Vermont officials this month are learning broadband maps purporting to represent widespread availability of high speed Internet access across the state are much less accurate than originally thought.  Now into its second week, the BroadbandVT project to identify service gaps and collect actual broadband speeds is showing a chasm between provider claims and actual broadband reality on the ground for the state’s 625,000 residents.

Vermont’s broadband service availability map was originally reliant on service providers voluntarily contributing data about where service was available — data that has rapidly found to be faulty as Vermont residents report their actual broadband experiences to the state’s website.

The state’s Broadband Mapping Team used data from a phone survey conducted in January by the University of Vermont-Center for Rural Studies to verify providers’ claims of broadband availability.  On May 12, state officials reported that their provider-inspired maps were not accurate, and officials wanted residents to help verify coverage.

“I’m bound and determined to have Vermont connected by 2013 — high-speed Internet and cell service to every last mile. One of our challenges is that we don’t have information that we can trust about who has service and who doesn’t,” Gov. Peter Shumlin said. “So we need Vermonter’s help, so we can figure out where to go. So we’re urging Vermonters to use our new website to help us get truth about your service in your home or business.”

In similar cases Stop the Cap! has followed, the biggest sources of inaccurate data turn out to be telephone companies and wireless providers.  Phone companies like FairPoint Communications may advertise DSL available in certain communities, but be unable to actually provide the service to every household due to the distance between the central telephone exchange and the customer’s home, or because of deteriorated infrastructure.  Wireless providers often theorize where service should be available, but real world experience proves otherwise.

FairPoint told the Brattleboro Reformer the phone company intends to do much better delivering DSL to Vermont residents in the coming weeks.  The company claims it already provides DSL access to 82 percent of the state and intends to increase that number considerably higher in June.

“We have a plan with the state to bring total broadband coverage to half of our telephone exchanges in the state, so that’s the first three digits of your phone number. Ninety-five percent of that will be done in the next six weeks,” said FairPoint spokeswoman Sabina Haskell.

Vermont residents appear to be enthusiastic participants in the project, with 1,500 visitors a day using the website’s broadband maps and taking speed tests to share results with the state, who can compare them against providers’ speed claims.

Vermont’s expansion of broadband service is a state priority, and directing resources to areas of need has proved critical as the state receives and spends broadband stimulus funding.  Crowdsourced maps can expose exaggerated claims of broadband availability or confirm them as accurate.  The state intends to update its maps regularly based on data it receives, all part of an initiative to deliver 100 percent broadband coverage across the state.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh Lawmakers Debate Broadband 4-12-11.mp4[/flv]

WPTZ-TV in Plattsburgh explores Vermont’s new initiative to bring broadband to 100 percent of the state’s residents.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh Website Identifies Broadband Availability 5-12-11.mp4[/flv]

WPTZ-TV also reports on the state’s new website to verify broadband mapping data and speed claims made by the state’s phone and cable companies.  (3 minutes)

Stop the Cap! reader Cal believes AT&T cannot be reasoned with about Internet Overcharging until you threaten to cancel.

While a significant number of customers have already pulled the plug on AT&T DSL and U-verse service over their recently-introduced Internet Overcharging schemes, some are telling Stop the Cap! they have no plans to actually disconnect service until AT&T threatens to charge them overlimit fees.

For some AT&T customers, there is no suitable alternative to the phone company.  Rural customers without a cable provider, or those who are faced with two bad choices — AT&T or Charter Communications — say they are going to test AT&T’s resolve to actually overbill them.

Cal is an AT&T customer is Missouri.  His alternative?  Charter Cable, which has an Internet Overcharging scheme of its own and delivers what he calls “third world service” in his community.  Given a choice, he intends to stay with AT&T as long as possible, pulling the plug only after his third warning of exceeding the phone company’s new broadband usage limits.  He thinks AT&T’s customer service won’t ultimately let it come to that.

“My sister works for an AT&T call center where she lives, and there was some training on the subject of handling the company’s usage caps,” Cal reports. “Get the right representative or supervisor and they can make virtually anything go away with a few keystrokes, especially if you are prepared to cancel your service over the issue.  While they may not cancel the caps, they very well may credit back any overcharges.”

Cal says his family does not intend to change their usage habits one bit.  He’ll change providers before he rations his Internet usage.

“I maintain control over our Internet access here, they don’t and sure as hell won’t,” he said.  “We do not do illegal downloads and we don’t allow torrenting or anything else that can get my kids into trouble, but we do use a Roku box and watch Netflix instead of buying pay movie channels with programming not suitable for my family to watch.”

Cal says his five children are home-schooled, which makes daily Internet access an essential part of the education process.  Many companies that provide home-schooling materials increasingly require a broadband connection.  While not as bandwidth hungry as Netflix video streaming, with five children in the home, usage adds up fast.

“It is not hard to do 260GB of usage a month, which puts us just over their U-verse limit, and I’ll be damned if I am going to pay AT&T another $10 for 10GB over,” Cal says.  “This is another reason why the Obama Administration is no better than the last one — they are all masters of big corporations who will rob us blind and use the money to pay off Congress to look the other way.”

Cal used to be a Charter Cable customer, but left when that company implemented its own Internet Overcharging scheme.

“I told Charter with their lousy service they were lucky I was a customer, but after putting usage limits on, I left,” he reports.

Cal’s neighbor thinks he has an even better way to battle AT&T.

“My neighbor will cancel service under his name and sign up under his wife’s and bounce between them whenever AT&T threatens to send him a bigger bill; he has already been doing that for years back and forth between AT&T and Charter on new customer deals,” Cal says.

Cal, and many other readers touching base with us, believe AT&T is not very responsive to customer complaints unless customers threaten to cancel service, and they believe AT&T will only change its mind when shareholders see the usage limits as counterproductive.

“AT&T can buy enough people in Washington to make street protests irrelevant, but their shareholders sure won’t like it when they see customers and revenue dropping,” Cal notes.  “If you can’t get cable, you are stuck with AT&T, so you have to keep the pressure on — file complaints with the Better Business Bureau, the FCC, and Congress.  Make them spend more money defending their policy than they earn from its proceeds.”

AT&T, one of the country’s most profligate spenders on public policy lobbying, has pulled out all the stops pushing for Washington approval of its proposed merger with T-Mobile.

Bloomberg Government reports AT&T spent $6.8 million during the first quarter of 2011, more than 11 times more than its rival Sprint, which opposes the merger deal.  In fact, AT&T was the nation’s second biggest spender in lobbying dollars, just behind defense contractor Honeywell, which is trying to avoid Pentagon spending cuts.

Sprint’s much smaller lobbying effort had to make do with a budget of just $583,000 during the same period to push back against the telecom giant.

Also raising questions are reports from Bloomberg that AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson direct dialed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski the weekend before the deal went public.  At the same time, former FCC Chairman Richard Wiley, today a lobbyist for T-Mobile, spoke directly with four of the five FCC Commissioners to directly lobby for the merger’s approval.

Sprint has been trying to beef up its own lobbying star power, recently adding Eddie Fritz, former head of the National Association of Broadcasters as one of their lobbyists.  Sprint has also hired several former high-level Congressional staffers and mid-level employees at the Justice Department, expected to help Team Sprint know how to apply the right pressure to the right people inside the FCC and Justice Department to reject the deal.  The merger hinges on the approval of both agencies.

Left off the speed dial — consumers, who cannot pick up the phone and reach FCC Chairman Genachowski while lounging in his backyard or enjoy lucrative employment opportunities open to government workers in the private lobbying sector.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg ATT Lobbying 5-24-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News breaks down AT&T’s lobbying and strategy for getting its merger deal with T-Mobile approved in Washington.  (2 minutes)

A Time Warner Cable customer in Whitefield, Maine has filed a complaint with the state’s Attorney General charging the cable company is selling customers a product it cannot deliver in parts of the state, and bills customers for it anyway.

The broadband add-on, Road Runner Turbo, is supposed to provide customers with a faster broadband experience, but in communities up and down Maine, it apparently does not, and has not for nearly three years.

The cable company hotly disputes the accusation, made by Michael Panosian, that the company has been overbilling him $10 a month for three years.

Andrew Russell, a Time Warner Cable spokesman, told the Kennebec Journal that the company does not charge for services it cannot provide.

But the cable company’s argument lost a considerable amount of credibility when evidence emerged Time Warner has admitted the problem, and quietly agreed to reimburse Panosian $328.35 for Road Runner Turbo service all the way back to June 2008.

The admission has also become a point of interest inside the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, which is engaged in discussions with Panosian and the cable company.

Despite Russell’s denials, Time Warner officials admitted there was a problem and told state officials it would be corrected sometime this month.

Panosian thinks the cable company is ripping off Maine residents pitching faster Internet it does not deliver.

Panosian said a Time Warner Cable technician told him Turbo is not available in his area and possibly others in Maine.

“From what the tech told me, it isn’t just Whitefield,” Panosian said. “I went down (to Time Warner’s Augusta office) and talked to them about it, and they’re aware of it.  I said, ‘If you’re aware, why are you taking everybody’s money?’  If they don’t charge for services they don’t provide, why are they reimbursing me?”

Stop the Cap! reader Frederick, who lives in nearby Windsor and shared the story with us, says it is a classic case of Time Warner Cable overselling its service.

“The truth here is actually in the middle; Time Warner actually does deliver a Turbo service in Maine, it’s just that their network is so overcongested, nobody benefits from it during peak usage times,” Frederick reports.  “They have too many customers trying to share the Internet, and Turbo cannot help resolve this problem, only upgrades can.”

Frederick reports he identified the source of the problem running a series of speed tests on his Time Warner Cable connection.  He subscribes to Road Runner Turbo himself.

“The truth is revealed when you examine the upload speed of your connection,” he says. “Even when the network is busy, I can still get nearly 1Mbps upload speeds, a sure sign Turbo is on my account.”

The download speeds are another matter.

“In Windsor during peak usage times, you will easily see even a Turbo connection drop to 5Mbps in download speeds, only returning to normal after people go to bed,” he says.  “That means Time Warner has oversold their network, putting too many people on the same ‘node,’ one inadequate in capacity.”

Frederick suspects the “fix” Time Warner refers to is an upgrade to DOCSIS 3 technology.

“Maine is treated like a backwater by Time Warner Cable,” Frederick charges.  “What other cities got a year ago we just start to receive, so instead of performing periodic upgrades, they are just waiting for DOCSIS 3 to solve all of their problems.”

Frederick thinks customers should be compensated for the poor service, and is considering demanding a refund himself.

“I pay more than $50 a month for my broadband service with Turbo and they deliver what their ads claim only when I’m asleep or at work.”

America’s broadband ranking has fallen once again, mostly at the expense of other countries who have accelerated service and speed upgrades above and beyond what is available in the United States.  That is the conclusion one can reach after reviewing the Federal Communications Commission’s second annual broadband report, delivered to Congress to fulfill obligations under the Broadband Data Improvement Act.

Through a combination of data from OECD broadband rankings and actual speed test results collected by the Commission, the FCC report notes American cities are at risk of losing the broadband speed race.

“This report compares data on average actual download speeds reported by a sample of consumers in a number of U.S. and foreign cities and finds that some large European and Asian cities exhibit a significant edge over comparable U.S. cities in reported download speeds, though reported speeds for some other international cities are roughly comparable to speeds in many U.S. cities,” the report concludes.

“The best currently available data set comparing the United States to other countries appears to be from the OECD, which collects data on various broadband deployment, adoption, and usage metrics and publishes rankings of its member countries. The OECD’s deployment data ranks countries based on particular technologies, rather than overall coverage. The U.S. ranking in these surveys ranges from 27th out of 30 in DSL coverage to 1st out of 28 in cable modem coverage.  The U.S. ranks 6th out of 16 in fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) coverage and 8th out of 29 in 3G mobile wireless coverage.”

Broadband Rankings (click to enlarge)

Most of the countries accelerating far beyond the United States in broadband speed and quality are in Asia and Europe, and many are upgrading their networks to fiber-based broadband.  As these fiber networks come online, the United States can be expected to fall further behind.

The cable industry lobby attacked the report's findings.

Just like last year, the Internet Service Providers turning in poor grades are rejecting the report’s conclusions.

“While the Commission’s headline proclaims that 20 million Americans are denied access to broadband, by that measure private investment has fueled the build-out of broadband networks to nearly 300 million consumers and is responsible for the jobs that flow from that investment,” said Michael Powell, president and chief executive of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.  Powell used to oversee the FCC as chairman during the first term of the Bush Administration.

Another trade association with ties to the telecom industry, USTelecom, attacked the findings noting most Americans think their existing broadband service is good enough.

Walter McCormick Jr., USTelecom CEO, noted the FCC’s own report found that 95 percent of Americans have access to fixed broadband and 93 percent are happy with their service.

...so did USTelecom, another industry funded group

But McCormick says nothing about the speeds those customers receive, a bone of contention with the Commission.  As part of this year’s report, the FCC is increasingly relying on its own verifiable data about broadband speeds, collected through its SamKnows broadband speed test project.  The Commission has repeatedly noted that broadband speeds marketed by ISPs do not always match the actual speeds customers receive.

Speed tests comparing broadband performance in comparably sized cities found some sizable differences.

The data suggest that mean actual download speeds in some European and Asian cities are substantially higher than in comparably sized U.S. cities (e.g., 24.8 megabits per second (Mbps) in Paris and 35.8 Mbps in Seoul versus 6.9 Mbps in San Francisco, 9.4 Mbps in Chicago, and 9.9 Mbps in Phoenix). Some of the U.S. cities in our sample have higher speeds than some foreign cities (e.g., Chicago with 9.39 Mbps versus Rome with 5.6 Mbps).

The most significant reason for the disparity in speed is the technology used in each respective area.  Fiber to the home service traditionally delivers the fastest broadband speeds.  Cable broadband technology, common in the United States but less so abroad, is responsible for a great deal of speed increases in the United States.  Telephone company DSL and wireless are responsible for some of the slowest speeds, with rural DSL service commonly providing just 1-3Mbps service.  Many European cities still relying on DSL technology have upgraded to bonded DSL, ADSL2+, or VDSL service, which can significantly boost speeds.

Unfortunately, the report concludes, the faster the broadband service delivered, the higher the price — often out of proportion with other OECD countries.

Results […] suggest that U.S. stand-alone residential broadband prices are generally “in the middle of prices in OECD countries,” after accounting for speed, terms of service, data caps, and service delivery technology. Similarly, prices in the United States for business stand-alone broadband services were fourteenth out of 30 among the OECD countries. A paper by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University found prices for U.S. broadband with download speeds of around 768 kbps to be “very good” by international standards. However, as download speeds increase, the paper found that U.S. prices become more expensive than most other OECD countries.

Some providers unimpressed by the independent research accused the FCC of using biased and inconsistent research methods.  AT&T, for example, was unhappy with comparisons among U.S. cities and those of comparable size abroad.  They accused the Commission of not using “a well-defined or consistent methodology for choosing the ‘communities’ or offers.”  In fact, several providers suggested the Commission’s pricing comparisons ignored significant, albeit temporary, discounts some new customers receive, as well as discounts for bundled service packages.  Promotional pricing factors are acknowledged by the Commission, but the report notes the findings do attempt to collect real world pricing paid by actual customers.

For consumers in the United States, broadband envy is as close as the next news report highlighting broadband expansion efforts abroad.  Some countries are deploying 1Gbps broadband networks that deliver consistently faster speeds than American providers, at dramatically lower prices and without a usage cap attached.