Canada Decides That Canadian Ownership Is More Important Than Real Telco Competition

from the regulatory-failure dept

The biggest problem in the telco world is the lack of competition. Most of the worst abuses by various telecom providers is because there really isn't enough competition to make it worthwhile to treat customers better. The best thing that governments can do to encourage better broadband/telco services is to encourage competition. Apparently, Canada has different priorities. A new mobile firm was set to open up shop in Canada, called Globalive. However, Canada apparently has some rules about how telcos need to have Canadian ownership. And while Globalive was originally judged to meet the criteria in bidding on spectrum, a different government bureaucracy has now said that it doesn't meet the Canadian ownership requirements. In other words, to the Canadian government, having local ownership is more important than real competition. This is basically a form of protectionism that (like most forms of protectionism) ends up harming consumers.

Filed Under: canada, competition, domestic ownership, mobile phone service, regulations, telcos

Administration Succeeds In Delaying The Release Of Telco Lobbying On Immunity

from the transparency-is-good-in-theory... dept

So much for that new Obama administration "transparency" claim, huh? After three unsuccessful attempts at stalling a court order to release documents concerning who lobbied for telco immunity in warrantless wiretapping lawsuits, the administration has succeeded in its fourth attempt, delaying the release of the documents at least until next year. Of course, by the time this is decided, it should be long after Congress is done debating the whole warrantless wiretapping issue... so that's convenient. I'm still trying to figure out who or what the administration is trying to shield. It seems pretty obvious that the telcos would lobby for immunity, so that's not revealing much. So what's so important to keep secret?

Filed Under: immunity, obama administration, telcos, transparency, warrantless wiretapping

If Per Byte Pricing Is 'Only Fair' Why Have Telcos Ditched It For Mobile Data Plans?

from the hypocrisy-in-action dept

For the past couple of years, telcos and cable companies have been pushing for metered broadband, usually with the bogus claim that "it's not fair" for a light user to be subsidizing a heavy user. This is a neat little disingenuous trick that implies "light users" would see their bills decrease under metered billing plans. However, the same telcos pushing for metered broadband on connections are the same telcos who have wireless operators as well... and for mobile users, they're doing away with the metered billing option at the lower end, forcing everyone into a much higher priced all-you-can-eat model. Oops. Metered billing has nothing to do with fairness. It's an attempt by telcos to squeeze more money out of customers in a market where they often have little in the way of competitive options. Because, as we've seen, when there's real competition, it's a lot more difficult for providers to offer such plans.

Filed Under: metered billing, metered broadband, telcos

Gov't Trying Everything Possible Not To Give Up Telco Immunity Lobbying Records

from the not-so-transparent dept

Remember last month, when a court ordered the Obama administration to turn over records of who lobbied the administration for retroactive immunity for telcos concerning the warrantless wiretapping program? Yeah... well, it turns out the Obama administration isn't so keen on actually living up to that. First, it asked for a 60 day delay, so it could think about appealing (i.e., "give us time to stall, since telco immunity is being debated in Congress now, and we don't want this info out until afterwards"). However, the court said no, and said to hand over the info. And... yet again, the administration has now filed an emergency motion asking for 30 days to consider an appeal. It's difficult to see what this is other than a pure stall tactic. If the court already rejected the 60 day delay, why would it now turn around and grant a 30 day delay. All this is really serving to do is make people a lot more suspicious about what those records might show.

Filed Under: immunity, lobbying, telcos, warrantless wiretapping

Senators Look To Remove Telco Retroactive Immunity For Warrantless Wiretaps

from the no-get-out-of-jail-free-card dept

Even as the Obama administration is still supporting immunity for the telcos who gave the gov't wiretap info without any warrants, a group of Senators has now introduced legislation that would repeal the immunity. The simplest explanation for this:

"Congress should not have short-circuited the courts' constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program."

Indeed. If the programs were actually legal, then let a court say that. If the programs were illegal, then there is no good reason to have made the telcos immune.

Filed Under: telco immunity, telcos, warrantless wiretapping

Gov't Needs To Reveal Who Lobbied For Telco Immunity On Warrantless Wiretaps

from the this-shouldn't-be-a-surprise dept

The EFF has announced that a judge has sided with them in saying the federal government must reveal the records of who lobbied to get telco immunity from any warrantless wiretapping charges in last year's FISA bill. There is simply no credible explanation for granting telco immunity except to cover up illegal activity. It's a clear "get out of jail free" card. Still, I doubt that the lobbying records will turn up very much surprising. I'm sure the big telcos lobbied for it, as you would have expected.

Filed Under: immunity, lobbying, telcos, warrantless wiretapping

FCC: We Want Net Neutrality

from the yes,-but... dept

As was rumored last week, FCC boss, Julius Genachowski, gave a speech where he pushes to have the FCC's "principles of network openness" codified into law. Basically, he's come out in support of a net neutrality law, giving the FCC the power to regulate the issue. In the speech, he suggests that the four principles that were already put forth by former FCC chair Michael Powell get two additions, and have all six codified as law. The first four are:

• Freedom to Access Content. First, consumers should have access to their choice of legal content
• Freedom to Use Applications. Second, consumers should be able to run applications of their choice.
• Freedom to Attach Personal Devices. Third, consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes.
• Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information. Fourth, consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans.

To that, Genachowski adds the following two:

• The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications.
• The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.

I have to admit that the sixth principle sounds a lot like the fourth, and the whole thing remains pretty vague. The more interesting bit is the plan to include wireless technologies in what's covered here, something the FCC hasn't paid nearly as much attention to in the past.

While I believe that the basic concept of a neutral internet is very important to keeping the internet as a platform for innovation, I have to admit that I'm quite nervous about any attempt to put it into the law. First, many are noting that the telcos will undoubtedly heavily lobby the process to make sure that the final legislation has plenty of loopholes and quid pro quo aspects in it. As Broadband Reports notes:

While anyone and everyone will participate, you can expect lobbyists for AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to continue to get the best seats. Be mindful that lobbyists will likely work very hard to make these principles as weak as possible so they can only be used in the most egregious instances of foul play. This is a perfect opportunity for telecom lobbyists to pre-empt tougher federal laws, that not coincidentally picked up steam in Congress last week.

Also be aware that when lobbyists see discussions of "transparency," their immediate thought is that it's a perfect opportunity to push harder for low usage caps and high per-byte overages. Mega-carriers believe that as long as they're facing expectations of honesty when it comes to network management, they might as well use the opportunity to their advantage in almost vindictive fashion. Expect the industry's continued dream of shifting from flat-rate pricing to metered billing to play a starring role as the rules get hashed out.

Not surprisingly, the broadband providers rushed out prepared statements that all start off with "applause" for Genachowski, followed by something rather different than applause... each positioning reasons for why putting such principles into law is a bad, bad idea. In other words, expect a big fight and any law to be greatly watered down.

My biggest fear, honestly, isn't in what happens with this particular law, but what happens down the road. I believe that Genachowski really is committed to reasonable internet principles. But once we've given the FCC a mandate to regulate how the internet works, then those laws can and will be updated and changed. What if the next FCC chair is a former telco exec -- certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Opening up that door is likely to result in some very bad legislation down the road.

Filed Under: julius genachowski, lobbying, net neutrality, regulatory capture, telcos
Companies: fcc

State Wide TV Franchising Not Living Up To Lobbyists' Promises

from the lobbyists-inaccurate? dept

I'll be the first to admit that I actually agreed with the stance of telcos a few years back that local "franchising" rules were a problem. If you don't know, for a long time, if you wanted to offer cable-based television in a market, you had to get a "franchise" agreement from a local (town/city/region) authority. For many years, this meant a single cable company offering service with absolutely no competition. When the telcos came along with plans to offer television over fiber or DSL lines, they realized (accurately) that having to get approval in every tiny region would be cost prohibitive. This was all absolutely true, and it was also true that it was silly and unproductive for telcos to have to get so many different approvals and abide by so many different rules just to finally give the cable companies some serious competition in markets.

The telcos were successful in making their case, but, of course, these things never happen without a catch. Various states wiped out local franchises, and put in state-wide franchises... but, in doing so, the telcos were often able to dictate the terms of the state-wide franchise rights, making them quite friendly to the telcos, but not so friendly to others or to actual consumers. Apparently, states are now realizing that the promises given to them by telco lobbyists haven't been shown to be true. The insistence that statewide franchising would lead to lower prices for TV service, for example, hasn't been validated at all.

I recently got to hear first hand how the statewide franchise law in California is leading to serious problems for some really amazing local municipal and school networks, which will now get shut down, since the statewide law doesn't require it, as the local franchise rule did. I'm not convinced that the answer is to return to local franchising, which still seems like a process that is too convoluted for innovation. Perhaps the real answer is that none of this will matter eventually, once television all runs through your browser, anyway...

Filed Under: franchising, lobbying, telcos, video

Russian Telcos: Skype Is Hurting Our Business And Must Be Stopped

from the not-very-subtle dept

Usually, these days, when companies beg the gov't for protectionist policies against upstart competitors, they at least work out a convoluted story about some sort of real harm (i.e., beyond the bottom line of those asking for protection) caused by the upstart. So, you get the record companies claiming that music will stop being made, or perhaps food companies complaining about the safety standards of foreign food products. There may even be some truth to those stories (or not), but the real reason is to avoid competition. Over in Russia, for example, it appears that a bunch of telco execs are complaining about Skype. They at least try to pass off a plausible non-save-our-asses reason: mentioning security, but they don't do a very good job hiding the truth. Repeatedly they seem to plead that Skype is evil because it makes it difficult for the old guard telcos to charge super high fees. Competition is such a pain sometimes...

Filed Under: russia, telcos, voip
Companies: skype

As Expected, Judge Dismisses Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuits Against Telcos

from the it's-the-law... dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but a judge has tossed out the ACLU and the EFF's various lawsuits against telcos for enabling warrantless wiretapping for the government. The reason it isn't a huge surprise is that the gov't last year, in a well publicized move, granted the telcos immunity from prosecution, and the judge basically pointed that out in dismissing the case. Instead, the judge said that if these groups have a complaint, it's with the gov't for granting immunity (not to worry, there are lawsuits against the gov't as well). Not surprisingly, the EFF and ACLU are appealing. Still, it does seem like these lawsuits are a longshot, even if it's disappointing. It seems ridiculous that the gov't can grant widespread immunity to a company for potentially breaking the law -- but, again, it seems that's an issue to take up with the government -- and once that's solved, go back and deal with the companies specifically. The judge's job is to interpret the law, and in this case, the law says that the telcos are immune. Now, if you believe (as I do) that such a law is ridiculous and should be seen as unconstitutional, than the issue is to take it up with the government. So, the judge's ruling makes sense, even if it's disappointing to see telcos potentially get off the hook for violating customer privacy rights.

Filed Under: telco immunity, telcos, warrantless wiretapping
Companies: aclu, at&t, eff, verizon