CenturyLink: We Lobby For Protectionist State Laws Because You Didn't Want Faster Fiber Anyway

from the these-are-not-the-droids-you're-looking-for dept

As we've noted, the very first place to start if we're seriously interested in fixing U.S. broadband competition problems is the protectionist laws ISPs paid to have passed in nearly two-dozen states. These laws hinder or outright ban towns and cities across the country from not only building their own broadband networks in areas ISPs refuse to serve, but they also in many cases prohibit towns and cities from cooperating with smaller private companies. These laws were passed like wild fire over a fifteen-year span, but have seen renewed attention lately as Google Fiber fuels a lust for more competition and faster, cheaper networks.

One of the biggest historical supporters of these laws is CenturyLink (formerly CenturyTel, and before that, Qwest). From suing to prevent Utah towns and cities from using Qwest poles in 2005, to teaming with Time Warner Cable to pass awful laws in the Carolinas, CenturyLink has been a starring player in making sure towns and cities can't improve their own broadband fortunes -- even in cases where companies like CenturyLink refuse to.

At the receiving end of this behavior are towns like Wilson, North Carolina, and Chattanooga, Tennessee -- both of which have tried to build better broadband networks but ran face first into the handy work of companies like Comcast, AT&T, CenturyLink and Time Warner Cable. Both towns recently petitioned the FCC (pdf), asking the agency to preempt portions of Tennessee and North Carolina state statutes that restrict their ability to provide or expand broadband services. Instead of standing up for local rights or against letting lumbering duopolies write telecom law, politicians like Martha Blackburn sided with the telecom companies, pushing laws trying to tie the FCC's hands on the matter (you know, for the rights of the little people).

While municipal broadband opponents often try to vilify these efforts as "government run amok," the reality is that these towns and cities wouldn't be trying to enter the broadband business if we had meaningful competition driving better pricing and services. In a recent New York Times story exploring these awful laws, CenturyLink feebly attempts to defend itself to the Times, insisting that it's not building faster next-generation fiber networks -- because nobody actually wants them:

"We build our network to meet customer expectations,” said Bill Hanchey, a CenturyLink regional vice president who oversees government affairs. But customers are not clamoring for the speed provided by fiber, he said. "It does us no good to go out and build networks that customers don’t need or aren't requesting."

The Times doesn't bother to challenge this assertion, and CenturyLink doesn't explain why cities and towns are trying to build better broadband if they don't want faster, better service. That customers don't want faster fiber is probably of particular note to the tens of millions of CenturyLink customers whose aging, expensive DSL lines (capped at 150 GB of usage each month, no less) struggle to reach speeds of 3-6 Mbps downstream.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fiber, municipal broadband
Companies: centurylink

Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor

from the with-friends-like-these dept

We've talked more than a few times about the telecom industry's favored tactic of paying minority groups to parrot bad telecom policies, even if said policies actually harm these groups' constituents. Whether it's AT&T paying the The Hispanic Institute to support AT&T's failed bid for T-Mobile (a deal that would have raised rates for wireless users) or Comcast paying The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to support their acquisition of Time Warner Cable (a deal that will likely only make bad customer service at both companies worse), combining these groups with the existing payroll of fauxcademics, consultants, think tankers and other sockpuppets helps create the illusion of broad support for anti-consumer policies.

It's a parlor trick that has seen endless implementation in the net neutrality debate. The latest example is the Minority Media and Telecom Council (pdf), which alongside a laundry list of diversity and minority groups (pdf) has been lobbying the FCC with net neutrality talking points that (surely coincidentally) mirror the broadband industry's. Namely, that weaker Section 706 rules are the best path forward (ignoring they do nothing and likely won't survive another legal challenge) and that tougher rules under Title II will kill network investment (which, as we've noted repeatedly, is also bunk).

At the front of this disingenuous diversity army appears to be Jesse Jackson, who, the Washington Post states, spent some time recently lobbying the FCC for weaker net neutrality protections. Why? Apparently Jackson believes that carrying the water for lumbering duopolies somehow will magically create jobs:

"Jackson "was unequivocal in voicing his opposition to Title II because of its effects on investment in broadband and because of the ultimate impact on minority communities and job creation," said Berin Szoka, another participant in the meeting with Wheeler who has also argued for Section 706."

Szoka is the same individual who has repeatedly tried to argue that killing off net neutrality will be a great thing for startups, so if anything, this latest FCC meeting must have at least had great entertainment value. As for the claim that Title II will kill investment (and therefore jobs), this has been debunked time and time and time again. When parts of Verizon's FiOS network were classified under Title II (mostly to net tax breaks for Verizon), you'll be pleased to learn that the sky didn't fall. Meanwhile, after a decade of deregulation companies like AT&T and Verizon have made it clear they're never going to upgrade many poor areas. In fact, they intend to back away from many of the communities they do serve.

Shockingly, neither Jackson nor any of the lobbying groups listed in "united" support seem aware of these realities in the slightest:

"Civil rights and diversity organizations are largely united in their support for Section 706, Jackson said in an interview Monday. He added that no matter which legal approach the FCC chooses, the agency's net neutrality rules should not end up marginalizing minorities and the poor. "We got a lot of poor folks who don't have broadband," said Jackson. "If you create something where, for the poor, the lane is slower and the cost is more, you can't survive."

Of course if you've been playing along at home you know that the entire concept of net neutrality revolves around protecting everyone (including the poor) from the nation's broadband duopoly, and the price hikes and assorted gatekeeper shenanigans they've been experimenting with for the better part of a decade. Yet somehow in Jackson's head, protecting the incumbent ISP's right to engage in anti-competitive pricing models will be a good thing for less affluent areas:

"Jackson raised substantive concerns Thursday about the ability of low-income Americans and minority communities to afford bandwidth-hogging Internet services, according to someone who attended the FCC meeting and had lunch with Jackson beforehand but who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private. Internet plans that exempt some applications from consumers' monthly data caps are one way to make data more affordable, and the tactic has become a popular business strategy in developing countries. But the practice also cuts against the principle of "strong" net neutrality because exempting some services from the cap necessarily means giving them special treatment over others. "[Jackson] immediately glommed on to this," said the person. "There are some strands of net neutrality … that are in direct conflict with low-income Americans."

Plans that "exempt some applications from consumers monthly data caps" sounds a lot like AT&T's misguided "Sponsored Data" efforts, which involve companies paying AT&T a fee for their content to bypass the company's usage caps. It's an idea that's solely about creating a new revenue stream for AT&T, but has the potential to hurt small companies and non profits that may not be able to pay AT&T's troll toll (how exactly would that help the poor?). And while there are some international examples of cap-exempt services being experimented with in developing nations where infrastructure barely exists (see 0.facebook.com and Google Free Zone), we're talking about the United States.

And here in the United States, our friendly neighborhood duopoly giants are looking for any opportunity to jack up what are already some of the highest prices in the developing world. If Jackson and friends really want to help their constituents, these diversity and minority groups could focus on things like fighting state laws that ban communities from improving their own broadband. I'll go out on a limb and guess that these groups' obfuscated financial donors would prefer that doesn't happen. Instead, by supporting the status quo and ensuring we take the weakest path possible on net neutrality, Jackson and friends are fighting against the best interests of the very same people they claim to be supporting.

Filed Under: astroturfing, broadband, fcc, jesse jackson, jobs, lobbying, net neutrality

FCC Calls AT&T's Net Neutrality Bluff, Asks For Proof That Fiber Investment Has Stopped

from the data-or-it-didn't-happen dept

Earlier this week, we mocked AT&T's pouty and bogus announcement that it was "halting" fiber deployments because of "uncertainty" over the FCC's decision on net neutrality. As we pointed out, AT&T's fiber promises were mostly bogus in the first place -- using "fiber to the press release" in which it would announce fiber plans, but never actually deliver them (beyond, perhaps, a few carefully chosen developments). Furthermore, AT&T had announced that it was cutting back investment spending a week earlier, totally unrelated to the net neutrality stuff. Pretty much everyone saw AT&T's announcement as nothing but a ridiculously obvious ploy in response to President Obama's plan for real net neutrality.

However, it appears the FCC isn't going to just let AT&T get away with it. It has now sent the company a letter, calling its bluff, and asking for actual evidence that AT&T is really doing anything different as a result of net neutrality uncertainty. The letter notes that AT&T says it will only deliver fiber to the 2 million homes it committed to in hoping regulators would approve its DirecTV acquisition, and then asks for more detailed information on the plans beyond those homes:

(a) Data regarding the Company’s current plans for fiber deployment, specifically: (1) the current number of households to which fiber is deployed and the breakdown by technology (i.e., FTTP or FTTN) and geographic area of deployment; (2) the total number of households to which the Company planned to deploy fiber prior to the Company’s decision to limit deployment to the 2 million households and the breakdown by technology and geographic area of deployment; and (3) the total number of households to which the Company currently plans to deploy fiber, including the 2 million households, and the breakdown by technology and geographic area of deployment;

(b) A description of (1) whether the AT&T FTTP Investment Model demonstrates that fiber deployment is now unprofitable; and (2) whether the fiber to the 2 million homes following acquisition of DirecTV would be unprofitable; and

(c) All documents relating to the Company’s decision to limit AT&T’s deployment of fiber to 2 million homes following the acquisition of DirecTV.

You can almost hear the gritted teeth from AT&T's spokesperson claiming that the company is "happy to respond to the questions posed by the FCC." Yes, I'm sure happy is exactly how people there feel...

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, fiber, investment, net neutrality
Companies: at&t

You Too Can Finally Join the Modern Broadband Era For the Rock Bottom Price of $20,000

from the pay-and-pay-and-pay-some-more dept

When the cable industry started laying coaxial cable and TV deployments were just beginning, local franchise agreements often required that the cable operators evenly build out networks so that as many people as possible could get service. Those requirements are one of the only reasons millions of people outside of the biggest metropolitan areas even have the cable and DSL duopoly or monopoly they so enjoy today.

When the phone companies entered the TV business back around 2006, AT&T and Verizon lobbyists went state-by-state convincing state lawmakers to pass franchise "reform." While some reform was absolutely needed (thanks largely to a smattering of greedy local governments abusing their authority in order to get paid), the telcos' version of reform involved not only gutting most even build out requirements -- but in places like Wisconsin gutting all consumer protections (and even in some cases eminent domain rights) entirely. Obviously making state regulators toothless benefited cable companies too.

Fast forward a few years and there's obviously more than a few TV and broadband landline connection gaps, despite tens of billions in entirely-unaccountable subsidies thrown at cable and phone companies to ensure these gaps didn't exist. Combined with the rise of Google Fiber and the somewhat theatrical industry fiber to the press release response, suddenly cherry picking your broadband deployments has become fashionable, creating a huge new chasm between broadband haves and broadband have-nots, especially when it comes to faster services (three quarters of the country has no competitive choice at speeds faster than 25 Mbps).

While both politicians and industry pay a lot of lip service to shoring up these gaps, the reality is that nobody really wants to fix them, and nobody wants to audit the carriers' deep history of subsidies. When many broadband have-nots then decide that they'd like to join the modern era and get wired, they often wind up being told they have to foot the often over-inflated bill. As Ars Technica recently explored, that bill can be almost comical -- such as $20,000 to run coax a third of a mile:

"Time Warner Cable’s (TWC) lines are a third of a mile from Walser’s house, and the company has received more than $10 million in state funding to bring broadband to underserved portions of New York over the past two years. But the company (which will be purchased by Comcast if the government approves the merger) told Walser they won’t do the construction unless he pays more than $20,000. That’s just to reimburse TWC for its troubles—the monthly access bill would be on top of that."

Because Time Warner Cable has no competition at those locations, the company will simply abuse their monopoly position and charge an obscene monthly rate for service on top of that. Considering the billions that telecom companies received to shore up service over the last twenty years (and again, nobody in the history of telecom regulation has ever bothered to do an audit), that's painfully obscene -- and it's a story I've personally seen repeated thousands of times over. Worse perhaps, Time Warner Cable, like so many of these companies, has worked tirelessly to pass state level laws that restrict these communities from building their own broadband -- even in locations they refuse to connect.

In other words, taxpayers got to pay billions in subsidies, then get to pay an arm and a leg a second time just to be held hostage by a company that repeatedly makes it very clear it hates their guts. When they decide to do something about it themselves, they run into state laws prohibiting their right to improve their own area's infrastructure. Yet we're told time and time again by the broadband industry that it's not only immensely competitive, but is a shining beacon to the rest of the world for technology innovation, creativity and government policy.

Filed Under: broadband, build out, fees, installation, universal service
Companies: time warner cable

Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?

from the who-are-they-representing dept

Within hours of President Obama's surprise call for true net neutrality rules under Title II, Republicans in Congress were in a full-fledged freakout. Beyond the nutty comparisons to Obamacare or suggesting that this will lead to greater oppression in Russia, China and Iran (no, really, that claim was made), a bunch of elected Republicans in Congress sent a letter to the FCC strongly opposing Title II, insisting that it would be "beyond the scope of the FCC's authority."

For years now, we've pointed out how ridiculous it is that net neutrality became a "partisan" issue. In the early days, when it was neither, there were interesting discussions about the pros and cons of it. Once it became a "blue team v. red team" issue, most reasoned debate went out the window, and we were left with ridiculous exaggerations about "regulating the internet" or "the death of the internet." That's not helpful.

But here's the thing: actual Republicans outside of Congress support net neutrality too (though, it helps not to call it "net neutrality.") Two separate studies have come out this week making this point. First up, there was a poll from the University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication, checking in with 900 adult US residents. When not using the term net neutrality, but asking if they "favor" or "oppose" allowing broadband access providers to charge websites or streaming video services extra for faster speeds -- across the board, only 17% favored or strongly favored that idea, while 81% were opposed (37%) or strongly opposed (44%) the idea. Digging down to just the Republicans, it turns out that even more Republicans were against this than democrats. Only 13% favored (11%) or strongly favored (2%) letting broadband players set up such tollbooths, while 85% were opposed (44%) or strongly opposed (41%). Meanwhile, a different poll released by the Internet Freedom Business Alliance (IFBA) and done by Vox Populi, surveying 1270 active voters, found similarly overwhelming results that conservatives and Republicans actually support (strongly) net neutrality:

Some 83% of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” were concerned about the possibility of ISPs having the power to “influence content” online. Only 17% reported being unconcerned. Similarly, 83% of self-identified conservatives thought that Congress should take action to ensure that cable companies do not “monopolize the Internet” or “reduce the inherent equality of the Internet” by charging some content companies for speedier access.

A few months ago, we wrote about a great argument made by a "self-identified conservative" arguing why Republicans should support reclassification, mainly to block out the harmful monopolistic tendencies of broadband providers. And it appears that conservatives and Republicans (and, of course, those aren't always the same thing, but there is a lot of overlap) intuitively agree with this position.

So why don't their elected representatives? The explanation that still seems to make the most sense is that the money is too good in opposing net neutrality.

Filed Under: broadband, democrats, net neutrality, open internet, politicians, public, republicans, voters

Guy Sues Time Warner Cable For Deceptive Acts & False Advertising Over Bogus Promotional Rates, Hidden Fees

from the transparently-non-transparent dept

For many, many years, plenty of people have complained about hidden fees and bogus promotional rates offered by various broadband companies. It appears that Jeremy Zielinski has had enough. He's actually sued Time Warner Cable in NY for "deceptive acts and practices" and "false advertising." Specifically, he signed up for Time Warner Cable at a promotional $34.99/month package, only to discover his first bill was for $94.45. The $34.99 had magically morphed into $39.99 plus a $5.99 "internet modem lease" fee and a $47.99 installation fee -- all of which he insists were never mentioned anywhere in the original offer. The modem lease and install fees are fairly common these days -- and it's ridiculous but they're the kinds of things that people should absolutely clarify before signing up for new internet service. The wrong promotional fee, though, seems really questionable. Zielinski then had a rather typical customer service experience with a big broadband player:

On or about the next day, Plaintiff called the defendant's customer service number to complain about the overbilling. Plaintiff specifically informed TWC that the prices and services billed for were neither advertised, explained, nor agreed to. After waiting on hold for some time, a representative claimed that the $34.99 was a "promotional price" that should not have been on the website anymore and that the "modem lease" fee and installation fee were "standard" and could not be taken off. Inexplicably, the representative nevertheless agreed to remove the $47.99 "Internet, Install fee" from the bill.

A few calls later, TWC promised to lower the price to the advertised $34.99, but did not (of course). After many more complaints, TWC did temporarily lower his bill to $19.99 (plus the "modem lease fee").

Zielinski also notes some other practices that he suggests are unfair or deceptive, such as leasing certain modems that the company insists will not work on its system if you buy them (thus pressuring people into the lease fee):

Another page on TWC's site, taken down at an unknown point in the last few months, contained a list of which modems TWC will "approve" if owned by a consumer and which modems TWC will "lease" to consumers. The list of modems which are compatible with its services is substantially larger than the "approved" list. Many modems which TWC falsely claims "will not work" because they are not on the "approved" list are the very same ones that TWC "leases" to consumers and charges them non-advertised fees for. Exhibit H.

For some modems, the only distinction between whether consumers can use it to receive TWC services is whether TWC or the consumer owns the modem. If the consumer owns it, TWC will not allow the consumer to use it, but if TWC owns it—and can charge the consumer a monthly "modem lease" fee for it—the modem is perfectly acceptable to TWC. There is no legitimate technological reason for this distinction.

Many of the modems which TWC falsely claims "will not work" with its services are substantially cheaper than the ones on the "approved" list. TWC's false statements about which modems are compatible with its services, and its refusal to "approve" consumer-owned modems which are actually compatible with its network, have no legitimate technological justification, and are intended to deter consumers from purchasing compatible modems and to coerce them into paying exorbitant and unnecessary "modem lease" fees.

He also claims that Time Warner Cable sold him a speed upgrade, which was never actually delivered, though the company continued to bill him for it.

Despite TWC's email, Plaintiff observed that his upload and download speeds did not seem to have improved in any noticeable way. He began conducting a series of speed tests and discovered that his upstream and downstream speeds were the same as they were before the upgrade, even though he was now being charged $10 per month more for TWC services.

Plaintiff then contacted TWC customer service using its online chat portal and spoke with several representatives attempting to resolve the problem.

The first representative revealed after checking Plaintiff's account that the modem TWC had previously provided was not compatible with the higher speeds. According to that representative, in order to receive the services advertised, Plaintiff would have to travel at his own expense to the local TWC office and swap out the modem for a newer one.

The second representative proposed the preposterous solution of giving Plaintiff a one-day credit for the services TWC was apparently incapable of providing, then canceling the upgrade and going back to the lower speeds.

When Plaintiff requested to speak to a third representative, that person initially said the first representative was wrong and that the modem was compatible with a "Turbo" Internet access line, then after a speed test showed the same sub-advertised performance it had a few minutes before, changed his mind and said the modem was not compatible.

One interesting note in all of this: early on, Zielinski made the decision to pro-actively opt-out of TWC's mandatory arbitration clause, which most customers just accept, and which would significantly limit the ability of most users to go to court. Here's one of the exhibits in his lawsuit filing: Companies like Time Warner Cable have been able to get away with these sorts of questionable and non-transparent practices for ages. If I had to guess, I'd imagine that this lawsuit won't get very far in court, but it's still interesting to see someone fighting back...

Filed Under: broadband, cable, deceptive practices, false advertising, jeremy zielinski, lawsuit, new york, promotional rates
Companies: time warner cable

Tom Wheeler Still Wants To 'Split The Baby'; Forgetting That The Point Of That Story Was Not To Actually Split The Baby

from the slamming-on-the-breaks dept

The Washington Post put up an article last night claiming that FCC boss Tom Wheeler is telling tech companies that he isn't going to follow President Obama's net neutrality plan, following the President's surprise announcement on Monday of his support for real net neutrality rules under Title II. We've heard from a few people who were at that meeting who claim that the Washington Post article isn't entirely accurate. It is true that Wheeler is still very interested in a potential hybrid plan that almost no one likes, but that much of Wheeler's statements at the meeting were actually more focused on delaying an official decision by the FCC, which many had expected to come in a December FCC meeting. Wheeler, it appears, wants more time to study the different options. Another FCC commissioner, Jessica Rosenworcel (who seems more likely to support a plan including Title II reclassification), has apparently been pushing for the FCC to stick to the existing schedule and to make a decision "without delay."

Still, it does appear that Wheeler wants more time to potentially explore the possibility of the hybrid option, or whether or not to really support the President's Title II plan. According to the Washington Post, he made this rather unfortunate analogy:

“What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.”

Except, first of all, no, he doesn't need to "split the baby." The whole point of the split the baby story is not about compromising and going down the middle, but about how such a plan for a compromise is actually a decoy to get parties to reveal their true positions, leading to the final result, which does not involve such a compromise. Perhaps Wheeler thinks he's playing the long game here, and his apparent attraction to the hybrid plan is something of a similar decoy, but it's not at all clear right now.

Meanwhile, the White House is making lots of noise about how the President is really serious in supporting Title II and "itching for a fight" if Congress tries to challenge such net neutrality rules:

Ultimately, the White House decided that telecom companies probably would challenge any strong FCC rules in court anyway, so why not fully support calls by the tech lobby for far-reaching rules protecting an open Internet?

The aides saw a political upside to a strong statement. A key contingent of the president’s base — young, tech-savvy progressives — would be energized by the action, and a strong statement on net neutrality could also help his relationship with congressional Democrats, according to government and industry officials.

Obama also saw a more immediate opportunity to retake the political high ground from Republicans, according to a Democratic congressional aide. Should GOP lawmakers vote to overturn any protections enacted by the FCC, a presidential veto would put Obama on the side of millions of consumers who have called on the FCC to adopt strong regulations.

“I see him almost salivating over a congressional fight, or a fight with the carriers, over this issue,” said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk on the record. “This is a populist issue he thinks he can win on.”

If true, that's a good sign, but unfortunately, we've grown accustomed to promises to take on issues like this, not followed up by any actual actions. But hopefully the message is being made clearly to Wheeler at this point that there is political backing if he decides to take the most reasonable step and support reclassification.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, hybrid, net neutrality, open internet, split the baby, title ii, tom wheeler

T-Mobile's Ultra-Hip CEO Not So Ultra-Hip When It Comes To His Clumsy, Status Quo Opposition To Net Neutrality

from the phony-baloney dept

Ever since regulators rejected AT&T's dodgy acquisition justifications for the T-Mobile deal, T-Mobile has taken on new life, disrupting the wireless sector with a number of consumer-friendly policies that have included dismantling the traditional subsidized phone model. A big part of that consumer-friendly attitude has come in the form of CEO John Legere, whose often hilarious foul-mouthed tirades, Twitter rants and faux-punk rock attitude are a welcome change from the mindlessly-optimistic and rote recitations of most CEOs.

At the same time, more than a few people have pointed out over the last year that Legere (whose career started with a twenty-year stretch at AT&T and a notably more stodgy stint as Global Crossing's CEO) is really just performing a cartoon caricature whose revolutionary spirit only goes so far. Prime examples are not only the company's private admissions that it's loathe to compete on price, but also Legere's un-nuanced positions on net neutrality, illustrating the CEO is immeasurably more status quo than his persona would have the tech industry believe.

Earlier this year, T-Mobile announced with great fanfare they'd be exempting the most popular music services from the wireless company's usage caps. We were quick to point out that while perhaps appealing superficially to consumers, this practice violates net neutrality by giving larger, more popular services a leg up over smaller, less-known competitors. T-Mobile was also criticized by Public Knowledge for exempting speedtests from the company's caps in order to mask the company's throttling practices. At the time, Legere was "genuinely surprised" by the criticism, arguing that because nobody was paying T-Mobile to bypass the caps -- it wasn't a neutrality violation.

Fast-forward to this week, and Legere is showing again that he really doesn't understand what fundamental net neutrality is really about. Responding to the President's surprise unequivocal support of Title II reclassification, Legere went on quite a Twitter tirade about the perils of "overzealous" regulation, proclaiming that weaker, legally-dubious Section 706 rules were better than the Title II approach, because, well, "innovation!"

Don’t let the gov’t kill innovation. It has made us the fastest growing wireless company in America. #netneutrality

— John Legere (@JohnLegere) November 10, 2014

9/ I favor the 706 version, if regulated, because... did I mention how much I love innovation?!

— John Legere (@JohnLegere) November 11, 2014

In short, you've got a "pro-consumer" company that only exists because regulators prevented a duopoly from eating it -- complaining about regulatory intervention that's necessary to protect consumers from duopoly. As The Verge did an excellent job pointing out, Legere's simply engaging in "classic regulatory doublespeak" in order to protect his company's right to enact aggressive and anti-consumer pricing models sometime down the line. For examples of this ambition, you only need to look toward T-Mobile US's sister operations under Deutsche Telekom in Hungary, where T-Mobile recently started charging users more to access select content and services:

"Here’s how it works. T-Mobile offers access to areas of the Net to its users for a fixed fee per month. So for €5, for instance, a user may be able to use Spotify for the month; he or she can browse the open Internet at night for €10; and it can access DT’s IPTV for €3.20 per DAY. It looks like an a la carte cable company menu and it just breaks every possible rule and/or understanding of the way the Internet should be priced and nurtured."

While T-Mobile US's efforts are decidedly less ham-fisted than this, they're no less of an example of a carrier using arbitrary usage caps to fiddle with the user experience to its own ends. It's also a prime example of how easily people can be fooled into signing off on neutrality violations under the guise of creative pricing, and how rules need to be very clear in prohibiting this kind of behavior -- regardless of whether or not it's presented under a shiny veneer of purportedly consumer-friendly, ultra-hip paint.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, john legere, net neutrality, open internet, regulations, section 706, title ii, wireless
Companies: t-mobile

Colorado Residents Wake Up, Vote To Bypass Protectionist State Broadband Laws

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

As we've noticed in the past, if there's a place to start fixing U.S. broadband competition, it's the nearly two-dozen state protectionist broadband laws written and passed by the nation's incumbent ISPs. Said laws either hinder or outright ban towns and cities from building and/or improving their own broadband networks, even in cases where local private companies refuse to. In several instances, the laws even prohibit government collaboration with private companies in any way.

The laws are usually passed under the pretense of protecting communities from their own financial missteps, with assorted industry mouthpieces like Marsha Blackburn playing up the failures of a few select municipal broadband projects. Of course, like any business plan, these ventures can be built on solid or rotten frames, and several have been quite successful. In contrast, these protectionist laws take local choice away entirely, replacing it with mechanisms that do little more than insulate the nation's lumbering broadband mono/duopoly from competition of any kind.

Fortunately, in the last year or so, these laws have started to see some renewed public attention as projects like Google Fiber have people clamoring for faster, cheaper broadband service.

Colorado's 2005 state law hindering community broadband bills was pushed for by local incumbents CenturyLink (formerly Qwest) and Comcast, which, like AT&T, have a long and quite sleazy history of passing awful laws, trying to sue such operations out of existence, or engaging in misleading disinformation campaigns (like telling locals their taxpayer money will go toward subsidizing porn). In Colorado's case, the 2005 law fortunately included provisions allowing locals to build networks if they call for an election. Last week, Boulder and six other communities voted to move forward with the idea of building their own networks.

Comcast is busy in Washington trying to maintain a clean facade in order to get regulatory approval of its $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable, so it didn't challenge the efforts, something that helps explain the campaign's success:

"How were they able to secure such a big victory? There might be some factors at work that are bigger than even Colorado. Comcast, the state's largest cable provider, did not fight the referendum, perhaps because it is focused on getting its proposed merger with Time Warner Cable approved in Washington. (Comcast declined to comment for this report.)"

Like so many technology issues (net neutrality springs to mind), this issue of community broadband has somehow been caught in the partisan politics team cheerleading wormhole, even though letting a giant corporation write your state laws and erode local authority simply to protect its mono/duopoly revenues isn't something either Conservatives or Progressives would support in a sane world. Refreshingly, a lot of the community revolt against these laws currently occurring in places like Colorado, North Carolina and Tennessee is being championed by Republicans and Democrats alike, who collectively (though belatedly) seem to have realized that better, cheaper broadband ultimately benefits everybody.

Earlier this year, FCC boss Tom Wheeler stated he'd be using the FCC's authority to ensure "timely" broadband deployment to dismantle portions of some of these laws, though the net neutrality debate appears to have put the issue on the back burner. That's a shame, since we've long pointed out that net neutrality issues are only a symptom of the deeper issue: a lack of competition. Dismantling idiotic laws purchased by ISPs to maintain that status quo is the very first place we need to look if that problem is ever going to be seriously addressed.

Filed Under: broadband, colorado, community broadband, competition, muni-broadband, protectionism, votes
Companies: comcast

Broadband Industry: Title II Is Bad Because Only A Broken Congress Awash In Our Lobbying Cash Should Guide Net Neutrality

from the you-have-absolutely-no-credibility dept

Not too surprisingly, the broadband industry isn't too happy about the White House's surprise announcement that it appears to have grown a spine and is ready to go to war over reclassifying ISPs under Title II to protect net neutrality. ISPs have repeatedly made it clear that they'd sue any effort to impose real rules, and you could barely hear oneself over the noise of deep-pocketed carriers putting their legal teams, PR firms, and myriad of paid astroturfers, policy mavens, sockpuppets, fauxcademics and think tankers on high alert. The response from this status quo chorus is about what you'd expect, with most of them breathlessly insisting that Title II will kill puppies, ruin your nice dress shirt, totally disrupt your brunch plans, and destroy the Internet as we know it.

Verizon, for one, offered a fairly predictable response, insisting that Title II would destroy the Internet as we know it. To hear Verizon tell it, Title II simply wouldn't survive a legal challenge (pro tip: to avoid a legal challenge, how about you don't sue?):

"Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation. That course will likely also face strong legal challenges and would likely not stand up in court. Moreover, this approach would be gratuitous. As all major broadband providers and their trade groups have conceded, the FCC already has sufficient authority under Section 706 to adopt rules that address any practices that threaten harm to consumers or competition, including authority to prohibit ‘paid prioritization.’ For effective, enforceable, legally sustainable net neutrality rules, the Commission should look to Section 706."

Amusingly, every time Verizon speaks on this issue they not only forget to mention that Title II governs huge swaths of their infrastructure with absolutely no ill effects (and actually some tax benefits for Verizon), but that they were the company that decided to sue over the very Section 706 rules they now profess to support. AT&T similarly ponied up a statement that first pretends that turning telecom regulators into spineless wimps is some kind of bi-partisan miracle accomplishment, then proceeds to insist that relying on a broken, bickering Congress flush with AT&T cash is the only way to move forward:

"Light-touch regulation has encouraged levels of investment unprecedented by any industry and spawned incredible innovation. Today’s action puts all of that at risk – and puts it at risk not to remedy any specific harm that has occurred. Instead, this action is designed to deal with a hypothetical problem posed by certain political groups whose objective all along has been to bring about government control of the Internet. The White House is proposing to put the Internet and our economy at risk as a result of such political pressures."

And by "political pressure," AT&T means the four million people who wrote the FCC annoyed at the fact that AT&T now gets to literally write and purchase all telecom laws. By "government control of the Internet" AT&T means regulators that actually do their job, and by "unprecedented" levels of investment AT&T's referring of course to their fixed-line network investment CAPEX that's been dropping like a stone despite fifteen years of broadband industry deregulation.

Comcast to lobbyist David Cohen (who calls himself the company's "Chief Diversity Officer" to skirt lobbying rules) offered a similar response that trots out ye olde "consumer protection kills network investment" talking point:

"Comcast and cable companies (along with the telcos) have led the broadband revolution, being the first to roll out America’s fastest broadband speeds across the country. As the White House itself acknowledged in its broadband report in 2013, this only happened because we were not subject to the intrusive regulatory regime designed for a different era."

Again though, AT&T and Verizon in particular have almost-entirely frozen any meaningful deployment of "next gen" FioS and U-Verse services (with the exception of a few, scattered, wealthy high-end development communities), and overall network investment continues to decline. You're meant to ignore the fact that this decline happened after fifteen years of dramatic deregulation of the broadband industry. You're also meant to ignore the fact that these policy choices are giving cable a stronger broadband monopoly than ever before in many markets, because phone companies (despite being flush with government subsidies) are refusing to upgrade DSL customers, consciously driving those users to the same cable companies they used to compete with.

But I digress. Like AT&T, the cable industry's top lobbying group, the NCTA (now run by former FCC boss Michael Powell), would similarly prefer it if the FCC left net neutrality to a dysfunctional Congress awash in telecom industry lobbying cash:

"The FCC is an independent agency and it should exercise independent judgment in crafting new rules. This is truly a matter that belongs in Congress and only Congress should make a policy change of this magnitude. Congress can easily unravel the legal and jurisdictional knot that has tied up the FCC in crafting sustainable open Internet rules, without resorting to rules of the rotary-dial phone era. We urge Congress to swiftly exercise leadership of this important issue."

Because when you think about Congress, "easy," "swift," and "leadership" are certainly the very first words that jump to mind. As we've noted quite a few times now, in the absence of meaningful broadband competition (something that's not getting fixed anytime soon), Title II with forbearance is the only sensible way forward if we want neutrality rules that not only protect consumers from aggressive duopolists, but help prevent future iterations of the FCC from over-reaching. Most of the ISP claims about the impact on investment are the same tired talking points they've trotted out for every cocktail party and policy issue for the last thirty years, and they're going to need a new repertoire of scary bogeymen if they hope to keep the latest chapter in the net neutrality saga truly entertaining.

Filed Under: barack obama, broadband, cable, congress, dsl, lobbying, politics, president obama, title ii
Companies: at&t, comcast, ncta, verizon