“The FCC’s decision to gather more information before enacting new Internet regulation is an encouraging indication that it remains committed to a fact-based process. The focus on specialized services and wireless also suggests that the Commission appreciates the complexity of regulation in these areas and is looking for a way to ensure continued innovation that serves consumers. We believe that a careful review will demonstrate that consumers have been well served by the relatively light-touch regulation that has historically been applied to the Internet, and that excessive regulation could slow the introduction of new services and innovation, impede investment and competition, and raise consumer prices.”

From Television Broadcasting (TVB) on August 16, 2010 see: http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/104894

FCC Report Supplies Fuel for Net Neutrality Opponents by Deborah D. McAdams, August 16, 2010

Data hogs account for about 1 percent of residential Web users but 25 percent of all online traffic, according to the latest technical paper released by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC noted that for 2009, the median Web surfer used about 2 gigabytes per month on home connections, while the average was 9 gigabytes.

“The extreme difference between average and median data usage is principally due to a relatively small number of users who consume very large amounts of data each month–sometimes terabytes per month,” the FCC’s Technical Paper No. 4 states.  “The most data-intensive 1 percent of residential consumers appear to account for roughly 25 percent of all traffic.”

The top 3 percent generate 40 percent of traffic; the top 10 percent, 70 percent; and the top 20 percent generate 80 percent of all traffic.

“While half of all users consume less than 2 GB per month, the last 6 percent of users consume more than 15 GB each month,” the paper said.

The findings fly in the face of the commission’s support of Network Neutrality, the embattled notion that Internet service providers should not be allowed to regulate traffic. The issue’s been a hot button since Comcast was discovered “throttling” BitTorrent peer-to-peer traffic in 2007. The FCC ordered Comcast to stop, but a federal court overruled its authority to do so in April.

The FCC considered changing the legal classification of broadband so it could regulate ISPs while it sought a compromise with industry players behind the scenes. Those quiet negotiations were said to be derailed by leaked news that Google and Verizon were off in a corner discussing throttling. The two later indicated their proposal applied to wireless broadband networks only, but the revelation already threw a wrench into the FCC’s efforts, The New York Times reports.

It also fired up Net Neutrality supporters on Capitol Hill, including Democratic congress members Ed Markey, Anna Eshoo, Jay Inslee and Mike Doyle. The quartet delivered a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski today imploring him to pursue the so-called “third way,” i.e., the legal reclassification of broadband.

“Rather than expansion upon a proposal by two large communications companies with a vested financial interest in the outcome, formal FCC action is needed,” the lawmakers said.

While Technical Paper No. 4 gives throttling proponents ammunition, its intent was to clarify the target broadband speed in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan. The plan put forth a goal of creating availability of 4 Mbps actual download speeds across the country. The FCC emphasized actual speeds because it found that they are around half of that advertised by the ISP.

“In 2009, average and median advertised download speeds were 7–8 Mbps, across technologies,” the FCC paper said. “However, FCC analysis shows that the median actual speed consumers experienced in the first half of 2009 was roughly 3 Mbps, while the average actual speed was approximately 4 Mbps. Therefore actual download speeds experienced by U.S. consumers appear to lag advertised speeds by roughly 50 percent.”

Additional findings include penetration–72 percent of U.S. households have Internet connections. The report also says the average ’Net user has been online for 10 years, and spends around an hour a day online. By comparison, the FCC notes that the U.S. average TV viewing time is five hours a day.

More details are available in the FCC’s 30-page “OBI Technical Paper No. 4.”

– Deborah D. McAdams

The New Jersey legislature is considering a bill that would require better labeling on printers and cartridges.  In addition, weights and measures organizations are investing the problem.

The fact is that better information would heighten competition and bring savings to consumers.  Our research finds that consumers can save up to $6 billion per year, if only they had better information on the ink cost per page. 

Thanks for sharing your views!

Steve

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704164904575421434187090098.html

We have analyzed the proposed Google/Verizon Net Neutrality agreement and believe that the framework moves the debate closer to resolution by considering the perspectives of opposing sides and finding common ground, reaffirming the four principles for open networks, and embracing new levels of transparency.  The agreement of these very pro-consumer principles is a credit to both parties, but it shows that these corporations need to make important concessions in the interest of consumers.  The agreement is evidence of this progress.

For its part, the parties have recognized, as we have, that wireless networks are different, and that it is beneficial for consumers to have different ways of delivering services. 

The proposed framework provides a positive environment for future investment, jobs and completion by protecting everything that the Internet brings us today, as well as encouraging tomorrow’s promise of choice and innovation of services and applications, including differentiated services like home health care monitoring.  In short, it creates a clear path for the future of an open Internet.

We continue to have concerns about the possible imposition of strict net neutrality regulations that would hurt investment and innovation.  If rigid rules were imposed, policymakers would risk locking innovation into today’s model of the Internet, when nobody really can predict future innovations – not providers, not consumers and not policymakers.  That is why this suggested framework can be so beneficial to consumers, investors, competitors and the creation of information technology jobs. 

In summary, the debate has been good for consumers because it has resulted in getting various sides to find common ground.  We applaud the parties in proposing a workable public policy solution that would benefit consumers, preserve jobs and provide a path for future growth.

“Regulators should not be management consultants”

Following The Heartland Institute’s release of Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) emails, the state’s insurance commissioner, Kevin McCarty, wrote to Heartland defending his agency’s actions in the weeks leading up to the insolvency of the Northern Capital Group of companies.

Christian R. Cámara, Florida director of Heartland’s Center on Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, and Eli Lehrer, the center’s national director, say McCarty’s statement proves Heartland’s point that OIR put the interests of a company ahead of the interests of Florida consumers.

“We are aware that Florida law allows OIR to keep the details of a company placed under administrative supervision from the public,” said Cámara. “However, it also provides OIR the discretion to release such information when doing so would serve the public interest. OIR rightfully did just that in the case of Magnolia Insurance, but it chose to keep Northern Capital’s administrative supervision from the public. Although OIR did nothing illegal, I believe it made the wrong policy decision in keeping consumers in the dark about a company being barred from doing business because of its inability to pay claims.”

Lehrer says OIR is playing the wrong role.

“OIR’s job is to protect consumers, not the industry,” Lehrer said. “Regulators should not be management consultants. Consumers’ interests have to come before those of insurance company owners.”

This release is available at the Heartland Institute.

Statement Regarding the Announcement of 37 States to Investigate Google’s Street View Snooping

Washington, DC (July 22, 2010) – The following is a statement by Steve Pociask, president of the American Consumer Institute:

“Today, 37 state Attorneys General spanning the country announced they were joining forces to launch a bipartisan investigation to determine if Google is snooping and acquiring consumers’ personal and proprietary information for their own profit.  For some time now, consumers have been asking aloud if they are being misled.  Now, the state attorney generals have heeded that call.  This unprecedented legal action will determine if there is possible criminal activity and get answers to some serious consumer questions: Is Google collecting my personal information and invading my privacy for profit?  It is time for Google to come clean with consumers and law enforcement
officials.”