Verizon Voice Link: The company’s landline replacement, works over Verizon Wireless.

The New York Public Service Commission has granted limited approval for a Verizon Communications plan to replace traditional landline service on the western half of Fire Island with a wireless voice service some users complain is unstable and unreliable.

Verizon claims its landline network on Fire Island has been damaged irreparably in places, and argued it needed to immediately deploy a wireless alternative before the arrival of thousands of tourists on the island, a popular summer destination.

On May 3, Verizon asked the commission to approve the use of Voice Link, which provides fixed wireless phone service, anywhere in the state if the company can prove there is an equal competitor or if existing copper-based facilities are damaged or too costly to upgrade.

Stop the Cap! reminded local politicians, union representatives, and consumer advocates Verizon’s CEO earlier promised it would decommission its copper wire networks in rural areas in favor of wireless, mostly for financial reasons. The New York State Attorney General’s office took careful note of McAdam’s commitment to abandon copper in their objection letter to the commission.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam in 2012:

The vision that I have is we are going into the copper plant areas and every place we have FiOS, we are going to kill the copper. We are going to just take it out of service and we are going to move those services onto FiOS. We have got parallel networks in way too many places now, so that is a pot of gold in my view. And then in other areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there. We are going to do it over wireless.

Verizon’s efforts to rush a tariff change without adequate public notice or formal hearings brought complaints from affected customers, unions, and area politicians.

The Communications Workers of America called Verizon’s emergency “self-made.” The company could have begun repair work on Fire Island as early as last November, but instead only came to regulators earlier this month with its Voice Link proposal, while much of the western half of the island remains out of service.

CWA officials are concerned Verizon is using Hurricane Sandy as an excuse to carry out its broader agenda of abandoning rural New York’s landline infrastructure in favor of wireless service.

“Playing on sympathy for the plight of customers whom it has left without service for more than six months, Verizon proposes to implement broad, generic rules that go to the core of its obligation to serve,” said CWA vice president Chris Shelton.

The union considers Verizon’s wireless alternative less adequate than the wireline facilities Verizon wants to abandon. The CWA wants the PSC to study Voice Link’s performance during times of peak cellular usage times, power outages, adverse weather, and inadequate reception.

Thomas Barraga, a legislator in Suffolk County, says his constituents with Voice Link service are already unhappy with its performance and reliability.

“Residents and business owners who had Voice Link installed after Sandy say the connection is unstable and unreliable, and doesn’t provide for DSL Internet or fax service,” Barraga wrote in a letter to the PSC.

“Internet service is so much a part of everyday life it should be consider a basic service and they should be mandated to provide this as well,” writes Fire Island resident Robert Gonzalez. “They should provide this for the same fees and usage rates as they had previously been charging.  As of today they are price gouging.  Prior to Sandy we paid approximately $50 per month for unlimited Internet access.  Now they are putting low limits on our usage for the same $50 per month with severe penalties for going over.  You can opt for higher usage plans at a much greater cost and they are not offering an unlimited plan.”

Stop the Cap! also continues to hear from Fire Island residents about their dissatisfaction with the service. Among the newest complaints we have received:

• “It doesn’t work with collect calls and you cannot dial “0″ for operator assistance;”
• “I have to dial 10 digits for all calls, seven digit dialing no longer works even though it did before;”
• “Call Waiting and Caller ID often do not work, and my unit does not ring for incoming calls about 30% of the time and people have to keep calling me back;”
• “When you attempt to take a call when on the line with someone, you cannot get them back after answering a new call;”
• “I cannot use this with my home alarm system at all and the monitoring company keeps notifying police because they think my phone line was cut;”
• “If we had a major storm with three days of power being out, Verizon’s claim Voice Link will work for two hours without power means I would have to feed it up to 72 ‘AA’ batteries, costing more than what the phone line costs me every month;”
• “What does this do to our future? It makes us second class citizens without access to the Internet except through very expensive wireless capped usage plans that cost much more.”

The PSC ruled that allowing Verizon to deploy Voice Link on Fire Island during the peak tourist season will make sure adequate phone service is up and running as quickly as possible. But the commission also made it clear it is unwilling to approve Verizon’s request to extend the service further into rural New York without a thorough review of its performance and customer reaction.

Other stories of interest:

1. Verizon to Rural America: Voice Link is Coming Soon; Buy a Satellite Dish If You Want Data
2. Verizon Seeks to Abandon Landlines on Fire Island; Wireless or You Are On Your Own
3. Verizon’s Long Term Plan to Abandon Wired Landlines/Broadband in Non-FiOS Areas Begins
4. Pennsylvania: You Are Next for Verizon Landline Migrations to Wireless; FCC Says It is Fine
5. Verizon Files Tariff Allowing Company to Abandon Wired Phone/Broadband Service in New York; Fire Island First to Go

Verizon casts off its rural landline network for some customers.

Verizon landline customers reporting problems with their service in Pennsylvania may be soon targeted for Verizon’s wireless landline replacement — Voice Link — according to two sources sharing an internal memo with Broadband Reports.

The May 7 memo states that a significant number “selected customers” will be migrated off Verizon’s copper landline network to the Voice Link wireless service. One of the sources recognized the move as an end run around regulators:

“It has become painfully obvious to both our employees and customers that Verizon wishes to divest themselves of all regulated services,” says the source. “Abandoning our regulated wire line customers in favor of fixed point LTE may seem like a clever move but it violates “The Negroponte Principle” and will ultimately bump-up against the immutable laws of spectrum conservation physics.”

“It’s a shame that corporations like Verizon can build a FTTCS based wireless empire with regulatory subsidies provided by their wireline customers and then force them onto the unregulated wireless side,” argues the insider. “Questions of ethics and legality abound and perhaps regulatory over-sight is warranted here.”

Verizon may not get too much oversight from Pennsylvania regulators hoodwinked by the telecom company in the past.

Voice Link is a voice-only wireless home phone replacement that lacks certain calling features, Caller ID with Name for one, and requires the homeowner to provide power (and backup batteries in the event of a power failure). Customers are also dependent on quality reception from the nearest Verizon Wireless cell tower and that it remains in service during severe weather events or prolonged power outages.

Some of the customers likely targeted are still waiting for DSL broadband service from Verizon. If those customers are identified as Voice Link prospects, they will be waiting for broadband forever because Voice Link does not support data services and Verizon cannot supply DSL over a scrapped landline network.

Stop the Cap! has also learned today that the Federal Communications Commission has no problem with Verizon’s unilateral action to switch landline customers to wireless.

A FCC representative told our reader Anne, who is currently fighting Verizon over its plans to abandon landline service on the New Jersey Barrier Island, that they consider Voice Link a functionally equivalent landline service. In a response that could have come directly from Verizon customer service, the FCC helpfully describes the new service Anne already understands and does not want:

Q. What if Verizon is NOT replacing copper with fiber, but is going strictly to wireless?  There will be no landlines whatsoever.  Is that acceptable?

A. “Yes that is acceptable and it is called Verizon Voice Link.  It is a wireless device that plugs into the telephone lines in your home, allowing customers the ability to use their home telephone to make and receive calls.” — FCC Representative Number : TSR54

“This second FCC response, like the first one, ignores the issue, is unprofessional and is insulting,” says Anne. “Obviously, I already know what Voice Link is.”

Other stories of interest:

1. Verizon to Rural America: Voice Link is Coming Soon; Buy a Satellite Dish If You Want Data
2. Six Months After Sandy, Verizon Abandoning Wired Network in Mantoloking, N.J.
3. Verizon’s Long Term Plan to Abandon Wired Landlines/Broadband in Non-FiOS Areas Begins
4. Verizon Seeks to Abandon Landlines on Fire Island; Wireless or You Are On Your Own
5. Verizon Will Cease Selling Standalone DSL Service May 6th; Voice With DSL Only, Please

Verizon FiOS is off limits to rural customers. Wireless voice and satellite broadband is in your future.

Verizon Communications has big plans for its “miraculous” wireless home phone replacement which will soon find itself in rural homes across Verizon’s service area as part of a larger plan to dismantle rural America’s wired telephone network.

Just as company executives promised more than a year ago, Verizon wants to transition rural customers to fixed wireless phone service that could mean the end of wired broadband for millions of Verizon customers still using DSL.

Verizon senior vice president Tom Maguire told Communications Daily Voice Link is Verizon’s answer for customers it cannot easily transition to fiber optics. He is thrilled about the prospects of getting rid of deteriorating copper networks in favor of an inexpensive wireless alternative.

“I’m super jazzed about this because I think it will be good for everybody,” he said. “I think it’ll change a lot.”

For rural Verizon customers, the changes could be profound, dramatic, and not exactly a win-win scenario:

• No more wired phone service, which means medical monitoring, many home security systems, and inexpensive dial-up service that all rely on landline technology will be rendered unusable;
• No more unlimited use DSL service, no business broadband service, no credit card processing or other electronic business transactions that depend on a wired connection;
• No enforced quality of service standards, rate oversight, or guarantee of access to quality voice service;
• No prospect of advanced fiber optic FiOS services, including high bandwidth video and broadband.

Verizon is making it clear Fire Island and the New Jersey Barrier Island are just the first steps towards the retirement of copper, either in favor of fiber optics in high profit/low-cost areas or wireless in rural areas not worth upgrading.

Maguire claims Fire Island residents did not want the company to tear up yards or streets to replace its damaged copper wire network with newer technology like fiber. But Fire Island residents and administrators tell Stop the Cap! they were never asked. Instead, residents are being told Voice Link is likely their only option for traditional phone service on the western half of the island, and some customers are unhappy they will never get FiOS broadband upgrades Verizon says are financially untenable to provide.

Verizon has quietly tested Voice Link in Florida, giving customers the option of keeping their wired service or switching to the wireless alternative. But the test may have been stacked in Voice Link’s favor, as the choice was given to voice-only customers having chronic service problems with Verizon’s deteriorating copper wire network.

Going forward, many rural customers may not have a choice. For those who want Internet access, Verizon isn’t promising its wireless network is up to the task. Their suggested alternative?

Verizon’s solution for rural broadband.

Get a satellite dish.

Maguire acknowledged Voice Link customers won’t be able to fax or do certain activities, but he said the telco never pretended they would. Verizon won’t be offering data services with Voice Link, but if Fire Island customers want more options, they can potentially choose satellite, he said.

Maguire believes that customers living with a deteriorating copper landline network will gravitate quickly towards a wireless phone replacement.

Verizon arranged a blind test of Voice Link for 40,000 customers in another company’s territory with unbranded devices. When the copper wire network performed normally, customers preferred the quality of traditional landline service. But after it rained, the poorly maintained network made all the difference.

“The copper sounded like hell, it was noisy and static-y,” Maguire said.

Maguire did not say if Verizon blind tested whether customers preferred traditional landline service, Voice Link, or its fiber optic FiOS network.

Verizon hopes to begin introducing its Voice Link service in other markets as early as June.

Other stories of interest:

1. Verizon’s Long Term Plan to Abandon Wired Landlines/Broadband in Non-FiOS Areas Begins
2. Verizon Seeks to Abandon Landlines on Fire Island; Wireless or You Are On Your Own
3. Six Months After Sandy, Verizon Abandoning Wired Network in Mantoloking, N.J.
4. Verizon Will Cease Selling Standalone DSL Service May 6th; Voice With DSL Only, Please
5. Verizon Ending DSL Service in FiOS Fiber-Wired Service Areas

CenturyLink’s massive nationwide broadband service outage on May 7 hurt Florida schools trying to administer online testing, small businesses in Nevada that were forced to close for the day, and frustrated nearly six million customers across both states and in Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Texas, Kansas, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Washington, Virginia, Michigan, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, and Illinois.

An unspecified router failure disrupted broadband service for up to eight hours, and it could not have come at a worse time for Lee County and Cape Charter Schools in Florida that had to postpone state-mandated tests that are completed by students online.

Dr. Lee Bush told WZVN when things like this happen it is not good for the students or area schools.

“There’s a window of time for these tests and there’s a short period of time left. It does affect us,” said Dr. Bush.

The Las Vegas Sun also found itself without Internet access for much of the day, which also brought the newspaper’s website down. Several area businesses that depend on the Internet decided to send workers home late in the morning after it became clear CenturyLink had no realistic expectation of when service would be restored.

The Clark County School District, which serves Las Vegas, also reported their broadband service was interrupted.

In Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin outages created a significant problem for farmers cut off from commodity trading markets during the morning hours.

“An early Tuesday morning in May is definitely not a good time to have a long-lasting service outage for agribusiness,” said Sam Haupmann, who advises small and medium-sized farms on telecommunications matters. “Connectivity is very important for the farm economy these days, and farmers can’t just switch to the cable company or a cell phone. There often is no cable company serving farms and cell phone service can be difficult in rural areas.”

Ask CenturyLink to credit your account for the May 7 outage.

Ed Perrine, the chief of operations of Network Tallahassee, a Florida provider, told the Tallahassee Democrat all of his operations went down in the outage, affecting at least 4,000 customers and the 600 to 700 businesses they serve on the Florida Panhandle alone.

Perrine is not too happy with early reports CenturyLink’s massive outage could have come as a result of botched routine maintenance right before the start of business on a weekday:

Perrine said he spoke with CenturyLink at 6 a.m. where they advised him the company was doing scheduled maintenance. At 7:35 a.m. they told him something had gone wrong during the maintenance and it was affecting customers in 13 states.

By 10:30 a.m., the company advised the outage had spread to 22 states.

Perrine said the company has not told him what is causing the outage, but said that just after 11 a.m., the company advised Perrine that they were in the process of restoring service.

The timing of the update is questionable according to Perrine, who said maintenance is normally scheduled on early Sunday morning so if something goes wrong businesses won’t be affected.

CenturyLink had no plans to issue automatic service credits to affected customers, but you can request a refund for a day of lost service by contacting CenturyLink by phone or e-mail.

WBBH in Fort Myers explains how a nationwide CenturyLink Internet outage on May 7 hurt the local economy, affected area schools, and frustrated area businesses and residents. (2 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. New Hampshire’s Comcast Phone Service Outage: Like FairPoint Never Existed
2. Cox’s Massive Weekend E-Mail Outage; Reason #1 to Get An Independent E-Mail Account
3. [Update 2] Time Warner Cable: Major Road Runner/Digital Phone Outage in Northeastern U.S.
4. AT&T’s Network Collapses in South Florida: Broward County to the Keys Without Service for Hours
5. Time Warner Cable Suffers Nationwide Outage, But At Least It Didn’t Last Long

Phillip “Friends Can Agree to Disagree” Dampier

Are we being unnecessarily pessimistic and cynical when we oppose the likely nomination of Thomas Wheeler to replace Julius Genachowski as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission?

Some of our colleagues in the consumer-focused public policy arena suspect we might be.

Stop the Cap! is very skeptical that appointing a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist with 30+ years of experience is the best choice for consumers at the FCC.

Our friend Harold Feld from Public Knowledge, which has announced cautious support for Wheeler’s appointment, has a more optimistic view about his potential:

I understand where my friends are coming from when they look at Wheeler’s resume and think “oh God, another Washington insider, why can’t we ever get a real progressive!” But I cannot agree with Senator Rockefeller’s statement that “a lobbyist, is a lobbyist,” or the view of some that the taint of industry clings insidiously forever and corrodes the soul. It’s been ten years since Wheeler left CTIA, longer than that since he left NTCA. Had he really been interested in advancing the agendas of these industries, he was in an excellent position to do so when he headed up the Obama transition team. He did not. Indeed, Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach, long-time stalwarts of the public interest who worked for Wheeler on the transition team, have joined other public interest luminaries as Wheelers strongest public supporters. Had Wheeler been working behind the scenes in the transition to promote the incumbents, I expect Susan and Kevin would have known.

I also recognize that support from public interest friends is also not conclusive. But it should surely weigh in the evaluation of Wheeler as much as any blog post. And I recognize I’m also a “Washington insider” and as likely to be led astray by my personal friendships and the whole “Washington Bubble” culture as any other human being. That’s why I’m glad people in the community are asking the right questions and putting Wheeler on notice that, like any Chairman, he needs to prove himself as a champion of the public interest. We at PK have also made it clear we expect Wheeler to not just talk a good game, but to get his hands dirty and make tough decisions that will piss off incumbents. And when we disagree, as we expect we will, have no doubt we will make our displeasure known.

Harold specifically commented on our piece reviewing Wheeler’s personal blog, in which Wheeler fell all over himself praising AT&T’s chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi, and seemed resigned to approving a proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger with some preconditions:

It is certainly true that behavioral conditions often fall short, are short lived, and that companies generally find ways to work around them (and the FCC’s track record for enforcement is pathetic). Indeed, we at PK made these arguments in the context of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger for why no set of merger remedies could adequately address the harms such a merger would cause. But there is a huge difference between my belief that Wheeler was wrong about the best strategy to advance the public interest and accepting that he was motivated by a covert desire to support consolidation and deregulation.

It is more than likely we will have to do business with Tom Wheeler, and we can certainly understand efforts to paint a more optimistic and hopeful picture of the likely new chairman. But we would be dishonest if we said we have high hopes Wheeler will think first about ordinary Americans before steering the country’s telecommunications future. We have learned from the past.

Remember Your History: Catering to Big Special Interests is Bipartisan

Having covered the telecommunications industry since the 1980s when Dr. John Malone of Tele-Communications, Inc., was the American consumers’ worst nightmare, confronting today’s increasingly consolidated and expensive telecommunications marketplace is a case of “Back to the Future.” The deregulation and industry consolidation abuses in the 1980s riled up both Republicans and Democrats — wherever constituents flooded offices with complaints about the local cable monopoly. The “problem politicians” that reflexively defended the abusers were just as bipartisan. Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.) primarily represented the interests of the cable companies that were headquartered in his state. Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also defended the cable companies. Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) was outraged at the abuses cable operators like TCI heaped on Missouri consumers and not only introduced legislation to stop the abuse in 1992, he also was instrumental in overriding a presidential veto of the measure.

The first mistake one can make in this fight is characterizing this as “progressive” vs. “conservative.” Real conservatives want all-out competition to manage winners and losers. Progressives want to make sure in the absence of that competition, someone — anyone can act to check the power of concentrated markets that suppress competition, raise prices, and deliver less than compelling service. Five years ago, Barack Obama promised change and a D.C. reset that would have ended “politics as usual.”

The art of the possible — changing the perception that consumer interests take a back seat to the whims of professional lobbyists at the FCC has proved less than successful after four years with Julius Genachowski. President Obama is not completely responsible, but it would be dishonest not to hold him to a promise he would deliver “change we can believe in.”

Instead, at the FCC, we got “change we think we might be able to get away with, maybe, or not.”

Julius Genachowski remained silent on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger until the Department of Justice provided him with political cover to oppose it. He caved on strongly enforcing Net Neutrality, refused to make important regulatory declarations that would have satisfied federal courts the FCC has a right to oversee broadband policy, and near the end of his tenure, hobnobbed with the cable industry and declared his support for usage billing and capped Internet.

Where Does Mr. Wheeler Stand?

(Image: MuniNetworks)

So we must ask ourselves, where does Mr. Wheeler, a man who spent most of his career as a consummate cable and wireless industry lobbyist, fall on these issues?

The best place those of us who have not shared lunch with him can make that determination is in his personal blog. Harold wants us to downplay some of Wheeler’s words written during his six years of blogging:

But in the ten years I’ve been blogging, I know that I’ve said many things that do not necessary reflect what I would have done if I had been the ultimate decisionmaker – as I have said on more than one occasion (noting that actual decisionmakers are not advocates). Certainly anyone who reads ten years worth of Tales of the Sausage Factory (has it really been ten years?) will have an excellent sense of my overall priorities and approach. But I can’t swear that all approximately 500 or so blog posts could hold up today as being either accurate predictions (like Wheeler, I too was a big believer in WiMax) or final expressions of what I would have done as Chair of the FCC.

We certainly agree that Wheeler’s predictions of industry trends like WiMAX, in hindsight, are not deal breakers (although they should serve as reminders that one should avoid picking too many winners and losers). But at the same time, Wheeler’s words on policy matters in nearly 60 articles since 2007 should not be ignored, rationalized away, or dismissed either. In some sense, this is comparable to the vetting process for an appointee to the Supreme Court. To get a feel for the philosophy of an individual, both the White House and Congress pour over one’s writings and public opinions. Being asked to accept someone who can reshape public policy for years based on the personal recommendation of others only goes so far.

Many of Wheeler’s views are profoundly concerning, because they seem to betray a telecom industry conventional wisdom about the state of technology, wireless spectrum, regulation, and competition. His familiarity and comfort working within the paradigm of big cable and wireless is strongly contrasted with his suspicions and surprise regarding interlopers like Google and Apple — dubbed by Wheeler as part of a “Silicon Mafia.” We sense Wheeler seems most comfortable expecting to oversee business as usual, while advocating and accommodating some minor innovation here and there.

What is almost completely absent in most of Wheeler’s writings is the perspective of, or concern for ordinary consumers. What would Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average think about yet another consolidating merger between AT&T and one of its smaller competitors? What impact would another cable merger have on the bills paid by ordinary people in Colorado, Nebraska, or Pennsylvania? Is it good for consumers to advocate eliminating wireless network redundancy, as Wheeler does, after major events from 9/11 to Hurricane Sandy to the recent Boston Marathon attack all reveal wireless networks are susceptible to call volume clogging and extended service outages?

Tom Wheeler is an admirer of AT&T’s top-lobbyist Jim Cicconi.

More importantly, we are disturbed by Wheeler’s perspective about wired infrastructure that could have a major impact on the near future of rural telecommunications. Wheeler comes dangerously close to AT&T’s sentiments about its yesteryear rural landline network and its wish to switch those customers to wireless (with all the added costs, usage caps, and coverage issues). We cannot help but notice Wheeler frames the general issue much like AT&T does: an “evolution” that represents “weaning ourselves” from “the old wireline.” Ask yourself if AT&T is more or less comfortable knowing Mr. Wheeler’s attitudes about its wired telephone network. AT&T considers it an outdated money-loser and a nuisance in its rural service areas. Wireless is a license to print money, just as soon as the FCC and state regulators give the green light to go ahead. Is Wheeler to be the deciding vote?

We Don’t Believe Wheeler is an ‘Industry Plant’

Harold writes:

But while it is important to ask the right questions and give no one a free pass, it is equally important to evaluate the answers and the evidence fairly and accept their logical conclusions. The evidence that Wheeler would have approved the AT&T/T-Mobile merger had he actually been Chairman (rather than playing pundit) is pretty weak. To take that a step further and say that Wheeler’s justification for approving the merger as a means of reregulating the wireless industry was mere sham to hide his true sympathies seems to me exceedingly unjustified.

That mischaracterizes our sentiments about Mr. Wheeler. We do not believe he is some secret industry plant that is itching to deregulate the agency into a stupor. Nor do we believe a theoretical vote in favor of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is evidence he is in AT&T’s back pocket specifically. Let us be clear: he served as a professional lobbyist for these companies for nearly 30 years. His job was to absorb and reflect the views of the nation’s biggest cable and phone companies both to politicians and regulators. Some remain friends and colleagues.

It is a safe bet most of the industry will welcome and celebrate Wheeler’s appointment. Many know him personally. Many others will feel safe that he is a reachable industry insider already familiar with the issues that concern them. This is what makes the D.C. revolving door so insidious. When you move from the regulated to the regulator (and back again), the only real outsiders are average consumers.

Here is an example of Wheeler admiring AT&T’s prowess in the early days of its attempted merger with T-Mobile. Notice how he characterizes the deal’s opponents:

“The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler shows no evidence of being the FCC’s version of a game-changer like Elizabeth Warren. Instead, he’s an avowed admirer of AT&T’s top lobbyist Jim Cicconi. What will that difference mean? The New York Times, reporting more broadly on the problem of D.C.’s revolving door, provides some valuable clues:

Government officials and lobbyists agree that former agency officials have a much easier time getting phone calls or e-mail messages returned from their old colleagues, and that access often extends to greater credibility in arguing their clients’ positions.

One corporate lobbyist who worked as a regulator, asked whether he believed he had an inside edge in lobbying his ex-colleagues, said: “The answer is yes, it does. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t be able to justify getting out of bed in the morning and charging the outrageous fees that we charge our clients, which they willingly pay.”

The lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of concerns about alienating government officials, added that “you have to work at an agency to understand the culture and the pressure points, and it helps to know the senior staff.”

Not quite

The most likely outcome of a Wheeler nomination is that he will be quickly approved, maintain the agency’s relatively low profile, and avoid rocking the boat too much. Even he doubts the power of the FCC to effect regulatory change unless those regulated volunteer to submit to more regulation. That means more quid pro quo agreements attached to mergers, acquisitions, and other deals the industry brings the FCC for approval. But as this quote illustrates, the industry remains in the driving seat:

“[...] Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

Wheeler argued that the inability of the FCC to muster the political will to deal effectively with net neutrality and other broadband regulation made a consent decree around AT&T/T-Mobile the best way to update consumer protection rather than leave these services essentially unregulated.

Wheeler’s recognition of the inability of the FCC to get virtually anything done comes with no assurance he will do any better. Harold himself admits that the FCC’s track record of enforcement is “pathetic.” Has Wheeler written on his blog that he would seek to change that?

Wheeler’s reflections on the failed T-Mobile/AT&T merger present a clear sign he considers it a missed opportunity, with the usual voluntary divestiture of certain assets here and there with time limited pre-conditions that carry all the impact of one of those class action settlements that nets consumers a coupon or a $2 refund. Everybody but consumers walk away winners.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, in contrast, illustrated the usefulness of a backbone when it quickly declared the merger proposal monstrously anti-consumer and anti-competitive and announced it would sue to stop it. Deal over and dead. When is the last time the FCC issued such a clear-cut, high-profile decision all on its own? Why is it so hard for the FCC to see the same anti-competitive nightmare so visible at the Department of Justice? Public Knowledge and other consumer groups saw the dangers from day one. Does Mr. Wheeler agree with the Justice Department or does he think he can do business with that shrewd AT&T lobbyist Jim Cicconi to get such deals approved the ‘right way?’

Our view remains the country and the Obama Administration could do far better choosing someone to lead the FCC that has not made a career lobbying for big cable and phone companies. If we want to solve America’s rural broadband problems, enforce fair billing practices and Net Neutrality, find new creative ways to utilize and distribute wireless spectrum, and promote competition while restricting industry consolidation, would we do better choosing an ex-industry lobbyist or an engineer, network planner, professional regulator, or an antitrust attorney?

President Obama went with the ex-lobbyist.

Other stories of interest:

1. Change We Can Believe In? Cable/Wireless Industry Lobbyist Will Now Head FCC
2. “Future FCC Chairman” Tom Wheeler’s Fruit Doesn’t Fall Far from Big Telecom’s Tree
3. FCC to AT&T: Justify Your Spectrum Demands, Merger With T-Mobile
4. Verizon Appoints New Head Lobbyist for New York and Connecticut
5. Start the Countdown Clock on Julius Genachowski’s Departure from the FCC

AT&T and Verizon Wireless have the largest share of wireless customers. (Wall Street Journal)

The Department of Justice has recommended the Federal Communications Commission promote competition by setting aside certain future low-frequency wireless spectrum for auctions open exclusively to smaller wireless carriers including Sprint and T-Mobile USA.

“Today, the two leading carriers have the vast majority of low-frequency spectrum whereas the two other nationwide carriers have virtually none,” the Department of Justice wrote in comments to the FCC. “This results in the two smaller nationwide carriers having a somewhat diminished ability to compete, particularly in rural areas where the cost to build out coverage is higher with high-frequency spectrum.”

The Justice Department’s antitrust division has monitored the wireless industry with increasing concern consumers are not getting benefits from a robustly competitive marketplace increasingly concentrated in the hands of two wireless giants: AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

That dominance is made possible, in part, from the control of lower frequency spectrum, particularly in the 600-800MHz range that easily penetrates buildings and delivers a more reliable signal over longer distances than frequencies counted in the gigahertz. Verizon and AT&T control large swaths of these lower frequencies that work well indoors and provide longer distance coverage in rural areas. Conversely, Sprint and T-Mobile, among other smaller carriers, rely heavily on higher frequencies that need a larger network of cell towers to support good signal levels.

It often means rural customers may find reception with AT&T or Verizon Wireless but end up with a roaming indicator or no service at all with smaller providers.

The Justice Department worries that auctioning off future prime 600MHz spectrum carved out of the UHF television band reallocated for wireless services will end up in the hands of the deepest pocketed providers — AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and further hamper the ability of Sprint, T-Mobile and other small carriers to compete.

“Due to the scarcity of spectrum, the Department is concerned that carriers may have incentives to acquire spectrum for purposes other than efficiently expanding their own capacity or services,” writes the DoJ. “Namely, the more concentrated a wireless market is, the more likely a carrier will find it profitable to acquire spectrum with the aim of raising competitors’ costs. This could take the shape, for example, of pursuing spectrum in order to prevent its use by a competitor, independent of how efficiently the carrier uses the spectrum. Indeed, a carrier may even have incentives to acquire spectrum and not use it at all.”

The Justice Department echoes critics’ contentions that given a chance, large wireless carriers will “warehouse” acquired spectrum, unused, denying it from the competition. Carriers object to that claim, calling it baseless. But incentives remain for providers to drag their feet: spectrum warehousing forces competitors to pay even higher prices for other scarce spectrum, the necessity of constructing a larger network of costly cell towers to offer robust coverage, and fighting customers’ perceptions of inferior quality indoor phone reception.

In response, AT&T sent a multi-page, thinly veiled threat to sue if the Commission adopted the recommendations of the Justice Department.

“The Department is quite candid about its motive for this blatant favoritism: it hopes that reducing competition for the spectrum may enable Sprint and T-Mobile ‘to mount stronger challenges’ to AT&T and Verizon,” AT&T wrote in response. “Picking winners and losers in this fashion would be patently unlawful.”

AT&T also claimed the Justice Department’s recommendations were specifically tailored to help the two competitors, despite the fact neither company has shown much interest in acquiring low-frequency wireless spectrum, much less further expand the reach of their wireless networks:

“It is especially puzzling that the Department feels the need to help Sprint and T-Mobile in particular. Sprint already has by far the largest nationwide portfolio of spectrum, and holds vastly more spectrum than either AT&T or Verizon. It will also have ample financial resources at its disposal, as the Department has already approved Sprint’s purchase by Softbank, a financially strong Japanese company, and Dish Network has now made a competing offer for Sprint, citing the financial and strategic advantages of its own proposed combination.

Regardless of how this bidding war turns out, Sprint will receive a sizable infusion of cash, spectrum or both. T-Mobile, which is owned by Deutsche Telekom, one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world, just recently acquired substantial amounts of spectrum from both AT&T and Verizon, and is on the verge of completing a merger with MetroPCS that will add another trove of spectrum. So it is surely not for a lack of spectrum resources or financial backing that the Department needs to propose a financial giveaway to these companies.

Moreover, neither company even chose to bid at the Commission’s last auction of low-frequency spectrum, nor have they availed themselves of opportunities to acquire such spectrum in secondary markets. If low-frequency spectrum was critical to their business plans, as the Department simply assumes, someone should have informed their management, which has, instead chosen to acquire deep holdings in [higher frequency] PCS, AWS, and BRS/EBS spectrum.”

The Justice Department filing did not name Sprint or T-Mobile directly, but both companies are the only remaining national competitors to both AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Spectrum set-asides are not unusual in telecommunications regulation. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission set aside significant wireless spectrum exclusively for new entrants to promote competition. Ultimately, the new competitors had little impact with less than a 10 percent market share and all three are now considered up for sale. That spectrum may eventually end up in the hands of the largest Canadian wireless companies regardless of the CRTC’s original intentions when license transfer restrictions expire in 2014. All three could be acquired by one or more of the major providers.

Other stories of interest:

1. FCC on Verizon-Big Cable Spectrum Deal: Sure, Why Not?; But Justice Dept. Thinking Twice
2. Wall Street Wants Two Wireless Carriers for Americans: AT&T and Verizon
3. Moody’s Declares AT&T and Verizon the Winners — Sprint and T-Mobile Can “Never Catch Up”
4. Breaking: Justice Dept. Files Suit to Stop AT&T/T-Mobile Merger
5. The AT&T/Verizon Wireless Duopoly: “Humpty Dumpty Has Been Put Back Together Again”

Cable One has announced it will invest $60 million in network upgrades across 42 cable systems in its mostly rural footprint to enhance reliability and deliver faster Internet service.

The cable operator, owned by the Washington Post, has been criticized for outdated infrastructure and poor service, particularly in Mississippi.

”We’re committed to delivering the best possible experience to our customers,” said Cable One CEO Tom Might. “We’re confident that this investment will ensure that our customers will receive superior service in the speed, reliability, and the overall performance of our services.”

The two-year upgrade project aims to replace amplifiers, split broadband customers who share a backbone connection into smaller groups, replace aging coaxial cable and improve the cable company’s fiber optic backbone.

The upgrade might allow the company to consider relaxing its draconian usage cap and speed throttle policies, which force customers to choose between an uncapped 5Mbps connection (with a speed throttle for those using more than 3GB per day) or a 50/2Mbps connection with caps as low as 50GB per month (overlimit fees: $0.50-1.00/each extra gigabyte.)

Cable One now offers two levels of Internet service: an uncapped 5Mbps plan for $50 a month and a 50/2Mbps plan for $50 a month with a 50-100GB monthly usage cap, depending on the package bundle. Usage is measured between 8am-12 midnight. Users on the uncapped 5Mbps plan are subject to speed throttling if they exceed 3GB of usage per day.

Other stories of interest:

1. Time Warner Cable Introduces DOCSIS 3 Speed Upgrades for Rural Upstate New Yorkers
2. Updated: Time Warner Cable Boosts Turbo Upload Speeds to 2Mbps in Rochester, N.Y.
3. Charter Cable Increasing Broadband Speeds, But You’ll Hit Their Caps Faster
4. New England Time Warner Cable Subs Get Free Broadband Speed Upgrade
5. 10 Turkish Cities Getting 1Gbps Broadband; Turkcell Upgrades Budget Plan to 20Mbps Service

Wheeler

Tom Wheeler has a blog.

The presumptive leading candidate for America’s next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission also has a major conflict of interest problem, with at least 30 years of working directly for the business interests of the cable and telephone companies he may soon be asked to oversee in the public interest. Wheeler is the former president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) — the nation’s largest cable industry lobbying group and past CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) — the AT&T and Verizon-dominated wireless trade association. Today Wheeler serves as a managing director at Core Capital Partners, a Washington, D.C.-based venture capital firm that invests in these and other industries.

In more than 60 articles in the last six years, Wheeler has written of his trials and tribulations with federal regulators who simply refuse to see telecom industry wisdom on spectrum management, the legacy telephone network, obstinate broadcasters, outdated regulations, mergers and acquisitions, and the amazing story of private Wall Street investment and its wisdom to naturally shape America’s telecommunications landscape by “letting the marketplace work” unfettered by oversight and consumer protection laws.

Almost entirely absent in Wheeler’s writings is any interest in the plight of ordinary consumers that do business, often unhappily, with the companies Wheeler used to represent. America’s love of many-things Apple and Google, two runaway success stories heavily invested in the digital economy and well-regarded by more than a few consumers, are scorned by Wheeler as part of the “Silicon Valley mafia.”

Wheeler is the consummate Washington beltway insider, a lifelong lobbyist well-positioned to walk through the perpetually revolving door between the public and private sector. Even worse, he has maintained warm regards for not one, but two telecom industry lobbying giants — the cable and wireless industry trade associations that have daily business before the FCC. Whether Wheeler can stand up to his former best friends is open for debate. Wheeler wrote in one blog entry he remains in awe of AT&T’s chief lobbyist, Jim Ciccioni, who he called “one of the smartest and shrewdest policy mavens in the capital.”

Wheeler’s blog makes it clear he would have supported the 2011 attempted merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, with a few temporary token pre-conditions. He heaped scorn on antitrust regulators for missing an opportunity the merger approval could have had on reshaping the American wireless marketplace. Less is more in Wheeler World.

D.C.’s perpetually revolving door keeps on spinning.

Like outgoing FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, Wheeler is a longtime Obama loyalist and was involved in Obama’s 2008 election campaign.

Wheeler relays to C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb in a 2009 interview that who you know in Washington can mean a lot. After Obama entered the 2008 race, Wheeler connected to Obama through a friend — Peter Rouse, who had recently accepted the position of Obama’s chief of staff.

“I picked up the phone one day and there was a message from Barack Obama that he wanted to talk about some issues related to technology,” Wheeler described. “Things began to develop. We got really interested in the potential of this person and the opportunity that he represented for a transformational moment in American history, and we decided that Iowa was the place.”

Wheeler and his wife Carol (employed by the National Association of Broadcasters, itself a lobbying group) had the financial resources in place to put their D.C. jobs on hold and spend six weeks in the Region 2 Obama election office in Ames, Iowa.

After Obama won the election, Lamb predicted Wheeler might find himself at the FCC. Instead, Obama’s college friend and money-bundler Julius Genachowski won the position.

Wheeler’s chances of succeeding Genachowski improved dramatically in mid-April after receiving the written support of several public policy advocates. One of them was Susan Crawford, whose recent book, Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Guilded Age, railed against many of the policies supported by the largest telecommunications companies Wheeler professionally represented in his roles at the NCTA and CTIA. Some consumer groups wrote President Obama directly, strongly recommended a change from the ‘business as usual’ revolving door:

During his election campaign, President Obama pledged “to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.” Yet the president is reportedly considering a candidate for the next FCC chair who was the head of not one but two major industry lobbying groups. After decades of industry-backed chairmen, we need a strong consumer advocate and public interest representative at the helm. It’s time to end regulatory capture at the FCC and restore balance to government oversight.

Those consumer groups have plenty to worry about if Tom Wheeler becomes the next head of the FCC. Stop the Cap! has found several quotes from his blog which paint a picture of a potential FCC chairman devoted to industry interests:

Close Wireless Retail Stores to Save Money and Kill Jobs: “Sprint announced plans to close eight percent of its over 1,500 company-owned retail outlets. Why stop there? Why does it make sense for wireless carriers to operate more stores than Sears and Macy’s combined?”

Wireless network redundancy is a waste of money — an interesting sentiment in light of major wireless network failures during Hurricane Sandy and insufficient capacity during the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon last week: “The history of the U.S. wireless industry is a network-centric history that wasted untold billions of dollars building duplicative networks and advertising ‘mine is better than yours.’”

The failed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile represented a missed opportunity in Wheeler’s view.

WiMAX is King of the World?: “Back in the mid-1990s new digital technology called Personal Communications Service (PCS) was forecast to be the death knell of the cellular industry. It seemed all anyone could talk about was the “smaller, cheaper, lighter” handsets that would perform feats beyond the capabilities of analog cellular. Now in the mid-2000s the differentiator is speed and throughput and WiMAX is the new hot technology.”

Who needs free over the air television when only 10-15 percent of the country watches?: “What is the purpose of continuing the local TV broadcasting model when between 85 and 90 percent of American homes are connected to cable or satellite services?”

AT&T and Verizon will save us from the Great Recession, except for the fact they laid off “redundant” workers: “In the midst of the first shrinking of global economic growth in almost 70 years, the wireless industry represents what must be the largest non-governmental stimulus program in the world. Wireless is an economic recovery triple play.”

Those mooching broadcasters got their spectrum for free when Verizon and AT&T had to pay real money: “The setting for these theatrics is the digital conversion for which broadcasters lobbied so hard for. Yes, they won new spectrum – which they got for free while all other were paying billions – but getting what they asked for also brought something no one ever imagined. Broadcasting ceased to be broadcasting. Going digital meant that what used to be about moving atoms is now about moving bits.”

We need to verify broadcasters use their spectrum the way we define it or we might take it away: “But threatening a shootout at the OK Corral in order to ‘hang on to every last hertz of spectrum’ is an invitation to irrelevance and proof that the spectrum needs to be assigned to parties that think digitally and see themselves as a part of the solution to the spectrum crisis. Opportunity is knocking for the broadcasters; we’ll see if anyone is at home.”

Cicconi

Reduced quality of service is worth it, even if it means shutting down wired telephone service or increasing interference for wireless users: “It is time to abandon the concept of perfection in spectrum allocation. The rules for 21st century spectrum allocation need to evolve from the avoidance of interference to interference tolerance. We’ve seen this evolution in the wired network; it’s now time to bring the chaotic efficiency of Internet Protocol to wireless spectrum policy. What the FCC’s TAC is proposing is that we officially wean ourselves from the old wireline switched circuit world to embrace the reality of IP and its benefits. It’s time to start down the same road with spectrum allocation.“

Did you know your mobile bill is lower than ever and sending data wirelessly costs next to nothing? How much is your limited data plan costing you again?: “As wireless rates have plunged for both voice and data such regulation has less impact than it did in the wireline era anyway. When each connection required an analog circuit, the cost of such a connection, and the return on that investment was a more logical nexus than today’s digital networks where the incremental cost of a packet of information approaches zero.”

AT&T’s propaganda supporting its attempted merger with T-Mobile was brilliant. Those pesky consumer groups and their meddling, truth-telling agenda ruined everything. When Americans think of rural wireless broadband, the first company that comes to mind is T-Mobile, right?: “The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler sends a Hallmark card to AT&T’s most powerful lobbyist: “AT&T’s recent negotiations with the FCC on the Net Neutrality/Open Internet issue provide an insight into how the company deals with such a complex issue. Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s Senior Executive Vice President, is one of the smartest and shrewdest policy mavens in the capital.”

What do they know about it?

AT&T’s Jim Cicconi is the go-to-guy for determining future wireless policy, not the FCC: “Randall Stephenson may be channeling Theodore Vail, but Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

The Justice Department just proved it does not understand regulatory concepts governing relentless corporate telecom mergers because it decided Americans should have at least four wireless companies to choose from, not three: “Thus, the long-term impact of the Justice Department’s decision would appear to be the growing irrelevance of traditional telecommunications regulatory concepts on mobile broadband providers.”

Wheeler lacks the realization wireless providers are moving to usage pricing for fun and profit, not because of spectrum shortages: “Having walked away from taking the easy money, will the Congress remain as committed as they were to selling spectrum? What will be the light at the end of the tunnel for wireless carriers who see their spectrum capacity being consumed by huge increases in demand? Will the resulting shortage mean that usage based mobile pricing becomes a demand dampening and profit increasing tool?“

We don’t need free over the air television. Just tell free viewers to subscribe to cable like everyone else: “I’ve been mystified why broadcasters have declared jihad against the voluntary spectrum auction. Getting big dollars for an asset for which you paid nothing while still being able to run your traditional business over cable (the vast majority of its reach anyway) and maintain a broadcast signal at another point on the dial seems a pretty good business proposition – unless you really are serious about providing new and innovative services and need all that spectrum.”

You don’t deserve free Internet access either, because it hurts the corporate business plans of other providers: “Competition among networks for customers has put the consumer in the enviable position of being told they won’t have to pay for access to Internet services. “Free It,” the advertisements of British network operator “3″ proclaim to promote their unlimited data plan, for instance. The policies that created wireless network competition have trapped operators between holding market share and giving away capacity for ever-increasing data demands. So long as there is one carrier willing to offer its capacity at a low price (or for free), the other carriers must play along thus bringing those who run networks to loggerheads with those who use the networks.”

(Image courtesy: FCC.com)

Google and Apple are privacy invaders that collect your personal data as part of a great Silicon Valley mafia: “If wireless carriers are truly going to become “operators” participating in the broader ecosystem their focus needs to shift from running networks to managing the information created by the 21^st Century’s digital networks. The Silicon Valley mafia hijacked that information, but they could quite possibly be in the process of blowing their escape with the goods by exposing what they were really up to.”

We need a “voluntary” auction of the public airwaves with a subjective standard for what represents their “best use” (ie. the way the wireless industry defines it): “For almost four decades I have listened to businesspeople tell government policy makers to “let the marketplace work.” There is no more effective marketplace than a voluntary auction where everyone is free to decide whether to sell, how much to sell, and at what price to sell. The marketplace for wireless spectrum has spoken through its explosion; now it’s time for the marketplace to be able to decide the best use of spectrum. There is no doubt that some broadcasters will opt to use their spectrum in innovative ways [my firm, Core Capital Partners, has invested in such a belief]. Bully for the broadcast entrepreneurs! The FCC should be encouraging and rewarding of entrepreneurial initiative. Just as clearly, however, some broadcasters will choose other options. It is essential that we get on with offering that option quickly so we can nip the spectrum crunch in the bud, spur innovation, stimulate investment, create jobs, and continue American leadership in wireless services.”

Coming Clean: Wheeler ran astroturf operations that pretended to represent the interests of consumers but actually were little more than corporate sock-puppetry: “In the early days of cable television a cabal of Hollywood and broadcast interests combined to convince the Federal government to deny cable its competitive advantage of more channel choices for consumers. Corporate lobbyists told Congressmen and Senators how cable would mean the end of “free TV” unless it was stopped or controlled. Then these same groups recruited real people – the so-called “grassroots” – to back up their claims. Such lobbyist-organized grassroots efforts were the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of political organizing – I know because I used to do it.”

The alliance between Verizon and a cabal of cable companies selling each others’ products is pro-competition: “A TV subscription service like the one Apple is proposing is the heart of what cable is all about. And whatever Google is doing, they aren’t in every TV just for the heck of it. The Mongols of Silicon Valley have been behaving just like their 13^th and 14^th century predecessors. Using new technology to their advantage, the Mongols of the Middle Ages sent invasions in every direction. Soon they had the largest contiguous empire the world has ever seen.  Sound familiar? It may be a case of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend,” but a cable-wireless alliance is an exceedingly logical response to the impending attack. Cable operators have program distribution rights (or leveraged access to them) and Verizon has the high-speed wireless network to deliver to the growing number of mobile devices. Both these players can help each other confront the coming onslaught.”

Other stories of interest:

1. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Roadshow: Now He’ll Headline the Cable Industry’s Big Splash
2. FCC Chairman Mouths Telecom Industry Talking Points on Usage Pricing, “Innovation”
3. FCC Chairman Opens Wireless Industry Convention Mouthing AT&T Talking Points
4. The Wall Street Journal’s Revisionist History: AT&T Isn’t the Problem, the Government Is?
5. The Fat Lady Sings: What Happens Next Now That AT&T-Mobile Merger Deal is Dead

This looks good enough for us, says the American Cable Association

A lobbying group for small cable operators says the nation’s current broadband availability maps are flawed, but good enough for the FCC to rely on to veto funding for rural broadband projects that might compete with some of their members.

The American Cable Association submitted its comments to the FCC as part of discussions about the next phase of broadband subsidy funding from the Connect America Fund.

Most current broadband maps rely heavily on unverified data voluntarily submitted by existing broadband providers or by third-party groups that are funded or controlled by some of the nation’s largest phone companies. Both have a vested interest painting an optimistic map of solid broadband coverage as a tool in the ongoing public policy fight pitting broadband advocates clamoring for better access and speed against the cable and phone companies that offer the service.

ACA members are concerned that the government might subsidize new broadband start-ups that could eventually compete against existing cable companies. The group calls such “overbuilders” redundant and wasteful.

“The FCC should protect the public by ensuring that broadband deployment subsidies do not result in significant government-supported overbuilding, which would cause real harm to cable operators that have invested only private capital,” ACA President and CEO Matthew M. Polka said. “It would also mean that locations across the country that need support will not receive broadband because the program would not have additional funding.”

Don’t Surprise Us With Doubling the Minimum Speed Requirement When We Thought 3Mbps Service Was Good Enough

ACA member cable operators assumed they would be safe from the government-funded overbuilders if they provided at least 3Mbps broadband, but now the FCC is exploring doubling the minimum speed to 6Mbps, which threatens a number of smaller cable operators that have avoided upgrades to increase speeds.

Polka

“This is a huge burden on a smaller operator.  These operators assumed when they filed data through the State Broadband Initiatives (SBIs) in June, 2012, providing service with speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps service was enough to protect them,” Polka said.

The ACA also wants the agency to initially reject applicants for broadband funding if current broadband map data shows another provider operating in the area, even if that provider’s volunteered service coverage maps are exaggerated.

“The Commission should presume the National Broadband Map (“NBM”) is accurate and rely upon it in identifying eligible areas for Phase II support, even though it is a work in progress and contains inaccuracies. The reasons for this conclusion are many.

First, the NBM is the most accurate and most granular representation of national broadband deployment that currently exists. Second, the federal government has already made a significant investment in the NBM, is seeking to further perfect its data, and clearly intends for it to be a key tool upon which to base its policies.

The group also warned that if the FCC does not rely on its inaccurate map, providers might be hesitant to voluntarily supply more coverage data in the future.

Prove That We Don’t Already Provide Service If Your Broadband Operation Wants Funding

The ACA’s comments also urge the FCC to require would-be new broadband providers to have the burden of proof that a cable operator does not already offer service in an area before they can qualify for Connect America funding. How? By calling the cable company pretending to be a new customer and seeing if they can schedule an installation at each particular home a provider plans to serve.

“In the normal course of business to attract customers, small cable operators post their service areas and broadband service offerings,” writes the ACA. “All a [new entrant] needs to do is survey the operator’s website and advertisements and, if necessary, call customer service. In contrast, it would be a much greater hardship for small cable operators, who lack regulatory staff and have already made the effort to be designated on the [map], to bear the initial burden and start from the beginning to submit documents to ensure they are on the map.”

In short, the ACA wants the FCC to assume their cable operator members cover an area until proven otherwise.

“It would be far less burdensome for the [new entrant] to challenge [allegedly inaccurate coverage map data] first, in which instance only those operators who are challenged would need to reaffirm their presence,” writes the ACA.

Because We Are Cable Operators Running the “Robust DOCSIS Platform,” It Means We Already Provide Great Service

The ACA also called on the FCC to give cable operators a free pass from demonstrating they can meet the Commission’s quality of service standards regarding latency and the responsiveness of the customer’s broadband connection.

“For cable operators, the Commission should presume that because they employ the robust DOCSIS platform they meet the latency requirement,” the ACA wrote.

Committing to study and oversee the quality of cable broadband is also a really bad idea according to the cable lobbying group.

“Further exploration of a cable system’s latency performance without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary would be unproductive for the Commission in carrying out its public interest mandate and for cable operators,” the ACA argued.

Don’t Tell Us What We Can Charge and What Usage Limits We Can Impose; That Should Be Reserved for Wall Street and Our Investors

The ACA is also concerned that the FCC might consider the price consumers pay for rural broadband and what usage limits rural cable operators impose when deciding whether it is time to help fund the launch of a competing provider.

Captive rural customers can pay the same or higher prices for much slower broadband service than urban Americans pay, but the ACA advocates the FCC look the other way and avoid making any such comparisons:

“[...] There are many reasons for the Commission to refrain from establishing (even minimal) comparable rates and terms of service for the provision of broadband service by cable operators to be deemed as “serving” an area.

First, the Commission should recognize that cable operators as a rule build their networks and provide broadband service with no government support, only using private capital and based on a business case enabling them to receive a market return on that investment.

Any effort by the government to impose price or usage allowances – that is regulate the service – has great potential to lower that return and slow rural broadband deployment. With universal service funding limited, this would lessen the ability for the Commission to achieve its objective of bringing broadband to unserved areas.

Further, it would be almost impossible to establish a reasonably comparable rate and terms of service because, at least for cable operators, these change so often and are usually offered in bundles with other services. Most cable customers subscribe to either or both a package of services and some sort of promotional offering. Further, bundles are far from homogeneous and operators change frequently. All of this makes it virtually impossible to have valid urban-rural comparisons.

[...] Finally, if it were to establish a comparable rate and terms of service for broadband, the Commission would be acting in an area where it clearly lacks authority.

ACA past chairman Ben Hooks, CEO of Buford Media and operator of cable systems under the Alliance Communications brand, appeared on MSNBC to rail against federal cable broadband regulations and oversight requirements. Hooks operates several small cable systems in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama that are throwbacks to a much earlier era of cable. Many offer just a few dozen channels and deliver no broadband or cable phone service.

Hooks is upset because the federal government wants to help fund new start-up broadband providers in his backyard. He thinks this is unfair, because his cable operations, run with largely refurbished, cast-off cable equipment discarded years ago by larger cable operators, is funded with private capital and may have to compete with new providers partly funded by the Connect America Fund. In the middle of the dispute are rural Americans who cannot get broadband from Alliance Communications and would be prevented from getting it from anyone else if Hooks has his way.  (6 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. Kyle McSlarrow’s Wonderful World of Broadband – The Broadband Glass is 95 Percent Full, Cable Lobby Says
2. Cable Lobby Pays for Research Report That Miraculously Agrees With Them on Rural Broadband Reforms
3. Chief Cable Lobby Group Explores Dropping “Cable” from Its Name
4. Broadband Maptastrophe; FCC Ignores Its Own 4/1Mbps Standard, Relies On Faulty Map Data
5. Telecom Company-Influenced Broadband Availability Map Hurts Mississippi Broadband Expansion

West Virginia’s broadband future is up for hot debate in the state legislature as Internet haves and have nots fight over whether the state should spend money to bring broadband to those lacking it or improve service for those that do.

House Bill 2979, a bill to expand the broadband purview of the West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council, has turned into one of the most contentious bills before the legislature this term. An amendment to redefine what speeds represent “broadband” and requiring the council to prioritize efforts on unserved areas has sparked the most debate.

Sen. Robert Plymale (D-Cabell) introduced and won support for an amendment that would discard the current provider-favored standard defining a community as “served” if customers can buy at least 200kbps service. Plymale favors adopting the federal broadband speed standard — 4/1Mbps as the bare minimum. Plymale also wants the state to devote most of its resources to getting broadband to rural areas that do not have the service today.

“If you’re going to compete in this world today, you have to have access,” Plymale told lawmakers. “Access has to be the number one item, and this amendment allows access to be the priority.”

Plymale

But other lawmakers representing constituents in communities that already have broadband, but receive inadequate speed and service, objected to Plymale’s amendment.

Sen. Herb Snyder (D-Jefferson) claims Plymale’s amendment would restrict the council’s ability to manage broadband resources and require it to spend most of its funding on wiring smaller communities at the cost of service upgrades that could reach more people. Approximately 85,000 West Virginians still have no broadband access other than satellite.

“It’s entirely appropriate to use taxpayer dollars to help and assist people to get broadband service and get on the information superhighway rather than upgrading those already on it,” argued Sen. Mitch Carmichael (R-Jackson), who also happens to also be an employee of Frontier Communications.

Much of the state’s broadband infrastructure spending has been devoted to institutional and middle mile networks that consumers and small businesses cannot directly access. Spending on “last mile” infrastructure makes the difference between getting broadband service or being told it is unavailable.

But Sen. Snyder argues satellite broadband already offers access to the entire state, so broadband speed improvements were more important.

“As we speak the entirety of West Virginia is bathed in 5Mbps satellite broadband service,” Snyder said. “So we’re already surpassing that standard in the entire state, unless you’re in a cave where you can’t get the signal.”

Getting the best broadband bang for the buck was a priority for Sen. Clark Barnes (R-Randolph). He wanted to make sure any amendment would not prevent the council from spending money in areas where satellite service was available.

“If we have 10 folks up in Possum Hollow that have no access to broadband, would they receive priority over the thousand people who only have 2Mbps service?” he said.

The answer would seem to be yes under Plymale’s amendment.

Other stories of interest:

1. Frontier Stymies Broadband Grants to Independent ISPs; Complains They Duplicate Service
2. W.V. Does Broadband Mapping With Volunteers; No More Well-Connected Nation Money Flush
3. Frontier’s Wilderotter Claims W.V. Among Top-5 Broadband States; Facts Say Otherwise
4. West Virginia Upset With Current State of Broadband; Companies Losing Business Over Lack of Service
5. West Virginia’s Conundrum Proves Inflexible Broadband Grants, Poor Planning Wastes Taxpayer Money