For the past two years, we’ve watched a lot of expansive fiber broadband projects get promoted by local media as broadband nirvana for individual homes and businesses that are either stuck with molasses-slow DSL or no broadband at all. Now, we’ve found another, sold by Springfield, Mass. media as salvation from Verizon’s ‘Don’t Care’ DSL for western Massachusetts.  But will the 1,300 miles of fiber actually reach the homes that need a broadband boost?

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSHM Springfield Broadband in Berkshires 7-26-11.mp4[/flv]

WSHM-TV in Springfield covered the start of MassBroadband 123’s fiber optic project as the solution to rural broadband woes in western Massachusetts.  But most residents won’t actually get to use the new network, at least initially.  (2 minutes)

Last month, Gov. Duval Patrick joined public officials and firefighters at the Sandisfield Fire Department to kick-off construction of the MassBroadband 123 fiber-optic network project to expand broadband access to more than 120 communities in western and north central Massachusetts.

MassBroadband 123 Service Area (click to enlarge)

“For too long, families and businesses in western Massachusetts have lived without reliable and affordable high-speed Internet access,” said Governor Patrick. “Today, as we commence the installation of more than 1,000 miles of fiber-optic cable across the region, we start the critical final step in delivering broadband access to everyone. The digital divide in Massachusetts is about to close.”

Don’t hold your breath.

Don’t get me wrong.  The Massachusetts Broadband Institute means well.  Judith Dumont, the group’s director, is well-aware of the challenges rural Massachusetts has getting 21st century broadband.  She’s helping to oversee the construction of an enormous middle-mile, fiber backbone network that will eventually reach those ten dozen communities.  But much of the funding for the project precludes the possibility of directly wiring that fiber to the people who actually need it.  The incumbent providers’ lobbyists have seen to that, broadly warning it would represent ISP Socialism to allow government money to deliver service to homes and businesses — customers they themselves claim to be committed to serve.  But ask any resident in Sandisfield how well they manage that.

Gov. Patrick splices fiber cable at inauguration ceremony for fiber expansion project. (Courtesy: MBI)

A good part of upgraded broadband on the way in the Berkshires will be provided to government institutions like local government, public safety, schools, and libraries.  There is nothing wrong with that either, but when local media blurs this distinction into belief fiber-fast Internet access is on the way to Mr. & Mrs. Jones living on Maple Street, they do a real disservice to the cause for better broadband.

Dumont optimistically believes that opening the state’s fiber network to incumbent providers on a wholesale basis will dramatically help the pervasive problem of reaching rural customers.  Unfortunately, this has simply not been our observed experience watching these projects develop.  The “last mile” problem doesn’t get solved with the existence of a middle mile network, because providers are rarely willing to invest in the construction costs to wire the unwired.  Political and business matters too often get in the way.

Cable companies frequently boycott participation in these networks, and phone companies like Verizon Wireless -may- utilize them for backhaul connectivity to their cell towers, but don’t expect to see lightning-fast Verizon FiOS fiber to the home service springing up anytime soon in western Massachusetts, even if fiber connectivity is provided just a mile or so up the street.  If they didn’t build it themselves, many providers just are not interested.

“Last mile” is often the most expensive component in a broadband network.  It’s the part of the project that requires digging up streets and yards, stringing cables across phone poles, and literally wiring the inside and outside of individual homes and businesses.  Verizon FiOS works in densely populated areas where large numbers of potential customers are likely to deliver a quick return on investment in the network.  But Wall Street has always disagreed, declaring the capital costs too high to make sense.  AT&T won’t even match Verizon’s commitment, relying instead on fiber-to-the-neighborhood networks that deliver access over a more modern type of DSL, delivered on fiber to copper wire phone lines already in place.  That’s their way of not spending money rebuilding their own last mile network.

Wireless ISPs are expected to take advantage of the state's new middle-mile network.

If any part of the broadband network in rural America needed subsidies, the “last mile” is it.  But Washington routinely delivers the bulk of federal assistance to the construction of middle mile networks and institutional broadband that doesn’t deliver a single connection to a homeowner or business.  That suits incumbent providers just fine, judging from their lack of interest in applying for broadband subsidy funding made available two years ago and their hard lobbying against community broadband networks, or anything else smacking of “competition.”

Thus far, the limited grants that are available for “last mile” projects require substantial matching funds and are often limited to $50,000 — a ridiculously low amount to solve the “last mile” challenge.  Those trying are primarily fixed wireless providers valiantly attempting to serve the areas DSL and cable forgot, but deliver woefully slow speeds at incredibly high prices.  WiSpring, one such Wireless ISP, wants to expand coverage with the help of the new fiber network.  But their top advertised wireless speed for residential customers is 1.5Mbps, and that will set you back $100 a month after a $500 installation charge.  Oh, and their customer agreement limits use to 25GB per month with a $10/GB overlimit fee.  That’s hardly the kind of broadband solution a multi-million dollar fiber network should bring to individual consumers.  It’s as frustrating as filling a pool, one cup of water at a time, with an eye-dropper.

Now imagine if a quarter of the state’s $40 million investment in broadband — $10 million, was spent physically wiring individual homes with fiber broadband.  Would that make a bigger splash in the lives of ordinary consumers than a middle mile network they cannot directly access?  Is construction of a state-of-the-art fiber network a good investment when many of the providers scheduled to use it are Wireless ISPs delivering bandwidth suitable for e-mail and basic web browsing only?

In West Virginia, we learned last month the state is swimming in middle mile stimulus grant money it can’t spend fast enough on behalf of institutions — many who either already have super fast service or can’t afford the Cadillac pricing that represents the ongoing service charges not paid for by grant funds.  Is this a good way to spend tax dollars?

Communities large and small need to think big when it comes to broadband.  Building a middle mile network does not by itself solve the access problem.  It’s a fine start, but absolutely requires a follow-up commitment to solve the last mile problem.  Here are our recommendations:

1. Demand the federal government eliminate restrictions on the kinds of network projects that can built with stimulus funds, especially those that prohibit investment in last-mile networks;
2. Don’t believe for a moment large cable and telephone companies will bring better broadband to consumers just because you have a middle mile network.  Historically, they have lobbied hard against last-mile projects they do not own or control, and fund conservative political groups to oppose your community’s right to develop and govern your own broadband future;
3. If incumbent providers won’t provide the service your community needs, consider exploring the possibility of doing it yourself.  Just as MBI contracts the wholesale part of its service out to a third party to administer, nobody says the village clerk has to be a billing agent for a community broadband service that directly serves your residents;
4. Involve local citizens in rallying for better broadband instead of sitting around and waiting for the local phone or cable company to provide it.  They won’t.  It’s a simple matter of economics for them – will they get a sufficient return on their investment within five years? If not, you are not getting improved broadband.  That works for them but doesn’t work for your community, and providers have made it clear most of the networks they intend to build are already built.  That leaves a lot of communities behind.
5. While wireless may be an answer for the most rural or difficult-to-reach homes, it is not a realistic solution for 21st century broadband inside village or town limits.  Wireless networks often lack the capacity to sustain the growing demand for multimedia, high-bandwidth content that is becoming more important for today’s online experience.  When a provider limits usage to 25GB a month, that’s a big problem for any community that will soon find itself stuck in a broadband swamp while the rest of the country passes it by.
6. The biggest financial challenges seem to come to those who think small about broadband projects.  Don’t rely on yesterday’s technologies for tomorrow’s networks.  Fiber-based broadband will deliver the best bang for the buck and is infinitely upgradable.  That’s why rural phone companies and cooperative telecom providers are constructing fiber networks themselves.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGBY Springfield The State Were In Judith Dumont 7-11.mp4[/flv]

WGBY-TV in Springfield talked with Judith Dumont about western Massachusetts’ broadband future.  (19 minutes)

Glenn Britt

Time Warner Cable has notified the Securities and Exchange Commission that the cable company has extended the contract of current CEO Glenn Britt through at least the end of 2013, an extension of one year.

As part of the contract deal, the cable company added provisions for “long-term incentive compensation,” a combination of salary, bonuses, and other financial incentives designed to keep a CEO from looking for greener pastures elsewhere.  Britt’s package is anticipated to be worth at least $17 million over the period 2012-2013, which includes a base salary of at least $1.25 million, and much of the rest coming from bonuses.

Britt is likely being rewarded for the company’s strong financial results and stock price, which has been high recently.  But the cable company continues to lose cable-TV video customers, and is finding increasing resistance to rate increases from cash-strapped consumers being priced out of the company’s packages.

Cogeco Cable customers are about to pay for the company’s tragic financial results from its Portuguese operations in the form of broad-based price increases the company is selling as service “improvements.”

July’s financial results for Cogeco, which owns cable systems in Ontario, Quebec, and Portugal, are not good.  With mass subscriber defections and downgrades from Cogeco’s Portuguese cable system Cabovisao, company officials have decided to write off their European investment, resulting in a $56.7 million loss in the third quarter.

Tempering the damage is the company’s decision to raise broadband prices for Canadian customers by $2 a month for their Standard broadband package, soon to be priced at $48.95.

(Courtesy: 'Gone' from Fort Erie, Ontario)

“To add insult to injury, they are calling these changes ‘improvements,'” writes Stop the Cap! reader Claudette, who is a Cogeco customer in Ontario.  “In fact, the only thing Cogeco is improving is their skill at overcharging us.”

Cogeco's financial mess in Portugal.

Cogeco has sent letters to subscribers notifying them about the “improvements,” mostly in the form of a name change for the company’s ‘Standard’ plan, soon to be renamed ‘Turbo 14.’  They have also launched a new section on their website to break down the changes.

The only benefit Cogeco is introducing for customers with their Standard plan is a slight bump in usage allowances, from 60 to 80GB.  But that change comes with a major catch.  Cogeco charges customers a $1.50/GB overlimit fee with a monthly maximum overcharge of $30.  When ‘Turbo 14’ premieres Oct. 1, the maximum overlimit fee will jump to $50 a month.

“That is a total ripoff, because the next plan up with bigger allowances — just over 100GB a month — costs nearly $77 a month, for a whopping 16Mbps,” she adds.  “They just raised our rates last July and now they want more.”

Cogeco is punishing their premium customers even more by taking the maximum overlimit fee cap completely off their DOCSIS 3-based Ultimate 30Mbps and 50Mbps plans.  Available in some Cogeco service areas at prices of $60 and $100 a month respectively, the plans come with usage limits of 175-250GB.  The sky is the limit for overlimit fees, racked up at $1 per gigabyte.

Cogeco customers are outraged, and have begun shopping for alternatives, just like their counterparts in Portugal who have put their cable service on the chopping block.

The ongoing Portuguese financial crisis has been met with tax increases and benefit reductions by the government, and Portuguese consumers have responded with wholesale cord-cutting, cancelling Cabovisao cable-TV service in droves.

Cogeco's systems in Ontario (click to enlarge)

“You now have customers squarely opting out of [cable TV],” said Louis Audet, Cogeco’s president and chief executive officer. “These are economic circumstances that we have not, nor has anyone here, witnessed in North America. These are very unique to the circumstances in Portugal.”

At least Audet hopes they are.

With fewer competitive choices in the rural and suburban Ontario and Quebec markets Cogeco favors, consumers have a tougher time finding alternative providers, but not an impossible one.  Many are dropping Cogeco’s phone and broadband packages, moving to Voice Over IP or cell phone service for the former, and independent broadband providers like TekSavvy for the latter.  TekSavvy still retains unlimited use plans and has been traditionally more generous with allowances for the usage-based plans the company also sells.

Investors have been placated with a boost in Cogeco’s dividend payout… for now.  But many have adopted a “told you so” attitude about the company’s controversial decision to invest in overseas cable to begin with.

Scotia Capital analyst Jeff Fan said he had a negative view about Cogeco’s Portuguese venture.

“We hope this paves the way for a sale,” he wrote in a note to investors, “as Portugal is still cash-flow negative and dilutes the strong Canadian results.”

In fact, many investor groups dream of an even bigger sale — of Cogeco itself.

Joseph MacKay of Mackie Research said Canada’s fourth-largest cable company is ripe for a takeover by a larger cable operator, presumably Rogers or Shaw Communications.  Rogers already blankets Ontario with cable services, so Cogeco’s operations in eastern provinces would be a ‘natural fit’ for the company.  Shaw’s interest in expanding eastward could also get a boost from the buyout of Cogeco.

But one significant roadblock remains — the controlling interests of the Audet family, which have no intention of selling and control enough voting shares to stymie a hostile takeover.  In fact, despite the poor showing of the company’s Portuguese operations, the Audet family claims to be interested in acquiring other providers and expanding Cogeco’s size.

With the benefit of a two-dollar rate increase and the proceeds of Internet Overcharging, they’ll be in a position to put more dollars toward that goal.

Loyal AT&T customers grandfathered on unlimited data plans are being paid back for their loyalty to the company with the threat of a speed throttle hanging over their heads if they don’t limit the use of their unlimited use plan.

The Washington Post reports, by AT&T’s calculations, anyone using 4GB of usage and up during the month is likely to find their smartphone neutered to near dial-up speed for the rest of the month:

The company said that it will throttle back data use for the top 5 percent of data consumers, who use “twelve times” what its average smartphone data customers use.

A recent Consumer Reports survey found that the average smartphone user on AT&T’s network uses 360 megabytes per month — meaning that only power users will feel the pinch. Using AT&T’s formula, the company’s likely scaling back its network for users who exceed 4 gigabytes per month.

Four gigabytes of usage on a smartphone is a considerable amount, if all you do is browse web pages, read e-mail, and access a handful of apps.  But consumers who increasingly rely on GPS navigation and streaming multimedia content, particularly videos, will find they don’t have to live on their smartphones to put themselves on AT&T’s bad side.  Even devoted attention to video streams from a home security system could consume a considerable amount of data on a usage plan that was supposed to be unlimited.

“It’s a slap in the face to loyal customers who have been with AT&T for a decade or longer,” says Stop the Cap! reader Paul.  “Wireless providers used to operate on rewarding loyalty by letting customers keep their plans intact unless and until they change plans or depart for another provider.  Now AT&T is literally cattle-prodding their most loyal customers who pay $30 a month for an unlimited plan that will now have limits.”

Paul wonders why anyone would want to keep an unlimited plan that will be throttled to punish customers with unusable speeds.

“Clearly, Verizon moving away from unlimited data allowed AT&T to stick it to customers who know they have few places to run,” Paul writes. “This is probably only the beginning.  Why again would we want AT&T to get any bigger than it already is?”

An example of an 801.22 Wireless Regional Area Network

The mainstream media and technology blogs have been running away with coverage about the IEEE’s recent approval of the so-called “white space” 802.22 wireless standard with stories of up to 100 kilometers of wireless coverage for home Wi-Fi over unused UHF television channels.  The thought of installing a router that can deliver reception of your personal broadband connection for up to 62 square miles sounds very exciting, but don’t get as carried away as some media outlets have.

The truth is, 802.22 benefits wireless providers, not consumers (unless you happen to receive your Internet service from a commercial provider over this technology.)

The new standard was designed to benefit Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRANs).  In general terms, this means Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISPs), who are most likely to adopt the new technology to enhance wireless service over long distances in rural areas not covered by DSL, cable broadband, or other wired networks.  To achieve the maximum amount of coverage noted in the popular press, providers will need to utilize specialized transmitters using antennas considerably higher than what one would find in a home environment.

Unlike today’s Wi-Fi networks, 802.22 uses much lower frequencies which tend to propagate over longer distances.  Using frequencies in the Megahertz range instead of the Gigahertz range makes it much more likely ground-based wireless signals will penetrate buildings and reach across the rural landscape.

To accommodate “white space” wireless, the Federal Communications Commission last year approved the use of unused broadcast channels for these data transmissions.  But providers will not simply be able to fire up their white space Wi-Fi network just anywhere.  The standard includes a provision that will automatically register the exact location of each transmission site with a central coordinating body.  Providers must agree to vacate channels if harmful interference to licensed broadcasters is “sensed” by the technology, and even though multiple operators may be able to operate concurrently in an area at the same time, there are important limitations on how many available “white space” channels will exist in different television markets.

Realistically, the most sensible implementation of 802.22 will come in very rural areas with few, if any, local broadcast signals to contend with.  If the FCC has its way, a considerable amount of the so-called “white space” will be sold off to America’s largest cell phone companies, leaving even fewer channels open for this kind of wireless broadband.  In large urban markets, it’s doubtful many channels will be available for 802.22 use, if any at all.  Currently, the FCC dictates these networks cannot operate on an occupied broadcast channel, or the adjacent channels on either side.  That means if your city has a station on channel 31, these networks cannot use channels 30, 31, or 32.

Another problem is the available bandwidth for individual users.  Each “channel” has 6MHz of bandwidth, which can realistically provide 12Mbps service to a single user.  The IEEE specifies a maximum speed of 22Mbps, but that is more theoretical than actual when taking into account the longer distances average customers will be from the transmitter.  Providers will almost certainly pack each channel with multiple users.  A dozen customers concurrently using the service would probably get around 1.5Mbps on average (384kbps upstream), assuming nobody saturates the channel at maximum speeds. That is equivalent to some rural DSL providers.  Should providers “oversubscribe” the network, and dozens of customers try and use the service at the same time, speeds could drop precipitously.  The further users are from the transmitter, the lower the speeds they will receive regardless of how many users are on the network at that time.

To handle demand, one solution is to run multiple transmitters to handle the traffic, but how many transmitters can operate will depend on how much “white space” is available.  That is why this technology is best suited for rural areas where UHF television signals, and customers, are few and far between.

Home Wi-Fi users will need to wait for the development of a different standard — 802.11af — to take any advantage of “white-space” Wi-Fi, sometimes called White-Fi or “Super Wi-Fi.”

Since the much used 2.4 GHz band for Wi-Fi is congested in urban areas, IEEE 802.11af can provide additional open frequencies for home users.  But most 802.11af home equipment will operate at considerably lower power and range, and will suffer some of the same bandwidth limitations created by narrow channel spacing.  An even bigger problem will be available channel space.  The same urban areas experiencing over-congested Wi-Fi will also likely have the largest number of operating television signals, limiting the use of this technology.

Some theorize White-Fi wireless will not be of much use to home broadband users at all, instead opening up connectivity for devices we might not normally associate with wireless connectivity.  A home security system could plausibly work well with limited bandwidth.  So could home electronic devices that want to communicate their status.  A washer and dryer could use the technology to communicate with each other to synchronize completion time and signal the homeowner that their laundry is ready.  Home weather stations could deliver data over longer distances, refrigerators could signal owners they need to be restocked, and so on.

If you are waiting for wireless broadband nirvana, unfortunately there is not much to see here with these developments.  Increasing usage demands continue to make wireless among the least suitable technologies to deliver the substantial-sized data pipeline broadband consumers increasingly require.