Tim Conway's "Old Man" character from the Carol Burnett Show would be right at home using the Internet in these areas.

Nick Saint at the Business Insider has been sifting through some of the raw data released last week by the Federal Communications Commission regarding broadband service in the United States.  He’s managed to identify the 10 worst counties in America for broadband service based on statistics from 2008.  But two of those probably should have never been on the list.  More on that later.

Harrison County, Mississippi — A single pond in Harrison County is the only known habitat of the critically endangered dusky gopher frog.  It doesn’t have broadband, and neither do most of the residents of this beleaguered part of southern Mississippi.  The cities of Gulfport and Biloxi are in Harrison County, an area torn up by hurricanes from Camille to Katrina.  Now, the beaches are coated in BP oil.  Harrison County can’t get a break. Cable One and AT&T are the primary providers.  Cable One’s dreadful service only reaches well-populated areas and AT&T has taken its sweet time expanding DSL service in the area.

Imperial County, California — The nation’s lettuce basket, Imperial County communities live on a very low fiber-optic diet.  While the soil is rich for crops, the people who plant and harvest them are not.  El Centro, the biggest city, has some broadband available, but with the city having the nation’s highest unemployment rate (27.3 percent), many can’t afford it.  Once in farm country, cable doesn’t offer service and DSL is hard to come by.

Corson County, South Dakota — Representative of the pervasive problem of broadband unavailability on Native American lands, a large part of Corson County includes the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.  Saint notes the FCC found just 12.5 percent of Native Americans subscribe to broadband service, compared to 56 percent of the rest of us.

Ector County, Texas — Odessa’s hometown America-charm was put on display for all to see on NBC’s Friday Night Lights, which celebrated small town high school football.  The reality is less exciting.  Like Harrison County, Ector residents are stuck with Cable One, which loves Internet Overcharging schemes and spied on its Alabama broadband customers.  Good ole AT&T grudgingly provided DSL, if you could get it, until mid-2009 when U-verse finally started to show up.  Now large parts of the county outside of Odessa can’t get that either.

San Juan, Puerto Rico — Usually considered an afterthought by American telecommunications companies, Puerto Rico has long suffered with low quality service.  Caribbean Net News: “Puerto Rico’s broadband penetration rate is unacceptable, with less than 40% of households subscribing to broadband services”, said Carlo Marazzi, President of Critical Hub Networks. “While there are many factors at play, broadband in Puerto Rico is simply too expensive and too slow, when compared to the rest of the nation.  Broadband Internet service in Puerto Rico is 60% more expensive and 78% slower than the United States national median. In a report published this year by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) which ranked broadband speeds in the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico was ranked in last place (52nd place).

Jasper County, Missouri — Saint noted 18 percent of Jasper County lives below the poverty line, which is not exactly attractive to broadband investment.  Jasper County’s broadband needs are barely met by a cable provider, AT&T, and for some, an electric utility operating a Wireless ISP, providing service where cable and DSL don’t go.  For Jasper County residents, the challenge can be cost as much as access.

Appomattox County, Virginia — Every student known Appomattox was the last stand of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee during the Civil War.  Today, residents there are worked to their last nerve because they can’t easily obtain high speed Internet.  There is no DSL service from the phone company and only limited cable service.  But at least the county is trying.  Let’s let John Spencer, assistant county administrator, tell you in his own words what Appomattox County is doing to deliver broadband for its 14,000 residents:

Bristol Bay Borough, Alaska — The epitome of rural America, large swaths of Alaska are dependent on subsidies paid from the Universal Service Fund for basic telephone service.  Outside of large cities, cable television is a theory.  Telephone company DSL service and wireless are the predominate broadband technologies in rural, expansive Alaska.  For many areas, both are awful.  Bristol Bay Borough is known as the “Red Salmon Capital of the World,” if only because there are far more salmon than there are fishermen to catch them.  Internet access for many of the area’s 953 residents means a trip to the Martin Monsen Library, which offers free Wi-Fi for limited access. If you want Internet at home, it will cost you plenty:

The days may be numbered for Sunflower Broadband

A Kansas cable system notorious for Internet Overcharging is nearing a deal to be acquired by a cable overbuilder that does not usage cap broadband customers.

Sunflower Broadband, an independent cable system providing cable, phone, and broadband service to 30,000 Lawrence residents, is expected to be acquired by Georgia-based cable overbuilder Knology, which has been on a buying spree of late.  The asking price – $127 million dollars, according to a report in the cable trade journal Multichannel News.

Sunflower has been overcharging their broadband customers for years with schemes like usage caps and a flat rate service plan that delivers speed throttled broadband service to customers.  Sunflower has remained a hot topic for Stop the Cap! because we hear so many complaints from their long-suffering customers.  In fact, no independent cable operator has generated more reader complaints than Sunflower Broadband, almost all targeting the company’s unjustified usage caps.

Broadband Reports reminds us Sunflower was among the first to implement the idea of low caps and high overages ($2 for each additional gigabyte).  Customers also routinely complain about Sunflower’s stingy upstream speeds, maxed out at just 1Mbps for their $60 Gold tier.

None of the details about Sunflower Broadband’s impending sale can be found in the local newspaper — the Lawrence Journal-World or the local “Channel 6″ news operation.  That’s ironic, considering the same parent company that owns Sunflower Broadband, The World Company, also happens to own the newspaper and Channel 6.  It took a cable trade publication based hundreds of miles away to break the story — not exactly a shining moment for journalism in Lawrence, especially considering an LJWorld reporter need not break a sweat to chase the story.

Part of the reason for the sale may have been AT&T bringing U-verse competition to Lawrence.  U-verse does not have customer unfriendly usage limits.  With AT&T ready to usher away many of Sunflower’s customers, management may have decided now was a good time to sell.

The good news for Lawrence residents is that none of Knology’s cable systems engage in Internet Overcharging schemes, so Sunflower’s usage caps may be gone after the sale.

Still, some Lawrence residents are concerned about the implications of a Knology takeover.  The Lawrence Broadband Observer is among them:

I browsed Knology’s corporate web site and was actually pretty unimpressed. To put it mildly, Knology is well behind Sunflower both geographically and technically. Knology offers service in rural areas much smaller then Lawrence, like Storm Lake, Iowa and Dothan, Alabama. They also offer service in a few towns that are equal or larger then Lawrence like Charleston, South Carolina.

Technically, Knology is well behind Sunflower in what they offer customers in other cities. Top internet speeds (albeit cap-free) are only in the 8-10 megabit range, five times slower then Sunflower’s new DOCSIS 3 offerings. On the television side, while it varies from city to city, Knology generally offers only 30 or so HD channels, which is less then half of what Sunflower offers. Knology offers a rudimentary DVR, but nothing like Sunflower’s multi-room options.

Perhaps Knology is interested in buying Sunflower to learn how to offer more advanced services, knowledge they can take to their other markets. I don’t know, but it seems like this is a case of a large buggy-whip manufacturer buying out a smaller company that makes automobiles.

Most of Knology’s network of systems have been acquired from other companies and providers.  Technically, they are a cable “overbuilder” because they do overlap other providers in some areas, such as Knoxville, Tenn., where they compete with Comcast.  In many communities, they are most common in rental parks and apartments.

Knology’s customers in other cities have usually suffered some transitional glitches (Knology uses a more “advanced e-mail system” they eventually forced their PrairieWave customers to join), but overall they have usually increased broadband speeds in their markets and add lots of new HD channels.  Knology is aggressively deploying DOCSIS 3, something Sunflower already has, so few changes should be expected there.  They do not have a history of downgrading customers.

Clues about the impact of a Knology buy can be found in communities like Rapid City, S.D., who saw their cable system switched from Black Hills FiberCom to PrairieWave to Knology.  Rapid City residents first saw changes to the cable system’s technology and billing.  That was followed by the introduction of new services and packages, and then finally the name change to Knology.

With the anticipated sale, existing Sunflower customers (and ex-customers) might want to impress on the new owner that Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and throttled speeds are unacceptable, and you want an immediate end to both.

Remember too it could be worse — Mediacom could have been the buyer.

Broadband providers with a vested interest in keeping the marketplace a comfortable (for them) duopoly want you to believe everything is great in American broadband.  They would have you believe there is little room for improvement, despite the ongoing drop in America’s global broadband rankings and the ever-increasing price for the service.

Google’s announcement this spring that it was looking for a few great communities to provide 1 gigabit broadband service at competitive rates caused a firestorm… of interest.  Over 1,100 communities have applied for the service and more than 200,000 consumers have nominated their towns and cities for Google Broadband.  Apparently there is plenty of room for improvement after all — from coast to coast and in every state.

The small dots refer to local government applications for the service, the large dots indicate places where more than 1,000 individuals nominated their community.

Communities Applying for Google’s Think Big With a Gig Project

Kyle "What Broadband Problem?" McSlarrow

In Kyle McSlarrow’s world, the only broadband problem is the one invented by the Federal Communications Commission when it claims that service is not being deployed to all Americans on a “reasonable and timely” basis.  The head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the cable industry’s lobbying group, has declared today’s broadband a U.S. “success story that keeps getting better.”

Writing in the group’s “CableTechTalk” blog, McSlarrow tells his readers that 95 percent of Americans already have broadband service available to them that meets the 4Mbps minimum speed standard proposed by the FCC, so where is the big problem?

McSlarrow’s interest in the economics of rural broadband is ironic considering the cable industry routinely bypasses rural Americans.  Where cable lines do predominate, meeting the FCC’s anemic 4Mbps minimum speed standard is not the biggest problem — cost is.  Where cable lines don’t reach, speed is an issue for many wireless and DSL subscribers.  For others, broadband service is not available at any price.

McSlarrow plays cable’s advantage on speed issues to promote minimum speeds higher than those sought by phone companies like AT&T and Verizon.  Of course, cable broadband does not rely on antiquated copper wire telephone networks.  In rural areas, many of these networks are held together with minimal investment.  DSL at any speed can be a luxury when available.

McSlarrow’s recognition that most of rural America will continue to be served by telephone companies doesn’t stop the cable industry from seeking an advantage over their nearest competitors by advocating for reduced subsidies for rural areas and policies that guarantee no potential competitor can ever see a dime in government broadband money.

Because the report plainly acknowledges that there is no reasonable business case to be made for extending broadband facilities to many of the unserved homes.  So instead of viewing the report’s finding as an indictment of broadband providers, it’s  perhaps better read as a statement of principle by the Chairman and two commissioners that, in their opinion, broadband already should be universally available, and, if there is no business case for that universal deployment, the government may have to step in to achieve it. So far as that goes, we agree.  For example, we support the report’s call to action on specific items that will speed broadband deployment to unserved communities.  Immediate FCC action on Universal Service Fund (USF) reform and pole attachment policy is critical to connecting unserved areas.

As explained in comments we filed last week, our industry strongly supports the USF reforms recommended in the National Broadband Plan (NBP).  To fund the FCC’s broadband USF proposals, we recommend adopting our proposal – filed in a November 2009 rulemaking petition – to reduce subsidies in rural areas where ample phone competition exists.  The sooner the Commission reduces unnecessary funding in the existing high-cost support program, the sooner it can direct funding to broadband deployment and adoption.

McSlarrow’s comments neglect to tell the whole story about what the NCTA actually wrote in its comments filed with the FCC:

The 4Mbps/1Mbps standard reflects today’s marketplace reality that most consumers choose not to purchase the highest speed tiers that are offered by their broadband provider. By setting a standard based on the services actually purchased by consumers, the Plan strikes the appropriate balance – not so low that it deprives consumers of the ability to purchase a service that meets their needs and not so high that it will require a significant infusion of new government funding.

Second, based on this definition of broadband, the Plan found that the vast majority of Americans – 95% of households – already have access to broadband, and that 80% of those consumers live in geographic areas served by two or more providers. For these areas where broadband has already been deployed, there is no basis for any increase in support; indeed, as NCTA has demonstrated, in many of these areas there is no basis for any high-cost support at all.

Consequently, the only areas that should see an increase in the support they receive are those areas that do not have broadband and qualify for CAF support, i.e., areas where there currently is no business case for private investment in broadband facilities.

In Great Britain, speeds promised don't match speeds delivered. The FCC is studying whether the same is true in the United States.

McSlarrow is disingenuous about Americans’ interest in improved broadband.  It’s not surprising many do not choose the highest speed tiers available from telephone and cable providers when one considers the premium prices charged for that service.  Some NCTA members charge $99 for 50/5Mbps service, which in other countries like Hong Kong sells for a fraction of that price.  One need only consider Google’s plan to deliver 1Gbps service to a handful of American communities.  It’s easier to count the communities that were not interested in this super-fast service.

The cable industry can afford to relent on a 4Mbps minimum speed standard for downloading as virtually all cable broadband providers already offer “standard service” plans well above that rate.  The cable industry’s own “lite” plans, usually 1.5Mbps or less, are not exactly the industry’s most popular.  Americans will choose higher speed service at the right price.

Broadband availability figures have become an important political issue, which is why controlling broadband mapping is so important to cable and phone companies.  Being able to offer that “95 percent of Americans already have access,” a figure in dispute by the way, can make a big difference in the debate.  As Stop the Cap! readers have seen repeatedly, broadband maps that depict broadband service as widely available in many areas actually is not, especially from phone company DSL service, which depends heavily on the quality of the existing infrastructure.

Most importantly, the NCTA seeks a new, even stricter standard for broadband funding under Universal Service Fund reform that would immediately deny money to any applicant that cannot prove there is no chance for any private investment in broadband.  As we’ve seen from broadband improvement applications filed under the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program, cable and phone companies routinely object to most proposals, claiming “duplication” of existing broadband service even in areas they have chosen not to provide service.  The NCTA would have us set the bar even lower, allowing any private entity to kill funding projects based solely on their claimed interest in providing the service themselves.

One sensitive spot the FCC did manage to hit was taking providers to task for advertising broadband speeds they don’t actually provide to customers.  While DSL speeds vary based on distance from the telephone company’s central office, cable broadband speeds vary depending on how many customers are online at any particular moment.  The cable industry’s shared access platform can create major bottlenecks in high-use neighborhoods, dramatically reducing speeds for every customer.  While some cable operators are better than others at re-dividing neighborhoods to increase capacity, others won’t spend the money to upgrade an area until service becomes intolerable.  That means consumers sold 10Mbps service may actually find it running at less than half that during evening hours.

A sampling of British cable and telephone company DSL providers, all of which aren't giving their customers what they are paying for.

McSlarrow’s view is there isn’t a problem there either — the FCC is relying on old data:

The key statistics in the report are drawn from Form 477 data for December 2008, data that was out of date when it was released earlier this year and is now 18 months old.  Broadband providers have made two subsequent Form 477 filings (with another one scheduled in a few weeks), so the reliance on stale data is frustrating.

Equally troubling is the Commission’s repetition of the NBP’s claim that “actual” broadband speeds are only half of “advertised” speeds.   After the NBP was released, we submitted an expert technical report demonstrating that the comScore data used was deeply flawed.  Since then, cable and telco ISPs have been working constructively with Commission staff on a hardware-based testing regime that should produce more accurate results.  Given the hard work that has been devoted to produce accurate speed measurements, it is disheartening that the 706 Report chose to perpetuate the NBP’s flawed speed data conclusions.

Finally, some of the data relied on in the 706 Report is not publicly available.  The report relies extensively on a cost model created for the NBP, but that model hasn’t been released, making it impossible to validate its results.  The Commission also repeatedly refers to an FCC staff report on international trends, but that report also has not been released.

The frustration McSlarrow writes about is shared by cable subscribers stuck in overloaded neighborhoods where service does not come close to marketed speeds.  The FCC is conducting an independent speed analysis that goes beyond speedtest data, and the results will be forthcoming.  In other countries where similar speed claims have not met reality, providers were usually found culpable for promising service they didn’t deliver.

Just ask Ofcom, the British regulatory agency charged with addressing this dilemma.  Earlier today they released evidence that 97 percent of UK broadband customers were not actually getting the speeds they were promised, and the gap between marketed speed and actual speed was growing. Will things be any different for American providers who use fine print to disclaim their bold marketing promises about speed?  Time will tell.

Finally, McSlarrow’s concerns about withheld data is ironic enough to call it a “pot to kettle” moment.  As those challenged with broadband mapping can attest, nobody keeps raw data about broadband availability and speeds closer to the vest than cable and telephone companies.

Of course, the ultimate agenda of the NCTA is to defend its industry’s record in broadband service, which means reducing any broadband challenges into little more than whining by Americans who don’t know how good they have it.

In the financially difficult world of landline service, there has been one bright spot for Verizon — its state-of-the-art fiber optic service FiOS.  The cost of replacing obsolete copper phone with 21st century fiber optics has proved to be an expensive, but successful endeavor, at least in the eyes of customers.  Hated by Wall Street for its costs but loved by those who enjoy the service, FiOS has successfully proven traditional phone companies can earn money by providing the kinds of services consumers want, just so long as investors are willing to hang in there while the investment pays off over time.  But many investors aren’t.

Some of Verizon’s critics in the investment community complain the company is n0t earning enough from FiOS — in fact, for some critics who didn’t want Verizon spending money on a fiber-to-the-home network in the first place, financial returns provide the evidence used to claim they were right all along.

Despite the naysayers, revenue for Verizon FiOS is up by almost one-third each year, with average revenue per user now reaching $145 a month.  That’s well above the money Verizon earns on its legacy copper network phone customers keep leaving, especially outside of major cities where DSL service is spotty.  There is plenty of room for Verizon FiOS to grow in the limited communities it reaches.  Unfortunately, Verizon has stopped expanding its FiOS network to new communities, in part from pressure from investors who want to see cost cutting from the telecommunications giant.

Despite the positive reviews (subscription required) FiOS earns from consumer publications like Consumer Reports, Verizon slashed marketing and promotion expenses, resulting in second-quarter net additions for FiOS TV coming in at 174,000, compared with 300,000 a year earlier.

With Verizon now deploying service to communities on a reduced schedule, the results have been underwhelming according to the Wall Street Journal:

Verizon Communications may want to tweak the ad slogan for its TV and ultrafast Internet service to “This is FIOS. This is pretty small.”

Not catchy, but it would be more accurate than the current “This is Big” line.

[...]It eventually became clear that Verizon had slowed the time frame of the buildup, originally scheduled to be mostly done this year. Instead, it now expects to meet its target of passing 18 million homes with the network by 2012.

The slower timetable allows Verizon to trim capital spending this year. The problem is that FiOS’s expansion could stall with a less aggressive approach to growth. Already, Verizon has retreated from its target of adding one million subscribers a year, in favor of boosting penetration to 40% of homes passed. At June 30, its 3.2 million TV subscribers was about 20% of homes passed.

[...]And that can only reinforce questions about long-term returns on the $23 billion FIOS investment.

Evidence that Verizon is looking for more customers in its existing FiOS markets can be found in the news the company dropped its contract commitment for new customers.  The term contracts may have held some potential customers back out of fear of a lengthy term commitment with a $360 early cancellation fee.

Verizon started running this ad several weeks ago touting its new “no contract” FiOS service.  (15 seconds)

But a change in strategy isn’t enough for investors who demand immediate results through further cost cutting measures.

In Verizon’s second quarter earnings reports, company executives speak to this perception, proudly noting they have slashed costs through job-cutting and reduced spending on infrastructure and services.  Some of those services include DSL expansion for rural Verizon customers, many who are now left on hold waiting for broadband from Verizon indefinitely.

In many states, Verizon’s DSL expansion was incremental at best, with the company issuing press releases touting new service for literally hundreds of potential customers.

Verizon’s traditional landline business continues to lose customers year after year, and is abandoning millions of others through sell-off deals with companies like Frontier Communications.  Light Reading notes Verizon eliminated 11,000 jobs in its Mid-Atlantic and Eastern regions through early retirement incentive programs, an idea soon to spread to other regions, particularly California and Texas in the coming months.  This kind of cost cutting saves cash and allows companies to report positive financial results in quarterly reports.

According to John Killian, executive vice president and CFO of Verizon, the job cuts are just getting started.  As Verizon further alienates its non-FiOS landline customers who can find better service and lower prices elsewhere, the company expects “further force reductions” in the coming months.  Verizon is also slashing costs by selling off real estate, consolidating operations and vacating buildings.

The impact can become a vicious circle of deteriorating service, customer defections, and additional cost cutting, which starts the circle all over again.  In West Virginia, deteriorating Verizon phone lines reached the point of serious service outages whenever major storms hit the state.  Then Verizon simply sold off its network in West Virginia.  Those customers are now served by Frontier Communications.

Verizon previously declared the era of the landline dead, and is now seeking to prove its point, even as it demonstrates it can make money by spending money on FiOS, if only investors would give them the chance.

CNN took a behind the scenes tour of Verizon’s FiOS network in New York City, from the central offices to individual apartments.  (4 minutes)

Rogers Cable: Setting the Bar Lower Than Ever

Just a day after Netflix announced they are coming to Canada, Rogers Cable has responded by announcing it is lowering the usage allowances of its customers.  Stop the Cap! reader Munly writes to inform us Rogers Lite service plan, intended for occasional users, has dropped its 25GB usage allowance to 15GB per month, making it suitable for even less usage.

New customers on Rogers’ popular Extreme plan will find their usage limit cut from 95GB to just 80GB per month.  But if you accept the cut in your allowance, Rogers will increase the speed on that tier from 10Mbps to 15Mbps, allowing customers to blow through that usage limit that much quicker.

Existing customers may be grandfathered in, at least temporarily, but Rogers is notorious for eventually terminating grandfathered plans and moving customers to higher-priced alternatives.

All this from a company that claims it offers its customers “abundant usage.”

Rogers buries in the fine print the fact customers can stay with their current higher allowance if they forego the speed increase.

AND AN EVER INCREASING BILL

With the new lowered usage allowances, Rogers offers tips for customers to reduce their usage, including our favorites:

Use medium quality photos when sending them through e-mail. Your family’s cherished memories don’t deserve high resolution, even if you want to send them to a digital photo lab for printing.  Maybe you could get the kids together and have them draw copies of those vacation pictures with crayons.  At least they won’t be online using up your Rogers Internet ration.

Be aware of how others in your home use your Internet connection.  If you are not spying on your family’s online usage, it’s your own fault if we send you an enormous bill.  In the time it took you to read these tips, your kids could have downloaded over 20 e-mails, looked at more than three web pages, or watched almost a minute of online video.  Don’t make us bill you for that.

Turn off Peer-to-peer programs when you’re not downloading. Better yet, since we know you are using them to steal the content we’d like to sell or rent you, stop using them altogether… or else.

Try the tools. No, we’re not talking about us, silly.  If you are doing more than reading your e-mail or browsing web pages, look out because we’re coming for your wallet.  You can try and outwit our overcharging ways by using our usage notifications service, which will flash messages to you that we’re about to cash in on your over-usage.  Hey, don’t say we didn’t warn you!  Remember, if you use Rogers Internet to download files, stream video or music or play online games, we own you.

Does this mean I should use the Internet less to avoid paying more? Is Sarah Palin American?  You betcha.  We want to get the most out of our customers who use their Internet service too much, which is why we expose them to up to $5.00 per gigabyte if they exceed our ever-dwindling usage allowances.  Our goal is for you to feel free to use the Internet as you always have, just so long as you recognize it’s not free and that you’ll need to pay us for every web page your read, more if you dare to watch cable programming online you should be watching on our cable TV service.  The only surprise you’ll have about your bill is that we haven’t found a way to charge you even more… yet.

What About Netflix? Seriously? You weren’t really thinking of using that service on Rogers were you?  A word to the wise — we can cut your allowance down even further.  Go outside.  Read a book.  Rent a movie from Rogers Plus or enjoy some great Rogers Cable TV.

Rogers Cable’s Internet Packages

A Before And After Comparison

Rogers Old Pricing and Usage Allowances

Rogers All-New Pricing and Usage Allowances, Effective July 21, 2010

Craig E. Moffett joined Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. as the Senior Analyst for U.S. Cable and Satellite Broadcasting in 2002.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst with Sanford Bernstein, is sounding the warning bells that if AT&T and Verizon assign usage caps to their forthcoming LTE wireless broadband services, they will never provide suitable competition for American consumers.

The implications of Internet Overcharging schemes in wireless broadband go well beyond the two companies’ broadband offerings.  Investors expect either AT&T or Verizon to attempt a buyout of DirecTV in the coming months, hoping to pair the satellite service with broadband packages delivered by DSL, fiber, or wireless broadband.  Because many DirecTV subscribers are located in rural areas where even DSL service is often not available, wireless broadband networks would be the most likely means of reaching customers, but not with onerous usage caps.

“If LTE networks are going to be usage-capped, then the last pretense that LTE networks can be positioned as a substitute for terrestrial broadband would seem to be gone,” Bernstein told his clients. “And if LTE can’t be offered as a replacement for wired broadband, then the notion of an out-of-region bundle of DirecTV and LTE is no more.”

Unlike earlier broadband technologies, WiMax, LTE, and other 4G broadband platforms can deliver far more data to subscribers at reduced costs.  With the increased efficiencies offered by the faster networks, carriers can provide customers with considerably more wireless broadband service, unlike heavily capped 3G networks, most of which are limited to 2-5GB of monthly usage before the penalty rates or speed throttles kick in.  While completely unlimited service is unlikely until capacity increases, there is plenty of room to allow customers to access 4G networks without thinking twice about everything they do on them.

Sprint is betting its comeback on its virtually-unlimited Clear WiMax 4G service, now becoming available in an increasing number of cities across the country.  Marketed as a replacement for wired broadband, Sprint is hoping customers will flock back to the carrier, especially if AT&T and Verizon’s 4G LTE offerings are capped.

But AT&T and Verizon have both made noises about usage capping their LTE offerings, if only to increase revenue.  These profit raising Internet Overcharging schemes come despite efforts by the Obama Administration to dramatically increase wireless spectrum available for wireless broadband services.  Dave Burstein from DSL Prime says Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski is betting the farm on wireless broadband being the best chance for increased broadband competition.

“The heart of the U.S. broadband plan is to release more spectrum – enough for 10-20 networks like Verizon’s LTE now building – and pray that will be enough competition in five to seven years to check price increases,” Burstein writes.

Making wireless an important substitute for DSL requires raising bandwidth caps from today’s typical 5-10 gigabytes to several times as high as LTE makes the cost reasonable. If Verizon follows AT&T with an abusively low cap of 2-5 gigabytes and Sprint etc. don’t clobber them, the whole broadband plan falls apart because that’s not enough for competition in the future.

I doubt Julius understands this, because he would be doing everything in his power to avoid low caps. It’s just one more strike against “affordable” broadband, like the recent Comcast and Verizon price increases. People need to laugh out loud when Genachowski says “affordable” while tolerating continuous price increases.

Dave Burstein, DSL Prime

While wireless broadband can deliver access to many Americans who have never had broadband service before, it’s not well-positioned to compete for customers seeking to use the next generation of high bandwidth Internet applications.

None of the current wireless services are suitable for high quality video streaming of HD TV shows and movies, a crucial application for many broadband users. Burstein also notes large uploads are painfully slow on Clear’s WiMax network because of limited upstream speeds, but he expects improvements in time, assuming carriers expand with demand.  If not, as more users pile on the next generation wireless networks, their suitability for high bandwidth services becomes even more questionable.

“How much wireless could compete with landlines, especially as all cable connections are moving to 50 meg, was a crucial question for the broadband plan,” Burstein writes. “The consensus of several good engineers is that 4G competes fine with DSL if not many people expect video or other high-bandwidth apps. Wireless certainly can’t keep up if many people want to watch their TV over the net, so it’s only a partial substitute.”

As for AT&T and Verizon, Moffett suspects both may have to take a pass on DirecTV, consumed with fighting against broadband reclassification and Net Neutrality policies in Washington.  Taking on a second battle to run another dog and pony circus to gain regulatory approval for a buyout of DirecTV may be more than they’re willing to deal with at the moment.

Your Friendly Internet traffic cops Time Warner Cable and Comcast paid for research that suggests those Internet speed slowdowns are your fault (or at least not theirs).

A study from MIT suggests that broadband speed test results that show “real world” broadband speeds far below what your provider promises are actually better than you think, and if they’re not — it’s not your provider’s fault.  The paper, Understanding Broadband Speed Measurements, finds slow Internet speeds are often your problem, because you run too many applications on your computer, visit inaccurate speed measurement sites, use a wireless router, or have run into an Internet traffic jam outside of the control of your ISP.

The research comes courtesy of MIT’s Internet Traffic Analysis Study (MITAS) project, financially backed by some of North America’s largest cable and phone companies — Clearwire, Comcast, Liberty Global (Dr. John Malone, CEO), and Time Warner Cable in the United States, Rogers Communications and Telus in Canada.  Those providers also deliver much of the broadband speed data MITAS relies on as part of its research.  Additional assistance came from MIT’s Communications Futures Program which counts among its members Cisco, an equipment manufacturer and promoter of the “zettabyte” theory of broadband traffic overload and cable giant Comcast.

The study was commissioned to consider whether broadband speed is a suitable metric to determine whether an ISP provides good or bad service to its customers and if speed testing websites accurately depict actual broadband speeds.  Because Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have set minimum speed goals and have expressed concerns about providers actually delivering the speeds they promise, the issue of broadband speed is among the top priorities of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.

“If you are doing measurements, and you want to look at data to support whatever your policy position is, these are the things that you need to be careful of,” Steve Bauer, technical lead on the MIT Analysis Study (MITAS) told TG Daily. “For me, the point of the paper is to improve the understanding of the data that’s informing those processes.”

Bauer’s 39 page study indicts nearly everyone except service providers for underwhelming broadband speeds:

While a principal motivation for many in looking at speed measurements is to assess whether a broadband access ISP is meeting its commitment to provide an advertised data service (e.g. “up to 20 megabits per second”), we conclude that most of the popular speed data sources fail to provide sufficiently accurate data for this purpose. In many cases, the reason a user measures a data rate below the advertised rate is due to bottlenecks on the user-side, at the destination server, or elsewhere in the network (beyond the access ISP’s control). A particularly common non-ISP bottleneck is the receive window (rwnd) advertised by the user’s transport protocol (TCP).

In the NDT dataset we examine later in this paper, 38% of the tests never made use of all the available network capacity.

Other non-ISP bottlenecks also exist that constrain the data rate well below the rate supported by broadband access connections. Local bottlenecks often arise in home wireless networks. The maximum rate of an 802.11b WiFi router (still a very common wireless router) is 11mbps. If wireless signal quality is an issue, the 802.11b router will drop back to 5.5mbps, 2mbps, and then 1 mbps. Newer wireless routers (e.g. 802.11g/n) have higher maximum speeds (e.g. 54 mbps) but will similarly adapt the link speed to improve the signal quality.

End-users also can self-congest when other applications or family members share the broadband connection. Their measured speed will be diminished as the number of competing flows increase.

The study also criticizes the FCC for relying on raw speed data that does not take into account the level of service being chosen by a broadband customer, claiming many service providers actually deliver higher speed service than their “lite” plans advertise.

In short, it’s everyone else’s fault (including yours) for those Internet speed slowdowns.

Ultimately, the report’s conclusion can be summed up in three words: change the subject.  It’s not slow broadband speeds that are the problem — it’s the lack of understanding about what you can accomplish with the speeds you do get from your ISP:

In the next few years, as the average speed of broadband increases, and the markets become more sophisticated, we expect that attention may shift towards a more nuanced characterization of what matters for evaluating the quality of broadband services. Issues such as availability (reliability) and latencies to popular content and services may become more important in how services are advertised and measured. We welcome such a more nuanced view and believe it is important even in so far as one’s principal focus is on broadband speeds.

One thing the paper does effectively deliver at top speed are industry talking points, particularly the one that says less regulation is better (underlining ours):

Our hope is that progress may be made via a market-mediated process that engages users, academics, the technical standards community, ISPs, and policymakers in an open debate; one that will not require strong regulatory mandates. Market efficiency and competition will be best served if there is more and better understood data available on broadband speeds and other performance metrics of merit (e.g., pricing, availability, and other technical characteristics).

These kinds of research reports are often tainted by the industry money that pays for them.  Researchers and universities routinely deliver industry-pleasing, sober-sounding studies in return for considerable financial contributions, grants, and other forms of underwriting.  This report lacks full disclosure about who is helping to pay for it — North America’s largest cable operators, who also deliver much of the data MITAS relies on for their research.

Ask yourself how much longer these companies would be writing checks to MIT had they delivered a report implicating them in false advertising of speeds they do not deliver or for relying on inadequate upstream providers to handle their Internet traffic?  The report pulls any and all punches delivered to the companies who finance it — a clear sign of bought-and-paid-for research in action.

Google today launched a new website which could become a major advocacy center to promote fiber broadband service across America.

Google Fiber for Communities opened with a thank you message for the enormous number of submissions it received for its experimental 1Gbps fiber broadband network.  Google expects to announce the winning application(s) for its experimental  network sometime this year.

But in the meantime, Google also acknowledges what big telecom companies keep trying to downplay and dismiss — “people across the country are hungry for better and faster broadband access.”  That is… better and faster service than their current provider is willing to supply.

The new website provides hints as to its greater purpose:

1. The name itself.  Notice “communities” is plural.
2. The site intends to mobilize for fiber networks across the country, starting with lobbying for pending federal legislation that would require installation of fiber conduit as part of federal transportation projects.
3. The site’s links heavily promotes municipal broadband advocates and organizations, including the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the Fiber to the Home Council, the Baller Herbst Community Broadband Page, the Broadband Properties Municipal Fiber Portal, and Muni Networks.  Outside of the Fiber to the Home Council, which has some big telecom company members and isn’t above advocating for their interests, the rest of the list suggests Google advocates that communities do for themselves what their local phone and cable companies won’t do — deliver world class broadband service at non-duopoly prices.

Stop the Cap! shares many of these goals with Google, as we are strong advocates for community fiber-based broadband, and believe additional competition is highly needed in America’s broadband marketplace to break up an anti-consumer duopoly that delivers slow broadband service (or none at all) at the highest prices companies can get away with.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Jerry here in Rochester for sending word.