The bill is pending in the House Ways and Means Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Bill Faison, sees the moratorium as an attempt to protect the powerful cable monopoly. Faison, a Democrat who represents Orange and Caswell counties, is meeting Wednesday with representatives of the telecommunications industry and local government leaders to discuss options.

Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston) couldn’t get his Senate bill the time of day in the North Carolina House, so he attached it to a popular House bill to extend the e-NC Authority — North Carolina’s initiative to promote better broadband.  Now a good bill is infected, like a virus, by Hoyle’s tireless work on behalf of Time Warner Cable.

Hoyle, who has cashed checks from the cable and phone lobbies for years, is proud of sticking it to consumers in his state.

“I want my bill passed. They want their bill passed. So, if they want theirs, they’re going to have to take up mine,” Hoyle told WRAL-TV.

Hoyle, who plans to retire at the end of his term, faces no consequences from Gaston County voters, so he doesn’t care if his bill effectively protects incumbent cable companies who have raised their rates far above the rate of inflation for years.  Hoyle wants a one year moratorium to stop local communities from building their own broadband networks to improve service to residents and deliver lower pricing.

One community that escaped Time Warner’s relentless rate hiking is Wilson, where a municipal broadband project called Greenlight effectively forced a red light on Time Warner’s plans to increase rates in the community earlier this year.  Wilson was the only city we could find in the state where rates remained the same, and residents have Greenlight and city officials to thank for that.

Hoyle and his friends at the cable company are outraged at the thought of North Carolina communities stopping the rate hike gravy train.  After all, less money for Time Warner equals less money for campaign contributions to friendly politicians.

“Do we, as government, want to get in competition with private enterprise and my answer to that is no, and I am passionate about that,” Hoyle said.

If only his constituents could afford to pay him enough to be passionate about their interests.

Rep. Bill Faison, (D-Orange), is among the lawmakers sponsoring the broadband stimulus bill, which was a sure thing until Hoyle got his hands on it.  Faison called Hoyle’s amendments anti-competitive and pro-rate increase, both bad for North Carolina consumers.

“I decide what gets put on the agenda,” Faison told the Charlotte Observer. “It’s unlikely that any bill with a moratorium in it has a chance of getting through the House.”

Hoyle’s strenuous efforts to perform legislative gymnastics on behalf of cable and phone companies have not gone unnoticed by Faison.  He suggested Hoyle’s latest move represented an “interesting political maneuver,” but he doesn’t intend to sit still for it.  Faison and other pro-consumer legislators are meeting this week to consider how to strip Hoyle’s nonsense out of HB1840 and shove it in the nearest trash can.  For comparison purposes, here is the original bill.

Consumers show no love for Time Warner.  Charlotte residents had choice words for their cable company when they learned it was behind the push to stop municipal competition:

◊ Time Warner is about to pay for being jerks to their customers, and it’s high time.

◊ Time Warner cable: I hope they rot. It’s about dang time that municipal governments started providing free broadband to their citizens. The fact that multiple households need their own wireless routers, broadcast on different channels, is a totally inefficient use of technology. Companies like TW Cable want to keep citizens constrained, which runs totally opposite to the promise of the Internet. Find out which boneheads in the Senate are pushing for this and vote them out. They’re clearly more interested in money from the cable companies than in serving their constituents.

◊ For cable to argue unfair competition is laughable when they operate a virtual monopoly.

◊ Instead of fighting this legislation, why doesn’t Time-Warner Cable focus on making its service so reliable and reasonably priced that no city or county will seriously consider managing this themselves? I find it hard to believe any local government could actually run this type of technology more efficiently than a company with TWC’s resources can, but the threat of competition helps keep TWC on their toes. P.S. I lost my TWC signal for 90 minutes this past Sunday right in the middle of the US Open and Brazil-Ivory Coast World Cup game. Nice.

A vote on the House measure is imminent, so North Carolina consumers should be contacting the House Committee members listed below and urge them not to allow any part of Hoyle’s language to remain in HB1840.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WRAL Raleigh NC Broadband Bill Debate 6-28-10.flv[/flv]

WRAL-TV in Raleigh discusses Hoyle’s language and how it ended up in a broadband stimulus request bill.  (2 minutes)

House Ways and Means/Broadband Connectivity Committee

This article contains the following correction since original publication: Our original article did not fully explain the bill to which Sen. Hoyle attached his municipal broadband moratorium. For clarification purposes, that bill is HB1840, legislation to extend the authority of the e-NC Authority. Our original article carried WRAL-TV’s language that said the bill provided for “$5 million in federal stimulus to help provide high-speed Internet access in parts of the state.” While that would be nice, it wasn’t an accurate characterization the bill’s intent.  Our apologies for the error.

Seoul, the capital city of the Republic of Korea

Seoul, the capital of the Republic of Korea, is the world’s most wired city with some 95 percent of residents enthusiastic users of the world’s fastest broadband networks.

While Americans cope with a broadband duopoly that holds us back, the 100Mbps world of broadband has already arrived in Korea, at prices a fraction of what Americans pay for service — with no limits.

A full 95 percent of households in South Korea have broadband internet access – the highest in the world. Singapore is second to South Korea, with broadband connection in 88 percent of homes. The U.S. ranks 20th, with broadband connection in 60 percent of homes.

Although densely populated cities in Korea, where residents live in multi-dwelling units, makes wiring fiber optic broadband easy, that’s not the only reason why South Korea is so far ahead of the United States.

Koreans consider broadband an essential part of life, a representation of their sense of freedom, as well as a tool to help Korea’s development in a global economy.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC News Seoul The World’s Most Wired City 6-25-10.mp4[/flv]

ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ visited Seoul to learn how the world’s most wired city has been transformed by universal, inexpensive, super-fast broadband.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC News Why So Wired South Korea 6-25-10.mp4[/flv]

ABC’s Juju Chang sat down for an interview with Yongmann Park, chairman of Doosan Corporation, one of Korea’s successful business conglomerates.  (2 minutes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior efforts to expand broadband availability included:

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

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

A decision on the grant is expected by September.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WETM Elmira One Step Closer to High Speed Broadband Access 6-24-10.flv[/flv]

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

Obama

President Obama signed a memorandum this morning that will free up 500Mhz of government and privately-owned spectrum over the next decade to double the amount of wireless broadband capacity in the United States.

The Obama Administration claims the newly available spectrum will throw a rescue line to overburdened wireless networks that are facing a spectrum crunch.  The White House estimates wireless data usage will explode — growing between 20 and 45 times in the next five years.

President Obama:

Few technological developments hold as much potential to enhance America’s economic competitiveness, create jobs, and improve the quality of our lives as wireless high-speed access to the Internet.  Innovative new mobile technologies hold the promise for a virtuous cycle — millions of consumers gain faster access to more services at less cost, spurring innovation, and then a new round of consumers benefit from new services.  The wireless revolution has already begun with millions of Americans taking advantage of wireless access to the Internet.

Expanded wireless broadband access will trigger the creation of innovative new businesses, provide cost-effective connections in rural areas, increase productivity, improve public safety, and allow for the development of mobile telemedicine, telework, distance learning, and other new applications that will transform Americans’ lives.

In practical terms, the reallocation of spectrum could spark a battle between the current spectrum holders — often government agencies and private UHF television stations — and the government.  Parts of the plan will require Congressional approval, a sure-fire guarantee that wireless providers will have to write some more checks to their astroturf and sock puppet friends to help sell the benefits of the plan to a wary Congress.

Since most of the spectrum would likely be sold at auction, the proceeds could deliver the administration a tidy sum to either reduce the federal budget deficit and/or fund broadband initiatives.

But what might seem at first like a win-win might not turn out that way in the end.

We have the following concerns:

Past spectrum auctions have largely benefited incumbent wireless carriers, especially companies like AT&T and Verizon who have the deep pockets that guarantee successful bids at auctions.  Both wireless carriers are not actually using all of the spectrum they already acquired in earlier auctions and have essentially warehoused those frequencies, particularly in rural areas, to keep them out of the hands of other companies that could deliver service.  FCC requirements that auction winners actually utilize their acquired spectrum have been so lax as to be laughable.  Carriers can easily satisfy FCC requirements building only in urban areas and leaving large swaths of the countryside unserved. The FCC must set rules that auction winners use their allotments in both rural and urban areas, or face fines or forfeiture.

Setting aside some frequency blocks for smaller providers and would-be competitors is critical.  In today’s mobile wireless marketplace two companies are superpowers and then there is everyone else.  Both AT&T and Verizon have the resources to outbid virtually anyone.  Allowing blocks of frequencies to be reserved exclusively for new competitors would bolster competition and give consumers more choices.  Those frequencies must be sold in a block that is identical nationwide — not leftover spectrum running through several frequency bands.

Providing additional spectrum for wireless broadband isn’t a problem, but with complaints about wireless service providers growing, along with consumers’ bills, now is the time to reform wireless for the benefit of consumers.  Let’s make it a “win” for everyone.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Obama Proposes to Double Airwaves for Mobile Web Access 6-28-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News explains the controversy behind the transfer of spectrum from the government and broadcasters to the mobile broadband industry.  (2 minutes)

Mehlman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kelsey

The problems go further than that, however.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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