To many, Provo, Utah might seem an unusual choice to follow on the heels of Google’s earlier announcement its gigabit fiber network was headed to Austin, Tex.

Provo is only the third largest community in Utah — Salt Lake City and West Valley City are bigger — and the community already has a fiber network called iProvo. So why build another one?

Google won’t have to.

But first some background:

iProvo was envisioned a decade ago as a public-private partnership — a fiber to the home network owned by the public with private service providers using it to sell broadband and other services . iProvo taught an early lesson about municipal broadband — large cable and phone companies routinely boycott participation in any network they do not own and control themselves.

In 2003, the president of Qwest’s Utah division made clear their intentions: “Fiber optic’s capabilities are way more than what most consumers need in their homes. Why provide a Rolls Royce when a Chevrolet will do?”

Comcast, the dominant local cable operator, also “went ballistic” according to former mayor Lewis Billings.

iProvo can be yours for just $1.

“One hired a PR firm and a telemarketing company to make calls to citizens,” Billings recalled. “They also placed full-page ads and ultimately hired people to picket City Hall. It was a bruising fight.  My favorite picket sign had a piece of telephone wire taped to it and read that I and one of my key staff members were, ‘a Twisted Pair.’”

With both Qwest and Comcast wanting nothing to do with the project, smaller independent ISPs had to fill the gap. It was a difficult sell, particularly because Qwest and Comcast blanketed Provo residents with a misinformation campaign about the network and pitched highly aggressive retention offers to keep customers with the phone and cable company. iProvo has been in financial distress ever since.

Former Provo city councilwoman Cynthia Dayton remembers being on the council when iProvo was approved and believes the public-private network was a decade before its time.

“Ten years ago it was worth the vote on iProvo,” she told the Daily Herald. It was one of the most difficult decisions but it was for the future.”

More than a year ago, Google noticed the city of Provo issued a request for proposals on what to ultimately do with iProvo.

Google became interested because Provo is seen as a city with hundreds of technology start-up companies and maintains a vibrant tech hub. The city also ranked highly for the enormous value it places on connectivity and community — something the approval and construction of iProvo demonstrated.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Provo Google Fiber 4-13.mp4[/flv]

Why Provo? Google considers the city’s rankings. (1 minute)

City officials and Google executives began quietly talking more than a year ago about Google buying the public-private network. A key selling point: the city was willing to let the operation go for a steal — just $1.00. In return, Google promised to invest in and upgrade the network to reach the two-thirds of Provo homes it does not reach. Google says iProvo will need technology upgrades in the office, but the existing fiber strands already running throughout the city are service-ready today.

Val Hale, President of the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce, said a quick “back of the envelope” estimate put Google’s anticipated investment in iProvo network upgrades at $18 million, according to the Deseret News. Unfortunately, taxpayers will still need to pay off about $40 million in bonds the city accumulated for iProvo’s initial construction costs.

Curtis

Current Mayor John Curtis says he has made the best out of a difficult situation.

“We have maximized what we have here today,” said Curtis. “It’s about maximizing what we have. I believe in the long-term it will pay dividends many times greater than what we paid into it, but it’s going to take a while to realize that dream.”

Google promised free gigabit Internet service to 25 local public institutions including schools, hospitals, and libraries. Residential customers will be expected to pay $70 a month for 1,000Mbps service or get 5Mbps broadband service for free up to seven years.

Google’s investment in Provo is anticipated to be far lower than in Austin and Kansas City — cities where it needs to build a considerable amount of fiber infrastructure from scratch. With existing fiber already in place in Provo, Google’s gigabit service will be available by the end of this year, at least six months faster than in Austin.

With reduced construction costs, Google will only ask new customers for a $30 activation fee, far less than the $300 Google will ask Austin and Kansas City residents to pay if they do not sign a multi-year service contract or only want basic 5Mbps service.

Google sees the opportunity to use its fiber network in an ongoing effort to embarrass other broadband providers into investing in speed upgrades.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSL Salt Lake City Google Fiber Coming to Provo 4-17-13.flv[/flv]

KSL in Salt Lake City reports Google Fiber is coming to Provo. Last year Google began talking with the city to acquire its iProvo municipal fiber network.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSTU Salt Lake City Google Fiber coming to Provo 4-17-13.flv[/flv]

KSTU in Salt Lake City reports taxpayers are still on the hook for around $40 million in bond payments to cover the construction costs of iProvo. But Google Fiber will stop other Internet providers from “cheating everyone” says one local Provo resident.  “[Other ISPs] give you the slowest connection possible and charge you a ridiculous amount for it,” said Haley Cano. (4 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVX Salt Lake City Google Fiber in Provo 4-17-13.mp4[/flv]

KTVX in Salt Lake had some trouble navigating the difference between a gigabit and a gigabyte, and confused what Google services will be sold and which will be available for free in this report, but the ABC affiliate covered the unveiling with both city and Google company officials on hand.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVX Salt Lake City Google Fiber Details in Provo 4-18-13.mp4[/flv]

This morning, KTVX did a better job in this interview with the mayor of Provo and Google’s Matt Dunne, who says Google believes speed matters and current ISPs simply don’t offer enough.  A key factor to attract Google’s interest is a close working relationship with the cities that want the service. (2 minutes)

Comcast: Get a box or lose your cable TV service

Comcast will encrypt the entire lineup of its cable television service, including local channels, starting with two markets in New England and gradually rolling out this summer across all of Comcast’s service areas.

The encryption will obsolete cable reception of QAM signals, which some cable customers use to avoid paying for set-top equipment.

Comcast called FCC approval of its encryption request a victory for consumers because it will “allow us to automate certain system functions and will reduce the need for scheduled in-home appointments, providing greater convenience for our customers.” Comcast also candidly said it will dramatically reduce signal theft and unauthorized viewing by past due customers, which can now be shut off from the cable office instead of dispatching technicians to the home to disconnect service.

Consumer and Comcast customer Brier Dudley begs to differ. In two columns in the Seattle Times, Dudley writes Comcast is tightening the screws on its customers, forcing them to get unwanted equipment that will eventually cost them monthly rental fees set “at market rates.”

Comcast began requiring digital adapters to unscramble digital signals in 2009. Since then, it steadily has been converting more of its system to digital, scrambling more channels and expanding the requirement to use some kind of a cable box or adapter on every TV.

This requirement received the FCC’s blessing last year. The agency agreed to let cable companies scramble all of their channels and require descramblers on every set.

The FCC’s justification was muddled. Scrambling would purportedly prevent stealing content, though the FCC requires conventional television broadcasters to beam their shows freely over the air.

The FCC also made a tortured environmental argument for the move, saying the mandatory adapters allowed cable companies to remotely activate and deactivate service, reducing service calls and their carbon footprint.

Unmentioned is the environmental effect of factories in China making adapters that must be delivered, attached to every TV and continuously plugged in.

Comcast is attempting to mitigate customer anger about the necessary new equipment, offering free boxes for a limited time. But customers might need a road map to find what they qualify for without having to pay an even higher cable bill:

Limited Basic customers with no set top boxes in their homes will be eligible for up to two DTAs (standard definition digital signal adapters), at no charge for two years (five years if you also receive Medicaid), if they request DTAs beginning 30 days before the date of encryption and no longer than 120 days after encryption. New customers, customers who already have DTA devices or those who request them after the offer period will likely be subject to rental fees much sooner, if not immediately;

Customers who subscribe to a higher level of service and receive Limited Basic service on a secondary TV without Comcast supplied equipment are eligible for one device at no charge for one year;

All other customers are subject to Comcast’s new $1.99 per month “additional outlet service charge” for each outlet registered to a DTA. In Seattle, customers who want to watch local channels in HD have to fork over another $2.50 a month for a special HD version of Comcast’s DTA box.

What if you don’t want the extra equipment and return it? Comcast will automatically cancel your cable TV service.

“Customers who do not have digital equipment on their account will not be able to view any channels after Limited Basic channels are encrypted. For this reason, XFINITY TV service will be removed from the account,” warns Comcast. “This may affect multi-product package rates or discounts.”

The encryption will also cripple third-party set-top devices like older versions of Boxee (not compatible with Comcast’s DTA) and TiVo, which will now need a mind-numbing, complicated workaround to keep operating.

Comcast customers will receive written notification as the company gets ready to encrypt service in each area.

Where to put all the cash?

While you received a 2% cost of living salary hike that was eroded away by rising health insurance premiums this year, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts took $29.1 million in total compensation straight to the bank in 2012, walking home with $3.5 million more this year than last.

Most of Roberts’ compensation is tied to incentive pay that rises along with the value of Comcast stock. Roberts base salary remained flat at $2.8 million, but his non-equity incentive awards rose right along with the 61 percent increase in the value of Comcast stock over 2012. Comcast executive compensation was disclosed in a proxy statement last week.

Comcast stock is up another 11% so far in 2013, fueled by earnings increases from its broadband service and rate increases that have helped the company maintain revenue numbers despite basic video customer losses.

Other Comcast executives are sharing in the pay bonanza. Chief financial officer Michael Angelakis deposited $23.2 million in compensation during 2012, a six percent increase. NBC Universal CEO Steve Burke, now part of the Comcast family, saw his pay rise by 11% from $23.6 million to $26.3 million. Executive vice president David Cohen got a 5% salary boost to $15.9 million last year.

The head of the cable division — Neil Smit — did not do as well. He had to make do with only $18.3 million in 2012 — a 1% decline from his 2011 pay of $18.5 million. With that kind of salary, he might be just one step away from buying store brands, clipping coupons, and turning down the thermostat at night.

Costa (West Palm Beach Police)

More subcontractor headaches for Comcast: the company is dealing with negative publicity in Florida over reports that the alleged crack cocaine-smoking girlfriend of a Comcast contractor used his Comcast shirt to barge her way into area homes to rob residents of their jewelry.

Boynton Beach police arrested Heather Costa and charged her with burglary, providing a false name and possession of drug paraphernalia after residents complained the woman was pushing her way into area homes claiming she worked for Comcast and needed to count the number of televisions in the home or check Internet connections. When it comes to drug abuse problems, one can go to drug detox la to get help.

Her efforts were bolstered by her boyfriend’s work shirt which included a Comcast logo. Costa’s boyfriend is a contract employee of the cable operator. Costa used the same excuse Comcast does when it defends itself in the media over the quality of its subcontractors: she didn’t actually work for the cable company, instead claiming to be employed as a third-party vendor performing work for Comcast.

Police might have accepted that, until they found her giving a false name (because she had at least one active arrest warrant on unrelated charges), discovered she had a variety of stolen jewelry in her purse, and a glass tube that was burnt at one end that police believe was used to smoke crack cocaine.

If a telecom company worker arrives unexpectedly on your doorstep, always ask to see ID. Company logos on clothing or paperwork alone do not suffice. If in doubt, keep your door closed and locked and call your provider to verify the person’s status. If you feel unsafe, ask them to leave your property and/or call 911.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPBF West Palm Beach Heather Costa accused of posing as Comcast employee to burglarize home 4-2-13.flv[/flv]

WPBF in West Palm Beach talked with one of the victims of a fake Comcast worker who fast-talked her way in and allegedly robbed her home of jewelry.  (2 minutes)

Cable operators and publicly owned utilities in Tennessee are battling for control over the prices companies pay to use utility poles, with facts among the early casualties.

The subject of “pole attachment fees” has been of interest to cable companies for decades. In return for permission to hang cable wires on existing electric or telephone poles owned by utility companies, cable operators are asked to contribute towards their upkeep and eventual replacement. Cable operators want the fees to be as low as possible, while utility companies have sought leeway to defray rising utility pole costs and deal with ongoing wear and tear.

Little progress has been made in efforts to compromise, so this year two competing bills have been introduced by Republicans in the state legislature to define “fairness.” One is promoted by a group of municipal utilities and the other by the cable industry and several corporate-backed, conservative front groups claiming to represent the interests of state taxpayers and consumers.

Some background: Tennessee is unique in the pole attachment fee fight, because privately owned power companies bypassed a lot of the state (and much of the rest of the Tennessee Valley and Appalachian region) during the electrification movement of the early 20th century. Much of Tennessee is served by publicly owned power companies, which also own and maintain a large percentage of utility poles in the state.

Some of Tennessee’s largest telecom companies believe they can guarantee themselves low rates by pitching a case of private companies vs. big government utilities, with local municipalities accused of profiteering from artificially high pole attachment rates. Hoping to capitalize on anti-government sentiment, “small government” conservatives and telecom companies want to tie the hands of the pole owners indefinitely by taking away their right to set pole attachment rates.

The battle includes fact-warped editorials that distort the issues, misleading video ads, and an effort to conflate a utility fee with a tax. With millions at stake from pole attachment fees on tens of thousands of power poles throughout the state, the companies involved have launched a full-scale astroturf assault.

Grover Norquist’s Incendiary “Pole Tax”

Conservative Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform wrote that the pole attachment fee legislation promoted by public utilities would represent a $20 million dollar “tax increase” from higher cable and phone bills. Even worse, Norquist says, the new tax will delay telecom companies from rushing new investments on rural broadband.

Norquist

In reality, Americans for Tax Reform should be rebranded Special Interests for Tax Reform, because the group is funded by a variety of large tobacco corporations, former clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and several wealthy conservative activists with their own foundations.

Norquist’s pole “tax increase” does not exist.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) provides guidelines and a formula for determining pole attachment rates for privately owned utilities, but permits states to adopt their own regulations. Municipal utilities are exempted for an important reason — their rates and operations are often already well-regulated.

Stop the Cap! found that pole attachment revenue ends up in the hands of the utility companies that own and keep up the poles, not the government. Municipal utilities stand on their own — revenue earned by a utility stays with the utility. Should a municipal utility attempt to gouge other companies that hang wires on those poles, mechanisms kick in that guarantee it cannot profit from doing so.

A 2007 study by the state government in Tennessee effectively undercut the cable industry’s argument that publicly owned utilities are overcharging cable and phone companies that share space on their poles. The report found that “pole attachment revenues do not increase pole owners’ revenue in the long run.”¹

The Tennessee Valley Authority, which supplies electricity across Tennessee, regularly audits the revenues and costs of its municipal utility distributors and sets end-user rates accordingly. The goal is to guarantee that municipal distributors “break even.” Any new revenue sources, like pole attachment fees, are considered when setting wholesale electric rates. If a municipal utility overcharged for access to its poles, it will ultimately gain nothing because the TVA will set prices that take that revenue into account.

Freedom to Distort: The Cable Lobby’s Astroturf Efforts

Freedom to distort

Another “citizens group” jumping into the battle is called “Freedom to Connect,” actually run by the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association (TCTA). Most consumers won’t recognize TCTA as the state cable lobby. Almost all will have forgotten TCTA was the same group that filed a lawsuit to shut down EPB’s Fiber division, which today delivers 1,000Mbps broadband service across the city and competes against cable operators like Comcast and Charter Cable.

One TCTA advertisement claims that some utilities are planning “to double the fees broadband providers pay to the state’s government utilities.”

In reality, cable companies have gone incognito, hiding their identity by rebranding themselves as “broadband providers.” No utility has announced it plans to “double” pole attachment fees either.

TCTA members came under fire at a recent hearing attended by state lawmakers when Rep. Charles Curtiss (D-Sparta) spoke up about irritating robocalls directed at his constituents making similar claims.

“What was said was false,” Curtiss told the cable representatives at the hearing. “You’ve lost your integrity with me. Whoever made up your mind to do that, you’re in the wrong line of work.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TCTA Pole Attachment Fees Ad 3-13.flv[/flv]

TCTA — Tennessee’s cable industry lobbying group, released this distorted advertisement opposing pole attachment fee increases.  (1 minute)

The Chattanooga Free-Press’ Drew Johnson: Independent Opinion Page Editor or Well-connected Activist with a Conflict of Interest?

Johnson (Times Free Press)

In its ad campaign, the TCTA gave prominent mention to an article in Chattanooga’s Times-Free Press from Feb. 27: “Bill Harms Consumers, Kills Competition.”

What the advertisement did not say is it originated in an editorial published by Drew Johnson, who serves as the paper’s conservative opinion editor. Johnson has had a bone to pick with Chattanooga’s public utility EPB since it got into the cable television and broadband business.

That may not be surprising, since Johnson is still listed as a “senior fellow” at the “Taxpayers Protection Alliance,” yet another corporate and conservative-backed astroturf group founded by former Texas congressman Dick Armey of FreedomWorks fame.

Johnson’s journalism credentials? He wrote a weekly column for the conservative online screed NewsMax, founded and funded by super-wealthy Richard Mellon Scaife and Christopher Ruddy, both frequent donors to conservative, pro-business causes.

TPA has plenty to hide — particularly the sources of their funding. When asked if private industry backs TPA’s efforts, president David Williams refused to come clean.

“It comes from private sources, and I don’t reveal who my donors are,” he told Environmental Building News in January.

Ironically, Johnson is best known for aggressively using Tennessee’s open records “Sunshine” law to get state employee e-mails and other records looking for conflicts of interest or scandal.

Newspaper readers may want to ask whether Johnson represents the newspaper, an industry-funded sock puppet group, or both.  They also deserve full disclosure if the TPA receives any funding from companies that directly compete with EPB.

The Institute from ALEC: The Institute for Policy Innovation’s Innovative Way to Funnel AT&T and Comcast Money Into the Fight

Provider-backed ALEC advocates for the corporate interests that fund its operations.

Another group fighting on the side of the cable and phone companies against municipal utilities is the Institute for Policy Innovation. Policy counsel Bartlett D. Cleland claimed the government is out to get private companies that want space on utility poles.

“The proposed new system in HB1111 and SB1222 is fervently supported by the electric cooperatives and the government-owned utilities for good reason – they are merely seeking a way to use the force of government against their private sector competitors,” Cleland said. “The proposal would allow them to radically raise their rates for pole attachments to multiples of the national average.”

The facts don’t match Cleland’s rhetoric.

In reality, the state of Tennessee found in their report on the matter in 2007 that Tennessee’s pole attachment fees are “not necessarily out of line with those in other states.”²

In fact, some of the state’s telecom companies seemed to agree:

• EMBARQ (now CenturyLink) provided data on fees received from other service providers in Tennessee, Virginia, South and North Carolina. In these data, Tennessee’s rates ($36.02 – $47.41) are similar to those in North Carolina ($23.12-$52.85) and Virginia ($28.94 – $35.77). Rates were lower in South Carolina.
• Cable operators, who have less infrastructure on poles than telephone and electric utilities, paid even less. Time Warner Cable provided mean rates per state showing Tennessee ($7.70) in the middle of the pack compared to Florida ($9.83) and North Carolina ($4.86 – $13.64).

In addition to his role as policy counsel, Cleland also happens to be co-chair of the Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Members of that committee include Comcast and AT&T — Tennessee’s largest telecom companies, both competing with municipal telecommunications providers like EPB.

¹ Analysis of Pole Attachment Rate Issues in Tennessee, State of Tennessee. 2007. p.23

² Analysis of Pole Attachment Rate Issues in Tennessee, State of Tennessee. 2007. p.12