Now, another key to strengthening education, entrepreneurship, and innovation in communities like Troy is to harness the full power of the Internet, and that means faster and more widely available broadband, as well as rules to ensure that we preserve the fairness and openness that led to the flourishing of the Internet in the first place. So today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is announcing a set of principles to preserve an open Internet in which all Americans can participate and benefit. And I'm pleased that he's taking that step. That's an important role that we can play, laying the ground rules to spur innovation. That's the role of government -- to provide investment that spurs innovation and also to set up common-sense ground rules to ensure that there's a level playing field for all comers who seek to contribute their innovations.
Time Warner Cable has recently expanded its program of capping broadband internet usage, something it has been testing in Texas for some time now. The recent expansion includes some upstate markets like Rochester.
Web users, the meter is running. In a strategy that's likely to rankle consumers but be copied by competitors, Time Warner Cable is pressing ahead with a plan to charge Internet customers based on how much Web data they consume. Starting next month, the company will introduce tiered pricing in several markets.
In April, Time Warner Cable will begin collecting information on its customers' Internet use in the Texas cities of Austin and San Antonio and in Rochester, N.Y. Consumption billing will begin in those cities later this summer. In Greensboro, N.C., the billing changes will begin sooner. Spun off from Time Warner this month, Time Warner Cable had been testing a plan to meter Internet usage in Beaumont, Tex., since last year.
By charging a premium to the heaviest broadband users, much the same way cell-phone providers collect fees from subscribers who exceed their allotted minutes, Time Warner would upend a longstanding pricing strategy among Internet service providers. Typically, phone and cable companies charge flat fees for unlimited access to the Web. "We need a viable model to be able to support the infrastructure of the broadband business," Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt says in an interview. "We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension." Time Warner Cable has 8.4 million broadband customers.
Congressman Eric Massa is having none of this and makes an interesting and I think effective argument against the practice. From an emailed press release:
Today Congressman Eric Massa announced his opposition to Time Warner's monopolistic plan to charge customers for broadband internet based on the amount of information they download. Time Warner's decision to make this move is part of an ill-conceived test marketing plan which will charge customers for internet usage much like cell phones. The problem is that by doing so, broadband internet users' usage will obviously take a steep decline or else middle income families will see outrageous internet bills.
"Just at a time when access to information is driving our economic recovery, Time Warner is moving to stagnate the 21st Century technology needed to rebuild America," said Congressman Eric Massa.
Additionally, now that the internet has become an essential communications tool used by most Americans, there are broad and sweeping First Amendment issues at stake as well.
"Internet access is as essential to our economy as water is to our survival," said Congressman Eric Massa. "With limited choices in broadband providers, and virtual monopolies in many market areas, I view this as nothing more than a large corporation making a move to force customers into paying more money. I firmly oppose capping internet usage and I will be taking a leadership role in stopping this outrageous, job killing initiative."
Killing such a plan legislatively will be a real tough undertaking, but it's one worth pursuing. Massa is correct that this is a bad plan and one that is especially unhelpful in the middle of a recession that is further depressing the upstate economy.
I wish Massa luck with this. He's going to need it.
Hot off the (.pdf) presses, the "Broadband Strategy" document as well as the RFP for the grants that the Council will be doling out can be found here.
At first glance, I see no mention of Net Neutrality in the strategy document, though the grants list "Open Access/Vendor (Network) Neutrality" at the top of their criteria.
Speaking of the grants, there are two of them.
Grant 1 is titled "INCREASE PHYSICAL ACCESS TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICES STATEWIDE"
Grant 2 is titled "PROVIDE EQUAL AND UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICES FOR
UNDERSERVED RURAL AND URBAN AREAS (INCLUDING SCHOOLS & LIBRARIES)"
I've just started looking through these and will have more to say later, but I wanted to make other interested folks aware that they have been released. Have a look see and tell us what you think.
Two weeks ago I attended Assemblyman Richard Brodsky's hearing net neutrality. For 90 minutes, Brodky questioned to big time lawyers for Verizon, Monica Azure and Keith Clemmons, about how their company decided to block text messages on their network from NARAL Pro-Choice America. I've been meaning to write about the hearing ever since, but I've been extremely busy. Someone was kind enough to send me a transcript of the hearing and I just had to share this gem. Trust me, it was even more uncomfortable than it reads.
VZ Lawyer Monica Azure: That's assuming that we do censor, and we're not saying we do that.
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky: Ok, huh. Does the existence of a legal barrier against your doing that create an impractical disadvantage for you in your exercise of your business?
VZ Lawyer Keith Clemmons: Your talking about on the telecommunications side... It would be difficult for me to expound to that, to assess its impact because it is a situation, which with we've lived, you know, since we've been providing Telecommunication service. We really don't have any way to compare what our, how we would provide for someone, or to deliver to costumers if we did not face that restriction.
RB: But, just assume because I've heard from you guys repeatedly about this particular regulation. In fact, you've asked legislation to remove some that have come through the legislature - to remove the regulatory barrier to business activity. Do you assert the existence of this for your telecommunication services has such a barrier?
KC: Ok, now the existence, if your talking about regulatory barriers generally, I can answer that question.
RB: I'm not. I'm talking about this - regulatory barriers. It's not a group liable, it's specific - some are good, some are bad. Is this one a good one, or a bad one?
MA: court regulation...
RB: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
MA: I haven't found a good regulation, but...
RB: (laughs robustly) How about lead paint on Chinese toys? That's good.
MA: Especially, Thomas the Tank Engine. I have a major problem with it.
RB: Ok, I just wanted to find out one we could agree on.
MA: There is one we can agree on.
RB: Ok, but go ahead. Is this particular telecommunications restriction, a good one or a bad one - and, does it offend the principles that you set forth in the testimony?
KC: I think I'd have to answer that it is an unnecessary one. So, to the extent that it is unnecessary, I would say that I'm not really saying that it is bad. That's because our view is that we don't need to impose regulations on telecommunications carriers to get them to do the right thing - to provide open network services, to provide services to all their costumers, to not restrict the content of their messages. Aside from the fact that there are other laws that would restrict us from doing things with content of, and costumer proprietary network information...
RB: That's the question we are examining today.
KC: But, our view would certainly be that much of that regulation is not necessarily, that we would have gotten there anyway, and that we certainly endeavor to provide those kinds of services that our customers would always demand even in the absence of those types of common carrier rules on the telecommunication side.
I'm going to tryo to make it over to Assemblyman Brodsky's hearing today in Manhattan on the issue of net neutrality. Hopefully, I may even have some video later. What's clear from the press release announcing this hearing is that Brodsky "gets it".
If Verizon can dictate the content of messages on reproductive freedoms, they can do so on any other matter, and our ability to talk with one another, to campaign, to challenge orthodoxy, to bring new and unpopular ideas to public attention, to protect minority views, all these will be subject to the ultimate control of Verizon, or Cablevision, or any of the few national corporations that dominate telecommunications.
Speaking of "getting it", check out this op/ed on this subject in this morning's Washington Post. It was co-written by the presidents of both NARAL an the Christian Coalition.
As the presidents of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Christian Coalition of America, we are on opposite sides of almost every issue. But when it comes to the fundamental right of citizens to participate in the political process, we're united -- and very, very worried.
Free speech shouldn't stop when you turn on your computer or pick up your cellphone. But recent actions by the nation's biggest communications corporations should be of grave concern to all who care about public participation in our democracy, particularly our leaders in Congress.
...
When it comes to censoring free speech, sorry just isn't good enough. Whatever your political views -- conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, pro-choice or pro-life -- it shouldn't be up to Verizon to determine whether you receive the information you requested. Why should any company decide what you choose to say or do over your phone, your computer or your BlackBerry? Technologies are converging in our communications system, but the principles of free expression and the rights of all Americans to speak without intervention should remain paramount.
This issue is broader than one organization, one company or one topic. The issue is how communications companies can believe they have the authority to block content in the first place.
...
If corporations can't tell Americans what to say on a phone call, they shouldn't be able to control content or tell us what to say in a text message, an e-mail or anywhere else.
That's something all Americans -- regardless of their political views -- can agree on.
The debate over the Internet, who controls the pipes that create it and how they're allowed to charge for the use of said pipes, goes by different names depending on which side of the issue you're on. For those dedicated to the formal establishment of the Internet as a neutral, even playing field for democratic discourse, the name is Net Neutrality; for those dedicated to an Internet free of political constraints and pressures, the name is Hands Off the Internet. Both sides of the issue bring with them legions of loyal activists and concerned citizens with the best of intentions.
But in debating this issue, we should not lose sight of where it began: with corporations. On both sides of the issue, there are huge multi-national technology companies pouring enormous revenue into winning this fight. They do not do this for ideological, let alone altruistic, reasons. As important as it is to understand the idealistic poles of this argument - as important as it is to be sure you're arguing for something you can believe in - it is equally important to understand the motivations of the companies fueling the debate. Otherwise, some activists may be surprised and dismayed to discover that they've ushered in a new era of profit making for one of two large camps of corporations.
Remember my post about Net Neutrality and the Brodsky Bill?
Net Neutrality is the realization of the First Amendment, except on the digital plane. Remember, Free Speech is government regulation. Imagine the ridiculousness of claiming that we don't need the Bill of Rights, because "the market will sort it out". Same deal with Net Neutrality.
In case the term Net Neutrality confuses you, Public Knowledge has crafted a quick three minute clip explaining the idea in an elegant and clean manner.
Really, watch it. It'll only take less than three minutes, and explains the whole deal very well.
(Sayhar has written a couple of great pieces about the Brodsky bill and net neutrality over at Rochester Turning. I asked if he would cross post and he has agreed. Thanks, Sayhar. - promoted by phillip anderson)
Most of the bill is concerned with giving great cheap broadband to most every New Yorker. I know it's a bit cliched to say it, but this really could be a modern-day analogue to the Erie Canal. Like the Erie Canal, however, it has to be used for the public good, and not for corporate short-sighted interest.
To that end, the bill also has Net Neutrality provisions. Let those good folks at the Save The Internet Coalition explain the concept:
National ISPs (like Verizon) can block your access to national sites (like Google), and stop any exciting new entrepreneur that threatens their grip on power.
Net Neutrality can affect you personally. Without it, there is no way to stop a rich local businessman from bribing roadrunner into censoring your competing website. For that matter, if we piss off the local Republican Party too much, they could bribe local ISPs to stop you all from accessing Rochester Turning.
I sat in on Eric Massa's weekly blogger conference call this morning and he greeted me with words of strong support for our effort to urge the Governor to support the Telecom Reform Act. The topic of this week's call was economic renewal in western New York and what he plans to do to help foster such a renewal. I think it goes without saying that any plan to spur the long depressed economy out there must surely include bringing broadband services to those populations. That said, let's not forget that all that fiber optic cable has to be laid and installed by real people, with real skills. The first wave of job creation to come from implementing Brodsky's bill will come from the very work of building out that much needed infrastructure and there is much, much work to be done.
The USA trails other industrialized nations in high-speed Internet access and may never catch up unless quick action is taken by public-policymakers, a report commissioned by the Communications Workers of America warns.
The median U.S. download speed now is 1.97 megabits per second - a fraction of the 61 megabits per second enjoyed by consumers in Japan, says the report released Monday. Other speedy countries include South Korea (median 45 megabits), France (17 megabits) and Canada (7 megabits).
"We have pathetic speeds compared to the rest of the world," CWA President Larry Cohen says. "People don't pay attention to the fact that the country that started the commercial Internet is falling woefully behind."
It's time for New York to take the lead. If you want broadband built out to a minimum of 85% of the state, if you want strong net neutrality protections, if you want cheaper rates for cable through real competition and if you want to do something real and concrete to breathe new life into the upstate economy, Please Call the Governor and ask him to support Assemblyman Brodsky's Telecommunications Reform Act.
Person I spoke with said this was not one of the issues they were currently tracking.
The governor's office isn't tracking upstate economic renewal? or internet freedom? or the most significant reform of telecom law in New York ever?
It is imperative that we put this issue on Mr. Spitzer's radar. If you haven't yet done so, Please Call The Governor and ask him to support the bill. You can reach his office at 518-474-8390.
If they tell you they aren't tracking this, tell them they should start!
A San Francisco tech show degenerated into a shouting match today, after a pugnacious Bush commerce official squared off with heated supporters of net neutrality.
John Kneuer, the assistant secretary for communications and information, quickly lost his temper and began shouting back at Supernova 2007 attendees after taking flack for saying the free market - not government intervention - would protect internet innovation and access.
Taking a brief time out from shouting his responses at delegates who'd rejected his claims the free market has ensured consumer choice in US broadband internet access, Kneuer remarked in an aside: "I started out very politely."
That came seconds after he told delegates what they really wanted was for the government to mandate terms and conditions of internet service in the US.
"That's absolutely what you are asking for!" he shouted to counter-shots of "no!" and "there is no market place!", referring to the fact a handful of phone and cable companies control the lion share of broadband internet access and service in the US.
Increasingly, it seems, those companies will be allowed by the Government to charge for different levels of internet service - ending net neutrality.
(Bumped. Have YOU called the Governor yet? - promoted by phillip anderson)
The Legislature left Albany last week with much unfinished business. The Governor issued a statement expressing his disappointment with lawmakers for so abruptly abandoning a number of viatl pieces of legislation before leaving for home.
This record is totally unacceptable.
New Yorkers expect and deserve dedicated and aggressive action to revive the upstate economy and reform state government.
...
In the days and weeks ahead, I will be traveling the state to remind lawmakers of their obligation to address pressing issues.
Mr. Spitzer lists many of the issues left unresolved by the legislature including Wicks law reform, paid family leave and power plant siting legislation. But, one of the most significant bills introduced in Albany in years didn't seem to make his list, Assemblyman Brodsky's Telecommunications Reform Act of 2007, a bill that would certainly qualify as "dedicated and aggressive action to revive the upstate economy" by requiring the buildout of high speed broadband infrastructure to a minimum of 85% of the state, something desperately needed by under served and economically depressed communities upstate. It would also protect net neutrality, bring cheaper cable and telephone rates through increased competition and allow New York to once again be a progressive, innovative model for other states to follow.
Quite a coalition of support has coalesced around the bill since its introduction including NYS Rural Advocates, NYPIRG, Common Cause, Jobs With Justice, Citizen Action, Rural Opportunities Inc, New York State Alliance for Retired Americans, Consumers Union and ACORN among others. Much of the credit for assembling this coalition goes tp Pete Sikora at the Communications Workers of America who has done a fantastic job of building support for the bill against its only known opponents, namely the cable companies and Verizon (and by extension, Joe Bruno and the Republican state Senators who represent those upstate New Yorkers who stand to benefit most from passage of the bill.)
I've written about the bill here several times and want to explain again why I and so many others believe it to be the "gold standard" in state telecom legislation (or as Pete Sikora put it, "the best thing since sliced bread") but first I want to ask you to do something to get this bill back on the governor's radar. Please call Mr. Spitzer's office and ask him to support this bill. You can reach his office at 518-474-8390.
We know that the Governor has a long history of supporting consumers over corporations. He also campaigned on expanding broadband infrastructure to underserved upstate communities and has often expressed his vocal support for net neutrality such as when he wrote to Senator Ted Stevens (.pdf) last year:
Net neutrality embodies the principle of open access and nondiscriminatory treatment of all internet users and content providers. Net neutrality has made the internet a powerful promoter of public discourse and commercial exchange, affording to users throughout all parts of the nation and the world and unlimited array of information, news, opinion and entertainment. Net neutrality has also fostered robust competition by content providers, without regard to ownership of the backbone facilities over which Internet traffic travels.
We need to let the Governor know that not only do we want what this bill provides (and he has repeatedly advocated for) but that there is a constituency of support for him when he takes on this fight. Call him at 518-474-8390 and ask him to support this bill.
