Vincent, one of our regular Stop the Cap! readers sent along a link to a story about the decrepit state of American broadband: it’s a real mess for those who can’t get it, can’t get enough of it, and compare it against what other people abroad are getting.

Cracked delivers the top five reasons why American broadband sucks.  Be sure and read their take (adult language), but we have some thoughts of our own to share:

#5 Some of Us Just Plain Can’t Get It

Large sections of the prairie states, the mountain states, and the desert states can’t get broadband no matter how much they want it.  That’s because they are a hundred miles or more from the nearest cable system and depend on the phone companies — especially AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink, and Windstream to deliver basic DSL.  AT&T is trying as hard as possible to win the right to abandon rural America altogether with the elimination of their basic service obligation.  Verizon has sold off some of their most rural territories, including the entire states of Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia.  CenturyLink has absorbed Qwest in the least populated part of America — the mountain and desert west.

Frontier and Windstream are betting their business models on rural DSL, and while some are grateful to have anything resembling broadband, neither company earns spectacular customer ratings.

So long as rural broadband is not an instant profit winner for the phone companies selling it, rural America will remain dependent on dial-up or [shudder] satellite fraudband.

#4 Often There are No Real Options for Service (and No Competition)

Cracked has discovered the wonderfully inaccurate world of broadband mapping, where the map shows you have plentiful broadband all around, but phone calls to the providers on the list bring nothing but gales of laughter.  As if you are getting service at your house.  Ever.  Stop the Cap! hears regularly from the broadband-deprived, some who have had to be more innovative than the local phone company ever was looking for ways to get service.  Some have paid to bury their own phone cable to get DSL the phone company was reluctant to install, others have created super-powered Wi-Fi networks to share a neighbor’s connection.  The rest live with broadband envy, watching for any glimpse of phone trucks running new wires up and down the road.

Competition is a concept foreign to most Americans confronted with one cable company and one phone company charging around the same price for service.  The most aggressive competition comes when a community broadband provider throws a monkey wrench into the duopoly.  Magically, rate hikes are few and fleeting and speeds are suddenly much better.  Hmmm.

#3 Those Who Have Access Still Lag Behind the Rest of the World

We're #35!

This is an unnerving problem, especially when countries like Lithuania are now kicking the United States into the broadband corner.  You wouldn’t believe we’re that bad off listening to providers, who talk about the innovative and robust broadband economy — the one that is independent of their lousy service.  In fact, the biggest impediment to more innovation may be those same providers.  Some have an insatiable appetite for money — money from you, money from content producers, money from taxpayers, more money from you, and by the way there better be a big fat check from Netflix in the mail this week for using our pipes!

Where is the real innovation?  Community providers like Greenlight, Fibrant, and EPB that deliver their respective communities kick-butt broadband — service other providers would like to shut down at all costs.  Not every commercial provider is an innovation vacuum.  Verizon FiOS and Google’s new Gigabit fiber network in Kansas City represent innovation through investment.  Unfortunately Wall Street doesn’t approve.

Still not convinced?  Visit Japan or Korea and then tell us how American broadband resembles NetZero or AOL dial-up in comparison.

#2 Bad Internet = Shi**y Economy

The demagoguery of corporate-financed dollar-a-holler groups like “FreedomWorks” and “Americans for Prosperity” is without bounds.  Whether it was attacking broadband stimulus funding, community broadband endeavors, or Net Neutrality, these provider shills turned broadband expansion into something as worthwhile as a welfare benefit for Cadillac drivers.  Why are we spending precious tax dollars on Internet access so people can steal movies and download porn they asked.  Why are we letting communities solve their own broadband problems building their own networks when it should be commercial providers being the final arbiter of who deserves access and who does not?  Net Neutrality?  Why that’s a socialist government takeover, it surely is.

It’s like watching railroad robber barons finance protest movements against public road construction.  We can’t have free roads paved by the government unfairly competing with monopoly railway companies, can we?  That’s anti-American!

The cost of inadequate broadband in an economy that has jettisoned manufacturing jobs to Mexico and the Far East is greater than we realize.  Will America sacrifice its leadership in the Internet economy to China the same way we did with our textile, electronics, appliances, furniture, and housewares industries?  China, Japan and Korea are building fiber optic broadband networks for their citizens and businesses.  We’re still trying to figure out how to wire West Virginia for 3Mbps DSL.

#1 At This Point, Internet Access is Kind of a Necessity

The United Nations this week declared the Internet to be a basic human right.  Conservatives scoffed at that, ridiculing the declaration for a variety of reasons ranging from disgust over any body that admits Hugo Chavez, to the lack of a similar declaration for gun ownership, and the usual interpretation of broadband as a high tech play-toy.  Some folks probably thought the same way about the telephone and electricity around 1911.

Yes, the Internet can be frivolous, but then so can a phone call.  Cursed by the U.S. Post Office for destroying their first class mail business, by telephone directory publishers, and those bill payment envelope manufacturers, the Internet does have its detractors.  But should we go back to picking out commemorative stamps at the post office?  Your local phone and cable company sure doesn’t think so.  We don’t either.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Merger Chorus 6-01-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News covers Sprint’s increasingly aggressive pushback against the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.  But while Bloomberg points out consumer groups are using websites to help consumers file comments opposing the deal, they ignore the fact deal supporters are engaged in their own dollar-a-holler campaign to win the merger’s approval.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg ATT Concessions 6-01-11.mp4[/flv]

The opposition to the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile is growing louder and more organized as smaller carriers join Sprint’s opposition efforts. Consumer groups roundly dismiss the proposed merger as anti-competition and anti-consumer.  Michael Nelson, a securities analyst, tells Bloomberg News the vote for the merger’s approval could be close and the company will probably have to agree to more concessions than it thinks.  But considering AT&T’s enormous lobbying power, Nelson still thinks the deal will squeak through.  Nelson, however, warns the merger will bring about a considerable reduction in the disruptive pricing T-Mobile has engaged in — pricing that benefits consumers and forces larger carriers to follow suit.  To Nelson, eliminating an aggressive competitor like T-Mobile will bring about what he calls “a rational competitive environment.”  That means higher prices, no surprises, and a stagnant marketplace.  Wall Street understands the implications of this deal, all while knowingly winking at AT&T’s marketing/lobbying machine that claims reduced competition = better service.  (4 minutes)

Wading through the bulging file of comments at the Federal Communications Commission website reveals some strange and unusual testimonials from groups one would think would have much better things to do with their time and resources than advocate for a multi-billion dollar super merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.  But integrity means little next to a big fat check from AT&T, and many so-called “charities” really do believe it begins at home in their own bank accounts.  So with their hands out, groups like Wisconsin Coalition for Consumer Choice and the Urban League, and politicians like Bobby Jindal become dollar-a-holler advocates for AT&T’s agenda, offering the flimsiest reasons around to push for the merger’s approval.

Among the least savory are groups purporting to represent income-challenged minority communities who advocate for a merger that will promote higher prices for less service.  Such advocacy would taint any group and calls into question whether contributions are really helping those in need or just those who claim to represent them.

As we suspected, after reviewing dozens of submissions favoring the merger, virtually every last supporter either had direct financial ties to AT&T, had AT&T personnel in leadership positions, or were run by Washington, DC lobbying firms that have a past history of doing work on behalf of AT&T.  Ordinary consumers, and there were thousands, submitted comments opposing the merger — citing reduced competition, higher prices, fewer choices, and offering few benefits or improved service.  At least some live in the reality-based community, not AT&T’s field of overpriced dreams and broken promises.

A Sampling:

Klaetsch: The Coalition of One Lobbyist

Wisconsin Coalition for Consumer Choice

Here’s a “group” purporting to represent the interests of consumers, but they’re nowhere to be found.  George Klaetsch, executive director, claims AT&T’s merger will “immediately increase consumer choices and access to quality broadband and mobile services. Thousands of new cell sites will become available, the nation’s broadband footprint will be significantly expanded, and most importantly, more than 46 million more customers will gain instant access to 4G LTE technology – many of them right here in Wisconsin.”

Why if you approve this merger, there will be free candy for everyone, too.

The group’s website offers an unwelcome introduction with a series of technical faults, perhaps a testament to how few consumers ever bother to visit it, and carries an earnest disclaimer:

[…] We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Good to know.

Klaetsch’s letter forgets to mention he’s a registered lobbyist for Public Affairs Strategies, Inc.  When he’s not fronting AT&T’s agenda, he also represents the interests of AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, the Elevator Industry Work Preservation Fund, and the creepy-sounding Funeral Service & Cremation Alliance of Wisconsin, among other groups.

Wellington Area Chamber of Commerce

This well-meaning local chapter of the Chamber, who counts AT&T as a member, has fallen hook, line, and sinker for AT&T’s promise to deliver 4G service to “97 percent of the country,” assuming the merger gets approved.  Of course, AT&T will upgrade to 4G with or without the merger, and this particular Chamber’s executive director apparently does not realize T-Mobile’s contribution to improving service in rural America is less than robust.  When an active member of a civic or business group happens to be AT&T, getting a letter written on behalf of the company’s agenda comes as soon as the talking points can be handed out at the next Chamber meeting.

Unfortunately for the people of Wellington, losing one more competitor guarantees rural America fewer competitive choices, higher prices, and less service, not more.

United Way of Northwest Florida

AT&T Donates $9,000 to the United Way of Northwest Florida, which promptly returns the favor with a nice letter to the FCC supporting the telecom company's agenda.

Some residents in northwest Florida could reconsider their future contributions to “charitable groups” who increasingly spend their time and attention involving themselves in big corporate mergers, meeting the needs of some of their biggest donors.  No better example of this comes from the United Way of Northwest Florida, who accepted a $9,000 contribution from AT&T in one hand, while banging out this letter of support for AT&T’s merger with the other.  It’s classic dollar-a-holler advocacy.

While this chapter believes the interests of cell phone users will be best served by an AT&T – T-Mobile merger, we’re wondering what actual charitable endeavors go unserved while its leadership wastes time and resources filing comments with the FCC on a billion dollar telecom deal.

Urban League of New Orleans

This chapter of the Urban League “firmly believes that the greater New Orleans area we serve would greatly benefit by added broadband connectivity. Studies show that the underserved, urban communities with the greatest access to broadband Internet see the strongest economic growth. With high-speed Internet, residents can more easily access important resources online, from educational resources for schools to job opportunities for those who are out of work or seeking to update their skills. High-speed Internet enables greater connectivity between all stakeholders, more able to respond effectively and efficiently to the needs of our city.”

Somehow, for those noble reasons, they are supporting AT&T’s and T-Mobile’s merger.  AT&T is the company that pitches some of the most expensive and most limited wireless broadband plans in the country.  How this benefits urban New Orleans may escape you.

What didn’t escape us was the fact AT&T Louisiana president Sonia Perez is the group’s 2011 Annual Gala Chairperson.  She’s also a participant on the group’s governing board.

In addition to the big oil, chemical, credit card, and health insurance companies sponsoring Jindal's wife's charity is none other than AT&T.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana

Gov. Jindal is a big supporter of AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile.  The Washington Post notes he is joined by 13 other governors writing the FCC to push for approval.  Jindal is honoring Louisiana’s time-tested notoriety for questionable political dealings.  Perhaps it is just a coincidence his wife runs the Supriya Jindal Foundation, who counts among its key sponsors… you guessed it, AT&T.  Before one assumes Jindal has a legitimate interest promoting AT&T, which invests money in Louisiana, consider this: Jindal has written only one letter to the FCC on a telecommunications issue since the agency’s electronic filing system was inaugurated in 1992. This one.  Maybe he was busy on those other days.  Then again, maybe he wasn’t.

Jindal closes his letter with these words: “I am confident that this merger will benefit the people of Louisiana.”  That’s true, if you define “people” as his immediate family and the corporate executives of AT&T and T-Mobile who work and live in his state.  Everyone else doesn’t matter.

United States Hispanic Leadership Institute

USHLI does AT&T the honor of penning letters supporting the phone company's agenda.

After reviewing dozens of submissions from charities and non-profit groups, the comments from USHLI really stood out above the others.  Dr. Juan Andrade, president of the group is a downright feisty guy, singing paragraphs of praise for AT&T as a “model corporate citizen”:

“Like you, I too have heard that the merger will have a devastating impact on consumers, promote anti-competitive behavior, and result in higher prices; that the merger will be bad for business, bad for innovation and bad for workers. We’ve heard this all before – when SBC was acquiring Ameritech, when AT&T was merging with SBC, and so forth. And what have we seen? We’ve seen just the opposite. The Federal Communications Commission’s own data show that these concerns proved unfounded as consumers benefited from tremendous innovation and competition in the wireless space, all while seeing wireless voice and data prices drop. This “sky is falling” attitude is replaying itself as AT&T seeks approval to merge with T-Mobile. But the facts speak for themselves. The United States Hispanic Leadership Institute (USHLI) believes the Federal Communications Commission should rise above the skepticism, above the unsubstantiated claims, and above the impractical requisitions.”

What the FCC also needs to rise above is the considerable support Dr. Andrade’s group gets from AT&T.  Undisclosed in Andrade’s spirited defense of one of the worst mergers in telecommunications history is the fact AT&T is the “honorary co-chair” and sponsor of the group’s 2011 fundraising efforts.  It’s the public policy equivalent of “My Dinner With AT&T.”  More wine?

Andrade conveniently ignores the fact AT&T is raising prices on wireless data products with punitive usage caps and overlimit fees.  It’s not the sky falling, Dr. Andrade, it’s your credibility to speak as an independent observer while also enjoying AT&T’s largesse.  When you engage in dollar-a-holler advocacy, American consumers have more than a right to be skeptical.

A research report sponsored by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the nation’s largest cable lobbying group, has concluded that millions of broadband stimulus dollars are being wasted by the government on broadband projects that will ultimately serve people who supposedly already enjoy a panoply of broadband choice.

Navigant Economics, a “research group” that produces reports for its paying clients inside industry, government, and law firms, produced this one at the behest of a cable industry concerned that broadband stimulus funding will build competing broadband providers that could force better service and lower prices for consumers.

• More than 85 percent of households in the three project areas are already passed by existing cable broadband, DSL, and/or fixed wireless broadband providers. In one of the project areas, more than 98 percent of households are already passed by at least one of these modalities.

• In part because a large proportion of project funds are being used to provide duplicative service, the cost per incremental (unserved) household passed is extremely high. When existing mobile wireless broadband coverage is taken into account, the $231.7 million in RUS funding across the three projects will provide service to just 452 households that currently lack broadband service.

Navigant’s report tries to prove its contention by analyzing three broadband projects that seek funding from the federal government.  Northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Kansas, and southwestern Montana were selected for Navigant’s analysis, and unsurprisingly the researcher found the broadband unavailability problem overblown.

The evidence demonstrates that broadband service is already widely available in each of the three proposed service areas. Thus, a large proportion of each award goes to subsidize broadband deployment to households and regions where it is already available, and the taxpayer cost per unserved household is significantly higher than the taxpayer cost per household passed.

The cable industry funds research reports that oppose fiber broadband stimulus projects.

But Navigant’s findings take liberties with what defines appropriate broadband service in the 21st century.

First, Navigant argues that wireless mobile broadband is suitable to meet the definition of broadband service, despite the fact most rural areas face 3G broadband speeds that, in real terms, are below the current definition of “broadband” (a stable 768kbps or better — although the FCC supports redefining broadband to speeds at or above 3-4Mbps).  As any 3G user knows, cell site congestion, signal quality, and environmental factors can quickly reduce 3G speeds to less than 500kbps.  When was the last time your 3G wireless provider delivered 768kbps or better on a consistent basis?

Navigant also ignores the ongoing march by providers to establish tiny usage caps for wireless broadband.  With most declaring anything greater than 5GB “abusive use,” and some limiting use to less than half that amount, a real question can be raised about whether mobile broadband, even at future 4G speeds, can provide a suitable home broadband replacement.

Second, Navigant’s list of available providers assumes facts not necessarily in evidence.  For example, in Lake County, Minnesota, Navigant assumes DSL availability based on a formula that assumes the service will be available anywhere within a certain radius of the phone company’s central office.  But as our own readers have testified, companies like Qwest, Frontier, and AT&T do not necessarily provide DSL in every central office or within the radius Navigant assumes it should be available.  One Stop the Cap! reader in the area has fought Frontier Communications for more than a year to obtain DSL service, and he lives blocks from the local central office.  It is simply not available in his neighborhood.  AT&T customers have encountered similar problems because the company has deemed parts of its service area unprofitable to provide saturation DSL service.  While some multi-dwelling units can obtain 3Mbps DSL, individual homes nearby cannot.

Navigant never visited the impacted communities to inquire whether service was actually available.  Instead, it relied on this definition to assume availability:

DSL boundaries were estimated as follows: Based on the location of the dominant central office of each wirecenter, a 12,000 foot radius was generated. This radius was then truncated as necessary to encompass only the servicing wirecenter. The assumption that DSL is capable of serving areas within 12,000 is based on analysis conducted by the Omnibus Broadband Initiative for the National Broadband Plan.

Frontier advertises up to 10Mbps DSL in our neighborhood, but in reality can actually only offer speeds of 3.1Mbps in a suburb less than one mile from the Rochester, N.Y. city line.  In more rural areas, customers are lucky to get service at all.

Cable broadband boundaries were estimated based on information obtained from an industry factbook, which gathered provider-supplied general coverage information and extrapolated availability from that.  But, as we’ve reported on numerous occasions, provider-supplied coverage data has proven suspect.  We’ve found repeated instances when advertised service proved unavailable, especially in rural areas where individual homes do not meet the minimum density required to provide service.

We’ve argued repeatedly for independent broadband mapping that relies on actual on-the-ground data, if only to end the kind of generalizations legislators rely on regarding broadband service.  But if the cable industry can argue away the broadband problem with empty claims service is available even in places where it is not (or woefully inadequate), relying on voluntary data serves the industry well, even if it shortchanges rural consumers who are told they have broadband choices that do not actually exist.

Navigant’s report seeks to apply the brakes to broadband improvement programs that can deliver consistent coverage and 21st century broadband speeds that other carriers simply don’t provide or don’t offer throughout the proposed service areas.  The cable industry doesn’t welcome the competition, especially in areas stuck with lesser-quality service from low-rated providers.

Phillip Dampier

Stop the Cap! reader Kimon discovered the debate over Net Neutrality is far from over when alerting us to a strong rebuke of the net policy in a number of newspapers published regionally by GateHouse Media.

Macedon, N.Y. resident Cheryl Miller doesn’t like the federal government involving itself in the Internet, and considers the “physical part of the Internet” the private property of Internet Service Providers:

When a progressive liberal takes up a cause, you can bet he’s found another way to undermine someone else’s liberty. The issue of “net neutrality” is a prime example of this rule.

The concept of net neutrality has piggybacked into recent public interest stories about groups with high-minded names like Free Press and Public Knowledge — stories about Internet-assisted food, clothing and book drives for the needy around the world, and other such humanitarian and environmental endeavors. It is sneakily implied that the success of such undertakings are the result of net neutrality principles, but they are not.

[…] Proposed net neutrality legislation would prohibit ISPs from charging different rates for various types of content or services, such as is done with cable and satellite television (think pay-per-view and premium channels). Restricting ISPs from operating in profitable ways is a disincentive to invest in more bandwidth to better serve customers, and likewise discourages innovations that could benefit consumers. More regulation will result in less profit, less competition, higher prices and a stunted Internet.

For Miller, any government policy that interferes with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast’s view of how the Internet should be ordered amounts to a government takeover of the Internet, especially when the government can tell providers they cannot prioritize traffic or charge customers different prices to access different content.

Here at Stop the Cap!, we were unimpressed with Miller’s arguments and partisan cheap shots, especially at the expense of public policy groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge.  Perhaps she does not realize conservative groups like the Christian Coalition of America are also supporters of Net Neutrality.  But we don’t necessarily blame her either, considering all of the money being spent by corporate-funded groups to distort Net Neutrality’s ultimate goal: to ensure the same formula that made the Internet a runaway success is kept firmly in place.

Our formal response appeared in the same newspapers this afternoon: