and existing users are seeing price hikes upwards of $10 to $15 per month. It's the second price hike in less than a year. And despite being the broadcaster in this equation, AT&T blamed the hikes on broadcasters:

"In the email to customers that one customer shared with Ars, AT&T blamed the price increase on rising programming costs. Of course, AT&T itself is partly responsible for rising programming costs because it now owns Time Warner. AT&T told a federal judge last year that its acquisition of Time Warner would "enable the merged company to reduce prices," but it's been the opposite in reality."

Funny, that. One of the reason for the hikes is AT&T needs to pay down debt from its 2015 acquisition of DirecTV ($67 billion) and the 2018 acquisition of Time Warner ($86 billion). AT&T thought it could simply just merge its way to video advertising market dominance. But after hiking prices to recoup this debt, consumers are fleeing AT&T's services at an alarming rate. While AT&T is an incredible political tactician, it's just another example of how the government-pampered monopoly can't help but do a face plant any time bare-knuckled competition is required.

The saga again points to a US regulatory and legal system that has effectively given up on consumer protection or enforcing antitrust law, and the end result couldn't be more obvious (or so you'd think).

Filed Under: competition, consumer welfare, doj, fcc, fees, merger, prices, promises, tv
Companies: at&t

FCC Approved T-Mobile Sprint Merger Without Even Seeing The Full Details

from the ill-communication dept

Surprising nobody, the Ajit Pai FCC last week approved T-Mobile's $26 billion merger with Sprint. The approval comes despite that fact that antitrust experts, consumer advocates, and a long list of others have pointed out the deal will reduce wireless sector competition by 25%, inevitably driving up costs and reducing the quality of service (40 years of US telecom history suggests as much). And while T-Mobile and Sprint insists the deal will create jobs, both union reps and Wall Street predict the deal could kill anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 jobs.

Granted last week's vote of approval was really just a formality. The FCC's majority commissioners had already made it clear they'd be signing off on the deal. Troubling but unsurprising is the repeated allegations that the Trump FCC majority signed off on the deals before seeing most of the actual details, something FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel was quick to point out in a statement:

"...the process that got us here is equally troubling. Three of my colleagues agreed to this transaction months ago without having any legal, engineering, or economic analysis from the agency before us. Consumers deserve better from the Washington authorities charged with reviewing this transaction."

Yeah, who needs to see the actual details on a transaction that will dramatically alter the US wireless landscape before voting?

Former FCC lawyer Gigi Sohn shared a similar observation in a statement circulated to the media:

"Today’s decision is the culmination of one of the most irregular and opaque processes in FCC history. The FCC majority prejudged the merits of this merger two months before the Justice Department found the combination of T-Mobile and Sprint to be anticompetitive and required the creation of a new fourth competitor to pass legal muster. Despite this radical change in the merger, Chairman Pai has refused to put the new arrangement out for public comment."

No willingness to look at hard data, an active disdain for public input; where have we seen that before? Worth noting the DOJ has followed a similar tack, ignoring advice from its own staffers to sign off on the deal.

Both the DOJ and FCC continue to push a remedy for the problems the deal creates that few think will actually work. They're hoping to have T-Mobile shovel off some additional spectrum and its prepaid wireless brand to Dish Network, who'll then attempt to build a functional fourth competitor to replace Sprint over the next half decade. But Dish has a long, long history of spectrum squatting and empty promises when it comes to wireless (just ask T-Mobile). And this FCC has exactly zero credibility when it comes to holding telecom giants accountable for, well, anything.

To make that deal work, the government will have to helicopter mom the hell out of the deal; ensuring T-Mobile lives up to its obligations and Dish meets its goals. It will also have to hold AT&T and Verizon accountable when they inevitably try to scuttle the deal in a bid to prevent a fourth viable competitor from truly emerging, something that, even under optimal conditions, isn't supposed to happen for years. Imagine thinking that's a more sensible route than just blocking the same deal that's already been blocked several times because it's clearly harmful to workers, consumers, and the market?

Filed Under: ajit pai, competition, details, fcc, merger, telcos
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

After Jack Hack, Government Starts Taking Wireless 'SIM Hijacking' Seriously

from the yeah-maybe-get-on-that dept

Wireless carriers have been under fire for failing to protect their users from the practice of SIM hijacking. The practice involves posing as a wireless customer, then fooling a wireless carrier to port the victim's cell phone number right out from underneath them, letting the attacker then pose as the customer to potentially devastating effect. Back in February, a man sued T-Mobile for failing to protect his account after a hacker, pretending to be him, ported out his phone number, then managed to use his identity to steal thousands of dollars worth of cryptocoins.

Like the ongoing wireless industry's location data scandals, the FCC has so far refused to utter so much as modest condemnation of carriers that have failed to protect users.

But with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey having his Twitter account recently hijacked thanks to SIM hijacking, the government appears to have finally gotten the message that we have a bit of a problem.

For example, the FBI issued a warning last month to its private industry partners, noting that two-factor authentication can be bypassed thanks to the hacks:

"The FBI has observed cyber actors circumventing multi-factor authentication through common social engineering and technical attacks," the FBI wrote in a Private Industry Notification (PIN) sent out on September 17. The FBI made it very clear that its alert should be taken only as a precaution, and not an attack on the efficiency of MFA, which the agency still recommends. The FBI still recommends that companies use MFA.

Carriers, for their part, don't much like to publicly talk about the problem. In part because it's frequently their employees who are helping to facilitate the scams for a little money on the side. Identity thieves use SIM hijacking to do everything from cleaning out bank accounts, to stealing valuable Instagram usernames and selling them for Bitcoin. The process isn't particularly complicated, and more often than not involves the social engineering of a cellular carrier's support employees. Until the Dorsey hack, their refrain has been this is a small problem that's very unique. It's not.

There are some steps users can take, including changing passwords frequently. T-Mobile users can also, for example, call 611 from your cellphone (or 1-800-937-8997), then tell a support staffer that you want to create a “port validation” passcode (here's a guide for other carriers). Still, like the SS7 wireless exploit that has been in the wild for years, it's clear wireless carriers might want to spend a little less time on mindless mergers and consolidation, killing net neutrality, and jacking up prices, and a little more time training their employees and protecting their customers from security threats.

Filed Under: fbi, fcc, identity fraud, jack dorsey, sim hijacking, telcos

The Cable Industry Makes $28 Billion Annually In Bullshit Fees

from the false-adverting-by-another-name dept

Last week we highlighted a study showing that your cable bill can be as much as 45 percent higher than the advertised price thanks to bullshit fees. Now a new study by Consumer Reports shows that up to 24 percent of your monthly cable bill is comprised of said bullshit fees. The fees are designed specifically for one purpose: to let companies falsely advertise one rate, then charge you significantly more money. It's effectively false advertising, but efforts to rein in the practice are fleeting to nonexistent, because creatively fleecing American consumers is just so hot right now.

Consumer Reports examined 787 consumer cable bills from 13 top cable providers and found that while the average user paid around $156.71 per month for cable TV, users in reality paid $217.42 a month once fees were included. As such about 24 percent of your cable TV bill each month ($37.11) is made up of fees and hidden surcharges, generating about $450 per year per consumer for the industry, or about $28 billion in total.

The report is quick to highlight how some of the bullshit fees (like the "regulatory recovery fee") are named in such a way to trick the consumer into blaming government. The group reached out to 74 consumer reps posing as a customer and found that support reps are pretty clearly trained to create that impression:

"Often these fees are misleadingly portrayed by cable providers as government-mandated surcharges so that consumers blame the government instead of cable providers. One such fee is the “regulatory recovery fee,” specifically named for just this purpose.

Consumer Reports researchers say they posed as consumers and called 74 customer service representatives (CSR), who routinely tried to blame government for excessive surcharges.

"At least one CSR of every major provider that our secret shoppers contacted misstated that fees were mandated by the government, without a clear distinction made between company-imposed fees and regulatory pass-through fees," the report said.

One of the industry's favorite, more recent fees is the "Broadcast TV fee," which we've hammered on previously. This fee simply involves taking a portion of the cost of programming and burying it below the line as an itemized fee, again with an eye on falsely advertising a lower rate. Thanks in part to a government that can't be bothered to protect consumers from said false advertising, Comcast has quietly been jacking up this fee for the better part of the last decade with zero repercussions whatsoever:

"The study found that in 2015, Comcast started charging consumers a $1-a-month Regional Sports Fee and $1.50-a-month broadcast TV fee ($2.50 per month). By 2019 those fees had ballooned to $18.50 a month, or a 600 percent increase in just four years."

Cool. While some bills have been proposed to rein in the practice, they routinely go nowhere thanks to our campaign contribution slathered Congress. And the FCC just neutered much of its authority over broadband and cable TV providers at lobbyist behest. Good times, yeah?

Keep in mind this is how the cable TV industry behaves when competition from streaming alternatives is steadily driving customers to cut the traditional cable TV cord, illustrating how organic competition isn't always enough to prevent entrenched predatory monopolies from behaving badly. Cable giants figure that sure, they may lose some TV subscribers by being predatory bastards, but they'll just recoup those costs by raising the costs of broadband (where they hold a more solid natural monopoly, another problem we apparently don't want to do anything about).

Filed Under: bogus fees, broadcast tv fee, cable industry, false advertising, fcc, fees, ftc, price hikes, regulatory recovery fee
Companies: comcast

Surprise! Buzzfeed Links Bogus Net Neutrality Comments Directly To Broadband Industry

from the fake-plastic-trees dept

We've long discussed how the Pai FCC's net neutrality repeal was plagued with millions of fraudulent comments, many of which were submitted by a bot pulling names from a hacked database of some kind. Millions of ordinary folks (like myself) had their identities used to support Pai's unpopular plan, as did several Senators. Numerous journalists like Jason Prechtel have submitted FOIA requests for more data (server logs, IP addresses, API data, anything) that might indicate who was behind the fraudulent comments, who may have bankrolled them, and what the Pai FCC knew about it.

Those efforts have slowly been paying off. Back in January, Gizmodo linked some of the fake comments to Trump associates and some DC lobbying shops like CQ Roll Call. This week, Buzzfeed went even further, drawing a direct line between the fake comments and the broadband industry:

"A BuzzFeed News investigation — based on an analysis of millions of comments, along with court records, business filings, and interviews with dozens of people — offers a window into how a crucial democratic process was skewed by one of the most prolific uses of political impersonation in US history. In a key part of the puzzle, two little-known firms, Media Bridge and LCX Digital, working on behalf of industry group Broadband for America, misappropriated names and personal information as part of a bid to submit more than 1.5 million statements favorable to their cause."

Broadband For America, who we've discussed previously, pretends to be a coalition of "consumer groups" and other interests "dedicated to protecting a free and open internet for all Americans." But it's little more than a cut out for Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and other industry giants. Via a slow and painstaking FOIA process, Buzzfeed ultimately linked many of the stolen identities to major data breaches like the hack of modern business solutions by matching the fraudulent names via the hack database at HaveIBeenPwned.

Just in case the lede gets buried here: the broadband industry hired shady goons to use stolen data to create fake public support for anti-consumer tech policy. And nobody (especially the FCC) has done a damn thing about it.

Granted the net neutrality repeal is just one of many examples of lobbyists polluting regulatory comment periods (usually the only time consumers are allowed to give feedback on policy decisions) with fake people, and both Media Bridge and LCX Digital appear to have other clients beyond just the broadband sector:

"The anti–net neutrality comments harvested on behalf of Broadband for America, the industry group that represented telecommunications giants including AT&T, Cox, and Comcast, were uploaded to the FCC website by Media Bridge founder Shane Cory, a former executive director of both the Libertarian Party and the conservative sting group Project Veritas. Cory has claimed credit for “20 or 30” major public advocacy campaigns in recent years, including, he says, record-setting submissions to the IRS, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and “probably a handful of others."

Classy! Given that both the DOJ and the NY Attorney General are (supposedly still) conducting ongoing inquiries into the fake net neutrality comments, this may not be the last time you'll see these lobbying shops' names in lights. Meanwhile it's rather ironic that the same week a court ruling comes down supporting (mostly) the FCC's repeal, a big chunk of the "public support" for the repeal -- and the FCC's primary justification for it (that the rules stifled broadband investment) -- were clearly proven to be fraudulent. So far, one gets the sneaking suspicion the US legal system may just be broken.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, fake comments, fcc, identity fraud, net neutrality
Companies: at&t, broadband for america, comcast, lcx digital, media bridge, verizon