When broadband advocates talk about the advantages of fiber-to-the-home service, commercial providers and their friends routinely criticize us for demanding “Cadillac” networks in areas that “don’t need” fiber-fast broadband speeds. Despite the fact the United States and Canada continue to fall further and further behind in the global broadband speed race, companies that answer to stockholders simply won’t hear of upgrading networks to the technology Asia and Europe increasingly takes for granted.

There is no question fiber broadband is costly to build, especially in rural communities where the cost per home will require a long-term payback for the upfront investment required. But that doesn’t stop community-owned networks and public co-ops from advancing forward.

Dakota Central Telecommunications and Dickey Rural Networks last month celebrated the completion of the largest fiber-to-the-home network in North America… in rural North Dakota.

Both providers, operated as co-ops, deliver speedy service to every home and business within a 10,000 square mile area.  Broadband at speeds of 20Mbps starts at $39.95 a month.  Want faster speeds? For $89.95 a month, you can purchase 50Mbps service.  A triple-play package of phone, broadband, and cable TV service runs $113.75 a month.

While DSL has been available in the past, it simply could not deliver the 21st century broadband speeds businesses and consumers need.

Both providers, collectively owned by the members who subscribe to the service, spent a combined $90 million on the expansive fiber network. But instead of throwing a hissyfit over the price tag, the collective feeling was this represents an investment in North Dakota’s future. Area businesses have already taken advantage of the new speeds to improve efficiency and think about new ways they can market their products and services online.

The decision to deploy fiber to the home service made sense because of its infinite expandability, dependability, and capacity.  Commercial providers like AT&T and Verizon that embarked on fiber upgrades deploy them only in the largest cities, where the cost per subscriber is lower and where investors believe the costs to build the networks will be recouped the fastest.  Now both companies have declared those networks to be largely complete, leaving large numbers of their customers off the upgrade list, stuck indefinitely with yesterday’s DSL technology.

That isn’t happening with community-owned providers and co-ops, where the goal remains to reach every possible customer. Rapid cost recovery is not the highest priority — delivering good service in their communities is. Most are willing to wait a little longer to pay off network construction costs in return for better service for everyone today.

USDA Under Secretary Dallas Tonsager says North Dakota’s fiber network is a “great role model” for the rest of the country.

“We’re going to use you as an example over and over and over again,” he said.

The USDA administers grants for rural broadband networks to help expand broadband service in underserved/unserved rural areas.

WDAY in Fargo traveled to the unveiling of North America’s largest fiber broadband network and talked with residents about the transformational nature of fiber broadband.  (2 minutes)

This video shows how south-central North Dakota managed to build a fiber network that reaches every home within a 10,000 square mile area and how it is changing lives.  (7 minutes)

Consumer Reports today released its 2012 list of America’s best phone, broadband, and pay television providers (subscription required), giving top scores to fiber-to-the-home and cable broadband and exposing some familiar phone and cable companies which year-after-year deliver “bottom of the barrel” scores.

Nearly 70,000 readers of the consumer magazine participated in rating their local telecommunications providers for value, reliability, customer service, and broadband speed.  No provider scored higher than “average” for value, but wide discrepancies in broadband speed and the quality of service made choosing winners and losers easy.

Top-rated WOW! (formerly WideOpenWest), is the 15th largest cable provider in the United States, but regularly wins top scores from Consumer Reports readers for the quality of its services. WOW! currently serves mostly suburban subscribers in a handful of cities in Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. But the provider will soon be coming to several new locations thanks to its April purchase of cable overbuilder Knology, which provides service in multi-dwelling units and administers some community-owned broadband networks around the country.  This could provide relief for customers dealing with onerous usage caps in cities like Lawrence, Kan., where Knology’s buyout of Sunflower Broadband kept that company’s Internet Overcharging scheme in place. WOW! has no usage limits on their broadband service.

Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network is also a consistent winner in the ratings, especially for its fast broadband service.

AT&T’s U-verse also scored high in the ratings for broadband.  AT&T’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service still works with existing copper phone wiring inside the home and delivers 20+Mbps broadband, a major improvement over AT&T’s traditional DSL service, which usually tops out at 7Mbps.

Among top-rated cable companies you have heard of, Bright House Networks scored a major coup, winning third place for its broadband service.  Ironically, consumers gave very high marks to Earthlink delivered over Time Warner Cable, scoring it fourth place for broadband. But Earthlink’s performance on Time Warner Cable is actually slightly less than the cable company’s own broadband service. Although both services share exactly the same network, Time Warner adds “speedboost,” a temporary speed increase for downloads. But the cable company got no respect from customers, who put TWC in 19th place.

Other findings of interest:

• TDS, an independent phone company serving primarily rural areas scored a very high fifth place in broadband, despite offering only traditional DSL service (except in limited areas where it has built fiber networks to stay competitive with community-owned providers and cable companies).  But the company won high marks for service reliability;
• Frontier Communications’ inherited FiOS fiber to the home services in Indiana and the Pacific Northwest were that company’s only bright spots for broadband, putting both systems in sixth place.  Everywhere else… forget about it. The company’s traditional DSL service was rated a lousy value and delivered mediocre speeds, earning 24th place.
• Satellite fraudband providers Wildblue and HughesNet continue to torture their customers, scoring dead last for lousy value, speeds, reliability, and everything else.
• Still awful after all these years: Mediacom, Charter, and FairPoint Communications all continue their dubious distinction scoring at the bottom of the barrel for broadband. It’s nothing new for any of them, and it appears nothing is likely to change those rankings in the immediate future.

Americans still hate the big boys.  Outside of AT&T and Verizon’s shorter history delivering triple-play-packages of cable, phone, and Internet service, the legacy of lousy pricing and service from the country’s largest cable operators still hold them back in the ratings.  Comcast managed only 24th place, dragged down by terrible customer service and worse value.  Cablevision did better at 16th place with higher marks for everything but value.  It was the same story for 12th place Cox Cable.

What was the top choice for telephone service in 2012?  Ooma, a Voice over IP phone company that works with an existing broadband connection.  Phone companies that have been in the business of phone service for decades (or longer) were all bottom-rated: AT&T, Verizon, FairPoint, and Frontier Communications.  Only Mediacom, a cable operator, kept Frontier from scoring dead last.  And they wonder why Americans can’t wait to disconnect traditional landline service?

In fact, Consumer Reports says no other industry alienates consumers more than America’s telephone and cable companies.

But you can fight back and score a better deal.  Stop the Cap! was quoted in the magazine piece with our advice to play hardball with cable and phone companies who charge too much and deliver too little.

“The magic word is ‘cancel,’ ” says Phillip Dampier, of the website Stop the Cap! He suggests you schedule your disconnection date for a week or two in the future. “When you’re on their disconnect list, they are going to start calling you offering very aggressive deals,” he says.

Top-rated WOW! only delivers service in a handful of cities in the midwest, but is getting larger after acquiring Knology in April 2012.

Indeed, Consumer Reports found most providers willing to deal… eventually, but they have gotten wise to halfhearted negotiation tactics by consumers looking for a better deal. If a provider suspects you won’t follow through on a threat to change providers, they often stubbornly refuse to deal. That’s why we recommend requesting to be placed on a “pending disconnect” list — proof you are prepared to leave in a week or two if they won’t negotiate.

We’ve followed investor conference calls for most major providers over the past two years. Every provider has gotten more aggressive with customer retention offers, in part because of the poor economy and increased competition. Customers are paring back cable packages and cutting out extra channels and services they can no longer afford. Some have become expert at bouncing between new customer promotional offers. Cable operators like Time Warner Cable have tried to keep customers, even those coming to the end of promotions, with slightly less aggressive discounting.

“We have a very well-choreographed program for moving people from the most heavily discounted promos into the rational next-step pricing packages,” Rob Marcus, president of Time Warner Cable told the magazine. “Over time, that discount will decrease, but you’d probably still save 20 to 30 percent off the rack rate,” or regular price.

But we found consumers who get back on the disconnect list usually do much better than Time Warner’s “next-step” pricing, some even earning a better retention offer than what they received in 2011. The more serious customers are about their willingness to leave, the better the offer in return.

Dead last place for cable companies... again.

The magazine also offers solace for customers who literally have nowhere else to go for service:

Alan Curtis of Manchester, N.H., whose condominium is served only by Comcast, says his rates go up each year but he pushes back. “If you say, ‘We’ll have to buy less,’ occasionally they’ll come up with a cost-cutter that will apply to you,” he says. Similarly, a staffer who lives in a New York City apartment served only by Time Warner Cable more than offset a $5 increase in his overall bill by negotiating an $8-a-month cut in his DVR rental fee for 12 months.

Consumer Reports also warns customers to choose broadband providers wisely, because the speeds they advertise may never materialize. Case in point, Frontier Communications’ dreadful DSL service, which the magazine found met the company’s speed marketing claims only 67% of the time. Frontier has been struggling with a vastly oversold broadband network, causing speeds to slow dramatically during peak usage times, particularly in states like West Virginia.  The magazine recommends fiber to the home providers and cable operators for more consistent broadband performance that comes closer to the broadband speeds advertised.

At all costs, avoid satellite broadband, which remains slow, expensive, and heavily usage-capped.

Frontier Communications has confirmed a Stop the Cap! exclusive report that the company has shown an interest in a licensing arrangement with AT&T to deliver U-verse to Frontier customers in larger markets.

Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications today told investors on a morning conference call that the company likes the U-verse product and is considering deploying it.

“We’ve been evaluating a lot of other alternatives of which U-verse is one of the alternatives,” Wilderotter said. “We think it’s a product that can work, not just on fiber, but it also works on copper as well. So it’s a lot more forgiving in the market.”

Wilderotter claimed the company has no immediate plans to introduce the technology, but Stop the Cap! has obtained documentation that shows the company now refers specifically to “U-verse” in internal communications, is hiring new leadership to oversee the company’s IPTV plans, and has plans to dramatically expand VDSL technology, a prerequisite for deploying AT&T’s fiber to the neighborhood platform.

Wilderotter

Frontier Communications has had a difficult time supporting its Verizon-inherited FiOS fiber-to-the-home networks in the Pacific Northwest and Indiana.  The company has found itself unable to compete effectively in the video business because it negotiates programming contracts independently, which locks Frontier out of the volume discounts that other independent providers routinely receive from participating in programming purchasing co-ops.  Frontier lost 4,800 FiOS video customers in the last quarter alone.

Wilderotter said as a result of programming costs, Frontier has no plans to pursue any additional fiber expansion to deliver video programming.

However, a licensing arrangement with AT&T U-verse could open the door to Frontier receiving the same volume discount prices for programming that AT&T already receives as part of its own operations. Because Frontier would have to significantly upgrade its existing, primarily middle-mile fiber network to reduce the amount of copper wiring in its network, the company faces significant capital investment costs wherever it chooses to deploy the more advanced broadband network.

Wilderotter hinted Frontier’s plans for the enhanced technology would be limited to a handful of cities.

“It doesn’t make sense in all of our markets,” she said. “It’s only a handful of markets other than where we have FiOS today. So there’s more to come on that over time. Video is very important. We think over the top video is probably more important than anything else.”

The most likely target for any IPTV expansion would be Frontier’s western New York operation in and around Rochester, where the company currently competes against Time Warner Cable with a mediocre DSL product that can no longer compete with the cable operator’s superior speeds and pricing promotions.  Frontier is steadily losing market share in most of its more-populated service areas.

Other likely targets for expanded broadband include larger cities in Pennsylvania, Illinois, West Virginia, and California.

Frontier's Broadband Customers (as of 12/31/11)

Chief Operating Officer Daniel McCarthy added Frontier also has plans to improve broadband speeds in most of its service areas.

“We’ve been working pretty steadily to improve the core network around the country,” McCarthy said. “You’ll see us aggressively move forward with sort of VDSL and bonded ADSL2 copper.”

Currently, Frontier only informally offers bonded service to residential customers in very limited areas, notably in parts of the Genesee Valley in western New York.  The company has been marketing an extra line of traditional ADSL service to customers elsewhere who want more broadband capacity, but that requires a second broadband modem and delivers no speed improvements.

Frontier’s time frame to deploy enhanced speeds in within 12-24 months, according the company officials.

In other developments, Frontier Communications customers formerly served by Verizon will likely find themselves choosing new service plans as Frontier prepares to migrate customers away from legacy Verizon service packages.

Wilderotter telegraphed that affected Frontier customers will see some rate increases when the new plans become effective.

“We do think that there is a pretty substantial revenue upside,” Wilderotter said. “We think the net-net is we’ll get customers on the right portfolio of products that will also be revenue enhancing for the company and we’re going to surround the products with the right kind of service experience, both online and off-line. We’re redesigning all of our online product sets for a better customer experience so they can manage their own broadband usage and actually upgrading or changing what they do with broadband themselves, if in fact, they want to do that.”

Schuyler County

The fastest thing in Schuyler County, N.Y., isn’t broadband — it’s the Watkins Glen International speedway.

County officials hope to change that, voting unanimously this month to approve an agreement with the Southern Tier Network to bring a regional fiber optic system into the county.

The not-for-profit local development corporation established to build and manage the regional fiber network doesn’t sit well with some county residents, however, including one retired Verizon employee who dismissed the project.

Odessa resident Karen Radenberg called fiber optics technology “old school” and said no private company will connect to the fiber network to expand broadband service.

Radenberg urged the county to consider that communications companies have now moved on to using 4G wireless technology instead of fiber.

“That’s ridiculous,” countered Legislature Chairman Dennis Fagan (R-Tyrone).

Fagan

Fagan pointed to nearby Ontario County’s fiber middle-mile and institutional network which has signed companies, including Verizon, as customers.  Verizon reportedly uses the Ontario County network to deliver backhaul connectivity to its cell tower network in the area.  Ontario County is served by several different landline companies including Frontier Communications, Verizon, and Windstream.  Time Warner Cable is the dominant cable provider, but large sections of the county are deemed too rural for cable television service.

Fagan said the new fiber network will improve the chances private companies will expand broadband across the county, but also help deliver an important upgrade to the region’s emergency responder communications system.  The extremely hilly terrain across much of the southern tier creates problems because of signal gaps.  The new fiber network will allow the county to build radio repeaters into areas where the existing network of microwave communications towers cannot reach.

Schuyler County currently has no plans to sell Internet connectivity to the public, but hopes existing private cable and phone companies — including Time Warner Cable and Verizon Communications — will consider utilizing the network to expand service.  Neither company has shown much interest expanding service to new areas recently, most likely because expansion costs will not be recouped fast enough.

If the county network reduces the cost to expand service, more homes and businesses may now fall within a “Return on Investment” formula that could mean the difference between broadband and dial-up.

Netflix continues to step up its attacks on providers who implement Internet Overcharging schemes on their wired broadband customers.

That concern is understandable as Netflix increasingly transitions to broadband streaming instead of mailing DVD’s to customers.

Getting in the way are five of the nation’s seven largest broadband providers, all imposing limits on customers just as they discover they might be able to do without cable television.

Netflix’s streamed HD shows now consume around 2GB per hour, according to Netflix general counsel David Hyman.  That can eat through usage allowances quickly.  Hyman penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year blasting the practices of usage caps and consumption billing.

Hyman

“Wireline bandwidth is an almost unlimited resource due to advances in Internet architecture,” Hyman wrote. “The marginal cost of providing an extra gigabyte of data—enough to deliver one episode of 30 Rock from Netflix—is less than one cent, and falling.”

That doesn’t seem to matter much to Comcast, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, and Cox.  All four providers have introduced hard usage limits on customers — a usage cap.  Exceeding it gives any of those providers the right to cut off your broadband service.  AT&T, always one to see a financial angle, charges for excess use of their DSL and U-verse service — $10 for every 50GB. Time Warner Cable recently announced its own experimental “optional” usage pricing package for very light users who consume fewer than 5GB per month.  It will slap overlimit fees on those participating customers who break through the 5GB ceiling at a rate of $1/GB, an enormous markup.

Providers with strict caps usually argue they come as a result of their own network’s capacity problems.  Cable operators who do not consistently manage their network traffic can experience traffic clogs by overselling service without upgrading capacity to sustain user demand.  But providers like Comcast, Cox, and Charter resolved those capacity problems with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which offer operators an exponentially bigger pipeline for Internet traffic.

Although Comcast promised to regularly review and adjust usage caps since implementing them four years ago, the nation’s largest cable operator has thus far seen no need to raise them.

“We feel that that is an extraordinarily large amount of data,” says Comcast’s Charlie Davis. “That limit is there to make sure we provide a great online experience for every single paying customer.”

Wall Street bankers have closely monitored the industry’s early results from Internet Overcharging, and have been encouraged, so long as operators implement it carefully.

Credit Suisse in a 2011 report to its investor clients suggested the key for successful usage-based pricing is to introduce it slowly and keep “sticker shock to a minimum in the early days” to reduce backlash by consumers and lawmakers.

Once established, the sky is the limit.

Netflix itself is also battling an Internet Overcharging scheme it faces — double-dipping by cable operators like Comcast.  In addition to the fees Comcast collects from customers for its broadband service, the cable operator also wants to be paid directly by Netflix to allow the movie service’s traffic on its network.

That’s an Internet toll booth, charges Netflix and consumer groups.  It’s also uncompetitive, says Hyman.

This month Comcast unveiled its own movie and TV show streaming service — Xfinity Streampix — from which, unsurprisingly, the cable company has not sought extra traffic payments from itself.

Opposed to Internet Overcharging

Three providers which don’t cap customers don’t see a reason to try.

Verizon Communications says its fiber network FiOS has plenty of capacity and has no plans to restrict customers’ enjoyment of the service.  In 2009, Cablevision’s Jim Blackley told one panel discussion usage caps are not in the cards.

“We don’t want customers to think about byte caps so that’s not on our horizon,” Blackley said. “We literally don’t want consumers to think about how they’re consuming high-speed services. It’s a pretty powerful drug and we want people to use more and more of it.”

California’s Sonic.net Inc., goes even further.  Its CEO, Dane Jasper, believes the Federal Communications Commission needs to be more assertive about protecting America’s broadband revolution and the customers that depend on the service.

The fact different operators can take radically different positions on the subject, despite running similar networks, suggests technical necessity is not the reason providers are implementing usage restrictions and extra fees on customers.

As Hyman writes:

Bandwidth caps with fees piled on top are a lousy way to manage traffic. All of the costs of supplying residential broadband are for supporting peak usage. Bandwidth consumed off-peak is completely free. If Internet service providers really wanted to manage traffic efficiently, they would limit speeds at peak times. If their goal is instead to increase revenues or lessen competition, getting consumers to pay per gigabyte is an excellent strategy.

Consumer access to unlimited bandwidth is good for society. It fosters innovation, drives commerce, and advances political and social discourse. Given that bandwidth is cheap and plentiful and will only grow more so with time, there is no good reason for bandwidth caps and fees to take root.

Consumers and regulators need to take heed of what is happening and avoid winding up like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water. It’s time to jump before it’s too late.

Last week’s shocking development that Cablevision, a major cable operator in greater New York City, New Jersey and Connecticut is not going to raise rates in 2012 is bad news for other cable operators itching to raise rates once again this year.

Cablevision’s decision was made as the company continues to battle Verizon FiOS, the phone company’s fiber-to-home-service across its service area.  Verizon has been playing hardball with Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and Cablevision in its metro New York service area, offering up to $500 in rebates to sign new customers.  That level of vicious competition has been great for consumers, but lousy for Wall Street.

Investors were not pleased with Cablevision’s pass on rate hikes and its intention to invest a lot more in system upgrades than originally planned.  Wall Street loves increased revenue and hates it when companies spend it on their customers.

With all of this competition breaking out, Comcast and Time Warner Cable may be more than a little uncomfortable sitting down at an antitrust hearing later this month to discuss their new agreement with Verizon to cross-market cable and mobile service.  In return for the cable industry signaling they will never compete with Verizon’s mobile phone offering, Verizon has generously purchased the cable industry’s leftover spectrum and agreed to pitch cable TV subscriptions to Verizon Wireless customers.  With this new “non-aggression treaty,” will there still be a need to offer $500 gift cards and cut-rate prices to attract new customers?  Consumer groups think not.

A greater percentage of Cablevision’s service area is served by Verizon’s fiber network than either Time Warner Cable or Comcast.  Competition is forcing Cablevision to rethink the usual cable industry plan for financial success — force channels customers don’t want and raise rates up to 5% a year to pay for the “increased costs of doing business.”  Consumers are fed up with $150 monthly cable bills and will take Verizon up on an offer than cuts rates $50 a month and hands over up to $500 just for saying “yes” to FiOS.

While incumbent phone and cable operators often try to directly block community broadband projects, sometimes politics and special insider interests also get in the way.  One of our loyal readers shared a piece with us published in Fierce Telecom that outlines the trouble spots:

Gov. Bobby Jindal Blows It for Louisiana; Wife’s Foundation Heavily Supported By AT&T

Jindal's wife's charity is a recipient of AT&T money.

The U.S. Dept. of Commerce awarded $80.5 million to help drain Louisiana’s broadband swamp with a new statewide fiber network linking the most rural and poor areas of the state, including schools, libraries, hospitals, and universities.  Users could have obtained service from 10Mbps-1Gbps, but not if Jindal had his way.  He preferred AT&T (and the state’s cable operators) handle everything the same way they have traditionally handled telecommunications in the state — service in big cities and next to nothing everywhere else.  In addition to directly supporting the governor, AT&T contributes substantially to a charitable foundation founded by Jindal’s wife.

Jindal never openly blocked the project.  Instead, his administration “dithered and bickered” over the fiber network and ran the clock out.  Last October, the Commerce Department revoked the grant, leaving Louisiana’s Broadband Alliance with little more than a plan they’ll never be able to implement as long as Jindal occupies the governor’s office.  Stop the Cap! covered the mess back in November.

Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell:

“We want to know what the heck happened; we’re the only ones in the country that dropped the ball,” Campbell said. “I meet with people in every parish, and the number one priority by far is high-speed Internet, and how do you lose $80 million coming from the federal government to do that. How do you drop the ball, and if they did drop the ball was it because someone whispered in their ears, ‘it’s going interfere with big companies?’”

AT&T-Backed Astroturf Operation Scandalizes the Mayor’s Office and Ruins A High Tech Training Program

Marks

As Stop the Cap! wrote last fall, a scandal involving AT&T and the mayor of the state capital of Florida ultimately cost the city of Tallahassee a $1.6 million dollar federal broadband grant to expand Internet access to the urban poor and train disadvantaged citizens to navigate the online world.

Mayor John Marks never bothered to inform the city he had a direct conflict of interest with the group he strongly advocated as a participant in the grant project. The Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE) is little more than an AT&T astroturf effort — a front group that did almost nothing to bring Internet access to anyone. Mayor Marks was a paid adviser.

After the media got involved, the mayor’s office hoped the whole project would just go away. And it did, along with the $1.6 million.

Wisconsin Republicans <Heart> AT&T, Even When It Means Forfeiting $23 Million for Better Broadband

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is a close friend of AT&T.  So close, when the phone company was threatened with the loss of revenue earned from the institutional broadband network it leases to the state, Walker and his Republican colleagues intervened, literally turning away $23 million in government stimulus funding.  Walker alone has accepted more than $20,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T.  Stop the Cap! covered this story in detail in February 2011.

Governor Walker (R-AT&T)

The decision to return the money had a direct impact on 380 Wisconsin communities, 385 libraries, 82 schools, and countless public safety offices across the state.  Namely, being stuck with AT&T’s outdated and expensive network the state leases in successive five year contracts.  Since broadband stimulus funding requires the construction of networks designed to last 20 years, not five, Walker’s insistence on sticking with AT&T made the stimulus funding off-limits.  But what are friends for?

AT&T has historically had no trouble getting its phone calls returned by Republican state lawmakers, who have cheered most of AT&T’s proposed legislation through the state legislature.  Today, Wisconsin takes a “hands off” approach with the state’s cable and phone companies, passed a statewide franchising bill that stripped oversight away from local communities, and AT&T’s landline network faces little scrutiny in the state, especially in rural communities.

The state university is now attempting to bypass Walker with its own $37 million project, but it will never serve Wisconsin consumers.  The institutional network will target schools, hospitals and first responders.

As Fierce Telecom notes, other communities could face the loss of their stimulus funding if they do not get busy building the projects they promised.  The Rural Utilities Service, part of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, has put several projects on notice they could forfeit broadband stimulus funding if they fail to meet project deadlines.

Nearly one year ago, Google selected Kansas City, Kansas as the first city to “Think Big With a Gig,” a gigabit fiber to the home broadband network that would shatter misconceptions that Americans don’t need lightning-fast broadband speeds.

In the original announcement, early 2012 was slated to be the target date for the service to become available in at least some areas of the city.  After months of wrangling with utility companies and the city government, Google began burying the first fiber lines earlier this month.  This week, it filed for permission with both Kansas and Missouri officials to compliment its forthcoming broadband service with a complete cable-TV package as well.

Google’s fiber project now has incumbent operators on both sides of the Missouri and Kansas Rivers concerned about forthcoming competition from the search engine giant, especially after Google announced it would wire both the Kansas and Missouri sides of the city.

Greater Kansas City is primarily served by Time Warner Cable and AT&T, but smaller cable operators also offer service in some areas.  Google is considering a competitive cable package with video on demand.  It is expected to wrap up licensing negotiations with programmers within a month or two, and some of its contracts allow Google to sell cable service outside of the Kansas City area, a potentially interesting development should Google want to provide an Internet-based cable system to subscribers in other cities.

We have collected several media reports on the Google project in Kansas City to bring readers up to date:

WDAF in Kansas City reports on some of the submissions to Google’s Gigabit Challenge — a competition to consider how to leverage 1,000Mbps broadband. (12/6/11 — 2 minutes)

WDAF reports on what is holding up the Google Fiber project.  It turns out local utilities have been harder to deal with than originally thought.  (1/18/12 — 3 minutes)

KMBC reports Google is ready to break ground on its new fiber network.  (2/6/12 — 2 minutes)

KCTV says Google started laying fiber this week.  The new service is on the way.  (2 minutes)

Phillip "Break Free from 'What's In It For Me'-AT&T" Dampier

[We are reprinting this because it succinctly and persuasively proves a point we've been making at Stop the Cap! since 2008.  Broadband is not just a "nice thing to have." It is as important as a phone line, electricity, and safe drinking water.  News, education, commerce, and culture increasingly utilize the Internet to share information and entertain us. Essential utility services can either be provided by a private company operating as a monopoly with oversight and regulation, or operate strictly in the public interest in the form of a customer-owned cooperative, a direct service of local government, or a quasi-public independent non-profit.

In North America, broadband was originally considered a non-essential service, and private providers in the United States lobbied heavily to maintain absolute control of their broadband networks, free to open them to share with other providers, or not.  They also won sweeping deregulation and are still fighting today for decreased oversight.  The results have been uneven service.  Large, compact cities enjoy modern and fast broadband while smaller communities are forced to live with a fraction of the speeds offered elsewhere, if they have access to the service at all.

With broadband now deemed "essential," local governments have increasingly sought to end the same old excuses with the "don't care"-cable company or "what's in it for me"-AT&T and provide 21st century service themselves, especially where local commercial providers simply won't step up to the plate at all.  Suddenly, big cable and phone companies are more possessive than your last boy/girlfriend. The companies that for years couldn't care less about your broadband needs suddenly obsess when someone else moves in on "their territory." They want special laws (that apply only to the competition) to make sure your broadband future lies exclusively in their hands.

Susan P. Crawford understand how this dysfunctional, controlling relationship comes at the expense of rural America.  She's a visiting professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. In 2009, she was a special assistant to President Barack Obama for science, technology and innovation policy. Her opinions were originally shared with readers of Bloomberg News.]

In cities and towns across the U.S., a familiar story is replaying itself: Powerful companies are preventing local governments from providing an essential service to their citizens. More than 100 years ago, it was electricity. Today, it is the public provision of communications services.

Susan Crawford

The Georgia legislature is currently considering a bill that would effectively make it impossible for any city in the state to provide for high-speed Internet access networks — even in areas in which the private sector cannot or will not. Nebraska, North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee already have similar laws in place. South Carolina is considering one, as is Florida.

Mayors across the U.S. are desperate to attract good jobs and provide residents with educational opportunities, access to affordable health care, and other benefits that depend on affordable, fast connectivity — something that people in other industrialized countries take for granted. But powerful incumbent providers such as AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc. are hamstringing municipalities.

At the beginning of the 20th century, private power companies electrified only the most lucrative population centers and ignored most of America, particularly rural America. By the mid-1920s, 15 holding companies controlled 85 percent of the nation’s electricity distribution, and the Federal Trade Commission found that the power trusts routinely gouged consumers.

Costly and Dangerous

In response, and recognizing that cheap, plentiful electricity was essential to economic development and quality of life, thousands of communities formed electric utilities of their own. Predictably, the private utilities claimed that public ownership of electrical utilities was “costly and dangerous” and “always a failure,” according to the November 1906 issue of Moody’s Magazine. Now more than 2,000 communities in the U.S., including Seattle, San Antonio and Los Angeles, provide their own electricity.

Today, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which advocates for community broadband initiatives, is tracking more than 60 municipal governments that have built or are building successful fiber networks, just as they created electric systems during the 20th century. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, for example, the city’s publicly owned electric company provides fast, affordable and reliable fiber Internet access. Some businesses based in Knoxville — 100 miles to the northeast — are adding jobs in Chattanooga, where connectivity can cost an eighth as much.

Meanwhile, less than 8 percent of Americans currently receive fiber service to their homes, compared with more than 50 percent of households in South Korea, and almost 40 percent in Japan. Where it’s available, Americans pay five or six times as much for their fiber access as people in other countries do. Fully a third of Americans don’t subscribe to high-speed Internet access at all, and AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said last month that the company was “trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America, and we’re not finding one, to be quite candid.” America is rapidly losing the global race for high-speed connectivity.

Tamping Down Enthusiasm

We've done something like this once before.

Like the power trusts of the 20th century, the enormous consolidated providers of wired Internet access want to tamp down any enthusiasm for municipal networks. Last year, telecom lobbyists spent more than $300,000 in a failed effort to block a referendum in Longmont, Colorado, to allow that city to provide Internet access. Time Warner Cable managed to get a North Carolina law enacted last year that makes launching municipal networks there extraordinarily difficult. The pending measures in Georgia and South Carolina are modeled on the North Carolina bill.

The Georgia bill is chock-full of sand traps and areas of deep statutory fog from which no local public network is likely ever to emerge. In addition to the ordinary public hearings that any municipality would hold on the subject, a town looking to build a public network would have to hold a referendum. It wouldn’t be allowed to spend any money in support of its position (there would be no such prohibition on the deep-pocketed incumbents). The community wouldn’t be allowed to support its network with local taxes or surplus revenues from any other services (although incumbents routinely and massively subsidize their networks with revenue from other businesses).

Most pernicious of all, the public operator would have to include in the costs of its service the phantom, imputed “capital costs” and “taxes” of a private provider. This is a fertile area for disputes, litigation and delay, as no one knows what precise costs and taxes are at issue, much less how to calculate these amounts. The public provider would also have to comply with all laws and “requirements” applicable to “the communications service,” if it were made available by “a private provider,” although again the law doesn’t specify which service is involved or which provider is relevant.

The end result of all this vague language will be to make it all but impossible for a city to obtain financing to build its network. Although the proponents of Georgia’s bill claim that they are merely trying to create a level playing field, these are terms and conditions that no new entrant, public or private, can meet — and that the incumbents themselves do not live by. You can almost hear the drafters laughing about how impossible the entire enterprise will be.

Globally Competitive Networks

Right now, state legislatures — where the incumbents wield great power — are keeping towns and cities in the U.S. from making their own choices about their communications networks. Meanwhile, municipalities, cooperatives and small independent companies are practically the only entities building globally competitive networks these days. Both AT&T and Verizon have ceased the expansion of next-generation fiber installations across the U.S., and the cable companies’ services greatly favor downloads over uploads.

Congress needs to intervene. One way it could help is by preempting state laws that erect barriers to the ability of local jurisdictions to provide communications services to their citizens.

Running for president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt emphasized the right of communities to provide their own electricity. “I might call the right of the people to own and operate their own utility a birch rod in the cupboard,” he said, “to be taken out and used only when the child gets beyond the point where more scolding does any good.” It’s time to take out that birch rod.

The Bailiwick of Jersey, one of the British Channel Islands off the coast of Normandy, France, is being wired for fiber broadband speeds as high as 1Gbps and the island’s 100,000 residents are thrilled.

Jersey Telecom (JT), a government-owned service provider, expects to reach every one of the island’s 42,000 homes with Gigabit Jersey — a super-fast fiber network by the end of 2016.  The first 24 homes were switched on for service this week, with new homes coming online daily.

Graeme Millar, JT CEO, says Jersey’s new fiber network replaces the island’s antiquated copper wire based DSL service, and will result in much faster speeds for residents.  The initial trial is focused on La Rocque, Fauvic, and La Moye, and all commercial broadband providers are welcome to use the network to sell their services to residents and businesses on the island.

JT is offering a minimum of 40/40Mbps service to casual users and 1Gbps for Internet addicts.

Millar

The fiber project makes no distinctions between urban and rural residents and provides the same speeds to both businesses and residences.  Broadband has become such an important part of island life, it is essential every home have equal access.  With home-based businesses and home-based workers, it doesn’t make sense to only sell fast service to business customers.

The government spent £19m ($29.8 million) on the fiber network it calls an investment in the future.  None of the funding comes from the pockets of the island’s taxpayers.

Jersey officials claim the project will attract new high-tech businesses to the island, which is closer to France than England.

Government officials, and many residents, have rejected complaints from private providers like Airtel-Vodafone who claim the Internet’s future is mobile/wireless, not fiber.  Airtel-Vodafone fought Gigabit Jersey, claiming “fast enough” Internet access was possible over their mobile broadband network.  The company claimed the government investment interfered with private companies’ business plans for Jersey.

“Airtel had no intention of delivering anything close to the speeds we are going to get from JT, and they would hand us plans with small usage allowances and high prices to boot,” says Stop the Cap! reader Marie, who lives on Jersey.  “These companies believe it is more important to let private business dictate the Internet future of Jersey instead of letting people, through our local government, make that choice for ourselves.”

JT’s Gigabit Jersey project claims to be the most ubiquitous and comprehensive Gigabit fiber network in the western world, because it will reach every resident and business on the island.

“Why would anyone want an expensive, slower, and congested wireless network from Vodafone when you can have 1Gbps fiber broadband instead?” asks Marie. “If you want to walk around with a tablet, put a wireless router up and point it into the garden and be done with it.”

JT will gradually replace the island’s existing copper infrastructure as the project continues over the next four years.  The fiber network is expected to also bring down broadband prices, which run as high as $79 a month for 20Mbps service.

ITV in the Channel Islands reports on Gigabit Jersey, the island’s new fiber to the home network, and the controversy over its funding and opposition from private providers.  (2 minutes)