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:

Share/Save

Tens of thousands of Oceanic Time Warner Cable customers across Hawaii were without Internet, cable, and phone service for up to 14 hours after an undersea TW Telecom fiber cable was cut near Lanai at around 1:10am Tuesday.

While broadband users on Kauai and Oahu managed to be rerouted after a two hour outage, residents on Maui and the Big Island endured more than a half-day outage for all of Time Warner Cable services.

The affected cable experienced an outage off Lanai Island

The impact of the fiber cut also disrupted over-the-air broadcasting — many feeds to Hawaii’s translator stations, which extend signals from Honolulu across the Hawaiian Islands, were also sent over the affected cable.

When Time Warner customers in Hawaii woke up Tuesday morning, many were left with fewer than 20 cable signals still working — those delivered via satellite, and no phone or broadband service.

The affected fiber cable is laid in water 3,000 feet deep, which means it will take weeks to manage repairs.  The cable company managed to obtain alternate connections, and some criticized the operator for not having backup service available immediately.

Restoration of services were complete around noon Tuesday for the Big Island, with Maui County getting phone and Internet service back by 3pm.

Hawaiian Telcom, Hawaii’s largest telephone company, said it wasn’t affected by the outage.

The Star-Advertiser reports the fiber cable is rented by Oceanic to communicate with their other cable operations throughout Hawaii:

Oceanic Time Warner rents bandwidth (data transmission capacity) from the fiber-optic cable, co-owned by Colorado-based TW Telecom and Wavecom Solutions, formerly Pacific Lightnet. TW Telecom was part of Time Warner Cable but became an independent entity in 2008.

Oceanic Time Warner is among 144 Maui firms that rent bandwidth from that section of the cable. That section went online in 1997, Miyake said.

When the cable was cut, Internet protocol addresses did not know which route to take back to the mainland. Oceanic crews had to reroute connections through alternate cables connecting the islands.

“We have a daisy-chain fiber connection that connects all the islands together,” said Norman Santos, Oceanic’s vice president of operations. “The main transmission point for Oceanic Cable is here on Oahu.”

Oceanic promises they will be developing additional redundancy in their network in the future to make sure they can restore service more rapidly in the event of a future disruption.

Typically, Oceanic Time Warner Cable does not give refunds unless service is out for a full 24 hours -and- customers specifically requests credit, but the company is debating whether to grant an exception this time.

“We’re going to make a determination as to if and how blanket credits will be authorized, if individual credits will be authorized, but we’re going to do the right thing,” Norman Santos with Oceanic Time Warner Cable told KHON-TV.

Customers can be in a better position to receive that credit by contacting Oceanic today and asking for it before you (and perhaps they) forget.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Every major television station in Hawaii covered the extensive service outage.  Here is a compilation of reports from KGMB, KHNL, KHON, and KITV-TV regarding the outage, its cause and impact.  (14 minutes)

Share/Save

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

Share/Save

Lee, Massachusetts is located in broadband sparse western Massachusetts

Mark Williams is the kind of customer Time Warner Cable would normally love to have.  He wants the complete, super deluxe Time Warner triple play — cable, digital phone, and especially broadband service for his home-based business.

Time Warner wants Williams to have their service, too — but for a price.  Instead of charging the regular $35 installation fee, the cable company wants him to pay $12,000 to install his service, because, they claim, Williams’ driveway is 100 feet too long.  Time Warner says the $35 dollar installation fee is only for homes within 200 feet of the nearest utility pole.  Williams home is 300 feet away.  He doesn’t mind paying something extra to cover the additional 100 feet, but not $12,000.

The town of Lee, Berkshire County, in western Massachusetts, managed to wrangle a franchise agreement from Time Warner Cable that entitles every home and business to cable service if electric and telephone service are already available.  That’s unique for many smaller communities, who routinely have cable service available in town, but not in outlying areas.  Cable companies hate wiring rural density neighborhoods, where the costs to wire comparatively few homes takes too long to earn back from the few subscribers they can reach.

But Time Warner found themselves a loophole — a “long driveway” clause in the franchise agreement that allows them to charge more for installing service to homes set far back from the road.

Now, according to the Berkshire Eagle, Lee’s representative to the Five Town Cable Television Advisory Committee is calling out Time Warner, claiming they are misinterpreting the town’s franchise agreement and wants the Lee Board of Selectman to start imposing fines against the cable company if they don’t relent within 30 days.

Malcolm Chisholm says the real reason Time Warner wants to charge $12,000 is because Williams’ home is roughly a half-mile away from the closest Time Warner Cable subscriber, not because his driveway is too long.

“We just want to put pressure on them,” Chisholm said. “We’re just trying to get them to follow the agreement.”

Chisholm said Time Warner Cable “won’t talk to us” about Williams’ situation. The Eagle was also unable to get a response from officials at the company’s regional office in Albany, N.Y.

The newspaper decided that since Time Warner Cable wasn’t responding to its private inquiries, it would air its views on the editorial page.

If a Lee resident moved into a cave in October Mountain State Forest, Time Warner Cable might be justified in charging him $12,000 to run cable there so he watch the Red Sox on NESN and keep up with the Kardashians on VH-1. But the $12,000 the cable giant wants to charge a resident who lives near the Tyringham line is preposterous, and beyond that provides the latest evidence of the desperate need for expanded broadband service throughout the rural Berkshires.

Because Mark Williams lives roughly a half-mile away from the closest Time Warner subscriber, his installation fee escalates from the standard $35 to $12,000, which may as well be $120,000 it is so devoid of logic. Mr. Williams appears to be an eager customer too, one who wants the entire cable/Internet package Time Warner is regularly flogging.

Share/Save

Greed is still good at Time Warner Cable

Time Warner Cable has tried every excuse in the book to justify their continued interest in Internet Overcharging schemes directed at residential Road Runner customers.  Over a year after Stop the Cap! and its readers helped bury an experiment in overpriced broadband, the notion of doubling or tripling Internet pricing for consumers is still alive and well at the nation’s second largest cable company.

Nate Anderson of Ars Technica explored the thinking of Time Warner Cable’s executives a year later and discovered their desires for overcharging remain as strong as ever, but the excuses they give for wanting to do so have changed.

TWC’s revenues from Internet access have soared in the last few years, surging from $2.7 billion in 2006 to $4.5 billion in 2009. Customer numbers have grown, too, from 7.6 million in 2007 to 8.9 million in 2009.

But this growth doesn’t translate into higher bandwidth costs for the company; in fact, bandwidth costs have dropped. TWC spent $164 million on data contracts in 2007, but only $132 million in 2009.

What about investing in its infrastructure? That’s down too as a percentage of revenue. TWC does spend billions each year building and improving its network ($3.2 billion in 2009), but the raw number alone is meaningless; what matters is relative investment, and it has declined even as subscribers increased and revenues surged. “Total CapEx [capital expenses] as a percentage of revenues for the year [2009] was 18.1 percent versus 20.5 percent in 2008,” said the company a few months ago.

In fact, CapEx has declined for the industry as a whole. As the National Broadband Plan noted, the big ISPs invested $48 billion in their networks in 2008 and $40 billion in 2009. (About half of this money can be chalked up to broadband; the rest of the improvements were done to aid cable or phone service.)

To recap: subscribers up, revenues up, bandwidth costs down, infrastructure costs down. This might seem like a textbook case of “viability”; what were execs like Britt and Hobbs talking about last year when data caps were held up as a necessary safeguard against doom?

Before moving to Time Warner’s Excuse-O-Matic, let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the fact this company has stalled more on Internet upgrades than virtually every other major cable operator.  Even bankrupt Charter Communications has been aggressively pursuing investment in the win-win DOCSIS 3 technology that allows cable operators to sell faster tiers of service -and- reduce congestion in heavy web-surfing neighborhoods.  By effectively “bonding” several cable channels devoted to its broadband service together, the pipeline into even the most hip college neighborhoods can sustain a full-scale assault by Hulu fans streaming high bandwidth video.  Comcast realized this more than two years ago and rolled out its super-fast 50Mbps tier to a dozen cities well over a year ago.  In contrast, Time Warner Cable managed to bring forth its “wideband” offering in just a handful of communities — New York City being the largest, last year.

Internet providers always try to awe an audience with claims about the billions of dollars they invest in improved technology, while forgetting to mention they earn tens of billions in profit on those investments.  The shock and awe of stacks of money piled high on a table is tempered when you see the warehouse holding the rest of the cash standing behind it.

Broadband is becoming the single biggest revenue source for cable operators, passing digital phone and well on the way to passing cable television service.  It’s the cash cow that can be milked forever, especially with the limited number of choices most Americans have to obtain the service.

Back to Nate’s story:

Several months ago, while on a business trip to Manhattan, I entered a nondescript building near the Flatiron building and rode the elevator to the top. Inside was one of TWC’s main New York operations centers, hosting an astonishing array of cable and Internet gear. But the real showpiece was the monitoring room, a darkened room with control hardware, computers, and a wall of TVs showing every cable channel currently running out over TWC’s network.

It looked brand new and obscenely expensive. Engineers slipped in and out in silence. A huge pile of boxes on the floor held a new set of replacement TVs. When I make my career shift from ink-stained wretch to Evil Genius, this is exactly the sort of room I will build in order to plot my world domination.

“It’s not a cheap endeavor to run a network like we do,” said TWC’s tweeting VP of Public Relations, Alex Dudley, when I had spoken to him the week before. Here was an obvious reminder of what he meant.

Time Warner Cable’s version of a command and control center, wall after wall fitted for television sets — the Time Warner Cable Sports Bar — impresses only until you realize the company could have paid for it out of the petty cash box.  It’s obvious nobody was watching those televisions last spring as wide-scale protests erupted in four of the cities Time Warner Cable chose for their experimental pricing project.  If they had, they would have apologized to their customers and buried the idea then and there.

At this point, Mr. Anderson began the useless attempt to debate Mr. Dudley, whose job is to sell the agenda of Time Warner Cable (and obfuscate when necessary).  Why has Time Warner Cable’s senior management held onto its dreams of Internet Overcharging like a pit bill, refusing to let go, Anderson asked.  Because of labor costs, Dudley replied.

As Internet use increases, TWC techs, engineers, and executives need to make adjustments such as DOCSIS upgrades at the cable company headend or “node splits” that divide a shared cable loop in two when bandwidth use hits certain metrics. Paying all of these people costs money, and those costs increase as the network is more heavily used.

Last April, when Time Warner Cable was relying on its tweeters like TWCAlex to spin a tale about how their Internet Overcharging schemes would benefit customers and help pay for DOCSIS 3 upgrades (which ended up bypassing cities like Rochester, N.Y., and went to New York City instead — where no such pricing scheme was tested), Alex’s bosses were just completing a layoff of some 1,250 Time Warner Cable employees.  As Internet use was increasing, Time Warner Cable was decreasing the number of its employees from coast to coast.

If Alex is telling the truth, Time Warner Cable needs an employment fund from 8.9 million customers.  Considering many Time Warner Cable cities raised the price on Road Runner service by $5 a month this year, that’s $240 million dollars a year to get the pot started and I’m only counting four million of those subscribers.  If Time Warner Cable hired back those 1,250 former employees, they could each get $192,000 a year from that kitty.  Implement Internet Overcharging schemes that could triple consumers’ rates for an equivalent level of service and they could earn as much as CEO Glenn Britt and then some.

I’m also uncertain how often Time Warner Cable executives are shimmying up phone poles or clearing out wasp nests inside those green cabinets positioned all over town while performing service upgrades and node splits.  It’s far more likely they are spending their time dreaming up new excuses to raise cable rates.

Please deposit 25 cents for the next megabyte of usage

This latest excuse, while certainly novel, is just another bit of nonsense.

Time Warner Cable actually spent more money last year dealing with HD channel rollouts and upgrading their cable systems to support Switched Digital Video to accommodate them.  The company did not exactly slap limits on how often cable viewers can leave their sets on, nor pitted their average TV viewers against viewing piggies who watched too much.  Maybe the coin slot on top of the cable box can be tried in 2011.

In fact, as broadband equipment continues to become more reliable and scaled to manage growing demand, it’s becoming easier than ever to keep broadband lines humming at the cable company.  That leaves Time Warner in the envious position of enjoying increasing profits on service that increases in price while decreasing in cost.  In fact the only thing growing at a faster pace than the company’s broadband profits is the level of incredulity informed consumers have towards cable companies with long lists of excuses to justify rape and pillage pricing.

No matter what Time Warner Cable executives want you to believe, the FCC noted in its broadband plan that international bandwidth has grown 66 percent each of the last five years, all while the costs have dropped by 22 percent per year to handle that traffic.

Consumers do not want these Internet Overcharging schemes.  Time Warner Cable should do itself a favor and drop them, once and for all, just as they have done for their Road Runner Mobile service.  If 3G/4G wireless broadband from Time Warner comes without usage caps, why in the world should cable broadband be any different?

Share/Save

No Cable? No DSL from FairPoint Communications on those phone lines either.

Ossipee (Carroll County), New Hampshire

Some residents of Ossipee, New Hampshire have gotten so desperate for broadband service, they’ve planted lawn signs begging Time Warner Cable to provide it.  Ossipee, population 4,211, is located in the western half of New Hampshire.  Its decidedly rural charm has made it popular for vacationers and those seeking a quiet New England lifestyle.

Unfortunately, for those on Water Village Road, it’s too quiet.  There is no broadband service available.

FairPoint doesn’t offer DSL service in the immediate area and Time Warner Cable, although willing to wire neighbors 1/2 mile away, will not provide service to Water Village Road residents.

Time Warner Cable says it provides service where there are 15 or more homes per mile.  Water Village Road only has 13.95 homes per mile.  The company says it will cost about $100,000 to extend service, and has offered to pay $15,000 towards the cost, with the rest coming from the pockets of residents.

So far, they have refused.

Residents do have one way to get cable and Internet service from Time Warner Cable — commit a crime that lands them at the Carroll County Jail, less than a mile down the road.  It has cable.

As for the signs, Time Warner told WMUR-TV it appreciated the interest, but it still doesn’t make economic sense to provide Water Village Road residents with service.

(See more pictures of the lawn signs below the jump.)

Click here to view the embedded video.

WMUR-TV reports on the campaign by several Ossipee, N.H., residents to embarrass Time Warner Cable into bringing them cable and broadband service.  (2 minutes)

Here are some other examples of lawn signs seen on Water Village Road:

Share/Save

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.

Share/Save

Week one of the transition for millions of ex-Verizon landline customers didn’t exactly go off without a hitch.  A few problems with support issues for certain business customers in West Virginia, a major multi-state DSL outage from a fiber cable cut in Virginia, and long hold times of 30 minutes or longer have afflicted the all-new, super-sized Frontier.  Also not inspiring confidence: a plummeting Frontier stock price as Verizon shareholders, which now own 68 percent of Frontier Communications are hurrying to dump their stock and get out.  It has gotten so bad, TradersHuddle declared Frontier Communications the worst performing stock on the S&P 500.

Not much of this comes as a surprise, particularly the fleeing of Verizon shareholders who received 0.24 shares of Frontier, worth about $1.75 on July 1st (but now dropping fast), for every Verizon share they owned on June 7.  They’ve learned from prior experience that holding onto spun-off stock from similar deals with companies like FairPoint Communications and Hawaiian Telcom ended in financial disaster — bankruptcy.  As we predicted last Halloween in our true-to-life telecom horror story, once this deal was completed, Verizon shareholders would rush for the exits, selling their Frontier stock even as the share price plummets.

Shanthi Venkataraman, a reporter for The Street, noted the selloff in progress after the 4th of July holidays.  On Tuesday the stock was down 4.5% to $7.02. More than 30 million shares have changed hands, five times its average trading volume of 6.3 million.  Analysts believe the “turbulence” in Frontier stock is likely to continue for another week as new shareholders from Verizon complete their sell-off.

Zack’s Analyst Blog notes shareholders should be concerned with the future of Frontier’s business model — focusing on a decaying landline business.  Frontier’s revenue is particularly in peril in their biggest service area, Rochester, N.Y., which represents 25 percent of the company’s total access lines.  Customers in the Flower City continue to dump Frontier’s phone and broadband services, preferring Time Warner Cable’s less expensive “digital phone” and far faster Road Runner Internet service.  Time Warner Cable has consistently reported much of their growth in new customers has come from departing landline and DSL broadband customers disconnecting service.

While shareholders have the power to cut ties with Frontier, rural telephone customers in 14 states now confronted with a shotgun wedding to Frontier are not so lucky.  For millions of rural customers, there is no other choice for telephone and broadband service.

Stop the Cap! has reviewed dozens of local news accounts regarding the transition Verizon customers are now confronting as they are introduced to Frontier Communications.  Overall, most of the rural communities are taking a “wait and see” approach, hoping Frontier’s near-universal promises of better broadband and improved customer service will come true.  Verizon effectively slashed spending at least a year or two ago in many of these communities knowing in advance they were not going to be around for much longer.  In states like West Virginia, the results have been devastating for broadband penetration statistics.  While Verizon prepared for a sale, it kept nearly the entire state waiting for better broadband that would never come from the telecom giant.  Now with news Frontier plans to spend millions to improve broadband in the state, residents are hoping that will actually bring a broadband breakthrough in West Virginia.  Time will tell.

Many communities who have long felt ignored as “too small to matter” in Verizon’s larger plans also hope Frontier will manage better customer relationships with residents. After all, Frontier is promoting itself as the phone company with the small-town feel.  But after week one, some customers are feeling Frontier is giving them the big city runaround.  We’ll explore that, and the reactions from community leaders, consumers and businesses to the promises Frontier is making in our multi-part series exploring their transition to Frontier.

Share/Save

When phone companies like Verizon decide to throw their rural customers under the bus by selling them off, shareholders and executives rake in windfall bonuses, sometimes in the millions.  Now a New York assemblyman and a state senator want ratepayers to get a 40 percent cut of the action.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), is the primary sponsor of Assembly Bill A02208 — An Act Requiring the Public Service Commission to Conduct an In-Depth Public Interest Analysis of Proposed Mergers by Telephone Corporations and Other Telecommunications Services Providers.  A companion New York Senate Bill, S7263, was introduced by Sen. Brian X. Foley (D-Blue Point/Long Island).

The legislation would compel phone companies engaged in the practice of mergers, acquisitions, and sales to share 40 percent of the proceeds with New York’s landline phone customers.

The legislation came as a result of watching Verizon systematically sell off parts of its phone empire to third party companies like FairPoint Communications, Hawaiian Telcom, and Frontier Communications.  More than five million customers have been switched away from Verizon to other companies, most of which have gone bankrupt as a direct result of the sales.

Brodsky

Both Brodsky and Foley don’t want to see New York residents face similar consequences.  They are particularly concerned about Verizon’s upstate operations, particularly in rural areas outside of cities like Buffalo, Binghamton, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, and northern New York.  In the upstate region, Verizon has constructed fiber to the home service under its FiOS brand in urban and suburban regions where it operates, but has made few changes in the countryside.  As Verizon customers from Washington to North Carolina suddenly find themselves served by Frontier, why couldn’t the same thing happen in communities like Sodus in Wayne County, Penn Yan in Yates County, or just about anywhere in northern New York?

Verizon’s business plan has evolved over the last ten years.  Company president Ivan Seidenberg previously declared the landline business dead, and the company has turned its attention to delivering fiber-based video, phone and broadband services to the major population centers within its service areas.  Because rural customers cost too much to serve with similar packages of services, Verizon has begun selling them off to independent phone companies that still see revenue from copper wire landline service.

Verizon claims it has no plans to sell any of its operations in New York, but Brodsky and Foley want insurance that if they change their mind, no ratepayers in New York will face what happened in northern New England or Hawaii when the companies taking control ended up in Bankruptcy Court.

“It’s a ratepayer protection bill for upstate New York,” Brodsky said.

Brodsky said if Verizon were to sell operations, consumers will not be left with inferior service.

Forcing companies to share proceeds of sales to ratepayers who ultimately indirectly bankroll most of these deals is not unprecedented in New York.  Electric and gas utilities are often required to send refunds or issue credits when they sell assets.  Ratepayers of Rochester Gas & Electric received several compensation checks after the sale of the Ginna nuclear power plant in Ontario, New York to Constellation Energy Group in 2004.

Verizon could also be compelled to reinvest proceeds earmarked for consumers in the company’s infrastructure, such as paying for broadband improvements or upgrading lines.

The legislation would only impact companies earning more than $200 million in gross annual revenue from New Yorkers.  Currently, that means the legislation would only impact Verizon and Frontier Communications.

Not surprisingly, Verizon is vehemently against the proposed legislation and is fighting tooth and nail to kill it in Albany.

Foley

Jim Gerace, president of Verizon’s New York region, told the Albany Times-Union the Brodsky legislation was bad for Verizon and anti-business in general.  Gerace predicted companies would not want to do business in New York because they’d fear similar profit-sharing legislation could eventually target them.

“I’m convinced this is going to have a chilling effect on all businesses,” Gerace said. “They’re sending a very dangerous message to all businesses. It just compounds the state’s woes.”

But the Public Service Commission is intrigued by the legislation and is reviewing it.  If enacted, it could make a mass sell-off of rural landlines untenable in New York.

A02208 passed the Assembly by a wide margin — 103-34 and is now awaiting final action in the Senate.  It narrowly passed the Senate Rules Committee June 16th by a 13-10 vote.

If you want to see the bill passed, consider contacting your New York State senator and asking them to support the immediate passage of S7263.  Let them know you do not want phone deals to be cut at your expense, leaving you with a second-class provider.  If Verizon wants to sell off your community, they owe consumers a piece of the action.  It’s time that phone mergers, acquisitions and sell-offs actually benefit the consumers that ultimately pay for them and live with the results.

Share/Save

For more than a year, Stop the Cap! has been covering the issue of broadband mapping, warning against allowing incumbent telecommunications companies from being able to control or influence statewide maps that show who has broadband, and who does not.  A perfect example of why we repeatedly call out telecom-connected groups like Connected Nation being granted a piece of the mapping action can be found this weekend in a guest editorial published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram written by Todd Baxter, vice president of government affairs and general counsel for the Austin-based Texas Cable Association — the Texas cable lobby:

Newly released maps show that broadband — high-speed Internet — is widely available in Texas. They also underscore that the broadband stimulus program has been ill-conceived and poorly executed by the federal government.

That’s because the federal government put the cart before the horse.

It gave out more than $270 million of your money to a dozen projects in Texas before actually determining where current broadband operators provide service. Common sense would say to find out where broadband is, or isn’t, available before spending the money.

The feds also should better define “underserved,” since the money is intended to help both unserved and underserved areas. It sounds like a riddle — how many broadband providers have to serve a household before it isn’t considered “underserved”? So far that riddle has no answer, and it is costing you, the taxpayer, a lot of money.

Without the data or the definition, how can the federal government make sure it is spending taxpayer money wisely and where it is really needed?

Now that we have the maps, we can see that more than 99 percent of all Texans can access some form of broadband, whether wired, wireless or mobile, from more than 123 providers. Yet — without this information — the federal government awarded hundreds of millions in grants and loans to the Texas projects, with possibly more to come before the broadband stimulus program wraps up in September.

The Texas Cable Association formally objected to seven of the dozen Texas projects when in the application stage, because the areas addressed are already covered by existing broadband providers. We don’t believe the areas are unserved or underserved.

Just a few weeks ago, the Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, with great fanfare, unveiled the current state of broadband in Texas.  Connected Texas, a subsidiary of Connected Nation joined forces with the state government to perform a broadband census across the state, based on voluntary information provided confidentially by existing service providers.  The result was the stunning “achievement” that 97 percent of Texas already had broadband access, quite a revelation to the scores of consumers who aren’t served by cable companies and cannot get DSL service from the phone company, even if the Broadband Map of Texas says they can.

Texas Broadband Map (click to enlarge)

Kelly from Childress, located in the Texas panhandle, is a perfect example.  She writes Stop the Cap! to tell us how thrilled she was to see the phone company had finally brought DSL service to her street just on the outskirts of town.  She had nagged everyone she could for more than three years about her lack of broadband.  The cable company offered service, if she paid $9,300 for installation of an extended cable line to reach her.  The phone company, despite serving her neighbors less than 1/2 mile away, said she was not “qualified” to receive DSL service.  Today, her husband and two kids do access broadband service, albeit from the equivalent of the broadband black market.  Her nearest neighbor has rigged a souped up Wi-Fi system that allows her family to share the neighbor’s DSL account.  A directional antenna mounted on the roof of each home provides line-of-sight access.  They split the cost of the account and Kelly, an accomplished baker, keeps her neighbors well-supplied with some great pies in gratitude.

Connected Texas collected the information about where broadband service was supposedly available in Texas

Texas has a well-deserved reputation for neighbors helping neighbors to solve problems they’ve long since decided the government can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t solve for them.  Now that neighborly spirit has taken a high-tech approach to share broadband.

With the release of the new broadband map, Kelly thought the days of sharing accounts was over, and she called the phone company to sign up for service.  But, in no surprise to us, broadband availability to her home changed only on paper, not in reality.  No, she was told, she could not sign up for DSL service today or tomorrow for that matter — the company had no plans to extend service her way… indefinitely.

For others, the map is inaccurate because it shows service from dominant cable and phone companies, but ignores the competition.  Regular Stop the Cap! reader Michael Chaney noted, “I know for a fact this map is inaccurate. They show no fiber to the home coverage in Cedar Park, Williamson County, even though I’ve had residential fiber service for almost two years.”

In 2009, Public Knowledge released a report highly critical of Connected Nation, the group responsible for broadband mapping across many states.  Among the findings:

In order to be effective, a national broadband data-collection and mapping exercise should be conducted by a government agency, on behalf of the public, with as granular a degree of information as possible and be totally transparent so that underlying information can be evaluated.

Connected Nation is none of those and represents none of those characteristics. It is an organization sponsored by the telephone and cable companies and represents their interests in deciding what data to collect and how information should be displayed. They are quite up front about their company sponsorship and, in fact, believe it is an asset, if in a way counter to solid public policy.

It would be a setback for our broadband policy if Connected Nation were to take a prominent role in broadband mapping and data collection if it continues on its present policy course because the organization does not represent wise public policy and because it distorts its results.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) was correct in April, 2008, when he vetoed a $2.4 million appropriation for Connect Kentucky, which until then had received almost $7 million from the commonwealth. Beshear said that the program was being rejected for state financing because it had asked for funds “without specifically identifying any services to be rendered to the state or providing for any oversight, control or performance measures relative to the services being rendered.”

The group’s close association to incumbent cable and telephone company interests were easily apparent just from the national organization’s board which has 12 outside directors, eight of whom are well known cable and phone company lobbyists or those with direct interests in the industry:

• James W. Cicconi – AT&T senior executive vice president-external and legislative affairs
• Steve Largent – CTIA – The Wireless Association president and CEO
• Joseph W. Waz – Comcast senior vice president, external affairs and public policy counsel
• Larry Cohen – Communications Workers of America president. CWA is in frequent agreement with telecom companies on policy issues.
• Thomas J. Tauke – Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communication
• Walter B. McCormick – United States Telecom Association president
• Kyle E. McSlarrow – National Cable and Telecommunications Association president
• Grant Seiffert – Telecommunications Industry Association president. (The members are the equipment makers who sell their gear to the telecom industry.)

These individuals, and others, are listed as “national advisors” on the Connected Nation Web site. They are listed as “directors” in their filing with the Kentucky Secretary of State.

The implications of allowing incumbent service providers to influence broadband mapping can be seen in Baxter’s editorial.  If Texas cable and phone companies can declare broadband service available even in areas where it is not, they can then argue against broadband stimulus projects to expand availability as an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money.  The answer to Baxter’s riddle is, unfortunately, too often “none.”  Areas that declare access to wireless broadband, cable and DSL often have access to none of these options.  The cable company doesn’t wire that Texas ranch located too far away from the phone company for DSL and is in an area that just can’t get a good wireless signal.

In smaller communities in rural Texas, efforts by local entrepreneurs to launch needed local broadband services often meet fierce opposition from incumbent interests who declare communities already served, backed up with a map that shows coverage, and therefore should not be allowed to receive stimulus funding.  Often, objections from existing providers effectively disqualifies stimulus applicants and the result is a continued blockade for rural broadband.

The dividend Connected Nation hands to the Texas Cable Association is the political argument that there is no broadband problem in Texas — nearly 100 percent of homes can already access it.  That means broadband stimulus is, in the eyes of the cable lobby, just another federal government giveaway — wasteful spending of tax dollars.  Just look at the Texas Broadband Map and see for yourself.

The Texas Department of Agriculture failed the people of Texas by relying on a group with a vested interest in not finding a broadband availability problem.  And even worse — taxpayers nationwide effectively picked up the $3 million dollars in grant money given to Connected Nation for its map.  That’s a waste of tax dollars that Baxter didn’t bother to bring up.  Somehow I knew he wouldn’t.

Share/Save

A $24 million federal grant proposal to install 600 miles of fiber optic cable across the southern tier of New York has advanced to the “Due Diligence Phase” of federal review, making it a serious contender for approval.

The application for the “middle mile” project was submitted jointly by the Southern Tier East and Southern Tier Central Planning Development Boards to create a fiber-based backbone to facilitate so-called “last mile” projects which deliver connections directly to consumers and businesses.  If built, the project will make connectivity available to all-comers, from wireless providers trying to reach the most rural homes to cable and telephone-based broadband providers delivering enhanced speeds and service.

The Shequaga Falls, visible from W. Main Street in Montour Falls, exemplifies the terrain of many Southern Tier communities in New York.

Broome, Delaware, Otsego, Chemung, Steuben and Schuyler counties would be served by the fiber network if constructed.

The southern tier of New York, mostly defined as west to Lake Erie and east to Binghamton, is particularly lacking in broadband, in part because of very difficult terrain.  Steep sloping hills rising 1,000 feet or more, created from glacial movements, combine with level hilltops representative of the Appalachian Plateau.  In most of these areas, fields and pastures crown the high points while cropland and communities locate on the level valley floor.  Getting broadband to residents and farms involves winding cables around the hills through communities like Bath, Corning, Elmira, Hornell, Watkins Glen-Montour Falls, and Wayland.  Even larger communities like Binghamton and Ithaca have plenty of landscape to navigate.

Inside immediate town and city centers, broadband is usually provided by Time Warner Cable, Frontier Communications, Verizon, or one of several independent phone companies.  Where 30mph speed limits predominate, broadband is likely available.  Once the speed limit returns to 55mph, service becomes more spotty.

Prior efforts to expand broadband availability included:

• Public/Private Partnerships: Cooperative efforts to ease the way for private providers to extend service into previously unserved areas.  This had limited success, particularly when sufficient return on investment could not be achieved within a set time frame.  Most private providers will not wire sparsely populated areas because of the time it takes to recoup wiring and pole costs.
• Aggregation of Demand: This technical-sounding term simply means bringing neighbors together and getting them to jointly commit to sign up for broadband service if a provider will agree to extend service to their neighborhood.  This can achieve success in areas where a provider is assured of getting his initial investment back.  A few of these efforts have even shared or split the financing of some construction costs.  Mike McNamara of Haefele Cable Television, an independent cable provider serving 4,700 residents in rural sections of Tioga County, noted “last mile” access can be expensive, costing about $12,000 for them to extend cable service per mile.

The blue color represents areas in this section of the Southern Tier where no broadband service is available. (click to enlarge)

A decision on the grant is expected by September.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WETM-TV in Elmira explains the plan to expand broadband service throughout the Southern Tier of New York, if a grant can be awarded.  (1 minute)

Share/Save

Mehlman

A telecom industry front group acknowledged today American broadband in the last decade has not won any awards for speed or price, but if you just give the industry ten more years of deregulation, there will be more competition than ever to change that.

For the Internet Innovation Alliance’s Bruce Mehlman, the cable and phone companies have done a fine job bringing broadband to Americans, especially considering the industry is only ten years old.  If you leave things the way they are today, the next decade will bring even more competition from phone and cable companies, he promises.

But consumer groups wonder exactly how a duopoly will ever deliver world class service in the next ten years when it has spent the last ten hiking prices on slow speed broadband and now wants to limit or throttle usage.

This afternoon, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered tried to referee the broadband debate, pondering whether America is a world leader in broadband or has just fallen behind Estonia.  Reporter Joel Rose was perplexed to find two widely diverging attitudes about broadband, each with their set of numbers to prove their case.

On one side, consumers and public interest groups like Consumers Union and Free Press who believe deregulation and industry consolidation has created a stagnant broadband duopoly that only innovates how it can get away with charging even higher prices.

On the other, the phone and cable companies, the groups they finance, and their friends on Capitol Hill who believe there isn’t a broadband problem in the United States to begin with and government oversight would ruin a good thing.

Compared with other nations, the United States has continued to see its standing fall in broadband rankings measuring speed, price, adoption rates, and quality.  When East European countries and former Soviet Republics now routinely deliver better broadband service than America’s cable and telephone companies, that story writes itself. Embarrassed industry defenders prefer to confine discussion of America’s broadband success story inside the U.S. borders, discounting comparisons with other countries around the world.

For Rep. Joe “I Apologize to BP” Barton (R-Texas), it’s even more simple than that.  Even questioning the free market is downright silly.

“As everybody knows, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” Barton said at a March congressional hearing to discuss broadband matters. “And y’all are trying to fix something that in most cases isn’t broke. Ninety-five percent of America has broadband.”

Industry-financed astroturf and sock puppet groups readily agree, and dismiss industry critics.

Bruce Mehlman, co-chair of the industry-supported Internet Innovation Alliance, which opposes more regulation, acknowledges that the story of broadband in the U.S. is a classic glass-half-full, glass-half-empty predicament. Still, he says he thinks broadband adoption in the U.S. is going pretty well considering broadband has only been available for 10 years.

“For the optimist, you’d say within a decade we’ve seen greater broadband deployment than you saw for cell phones, than for cable TV, than for personal computers,” Mehlman says. “It’s one of the great technology success stories in history.”

Mehlman says Americans don’t need more government intervention to make broadband faster and cheaper. “We haven’t yet and that’s in the first decade,” he says. “In the second decade, the marketplace is only going to be that much more competitive.”

Kelsey

The problems go further than that, however.

Derek Turner, research director for the public interest group Free Press, told NPR broadband rankings tell an important story. “For the providers to try to say that there’s no problem, it’s merely just a smoke screen,” he says.

Providers would prefer to measure their performance against each other instead of comparing themselves with foreign providers now routinely providing better, faster, and cheaper service than what American consumers can find.  They have to, if only because of those pesky international rankings illustrating a wired United States in decline.

Joel Kelsey at Consumers Union tells NPR there is an even bigger question here — what role broadband plays in our lives.

Because 96 percent of Americans can only get broadband from a duopoly — the phone or cable company, the only people truly singing the praises of today’s broadband marketplace are the providers themselves and their shareholders.  Consumers see a bigger problem — high prices, and particularly for rural consumers, slow speeds.

“If you talk to [the] industry,” Kelsey says, “they think of broadband as a private commercial service akin to pay TV or cable TV.”

On the other hand, Kelsey says, “There’s a lot of folks who think it is an essential input into this nation’s economy — an essential infrastructure question.”

National Public Radio reporter Joel Rose dived into the battle over broadband numbers between consumer groups and industry representatives. Is America’s broadband glass half-full or half-empty? (June 28, 2010) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Share/Save

More dollar-a-holler advocacy for AT&T in the pages of CNET. AT&T brings the money, lobbyists ride their former credentials to deliver exactly the "facts" AT&T wants to read.

CNET last week shamefully handed over column space to a barely-disclosed AT&T lobbyist trotting out the latest unfounded, anti-consumer nonsense: tiered data plans help bring broadband to the poor.

It’s all part of AT&T’s Re-education campaign to sucker convince Americans that paying more for less service is a good thing:

New analysis shows that as Internet providers ramp up their investments to accommodate the surge in bandwidth demand, the old, one-price-for-everybody model would slow our progress toward universal adoption, especially by lower-income Americans.

The first reaction of many Internet users to this news may well be disbelief. How can it be that a pricing approach that has worked so well for so many years can suddenly become obsolete and even counterproductive? The answer is that technological advances have changed what many of us do online, which, in turn, has changed the economics.

A techno-ecosystem once dominated by e-mail and text now is increasingly characterized by high-definition video that claims up to 1,000 times as much network capacity and bandwidth as simple text. The way we currently pay for the infrastructure required to keep the network humming also will have to change.

The only humming we hear is AT&T’s dollar bill-counting machines.

When at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.  Robert J. Shapiro and his co-author Kevin Hassett’s latest work, “A New Analysis of Broadband Adoption Rates By Minority Households,” is simply a rehash — spoiled leftover bologna — of their last bought-and-paid-for-study we analyzed last fall.  Both reports are tailor-made to appeal to the minority-interest groups that are part of AT&T’s Rainbow Coalition of Cash — groups that engage in dollar-a-holler advocacy of AT&T’s agenda while quietly depositing their substantial contribution checks.

The report assumes quite a lot:

• That broadband service adoption rates in minority communities are too low because heavy users are artificially keeping broadband prices too high;
• That without tiered data plans, AT&T can never afford to expand broadband service;
• That unlimited broadband tiers can never co-exist with tiered plans — it’s one-size-fits-all under today’s bad pricing model;
• That a grand exaflood is coming to swamp broadband users of all kinds, and without tiered pricing to finance upgrades, we could all drown.

For the second time, Shapiro and Hassett try to stick the bill for upgrades on so-called “heavy users,” who they suggest should pay 80 percent of the upgrade costs through higher priced broadband service.  They also want content producers to cough up — the “they can’t use my pipes for free”-argument AT&T loves.

How will customers react to paying huge surcharges on their broadband bills?  According to the report’s authors, heavy users won’t mind because they are “price-insensitive.”

Ask Time Warner Cable customers in New York, Texas, and North Carolina if they minded the prospect of paying $150 a month for broadband service they used to pay $50 a month to receive.  How about Frontier’s customers in Mound, Minnesota asked to pony up $250 a month for up to 3Mbps DSL service because they exceeded Frontier’s 5GB monthly usage allowance?

The report has several other glaring fact-gaps:

• Tiered service plans are already available industry-wide, based on broadband speed, not usage.  Low income customers can obtain cheaper broadband today, if companies decide to advertise it;
• The wounds from high broadband pricing are industry self-inflicted.  They charge $40 or more for a service their financial reports suggest costs less than $10 a month to provide;
• Providers can achieve universal broadband first by extending existing networks to rural America, upgrading them to fiber as the economy of scale from urban and suburban upgrades forces prices down;
• The authors strenuously avoid reviewing providers’ financial reports which show enormous profits even as costs continue their rapid decline;
• Many of the footnotes used to back their arguments turn out to quote self-interested parties like service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations.

None of this is surprising or new in bought-and-paid-for-reports commissioned by companies to cheerlead their corporate agenda.  The last thing AT&T wants to read is a recitation of facts that disprove their arguments.

In essence, Shapiro and Hassett are arguing (with a straight face) that if providers are allowed to charge some consumers dramatically higher prices for broadband service, it will somehow convince them to upgrade their networks -and- trickle down lower prices for economically-challenged consumers.

Maybe if we let BP drill more oil wells in the Gulf, the extra profits they earn will somehow lead to better safety records for drilling and lower gas prices.  After all, with those record-busting profits earned over the past three years, the safety record for the industry is better than ever and gas is sold at fire sale prices, benefiting economically disadvantaged Americans, right?

If you or I argued this theory, we’d be drug tested.  For corporate lobbyists, it’s just another day at the office.

Here’s just how silly this really is:  You just discovered your hard drive is nearly full.  You’ve gone shopping for an upgrade, planning to spend around $100 for a new drive.  Just a few years ago, you spent around that much for a 120GB model.  Today, that same $99 would today buy you a 1.5 terabyte drive, unless you bought it from AT&T.  They want $1,500.

Newegg's price: $99.95 -- AT&T's price: $1,500

You: “Why is this drive so expensive?”

AT&T: “Over 90 percent of our customers never need a drive bigger than 120 gigabytes.  Developing a 1.5 terabyte drive costs plenty, and we feel that because you are a heavy user, you should bear the brunt of the development and manufacturing costs of all hard drives.”

You: “Sure, but this same 1.5TB drive is available in Korea for $99 dollars.  You want $1,500.  Why is there such a price difference and when does your price come down?”

AT&T: “Poor people in Korea and America can’t afford even a 60 gigabyte drive.  We are trying to make smaller drives more affordable  so in turn you should pay a higher price.  This isn’t about when AT&T will lower our price, it’s about when you will see our grand charitable vision and lower your selfish expectation of a lower price.”

You: “Wow, a corporation with socially-conscious pricing to benefit the poor?  So you are telling me that when I spend $1,500 on this hard drive, it is going to subsidize the cost of their 60 gigabyte drive, right?”

AT&T: “No, not exactly.  See, if we didn’t charge you $1,500, we’d have to raise the price on their 60 gigabyte drive and that’s not fair because they don’t need to store as much as you do.”

You: “But wait, your ‘subsidized’ 60GB drive costs three times more than what Koreans spend for a drive at least three times larger.”

AT&T: “That’s because the standard of living is different there.  Besides, why do you want to make the poor pay for your hard drive?”

You: “You aren’t making any sense.”

AT&T: “But we are about to make a whole lot of dollars!”

Dumping unlimited usage pricing only sets the profit expectations-bar higher for the broadband industry on Wall Street, regardless of what the true costs are to provide the service.  Wall Street never argues that excess profits should be spent on network upgrades and price subsidies to the poor — they want those profits paid to shareholders instead.

When the telecom industry is paying for your study, real facts never matter.  If you want them to do future business with your lobbying firm, the only acceptable conclusion is the one AT&T wants you to reach.

Tomorrow: Down the Sonecon rabbit hole

Share/Save

The License Fee pays for the BBC's television, radio, and online operations, but now the British government wants a portion of it to be directed towards broadband as well.

Britain’s new coalition government announced Wednesday it was scrapping a proposed £6 a year phone tax to help expand rural broadband in the country.

“We need investment in our digital infrastructure,” said George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. “But the previous government’s landline duty is an archaic way of achieving this, hitting 30 million households who happen to have a fixed telephone line. I am happy to be able to abolish this new duty before it is even introduced.”

“Instead, we will support private broadband investment, including to rural areas, in part with funding from the digital switchover under-spend within the TV licence fee.”

Osborne is referring to the average £11.63 monthly fee British citizens pay to help fund the operations of the BBC’s radio, television and online operations.  A surplus of up to up to £300 million is anticipated to remain after the UK completes its transition to digital television in the next two years.  That money would be diverted to expanding rural broadband under the government plan.

But campaigners for better rural broadband service complain that will not raise nearly enough to provide broadband across the countryside.  The 50p monthly telephone tax proposed by the former Labour government would have raised nearly £1 billion per year.

Charles Trotman, of the Country Land and Business Association, told The Telegraph it will not be enough money to connect all rural areas. He said remote communities risk being left behind in ‘broadband deserts’ unless more is done to help villages set up connections themselves.

Other critics contend the surplus from the digital TV transition may not exist two years from now.  Thus far, mostly rural regions in England have made the transition to digital, costing the government publicity campaign less than expected.

Rather than the tax, Osborne claims the government can spur investment from the private sector by “making regulatory changes to reduce the cost of roll-out.”  He did not specify what those changes might be.

The government claims it is committed to providing up to 2Mbps broadband service across the entire country, but the lack of action in many areas have forced small towns and villages to launch their own municipal broadband services, sometimes funded by residents themselves.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The BBC covers two British communities doing it themselves — providing enhanced broadband because private providers wouldn’t.  One in Highworth offers free Wi-Fi for up to two hours daily, while in Lyddington residents raised £37,000 to obtain enhanced DSL service.  (5 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Highworth (Swindon) relies on Signal, a high speed WISP/Wi-Fi network that offers up to 20/2 Mbps unlimited access with no Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps or overage fees for £5.99 per month, or up to two hours daily access for free.  (4 minutes)

Share/Save

Prime Minister Rudd announcing the deal between Telstra and the federal government.

Australia has taken the first step towards 100Mbps unlimited broadband service this weekend as an agreement was reached to decommission the country’s copper wire phone network, replacing it with fiber connections to 90 percent of Australian homes.

After months of heated negotiations between Telstra and the federal government, Telstra CEO David Thodey this morning joined Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the podium to announce the $11 billion deal.  Telstra will agree to scrap its copper-wire phone system and make way for the federal government’s new fiber network.

Rudd claimed the deal would benefit everyone because it would permanently retire an obsolete network with easily-upgradable fiber, connected right to the home.  Under Rudd’s previously announced National Broadband Plan, the government would finance the construction of the fiber network and lease access to any provider, including Telstra, at wholesale pricing.

In addition to an $11 billion offer, Telstra is expected to keep the estimated $580 million the company could earn from recycling more than 70 million kilometers of copper phone wiring no longer needed.  Another $1 billion will be earned from real estate sales.  At least 3,000 telephone exchange offices are expected to be declared redundant after switching to the fiber network, bringing Telstra plenty of additional earnings as those properties are sold off.

“I can’t stress enough just how complex this certain negotiation has been, because we’ve had to look at commercial issues, what the future of the business would be, what the structure of the industry would be, but we have got to this position and we are pleased to have done so, because it does give us clarity, and that’s what this company needs,” Thodey said. “Firstly we’ve got to grow our share of the market, we’ve got to simplify this business to take the unnecessary complexity [out], and we are going to continue now to build and invest in building new products and services to work in an NBN world.”

The agreement gives NBN Company, the government-owned entity building the fiber network, access to Telstra’s outdoor facilities to house the fiber network, saving the government billions in construction costs.  Telstra has also agreed to purchase wholesale access to the new network and will also decommission its coaxial cable-based systems, moving customers to the new fiber facilities as built.

Telstra will continue to operate its wireless mobile network and satellite TV business independent of the government broadband project.  For Telstra, in return for giving up control of broadband, the company is also freed from its universal phone service obligations which required it to provide service to any Australian that asked.

Telstra shareholders liked what they saw as the stock soared in value earlier this morning, but Thodey urged some caution.

“We believe that this is an important milestone towards getting [the deal done], but I want to stress it’s only a milestone, because it’s a non-binding financial heads of agreement that sets us on a road to get to a definitive agreement over the next period,” Thodey said.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Network 10 covered the deal between Telstra and the federal government in its weekend news report.  (4 minutes)

Share/Save

Phillip Dampier

S1209 would have sailed through the North Carolina Senate 39-5 this afternoon had it not been for Sen. Joe Sam Queen who objected to the third reading of the bill.  Senator David Rouzer (R-Johnston, Wayne) also changed his vote from “no” to “yes” which would have ultimately left the count at 40 for and 4 against.  After that, the Senate adjourned and will take up the bill once again on Monday.  What a job well done… for the cable and phone companies.

Brian Bowman reports that none of the Wake County senators opposed the bill or asked that the moratorium be removed.

Out of the entire North Carolina Senate, there are just four good guys?:

Senator Joe Sam Queen (Haywood, Yancy, Avery, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell) Joesam.Queen@ncleg.net
Senator Steve Goss (D-Alexander, Ashe, Watauga, Wilkes) Steve.Goss@ncleg.net
Senator James Forrester (R-Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln) James.Forrester@ncleg.net
Senator John Snow (D-Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain, Transylvania) John.snow@ncleg.net

Be sure to send all four of these folks your enormous thanks for doing the right thing.  Apparently that is becoming more and more difficult these days.

For those who forgot why this fight matters, here’s a reminder.  Watch it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The people in Mars Hill, N.C. cannot afford to forget.

Now let’s talk reality for a moment.  I’ve been involved in legislative battles on issues regarding telecommunications policy all the way back to the late 1980s when I was fighting for home satellite dish-owner rights.  Back then it was a struggle against big cable, too.  It took several tries, but we eventually won that one.  Along the way, a lot of the same legislative trickery involved in S1209 reminded me of similar experiences back then.  We shouldn’t make the same mistake twice.  Let’s take a look:

The revised S1209 establishes a subcommittee to study municipal broadband funding issues while buying the industry a one year reprieve from any other cities or town going their own way.  The members on this fact-finding endeavor are specifically defined:

• A cable service provider.
• A wireless telecommunications service provider.
• A local exchange provider that is not a wireless telecommunications service provider.
• A local exchange provider that is a wireless telecommunications service provider.
• A city that operates a cable system and an electric power system as a public enterprise.
• A city that operates a cable system as a public enterprise and does not operate an electric power system as a public enterprise.
• A city that is a member of a joint agency established under G.S. 160A-462 for the operation of a cable system as a public enterprise.
• The North Carolina League of Municipalities.

Now, can anyone reading tell me who is -not- on the list?  Have you guessed?

-You- are missing from this list!

Everyone else is in the back room — cable and phone companies, cities, and a lobbying group representing cities.  But not one North Carolina consumer who lives with broadband challenges day in and day out has a place at that table.  What do they know anyway?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Brooks Townes in Weaverville doesn’t have a seat at the table, either.

How ironic that everyone holding a seat claims their interests coincide with ordinary citizens like you and I.  After all, we’re supposed to be what this fight is all about.  Sometimes, our interests will meet.  Other times, especially when it comes to legislative strategies, they might not.

An Uncomfortable Revelation Caught On An Open Mike

Thanks to WUNC’s Laura Leslie, you can listen yourself as Senator Clodfelter, not realizing his mike was on, tells Senator Blue, “Now I’ll tell you that the … what I call the crazies who circulate around this issue are not going to like this [S1209 revision with a moratorium], but the municipalities are all on board. They negotiated it, they negotiated it so it’s not possible….” Blue asks Clodfelter how long he’s been talking with the groups representing municipalities. Clodfelter’s response: “We’ve been meeting daily — twice daily, so they’re all on board with this precise text.” The recording ends with Clodfelter presumably tapping his mike. Is this thing on? You bet it is. (June 2, 2010) (50 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

We already know what Senator Clodfelter feels about the people who are appalled at yet another embarrassing year of legislators falling all over themselves to do big cable and phone companies another favor.  In his mind, we’re the “crazies” — the indignant citizens fed up with the time, money, and effort not spent building 21st century broadband networks, but instead devising strategies to prevent building them.

Corning has a plant in North Carolina that manufacturers endless miles of fiber optic cable that 40 members of the North Carolina Legislature just said they don’t need.  Send it somewhere else.

Those 40 senators just told citizens — who are still using dial-up Internet access in the Appalachians, or who can’t afford the asking price for service in Spring Creek, or who only get excuses from AT&T why certain homes in Alamance County can have broadband, but they cannot — they really don’t care.  What AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Embarq wants is much more important.

Click here to view the embedded video.

…More important than the needs of folks like those in Spring Creek.

So while they propose to hold a debate over the merits of the free market vs. community’s doing-for-themselves when the free market fails them, countless thousands of North Carolina’s residents go without or are still hearing modem tones as they connect at speeds dozens of times slower than everyone else.

With a legislature hellbent on stalling or stopping projects that ameliorate this serious problem, no wonder North Carolina’s broadband rankings are falling fast.  In 2007, the Census Bureau ranked North Carolina 35th in broadband adoption.  A year later, the state was down to 41st.  At least you can be proud you’re not West Virginia, right?

But then again, there are eight more positions to drop, so there is still room to make things even worse.

Now I ask myself, what could have possibly happened to deliver 40 votes into the hands of big cable and phone company interests.

Could it have been the time honored trick of dividing and conquering the opposition?  For cities who want to deliver service, the threat of “either/or” seemed particularly effective.  Either take our one year moratorium -or- face the ludicrous original legislation that required a community-wide referendum if Mrs. Nickels over on Fairfax Drive needs a new cable installed at her home to get a better picture.  Either way, because certain folks didn’t say no way to either choice, it’s a victory party for Time Warner Cable, with no need to BYOB — they’ll provide it themselves.  Besides, say the bill’s supporters, we’re offering a chance to hear your voice and views on our stall-tactic fact-finding subcommittee.  Senator Clodfelter even thanks you for being reasonable and adult about all this.

AT&T thanks you as well.

Just keep those “crazies” out of the room.

Cable and phone companies get seats, so they can continue to deliver their talking points that don’t actually deliver broadband to any underserved area of North Carolina. Haven’t they said enough already?  As Senator Queen asked, where is the broadband service for my communities?

In the end, the fact finding mission (cough) will deliver a watered-down report that will find its way into the nearest recycling bin.  The cities’ strong views on municipal broadband will be diluted because they’ll have four competing voices from private industry saying the exact opposite.  Besides, after yesterday’s performance in the Senate Finance Committee, does anyone really believe members like Senator Hoyle care what the subcommittee will have to say?  He can just make it up as he goes along, just as he did when supposedly quoting the mayor of Salisbury.

After all the years spent watching negotiations over legislation, allow me to share this one piece of advice — collaborate and compromise with interests that seek to bury you at your own risk.  Big money interests will call you every name in the book for standing and fighting for your principles (and a few legislators too), but if you make it known it’s time for the other side to start compromising — by actually delivering service and charging a reasonable price for it, there wouldn’t have been a need to engage in this battle in the first place.

That’s why this “crazy” website didn’t back down when Time Warner Cable brought its “new and improved” Internet Overcharging scheme to the table after consumers rebelled against the original plan.  The cable company promised a listening tour, to take advice from reasonable consumers, and to modify its plans accordingly.  Some folks played the game on their field — debating numbers back and forth about what an appropriate amount of rape and pillaging of our wallets was tolerable.  Time Warner changed a few numbers and blessed us with a counteroffer that would have only tripled broadband prices for the same level of service.  Couldn’t we be reasonable and take their offer?

We said no and stood by it, even if it meant going down with a fight.  By not backing down, we won the battle knowing full well the war wasn’t actually over yet.  But you can’t win a battle, much less a war, if you surrender and refuse to fight.

In the end, we were right and they were wrong.  We even proved they were never really interested in listening in the first place.

The correct way forward is to remain 100 percent committed to opposing S1209, so long as it stalls, bans, slows, or sets onerous conditions on providing broadband relief.  That means calling every senator between now and Monday and then doing the same in the House.

The three words you need to remember are real simple:

Kill this bill.

If you are spending time negotiating over who gets to sit in what chair on the subcommittee, you are not paying attention.

Kill this bill.

If you are trying to split the difference over how long the moratorium is going to last, you do not understand.

Kill this bill.

If you are trying to extract some extra concessions to reduce the rape and pillaging of your citizens, stand up, take a deep breath, go outside, and then tell the first person you see to call their representatives and tell them to:

Kill this bill.

If you are a consumer, you’re probably already upset.  In a polite, persuasive, and persistent way, tell your elected officials you understand S1209 has been modified thanks to a compromise, but nobody bothered to compromise with you.  You aren’t interested in this bill in any form, and you know that legislator is going to do the right thing and vote no to:

Kill this bill.

If they vote yes, all they’ve managed to kill is your faith in them as your elected representative.  That’s something that can be taken care of at the next election.

Maybe people like me are crazy to dare to presume that our elected officials work first and foremost for “we the people” and not for the phone and cable company.  Maybe it’s nuts to spend so much time and energy fighting legislation that is so obviously written by and for the industry that cuts a check to the first representative willing to put their name on it and introduce it.  We’ve seen the merits of those who tried the same thing last year.  Only one of them is no longer with the state legislature, brought down on ethics charges.  How surprising.  This year’s fight is lead by a retiring senator who will never endure the satisfaction voters might get disconnecting him from the legislature for selling them down Telecom River.  That is not too surprising either.

Share/Save

The CTIA is the wireless industry's lobbying group

While the phone and cable companies attempt to fight off broadband reclassification at the FCC, the wireless industry has been pulling its own weight in an effort to convince legislators everything is wonderful in wireless, and no consumer protection regulations are necessary.

The CTIA, the wireless lobbying group, has been blogging on overdrive lately, trying to sell the idea Americans are already soaking in broadband options and competition that keeps prices low and innovation high.  Why regulate an industry that isn’t broken?

If only it were true.

While Americans in larger communities do have choices for broadband, for most it’s a matter of picking the phone or cable company for service.  That’s called a duopoly.  In the wireless marketplace, it’s hardly much better.  The nation’s largest wireless phone companies, AT&T and Verizon, have essentially colluded with near-identical pricing and service plan requirements that demand customers add mandatory “options” like data plan add-ons that raise wireless bills higher than ever.

The smaller providers eke out an existence mildly competing over pricing, but with their inherent coverage limitations or history of providing poor customer service, many consumers won’t consider doing business with them.  Relying on most wireless providers for broadband threatens the kind of huge bills you see on TV news reports, as carriers limit consumption to 5GB per month, and most charge enormous overlimit fees to customers exceeding the limit.

The Federal Communications Commission recently found one in every six Americans suffer “bill shock” syndrome — that all-too-familiar panicky feeling when you open a cell phone bill and discover an extra zero on the end of the dollar amount due.  More than a third of people who experienced bill shock said their bills jumped by at least $50 — around 23 percent said the increase was $100 or more.

Settles

That amounts to more than 30 million Americans, but the CTIA’s “see no evil, hear no evil” blog carries on claiming life is good for wireless consumers.  Besides, writes Steve Largent, president of the CTIA, consumers who took their complaints to the Better Business Bureau had them resolved 97.4 percent of the time.

Of course, that begs the question why consumers had to approach the BBB about their poor service experience in the first place.

I’m not the only one asking questions.  Craig Settles, an industry analyst, co-administrator of Communities United for Broadband and author of the report “Fighting the Next Good Fight: Bringing True Broadband to Your Community,” is also pondering the industry campaign to block broadband reform.

Settles penned a piece in today’s Roll Call exposing the fallacies from the industry’s PR machine:

The state of broadband — for consumers, businesses and nonprofits — isn’t the rosy picture the industry powerhouses attempt to paint. Ignoring this reality can lead to bad policy decisions and bad legislation.

[...]

Most states may technically have 60 to 80 Internet access providers. However, in practically every state, the combined statewide market share of all but the top five or six providers might total 5 percent, if you’re lucky. In at least half of the states, data show the combined market share of the top two providers ranges from 70 percent up to 95 percent. That represents near or actual duopolies, most often with one wireless and one cable provider as the undynamic duo.

Life at the local level, which is where your true subscriber options exist, further challenges the industry’s claim that people have choices. If you count “having choices” as living in an area where several companies advertise broadband service, or consider dial-up speed as broadband, OK.

But go door to door in rural counties and small towns. The reality you often find is one major carrier providing fair to poor service to some and no service to the rest, plus some small local providers with 2 percent or 3 percent market share struggling to provide decent service in the face of endless efforts to smite them from the planet. If you’re in one of the few states with four or five providers that each have statewide market share of 8 percent to 15 percent, it’s likely each provider is concentrated in a portion of the state, creating a local reality that’s worse than state statistics.

Settles notes that claims of “billions invested” only invites more questions about what carriers are doing with all that money.  Settles questions whether its wise to brag about spending $20 billion on infrastructure costs when municipal broadband projects in states like North Carolina, with IT staffs of fewer than 12, have built superior networks delivering 10 times the speed of its competitors.

The CTIA loves to tout the innovation wireless providers bring to customers, but in many cases they are claiming credit (and often getting a cut in the action) for someone else’s innovation, especially from the third-party apps market.

Too often the real innovations in wireless broadband have often come in spite of carriers that have sought to block, control, or “manage” someone else’s vision.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Watch as the CTIA wireless lobby tries to sell Americans on wireless innovation, much of which didn’t come from wireless companies at all.  (1 minute)

Share/Save

Jim Kraft (D-District 1)

A proposal to add a monthly $4 fee to every Baltimore cable subscriber’s bill to raise money for the fiscally-challenged city has been withdrawn after the city solicitor’s office warned the legislation would violate federal law.

City councilman Jim Kraft (D-District 1) proposed the city extend the existing telecommunications tax levied on telephone lines to cable television service in a bid to raise up to $5 million dollars annually towards the $50 million required to restore funding for curtailed fire, police, and recreational facilities.

Kraft’s proposal was an alternative to a controversial four cent bottle tax on beverages that could have driven some shoppers out of the city for cheaper untaxed alternatives available in the suburbs.

Kraft called his cable TV tax proposal “a fair tax.”

“Employed or unemployed, property taxpayer or exempt from property tax — this fee is borne by all,” he wrote in a mailing to constituents.

But the proposed tax ran into the Internet Tax Freedom Act, currently extended until 2014, which bans any taxation on broadband service, a major component of today’s cable systems.  The city’s lawyers also warned Baltimore could not tax home satellite service either: “Congress has specifically exempted providers of direct-to-home satellite service from collection or remittance of any tax or fee imposed by a local taxing jurisdiction.”

America’s cities continue to face unprecedented budget challenges in light of the distressed economy.  Some cities are slashing services, others are raising taxes and fees to make up the difference.  Baltimore in in the latter category with wide-ranging proposals to up fees and taxes for everything from the hotel room tax rate, outdoor billboard advertising, and energy to new higher fines for parking and civil violations.

The bottle tax bill is likely back on the agenda as well.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WJZ-TV in Baltimore delivered this rundown on the city’s large number of tax and fee hikes to close a $50 million shortfall.  (3 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

WBAL-TV ran this report over the demise of the telecommunications tax for cable television.  (2 minutes)

Share/Save

Bowman is the public affairs manager for Wilson, N.C.

Brian Bowman reports from Save North Carolina Broadband that S1209, Senator Hoyle’s municipal broadband killer bill, was yanked from yesterday’s meeting, apparently to “study the issue some more.”  Perhaps elected officials are studying the implications of passing this anti-consumer nightmare on their chances in the next election.  Let’s deliver the death blow to S1209 by getting on the phones and e-mail again today!

You need to keep the pressure on with calls and letters to all of these officials, reminding them you are watching this bill very closely and are waiting for them to cast their “no” vote, but will also at least accept a vote that yanks the bill from consideration for the rest of 2010.

Remind them this bill was quickly foisted on the Senate Finance Committee, and its wide-ranging implications are too important to North Carolina’s high tech future to let this bill rush into law.  Tell them the only real assault on your wallet comes from big telecom providers who will stop at nothing to make sure municipal competition never sees the light of day — municipal competition that is the only realistic way many North Carolina towns and cities can deliver 21st century broadband service that will help get them back on track for economic success.

Don’t sit back and think someone else will do the writing and calling for you.  We made a difference last year because everyone called and wrote.  We need that to happen again!

Here is the list:

Share/Save

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY)

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-New York) has begun to worry broadband consumers in his western and central New York district.

In April 2009, when Time Warner Cable’s announced Internet Overcharging experiment was upsetting customers in Rochester, Maffei claimed he was concerned about limiting broadband usage for customers in the area.  But when former Rep. Eric Massa introduced legislation to ban unjustified usage caps and consumption billing, Maffei told his constituents he wasn’t interested in Massa’s approach:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act was introduced by Representative Eric Massa (NY-29) on June 16, 2009, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill would authorize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review volume usage service plans of major broadband internet service providers to ensure that such plans are fairly based on cost.

When Time Warner Cable announced in April that Rochester would be used as a test market for charging Internet users based upon consumption usage, I, along with Representative Massa, opposed this policy. We helped persuade Time Warner to abandon the plan in the area. At that time, Representative Massa also introduced the Broadband Internet Fairness Act.

Other utilities, like water or electricity, charge customers based on usage, but Internet users have traditionally been charged a flat fee for unlimited access to the web. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act would require Internet Service Providers that want to implement usage-based pricing plans to go through several traditional regulatory hurdles. While I share many of the goals of Representative Massa’s legislation, I do not believe passing this stand-alone bill is the right approach at this time.

Of course broadband is nothing like water or electric utilities.  In fact, Maffei’s inclusion of that reference is a classic talking point of the telecom industry.  Notice they, and Maffei, didn’t mention telephone service — the one utility that provides flat rate calling for most Americans.  It also happens to be the utility most comparable to broadband service!

New York's 25th Congressional District

But Maffei made a bad situation worse when he joined 72 other House Democrats co-signing a letter from Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T), urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to fight a court decision overturning the agency’s ability to conduct broadband oversight.

The letter represented one giant talking point — the false premise that enforcing a fair, free, and open Internet with Net Neutrality would somehow stifle investment in broadband expansion.  Yet AT&T was required to honor the very same principles when it merged with SBC, and managed to remain a multi-billion dollar powerhouse well positioned to expand broadband service to additional customers in its ever-growing service areas.

The fact the broadband industry is a duopoly for most Americans — one that can threaten to pull back on service if it doesn’t get its way in Washington — is just one more reason the industry requires more oversight, not less.

Yet Rep. Maffei stood alone as the only member of the western New York Congressional delegation to sign his name to the agenda of big cable and phone companies.

Perhaps the congressman has forgotten these facts which trouble broadband consumers across western and central New York:

• Rochester, NY was the only city in the northeast where Time Warner sought to conduct an Internet Overcharging experiment, made possible because of limited competition in the Rochester market;
• Rochester’s other broadband provider, Frontier Communications, insists on a monthly usage allowance of just 5GB per month in its Acceptable Use Policy;
• Verizon FiOS has suspended expansion indefinitely and the service will never be available in most of the 585 area code where Frontier operates, and it will take years for most of the rest of his Syracuse district to see the service reach those areas;
• Time Warner Cable increased its broadband rates in 2010, as did Verizon;

Green’s letter dances around the real issue — telecommunications companies are spending millions to oppose pro-consumer reforms and stop a return of oversight authority the FCC lost after a recent court decision.  Without this authority, the FCC cannot implement the National Broadband Plan’s insistence that American providers not block or impede network traffic.  These Net Neutral policies preserve net freedom.  The FCC cannot even require that providers tell the truth about broadband speeds and include the company’s terms of service in plain English.

Western New York is a hotbed of consumer activism on broadband issues, particularly because we are actual victims of provider abuse.  No one knows more than we how critical 21st century broadband is to the transformation of this region’s perennially challenged economy.

Rep. Maffei needs a reminder this is a hot button issue for consumers from Irondequoit to Manlius.  Perhaps he just doesn’t fully understand what’s at stake here.  You need to remind him.

We’ve included a suggested letter you can use to help write your own.  For maximum effectiveness, include some of your own personal stories, challenges, and frustrations with your local broadband provider.  Feel free to share yours in the Comments section.

Dear Rep. Maffei:

I was extremely disappointed to discover you signed your name on a letter written by Rep. Gene Green urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to restore oversight authority over broadband.  While Rep. Green’s letter illustrates he’s mostly concerned about the well being of AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Comcast, as a consumer I am more concerned about the broadband duopoly that exists in Rochester & Syracuse.

If the FCC does not regain its ability to oversee broadband by reclassifying it under Title II — as a telecommunications service (which it very clearly is), the FCC can effectively do nothing to stop broadband provider abuses, such as Comcast’s notorious speed throttle on customers using certain Internet websites and services. It took an FCC investigation to finally get the cable company to admit the truth — it was interfering with customers’ broadband speeds.  The oversight power the agency had was just what was needed to convince Comcast to stop.

Unfortunately, a DC Circuit Court recently disagreed it had that authority and effectively stripped it away.  Chairman Genachowski is simply seeking a return to the status quo before that court decision was handed down.  He’s not asking to regulate broadband anything like telephone service.  In fact, he’s insisted on a “light touch.”  That’s better than today’s court-imposed total-hands-off reality.

By signing Rep. Green’s letter, you effectively tell us you don’t support Net Neutrality protections that guarantee providers cannot censor or impede web traffic.  You also do nothing to protect consumers from other provider abuses.  Considering what residents of Rochester went through last year fighting a Time Warner Cable scheme that would have tripled broadband prices for the same level of service, I’m shocked you of all people would be a supporter of big telecom’s agenda.

Telecom companies are claiming that if regulations enforcing Net Neutrality are enacted, investment will suffer and broadband expansion will be slowed.  Yet AT&T was required, as part of its merger with SBC, to respect Net Neutrality for several years.  The company flourished, broadband was offered to more customers than ever, and investors liked what they saw.

The record in western New York is clear — Time Warner Cable was willing to limit its customers access to broadband service, Frontier already does in its terms and conditions, and Verizon FiOS deployment has been suspended indefinitely.  For too many of us, there are too few choices.  In fact, the only thing we can be assured of is higher pricing and a strengthened duopoly.

I strongly urge you to remove your signature from Rep. Green’s letter and get on board with consumers like myself in your district who believe deregulation and oversight failures have given us nothing but nightmares — from Wall Street to BP’s oil spill.  Let’s not make another mistake in handing cable and phone companies unfettered permission to abuse their customers.

Please get back in touch with me as soon as possible on this important matter.

Rep. Dan Maffei told constituents he was concerned about Time Warner Cable’s Internet Overcharging scheme proposed in April 2009.  At a town hall meeting in Irondequoit, New York, he admitted Time Warner Cable held near-monopoly power over consumers in Rochester.  What changed his tune when he signed on to Rep. Gene Green’s anti-consumer letter to the FCC? (April 9, 2009 — 2 minutes)

Rep. Dan Maffei’s Contact Information

Washington, D.C. Office
1630 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3701
Fax: (202) 225-4042

Syracuse Office
P.O. Box 7306,
1340 Federal Building
Syracuse, NY 13261
Phone: (315) 423-5657
Fax: (315) 423-5669

Irondequoit/Rochester Office
1280 Titus Avenue
Rochester, NY 14617
Phone: (585) 336-7291
Fax: (585) 336-7274

[Update: 11:30pm EDT: Free Press reports Rep. Maffei accepted $29,000 in contributions from telecom companies, including Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T.]

Share/Save

Telekom Malaysia

A scheme to impose usage limits and speed throttles on Telekom Malaysia’s broadband customers was beaten back just a day after the plan was announced.

Malaysia’s largest telecommunications company announced the limitations at the same time in introduced new speed tiers and new pricing for them.

Customers were not pleased when they discovered TM’s UniFi broadband service came with high prices and usage caps:

TM UniFi Broadband Packages

• 5/5Mbps Service RM149/$46.73 now capped at 60GB per month.
• 10/10Mbps Service RM199/$62.41 now capped at 90GB per month.
• 20/20Mbps Service RM249/$78.09 now capped at 120GB per month.

In comparison, residents in nearby Singapore can buy 100Mbps service, with no limit, for RM200/$62.73 per month.

Those who exceed the limits would find their speeds throttled to about 10 percent of the speed they purchased, for the rest of the month.

Telekom Malaysia CEO Datuk Zamzamzairani Mohd Isa said the measures were part of its Fair Usage Policy.

Dato’ Zamzamzairani

“This policy is a standard industry practice to ensure that all subscribers get to enjoy the same web surfing quality,” he said.

Only it’s not standard industry practice, despite that often-heard excuse.  In countries where usage limits are common, those limits are being eased or discontinued as broadband expansion and competition drives the unpopular usage limits out of the market.

Malaysians weren’t willing to wait.

The social media firestorm of protest that followed the announcement forced the company to back down just one day after announcing the Internet Overcharging scheme.

An announcement on Twitter, noting customer feedback, stated “no volume cap 4 all #unifi packages 4 now.”  The company did say it would continue to “reserve the right to enforce a download limit to ensure all UniFi subscribers receive equal service quality,” but that type of language has been standard in service provider agreements for years.

Company officials told The Malaysian Insider customers “may abuse” the service, which is why they wanted the cap.

But customers feel they deserve value for money — the price being charged can be considered high for many countries in Asia even without the cap.

The Star newspaper notes:

With the latest announcement by Telekom Malaysia, many people are rejoicing. Among them is communications consultant Justin Then, who said he’s happy to note that Telekom Malaysia listens to consumers.

“Capping our high speed Internet access doesn’t make sense, if the Government wants Malaysians to seek out knowledge and be innovative,” he said.

A Twitter user, who asked to be identified only as Flo, said she’s glad Telekom Malaysia has decided not to employ the cap for now.

“We are paying a premium for technology that offers super high bandwidth, so a daily cap shouldn’t be applied. There’s no value in that; we would be better off with regular broadband,” she said.

One caveat.  As has been the case with a handful of U.S. providers seeking to monetize your broadband usage, rescinding usage caps today doesn’t guarantee they won’t be back tomorrow.  Indeed, TM has yet to remove them from their website, instead inserting in the fine print, “The monthly download volume policy will not be implemented until further notice.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

TM’s slick promotional video unveiling the faster UniFi broadband packages asks y0u to “imagine.”  We did… imagining how in the world we can accomplish all of the things they show in the video with the company’s proposed arbitrary usage limits and speed throttles.  Imagine actually getting the service you paid to receive without a provider imagining how much use = “abuse.”  (6 minutes)

Share/Save

Senator Hoyle's legislation lays the foundation for cable and phone companies to spend hundreds of thousands of subscriber dollars to mail smear campaign pieces like this one from Comcast.

(This piece is written by Jay Ovittore and Phillip Dampier.)

The good news is that all the pushback on an all-out-moratorium on municipal broadband was successful and Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston) withdrew the idea.  The bad news is he had an even worse idea to replace it.

Hoyle Wednesday unveiled a new draft bill that hopelessly ties up municipal broadband projects into knots of red tape that, if passed into law, will bury municipal broadband projects in North Carolina indefinitely.

Hoyle sprung his telecom-industry-friendly legislation on the public after getting plenty of input and encouragement from the state’s cable and phone companies who already knew what was in it because they helped craft it.

For a retiring state senator who doesn’t have to worry about the next election, what better parting gift can you give to your friends in the cable and phone industry than a bill that preserves the comfortable duopoly they’ve  enjoyed for years.

Hoyle and those supporting the legislation will argue their bill doesn’t ban municipal broadband — it simply places conditions on such projects before they can go forward.  But what are those conditions?

Section One of the draft bill requires local governments to get funding for “external communications services” (ie. municipal broadband) by way of a General Obligation Bond (a GO Bond).  In North Carolina, that requires a taxpayer-funded referendum to be held for public input at the next election.

On the surface, getting public approval for municipal broadband isn’t a bad idea — no local government official expecting to win re-election would ever proceed on such projects without voter support.  But this requirement also gives plenty of advance notice to incumbent providers that a new player could be invading their turf.

We know what that means.  A well-funded opposition campaign to demagogue the project.  Local cable companies can insert an unlimited number of free ads during every advertising break to slam the proposal.  Phone companies can release a blizzard of opposition mailers to convince consumers it’s as scary as Halloween — all tricks and no treats.

How can a local city or county government respond to the misinformation barrage?  They can’t.  Public officials can’t spend taxpayer dollars to promote such projects or refute industry propaganda.  They can’t even financially assist a citizen-run campaign.

That’s a fight with ground rules only Don King could love.

In the end, that leaves ordinary citizens of North Carolina facing down a multi-billion dollar statewide consortium of telecommunications interests hellbent on preserving and protecting the status qu0.

The earlier-discussed moratorium was a brick wall against municipal broadband.  Hoyle’s bill is the Great Wall of China with the logos of AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and CenturyLink plastered all over it.

But wait, there’s more.  To deal with municipal broadband projects that got an initial green light to dare to interfere with the phone and cable industries’ grand business plans, another provision provides a near endless supply additional referendums to get rid of the projects.  Hoyle’s bill actually demands more votes should existing systems need:

• refinancing to reduce the interest rate or restructure existing debt;
• to make repairs to the system’s “fixtures;” and/or
• to upgrade the system to meet subscribers’ needs.

Ponder the insanity:

• The legislation could be interpreted to demand a public referendum if your service goes out.  Can you wait until the next election to get back your cable service?
• If a municipal broadband fiber cable falls in your backyard, does it make a sound?  It won’t, but you will when you learn that cable might not be reattached to the pole until the whole town holds a referendum about it;
• Would you be upset if your local municipal provider could refinance its debt at a much lower interest rate, letting them cut their prices, but they can’t before the next election?
• While cable and phone companies refuse to upgrade their service to levels that would have made such municipal alternatives unnecessary, they also want to make certain the one provider that did meet your needs can’t upgrade… without a public vote.

These systems are not constructed with public tax dollars, but Senator Hoyle wants every citizen in a community, subscriber or not, to ponder the future of a local municipal broadband provider.  It’s like giving AT&T veto power over Time Warner Cable’s channel lineup.  Guess who has to pay for these constant referendums?  Taxpayers.  So while Senator Hoyle complains municipal broadband costs the state tax revenue, his legislation guarantees increased government spending on pointless referendums.  That’s logic only a politician working for the interests of big cable can appreciate.

For the cable and phone companies, and their good friends in the North Carolina legislature, this is their idea of a level playing field.  In reality it’s about as level as a downhill ski run.

Let’s extend that “fairness” out to incumbent cable and phone companies and consider whether you got a vote on:

• Whether or not the cable and phone companies got to put their wires on phone poles plunked down in front of your house;
• Whether or not you wanted either company to dig up your yard to bury their wiring;
• Whether you wanted that giant metal refrigerator-sized metal box installed on your street, in your yard, or on the phone pole you see from your window every day;
• Whether or not you want the cable company to repair Mrs. Jenkins’ problems with HBO up the street whenever it rains or replace the cable the squirrels chewed up;
• What channels and services you want to pay for, which ones you do not, and at what price you need to pay your local phone or cable company.
• What cable or phone company gets to provide service in your community.

Apparently the fairness concept only applies to potential new competitors, not the existing providers.

Let’s also consider the cable television industry didn’t just magically bloom into a multi-billion dollar business without government help.  In the early days of cable television, investors were assured that they were financing a monopoly provider, guaranteed through a franchise agreement process that gave newly built cable companies exclusivity to help repay construction costs.  Franchise wars broke out between 1978 and 1984 as competing companies promised the moon with state-of-the-art two-way cable systems with the capacity to offer 70 or more channels.  The players then included Time’s American Television and Communications Corporation, Warner’s Amex, and Telecommunications, Inc. (TCI).  ATC and Amex would later evolve into Time Warner Cable and TCI became AT&T Cable before being sold to Comcast.  Communities seeking cable television for their residents would later learn a lot of these promises made were promises broken – reneged on by large cable companies with few, if any consequences.

During the Reagan Administration, then-FCC Chairman Mark Fowler bestowed additional deregulation benefits on the cable industry.  The Museum of Broadcast Communications explains:

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 addressed the two issues that still hindered cable television’s growth and profitability: rate regulation and the relative uncertainty surrounding franchise renewals. Largely the result of extensive negotiation and compromise between the cable industry’s national organization, the National Cable Television Association, and the League of Cities representing municipalities franchising cable systems, the act provided substantial comfort to the cable industry’s future.

Its major provisions created a standard procedure for renewing franchises that gave operators relatively certain renewal, and it deregulated rates so that operators could charge what they wanted for different service tiers as long as there was “effective competition” to the service. This was defined as the presence of three or more over-the-air signals, a very easy standard that over 90% of all cable markets could meet. The act also allowed cities to receive up to 5% of the operator’s revenues in an annual franchise fee and made some minor concessions in mandating “leased access” channels to be available to groups desiring to “speak” via cable television.

Additional reforms guaranteed pole attachment rights to the cable industry so they could wire and service their network unencumbered by utility company interference or high pole attachment fees.  Cable consolidation allowed formerly mom and pop cable systems to become part of a cable industry where just a handful of cable companies provide service to the majority of cable households.  Countless millions are spent each year by the industry to lobby state and federal governments to keep the party going without regulatory interference, suggesting competiti0n alone is the only regulation required.

Except when a new competitor enters the market, of course.  Fearing competition from municipal providers who will force cable and phone companies to charge reasonable rates and upgrade service, the best possible solution is to find a way to ban such projects.

Forcing regular referendums and the complexities and expenses associated with them guarantees no community in North Carolina would ever bother with the onerous requirements to launch municipal broadband projects.

That’s not just Jay and I saying that.  What Hoyle has proposed hardly breaks new ground.  It’s the same dog and pony show the industry has brought to other states to stop competition and keep prices high and service slow.

So let’s learn from the painful experiences of others:

First lobbying for legislation requiring referendums and then winning it, SBC (later AT&T) and Comcast used the opportunity to spend more than $300,000 of their subscribers’ money to launch a major misinformation campaign with misleading and inaccurate mailers that successfully fought off a proposition to deliver better and cheaper service through a municipal broadband project in Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles, Illinois.  Fiber for Our Future documented the whole sordid affair from start to finish as a lesson to others confronting industry-backed referendum requirements.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Want a preview of the distortion and misinformation-campaign cable and phone providers will bring to stop municipal broadband?  Watch this SBC (today AT&T) executive tell city officials in Illinois that fiber is “unproven,” that the phone company’s DSL speeds are comparable to Comcast Cable, and that consumers don’t need the 3Mbps speed the company was delivering back in 2004 when this video was taken.  “What are you going to do with 20 megabits.  I mean, it’s like having an Indy race car and you don’t have the race track to drive it on.”  (3 minutes)

Longmont, Colorado spent years suffering with bad broadband service from Comcast and Qwest and sought a better alternative with a municipally-run provider.  But then the cable and phone giants spent $200,000 to put a stop to that.  While local subscribers may have preferred that $200,000 be used to reduce their rates, for Comcast and Qwest it was an investment in maintaining future pricing only duopolies can achieve, all while delivering “good enough for you” broadband service to Longmont residents.  In 2006, the Baller Herbst Law Firm collected information on industry-backed barriers to municipal broadband, and the list went on for nine pages.  Many of them sound eerily familiar to what Hoyle proposes (after cable and phone companies whispered time tested, industry proven ideas into his ear).

The city of North St. Paul, Minnesota has advice for states like North Carolina after their own experience with a coordinated industry-backed smear campaign against municipal broadband enabled by legislation similar to what Hoyle proposes:

What should be of interest to all communities was the organized opposition.  It appears that the incumbent providers, industry associations and politically conservative think tanks teamed up to promote negative news stories, do polling and opposition phone calls, provide transportation for identified “no” voters and create web sites.

While we heard some advocates lamenting this high priced anti-municipal fiber effort, this response is something that community leaders must expect and be prepared for.  A strong community education and mobilization effort must be a part of any municipal telecommunications initiative.  A coalition of business owners and residents must be created and maintained that can counter the expected efforts of the incumbent providers.  The benefits of the community-owned network should be documented and promoted so that an overwhelming majority of voters will choose to vote yes.  We hope that, one way or the other, North St. Paul gets the “More, Better Broadband” that the MN Broadband Coalition supports.

Of course, when local communities are banned from spending a nickel on advocacy for their projects, it effectively hands a restraining order to broadband advocates who can’t even get on the playing field, level or otherwise.

Outraged yet?

It will only get worse if Hoyle’s bill ever becomes law.  Residents in communities like Salisbury endured a sampling of the kind of negative campaign this industry will launch wherever municipal broadband competition threatens to appear.  In 2009, residents were hassled with push-polling phone calls from industry-backed astroturf groups claiming to represent ordinary citizens, but were actually little more than sock puppets for big telecom.  Your mailbox will be filled with blizzards of misleading mailers that current cable and phone customers pay for.  If they need more money, they can always raise your rates to cover the difference.  In the end, with the help of elected officials who don’t care about North Carolina consumers, existing municipal projects can bleed themselves dry (later to be used by the industry as “failed examples” to claim such projects are too risky to try) and proposed ones will never see a spade plunged into the soil to bury the first strand of fiber optic cable.

But it’s not all bad news.  It doesn’t have to happen this way.  You can tell your state representative you are watching them like a hawk on this issue.  Any “yes” vote for legislation like that proposed by Senator Hoyle is a no vote for them at the next election.  Let them know you are well aware of the game plan here — it has been tried in other states with similar legislation that is little more than protectionism for big telecom. Tell your elected officials you already have the power to choose whether or not you want these projects simply by voting for or against the elected officials that propose them.  While the concept of a referendum sounds fair on the surface, it’s not when you consider the past experiences of other communities who faced well-funded opposition campaigns, helpless to correct the record or fairly argue their position on the matter.  Providers know that, which is why they advocate this type of legislation in the first place.  It effectively stops competition, stops better service, and stops North Carolina residents from enjoying lower priced cable, phone, and broadband service.

There are a few stand-up representatives of the people of North Carolina who do deserve our gratitude and thanks today.

Rep. Paul Luebke, (D-Durham County) (who co-chairs the Revenue Law Study Committee) Paul.Luebke@ncleg.net 919-733-7663 College Teacher

Rep. Jennifer Weiss, (D-Wake County) Jennifer.Weiss@ncleg.net 919-715-3010 Lawyer-Mom

They both will likely face fierce opposition from the incumbent providers and their fellow legislators. Please take the time to thank them for standing with consumers today and for trying to protect the future of North Carolina and its economy.

Stop the Cap! will have video of today’s remarks by both legislators soon.  We hope to follow with a complete video record of today’s events surrounding the anti-competition legislation proposed by Senator Hoyle.  It will serve as a testament to just how much work we have to do to remove legislators who have stopped representing the public interest, and renew our support for those who stand with consumers.

Meanwhile, check out these two delightful pieces paid for by the cable and phone industry, sent to homes where municipal broadband projects faced a referendum in 2003 and 2004.  More than a dozen different mailers were sent to every home in the communities of Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles, Illinois from phone and cable companies.  Now imagine the repercussions when not one of those communities could respond with their own mailers correcting the record and giving their side of the argument.  There is a reason why special interests spend enormous sums of money to protect their turf, and the battle is over before it even begins when those interests demand the other side not have the opportunity to respond in kind.

What smears do providers in North Carolina have in store for you?

To read industry propaganda like this, they'd have you believe there has never been a community-run or cooperative telecommunications company success story. In fact, there are well over 500 of them operating right now, and those are just the dues-paying members of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association.

When the three cities tried a second time for a municipal project in 2004, the deep pockets of incumbent cable and phone companies allowed them to buy plenty of newspaper advertising space to smear the effort all over again.

Share/Save

I had the pleasure of attending the SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (SEATOA) conference this past weekend in beautiful Asheville, North Carolina.  I was surrounded by some of the leading visionaries in the fields of next-generation broadband deployment, broadband policy and important Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) access networks.

Among those in attendance:

• Kyle Hollifield, representing Bristol Virginia Utilities/BVU OptiNet, a municipally-owned fiber optic broadband provider in Bristol, Virginia;
• Colman Keane, from municipal utility EPB Telecom in Chattanooga, Tennessee;
• Tommy Jacobson from MCNC;
• Ken Fellman from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA);
• Hunter Goosman from ERC Broadband, which operates a regional fiber optic network in the western Carolinas;
• Brian Bowman, Public Affairs & Marketing Manager of Wilson, North Carolina, home of municipal fiber network Greenlight, and
• Michael Crowell, Broadband Services Director of Salisbury, North Carolina’s forthcoming fiber to the home network Fibrant.

The conference included several informational sessions for those working on broadband projects.

Tom Power, chief of staff for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and Jessica Zufolo from the Rural Utilities Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture discussed rounds one and two of the broadband stimulus grant program and lessons learned along the way.

Thomas Koutsky, representing the FCC Broadband Opportunities Initiative, the legendary Jim Baller and FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn also spoke about the importance of developing better broadband networks across the country.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn delivered the keynote address at the SEATOA conference held in Asheville, N.C.

Thomas Koutsky, speaking about the National Broadband Plan said, “The National Broadband Plan is just a plan.  It doesn’t do anything by itself, it requires action.”  I couldn’t agree more.  The National Broadband Plan could culminate in a giant missed opportunity if we do not reach out and demand that our representatives in Washington get on board with a definitive plan to deliver better broadband across the country.  Washington is full of studies and recommendations that are little more than words on paper, sitting on a shelf because Americans didn’t demand action to implement them.

I could go on all day about Jim Baller and his inspiration that drives us all to fight for better broadband in America, but I will highlight this quote: “It is a disgrace that every American does not have affordable access.”  Baller rallied the crowd with a video clip from Al Pacino’s speech in Any Given Sunday.  It’s not difficult to carry Pacino’s message about football to our fight in the broadband arena, and the enthusiasm Baller brings can only be a positive.

Perhaps the most newsworthy event from the conference was a speech from the newest FCC Commissioner, Mignon Clyburn.  She gets it.  In an amazing 20-minute speech, Clyburn succinctly delivered a message we wish some of our state lawmakers would understand and support:

“Thus, the Plan recommends that Congress clarify that state and local governments should not be restricted from building their own broadband networks. I firmly believe that we need to leverage every resource at our disposal to deploy broadband to all Americans. If local officials have decided that a publicly-owned broadband network is the best way to meet their citizens’ needs, then my view is to help make that happen.

When cities and local governments are prohibited from investing directly in their own broadband networks, citizens may be denied the opportunity to connect with their nation and improve their lives. As a result, local economies likely will suffer. But broadband is not simply about dollars and cents, it is about the educational, health, and social welfare of our communities. Preventing governments from investing in broadband, is counterproductive, and may impede the nation from accomplishing the Plan’s goal of providing broadband access to every American and every community anchor institution.”

Clyburn’s speech clearly illustrates she’s an advocate for consumers and is interested in knocking down barriers that block Americans from enjoying world class broadband service.  Clyburn considers the National Broadband Plan a group effort developed by and for the American people, not just a policy document from the FCC.  It was truly an uplifting speech that gave me hope positive change in broadband and broadband policies are possible with her presence on the Commission.

Click here to view the embedded video.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn delivers the keynote speech at the SEATOA conference.  Clyburn goes on record advocating municipally-run broadband projects where communities deem them appropriate.  This clip comes courtesy of Communities United For Broadband and you saw it first here on Stop the Cap! (April 27, 2010 — 20 minutes)

(This video is large in size.  If playback stops, please pause the video to allow more of the clip to load into the player’s buffer to reduce the chance of stalled playback.  If you still experience problems, please Contact Us.)

Share/Save

Today’s merger between CenturyTel (soon to be CenturyLink) and Qwest will combine 10 million Qwest customers and 7 million from CenturyTel into a single company serving 37 states in every region of the country except the northeast and much of California and Nevada.  CenturyLink gains access to Qwest’s highly valued portfolio of services sold to business customers and Qwest gets a partner that can help manage its $11.8 billion debt and help grow the last remaining Baby Bell, formerly known as US West, into a national player capable of withstanding ongoing erosion of landline service.

The deal will impact consumers and businesses, and will challenge regulatory authorities to consider the implications of ongoing consolidation in the traditional telephone service marketplace.  It brings implications for broadband service strategies for both companies, which we’ll explore in greater detail.

Breaking Up Was Too Hard to Do, So Let’s Put It Back Together

Ultimately, the genesis of this, and most of the other big telecom deals that we’ve witnessed over the past few years comes from the 1996 Communications Act, which deregulated large parts of the telecommunications industry and triggered a massive wave of consolidation that is still ongoing.  That legislation was the antithesis of the 1984 court ruling which ultimately led to the breakup of AT&T and the Bell System monopoly in 1984.  When President Clinton signed the 1996 bill into law, it allowed much of the Bell System to eventually recombine into two major entities:

• AT&T ultimately pieced itself back together with the acquisitions of:

BellSouth — serving the southeastern United States

Ameritech — serving the upper Midwest

SBC/Southwestern Bell — serving Texas and several southern prairie states

Pacific Telesis — serving California and Nevada

• Verizon became a regional powerhouse by combining:

NYNEX — serving New England and New York

Bell Atlantic — serving mid-Atlantic states

Qwest Tower - Denver

The remaining orphaned Baby Bell was US West, which comprised Mountain Bell serving the Rocky Mountain states, Northwestern Bell which covered the Dakotas, Minnesota, the prairie states not covered by SBC, and Pacific Northwest Bell which managed service for Oregon, Washington, and northern Idaho.  US West was subjected to a hostile takeover in 2000 by an upstart telecommunications company that was laying fiber optic cable in the late 1990s alongside the railways its owner, Philip Anschutz, also happened to own.  Qwest assumed control of US West that summer and rechristened it with its own name.  Owned by a Bell outsider, Qwest has always been the company that didn’t quite fit with the rest.

The company gained respect for its enormous fiber backbone that weaves across many American cities, including several in the northeast.  It is best known for its services to business customers.  On the residential side, the story is less impressive.  The company’s customer service record is spotty and the company has accumulated an enormous amount of legacy debt left over from earlier acquisitions.  Despite the company’s repeated efforts to find a partner, it took until today for it to finally find one.  There are several reasons for this:

1. Qwest’s service area is notoriously rural and expensive to serve.  Outside of its corporate headquarters in Denver, the majority of its service area is either mountainous or rural.  Even today, Qwest serves only 10 million residential customers, almost matched by CenturyTel’s own seven million largely rural customers scattered across the country.
2. Qwest’s history has been littered with financial scandals, starting with a series of deals with disgraced Enron from 1999-2001.  That was followed with charges of fraud and insider trading in 2005.
3. Qwest does not own its own wireless division and its previous efforts to deliver television service to customers were largely unsuccessful.  That made Qwest’s ability to withstand erosion in its core business – landline phone service, more difficult.
4. Qwest’s debt is downright frightening for would-be suitors.

Why Does CenturyTel Want to Buy Qwest?

CenturyTel claims such a transaction allows a combined company to become a larger player on the national scene.  By combining Qwest’s good reputation in the business telecommunications sector with combined efforts to deliver broadband products including high speed Internet, the company thinks the combination can’t be beat.  CenturyTel envisions packages of video entertainment, data hosting and managed services, as well as fiber to cell tower connectivity and other high bandwidth services to deliver replacement revenue lost from disconnected landlines.  It also believes it can realize cost savings from the merger and keep the company relevant on a stage dominated by Verizon, AT&T, and a few large cable companies.

But there are other reasons.  For the three super-sized independent phone companies that Americans are growing increasingly familiar with — Frontier Communications, Windstream Communications, and CenturyTel, their business models depend on their ability to constantly engage in deal-making and acquisitions.  All three companies have built their businesses on investors who see their stocks as “investment grade” financial instruments that dependably return a dividend back to shareholders.  As we’ve seen in countless quarterly financial results conference calls, all three companies are preoccupied answering questions from Wall Street about the all-important dividend.  TV personalities like Jim Cramer has specifically recommended these telecom stocks based, in part, on their dividend payout.  If that dividend dramatically shrunk or stopped, the share price for all three stocks would likely plummet.

One of the side effects of companies dependent on dividend payouts is their constant need to be on the lookout for additional merger and acquisition opportunities.  Here’s how it works.  Let’s say CenturyTel’s debt load and reduced revenue, caused by customer defections to cell phones or cable phone service, delivered a bad fiscal quarter for the company.  Cash flow was down, and company officials simply couldn’t keep the dividend payout at the same level as the previous quarter.  Since many people hold CenturyTel stock specifically because of the dividend, a downward turn in that payout could cause some to sell their shares, driving the stock price downwards.

CenturyTel is still digesting a previous merger with EMBARQ, which led it to rechristen the company CenturyLink

One way around this is to seek out a new merger or acquisition target.  By bringing two companies together, preferably one with a healthy cash flow, suddenly the big picture changes.  Your balance sheet now reflects the combined revenue from both companies, which incidentally makes the percentage of debt versus revenue look a lot healthier.  Cash flow immediately improves, especially if you can slash redundant costs.  Come next quarter, that dividend payout is right back up in healthy territory.

Sometimes companies become so preoccupied with their dividend and corresponding stock price, it can lead them to pay out more in dividends than a company earns in revenue.  While that’s great for investors, it is unsustainable in the long run.

Many critics of telecommunications companies employing this strategy claim it’s evidence that a company is biding time and unwilling to invest in innovation for the future.  Some also believe dividend payouts shortchange customers because they can eventually bleed a company’s ability to invest in service improvements, research and development, and capital investments to maintain their network and expand service.

As consolidation continues, the number of new buyout opportunities begins to shrink, and one shudders to think what happens when there is no one else to buy.  How long is this business model sustainable?

Both CenturyTel and Qwest also recognize the impact of ongoing disconnections from landline service, now averaging 10 percent of their customers a year.  Those departing customers are now relying on their cell phones or alternative calling services like cable company “digital phone” service or broadband-based calling from companies like Vonage or Skype.

The one service they hope can stem customer defections is broadband.  Unfortunately, telephone companies are increasingly losing ground against their cable modem competitors, who have an easier time increasing broadband speeds for customers now seeking online video and other high bandwidth applications.

Of course, one of the benefits of being a “rural phone company” is the fact cable competition is often unlikely.  In fact, some of the lowest erosion rates for landline service are in rural communities where the telephone company is the only game in town.  There is plenty of money still to be made offering high priced slow speed DSL service in communities with no cable competitor and spotty wireless broadband that is often slower and usage-limited.

All three of these big independent players are well aware of this, and maintaining a strong position in relatively slow speed DSL service also protects another revenue stream — Universal Service Fund revenue given to rural providers to equalize telephone rates.  CenturyTel recognizes the increasing likelihood much of that money will be diverted to stimulating broadband expansion, something the phone company is more than willing to do if it means preserving their subsidies.

The new combined Qwest-CenturyTel company hopes the merger can help both survive obsolescence.

For Qwest, a debt reduction may make it possible to spend more to deliver fiber-to-the-curb service, similar to AT&T U-verse.  That could increase broadband speeds and prompt them to reconsider their earlier decision to abandon IPTV in the western half of the country.

CenturyTel can continue to offer traditional DSL service with a more incremental upgrade approach in its more rural service areas, but tap into Qwest’s fiber network to reduce backhaul expenses and potentially pick up new business customers by offering Qwest-branded business services.  Company officials strongly hinted that, at least for now, CenturyTel’s existing customers will continue to find the video portion of their “triple play” package delivered by DirecTV satellite service, so no IPTV for them.

CenturyTel and Qwest's combined local service areas

What Does This Mean for Employees of Both Companies?

Mergers like this always generate great excitement over “cost savings” made possible by the merger.  Much of these savings typically come from employee expenses.  When you hear “cost savings,” think layoffs and pay cuts for all but top management.  Based on past precedent, Qwest employees can anticipate some serious job losses if this transaction closes, especially in the business office.  The combined company will be henceforth known as CenturyLink, with headquarters remaining in Monroe, Louisiana.  That is potentially bad news for Qwest’s employees in Denver.

The transaction is expected to generate annual operating cost savings (which CenturyTel calls “synergies”) of approximately $575 million, which are expected to be fully realized three to five years following closing.  The transaction also is expected to generate annual capital expenditure “synergies” of approximately $50 million within the first two years after close.  That means spending less on infrastructure improvements.

Billing and customer service are traditionally handled by CenturyTel when a company joins the CenturyTel family.  North Carolina customers can attest to that as EMBARQ, an earlier CenturyTel target, finally moves to CenturyTel’s billing system in the coming weeks.

For the sake of pushing the merger through state regulatory agencies, cutbacks in unionized technicians who handle service installations, repairs, and maintain the lines are not expected.  The Communications Workers of America issued a statement today that mildly acknowledged the merger announcement, saying the union “looked forward to serious negotiations with both companies” regarding employment security and assurances of aggressive high speed broadband rollout throughout both companies’ territories.

How the combined CenturyTel-Qwest company stacks up against other independent phone companies. (Q-Qwest, CTL-CenturyTel, FTR-Frontier, WIN-Windstream)

What Does This Mean for Qwest and CenturyTel Customers?

In the short term, nothing.  This merger will take at least a year to complete, assuming regulatory approval in every state where a review is required by state officials.  In 2011, should the merger be approved, Qwest customers can anticipate transition headaches as the Denver-based company winds down operations in favor of CenturyTel.  Billing and customer service will both be impacted.  Long term plans for major projects are likely to be stalled until the merger settles into place.  CenturyTel business customers will eventually see Qwest’s strong business products line become available in many CenturyTel service areas.  Eventually, some larger CenturyTel-served cities may find Qwest’s more advanced DSL service arriving on the scene delivering faster speeds.

Although CenturyTel has hinted it may review whether it’s now large enough to operate its own wireless mobile division, for the near term, expect the partnership to resell Verizon Wireless service to continue.

What is the View of Stop the Cap! on the CenturyTel-Qwest Merger?

Generally speaking, most of the industry consolidation that has been fueled by a deregulatory framework established by the Clinton Administration has not benefited consumers anywhere near the level promised by deregulation advocates.  The three largest independent phone company consolidators — Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyTel are spending more time and resources looking for new acquisitions and schemes to pay out dividends than they are working to enhance service in their respective service areas.  Smaller independent phone companies are deploying fiber to the home networks and answer to the communities where they work and live.  From companies like Frontier, we get Internet Overcharging schemes combined with slow DSL service, tricks and traps from “price protection agreements” that automatically renew, rate increases, and cost cutting.  Windstream plagues some of their customers with extended service outages, and CenturyTel’s promised broadband speeds often don’t deliver.

Unfortunately, bigger is not always better in telecommunications.  While the biggest players like Verizon seek to discard rural American customers, getting one of these three companies instead doesn’t always represent progress.  Our regulators are too often satisfied with basic answers to questions about broadband and service improvements that come with few details and deadlines.  It is just as important to ask what kind of broadband service a company will bring, at what speeds and price, and what usage limits, if any, will accompany the service.

Companies engaged in these mergers hope regulators don’t pin them down to specific service commitments and standards, which could harm the financial windfall these deals bring to a select few.  But they must be the first thing on the table, guaranteeing that customers also get the enjoy the “synergies” these deals are supposed to bring.

Share/Save

When millions of dollars are at stake, some commercial broadband providers will stop at nothing to preserve the duopoly they enjoy across most of North Carolina.  Their formula for success — delivering the least amount of service at the highest possible price.  When communities like Wilson and Salisbury decided that formula wasn’t working for them, they embarked on their own municipally-built, fiber-based broadband networks.  It wasn’t something either community took lightly.  They asked, they pleaded, they begged for better broadband service from incumbent providers who decided what they were providing was already good enough.

The biggest shock of these providers’ lives came when both communities decided to build better networks themselves.

Now, the commercial providers who are challenged to upgrade to compete are instead spending enormous sums of money in the North Carolina legislature to put a stop to these municipal projects.  Why spend money on upgrading when you can simply ban the potential competition?

Last year, Stop the Cap! teamed up with other consumer advocates to put a stop to legislation custom-written by the cable industry and introduced by a very-compliant state legislator.  When our readers and others called to complain, some found the phone handed off to a cable lobbyist literally sitting in his office!

Your outrage over paying big bills for bad service from too few providers was heard in Raleigh, and the legislation was de-fanged and buried in a committee charged with “studying the issue.”  The legislator who introduced it resigned under an ethical cloud last fall.

Unfortunately for consumers in North Carolina, there is always someone else willing to pick up where the last one who sold his constituents down the river left off.

Our North Carolina issues coordinator Jay Ovittore, who is now working with Communities United for Broadband to promote better broadband, is here with a report about the latest developments in North Carolina and a Call to Action! for all of our readers.  Preserving successful municipal broadband projects and those working to get off the ground protects this option for every community faced with intransigent broadband providers who won’t improve service.  — Phillip Dampier

As I told everyone on Stop the Cap! last summer, they would be back.

They are, and now they’ve shown us their cards.

North Carolina’s incumbent cable and phone companies are once again trying to ram through an anti-municipal broadband bill, and their timing is designed to rush it through committee before a groundswell of consumer opposition has a chance to build.  Time is short — the bill will be taken up April 21st in the Revenue Laws Study Committee, so your immediate action is imperative!

Clodfelter

This year’s push for anti-consumer legislation comes courtesy of Senator Daniel G. Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg County).

He reportedly wants a moratorium on all municipal broadband deployments on the alleged basis that these are bad for the private sector and will harm state tax revenue.  Hello?  Virtually every municipal broadband project underway fuels job creation as crews work to install the fiber optic networks that will come to represent an economic catalyst and job creator.  When communities no longer have to turn away digital economy jobs lost because of inadequate broadband by existing providers, that’s an economic victory for hard-pressed North Carolina, where unemployment is at 11.2 percent these days — 10th worst in the country.

The FCC’s National Broadband Plan has prioritized stimulating the deployment of ultra high-speed broadband (100/50Mbps) service to 100 million households in ten years, so why are some in our legislature standing in the way of better broadband options for North Carolina?  You need to ask them!

Just look at Wilson’s community broadband project for evidence of a broadband success story.  Wilson pleaded with providers to deliver 21st century broadband service to no avail.  So Wilson did it themselves.

Cable and phone companies howled in protest.  They even brought in their astroturfing friends from corporate-funded groups like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity to try and hookwink consumers into opposing municipal broadband.

It’s just another classic case of providers not wanting to spend money to upgrade their networks to compete.  Communities like Wilson getting the broadband service they deserve are good examples of why the industry is afraid such projects could spread.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Watch what happens when a municipal provider competes for your business.  Catherine Rice of Action Audits delivered the undeniable proof at a December NC House Select Committee on High Speed Internet Access in Rural and Urban Areas hearing, showing while cable and broadband rates across the state march ever higher, they strangely don’t in Wilson, where GreenLight, the municipal alternative, keeps rates in check. Click here to download a PDF copy of the slides Rice refers to in her presentation. (11 minutes)

Some members of the legislature will stand with their constituents and vote against this anti-consumer nightmare.  Some may not be fully informed on the issues and are only hearing the telecommunications industry talking points.  For some others, I’m afraid it’s a case of following the money.

The telecommunications industry in North Carolina is very generous to their benefactors, only too willing to return the favor writing the industry’s wish-list into state law.

You will recognize some of the names from the Follow the Money series I wrote last year (read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3).  It’s a new year, so Part 4 will follow in the coming days, updating the financial contributions of incumbents and introducing new members and how much they’ve accepted from this industry.

Ironically, one of the legislators, Rep. Pryor Allan Gibson, III works as a contractor for Time Warner Cable!  His vote will be particularly interesting to follow.

North Carolina Legislature

North Carolina Call to Action!

Phone calls are always the most effective, and they are timely coming just days before the April 21st meeting of the Revenue Laws Study Committee.  But you can also e-mail representatives (and that’s not a bad idea even if you also called).  North Carolina deserves world-class, next-generation broadband.  Don’t allow a handful of the same companies overcharging you for today’s slow service strangle your best chance for competition!

Here is a sample e-mail message to send to all of the Committee members involved:

Subject: Don’t You Dare Vote for an Anti-Municipal Broadband Bill!

Message: As a consumer, I was disturbed to hear the Revenue Laws Study Committee was prepared to vote for an industry-sponsored Anti-Municipal Broadband Bill on April 21st.  Please do not vote for this or any other bill that removes competitive choice for broadband service.  Our local communities should not be stopped from deploying 21st century fiber to the home systems other providers refuse to deliver.  Such fiber networks create jobs, keep North Carolina business competitive, and stimulate economic development, which will deliver needed tax revenue.

The same providers backing this bill that are not delivering service to unserved communities, or offer inadequate service in others, have had a decade to deliver the service municipal providers are actually providing today in our state. Instead of delivering, they’ve offered a litany of excuses and now want special legislative protections to preserve their entrenched market position.

As a consumer, I am fed up with relentless rate increases year after year.  In communities like Wilson, where a municipal provider delivers excellent service, the rate increases from cable and phone companies have stopped.  A vote for this bill guarantees we’ll be paying higher and higher cable and phone bills indefinitely, and that’s something I would definitely remember come Election Day.  Make no mistake — this proposed legislation is an obvious gift to the telecommunications industry at the expense of all of your constituents, including myself.  That’s why I am confident you will stand up and make your opposition heard to this and similar measures.

At a time when the FCC’s National Broadband Plan envisions 100 million households with ultra-fast broadband service delivering economic benefits, it’s ironic our state legislature is even considering impeding the very providers that are on track to fulfill that goal.

With 11.2 percent unemployment — the 10th worst in the country, now is not the time to put a moratorium on North Carolina’s communities considering a better future through municipally-provided broadband.

With all this in mind, I am confident you will deliver for constituents like myself and oppose these industry-backed bills.  I look forward to hearing from you soon on this issue.

For best results, use your own wording and talk about the broadband market in your community.  You can reference the excitement over Google’s fiber to the home project.

Here are the Committee members to write or call, including their district area and what they do for a living:

(Please send individual messages to members, even if the contents are essentially the same — avoid simply CC’ing a single message to every representative.)

• Sen. Daniel Gray Clodfelter (Co-Chair) Mecklenberg Daniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net (919) 715-8331 Democrat (704) 331-1041 Attorney
• Sen. Daniel T. Blue, Jr. Wake Dan.Blue@ncleg.net (919) 733-5752 Democrat (919) 833-1931 Attorney
• Sen. Peter Samuel Brunstetter Forsyth Peter.Brunstetter@ncleg.net (919) 733-7850 Republican (336) 747-6604 Attorney
• Sen. Fletcher Lee Hartsell, Jr. Cabarrus, Iredell Fletcher.Hartsell@ncleg.net (919) 733-7223 Republican (704) 786-5161 Attorney
• Sen. David W. Hoyle Gaston David.Hoyle@ncleg.net (919) 733-5734 Democrat (704) 867-0822 Real Estate Developer/Investor
• Sen. Samuel Clark Jenkins Edgecomb, Martin, Pitt Clark.Jenkins@ncleg.net (919) 715-3040 Democrat (252) 823-7029 W.S. Clark Farms
• Sen. Josh Stein Wake Josh.Stein@ncleg.net (919)715-6400 Democrat (919)715-6400 Lawyer
• Sen. Jerry W. Tillman Montgomery, Randolph Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net (919) 733-5870 Republican (336) 431-5325 Ret’d school teacher
• Rep. Paul Luebke (Co-Chair) Durham Paul.Luebke@ncleg.net 919-733-7663 Democrat 919-286-0269 College Teacher
• Rep. Harold J. Brubaker Randolph Harold.Brubaker@ncleg.net 919-715-4946 Republican 336-629-5128 Real Estate Appraiser
• Rep. Becky Carney Mecklenberg Becky.Carney@ncleg.net 919-733-5827 Democrat 919-733-5827 Homemaker
• Rep. Pryor Allan Gibson, III Anson, Union Pryor.Gibson@ncleg.net 919-715-3007 Democrat 704-694-5957 Builder/TWC contractor
• Rep. Dewey Lewis Hill Brunswick, Columbus Dewey.Hill@ncleg.net 919-733-5830 Democrat 910-642-6044 Business Exec (Navy)
• Rep. Julia Craven Howard Davie, Iredell Julia.Howard@ncleg.net 919-733-5904 Republican 336-751-3538 Appraiser, Realtor
• Rep. Daniel Francis McComas New Hanover Danny.McComas@ncleg.net 919-733-5786 Republican 910-343-8372 Business Executive
• Rep. William C. McGee Forsyth William.McGee@ncleg.net 919-733-5747 Republican 336-766-4481 Retired (Army)
• Rep. William L. Wainwright Craven, Lenoir William.Wainwright@ncleg.net 919-733-5995 Democrat 252-447-7379 Presiding Elder
• Rep. Jennifer Weiss Wake Jennifer.Weiss@ncleg.net 919-715-3010 Democrat 919-715-3010 Lawyer-Mom

Share/Save