The Federal Communications Commission is catching on to a long-known telecommunications industry secret — always provide top quality, showcase service in areas where the movers and shakers of power and politics can make your life easy or hard.  Early results from the Broadband.gov national speed test project confirm this is still the case.  After a few weeks of testing, the FCC reports America’s best broadband speeds are available in and near two cities – Washington, DC and New York, NY.

In Virginia and Maryland, where most of DC’s workers-by-day commute home to at night, average download speeds topped out at 11-13Mbps.  Upstream speeds were, on average, best in the nation at around 3.6-4.3Mbps.  In New York and Massachusetts, where Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable predominate, average downstream speed was 11.6-13.6Mbps, but upstream speed in the northeast suffered more thanks to upstate New York and western Massachusetts dragging the numbers down.

Several critics have joined Stop the Cap!‘s concern that the two speed tests, provided by Ookla and M-Lab, are providing widely different results.  The FCC plans to expand the available speed test options shortly to attempt to get a wider sampling of broadband speeds.

Despite this, Jordan Usdan, an attorney-advisor to the Broadband Task Force, claims the group is happy with the results:

87% of test takers are home users, which is the FCC’s target audience with this application. Additionally, a clear trend is visible across business sizes, high bandwidth connectivity for community institutions, and lower bandwidth for mobile connections. Again, these results are non-scientific extrapolations from the Beta version of the Consumer Broadband test. Additionally, about 98% of user submitted addresses are geo-coding correctly, which is a very good rate.

Thus far, Californians have taken the most speed tests, but their results are less impressive than those enjoyed on the Atlantic seaboard — average downstream speeds in the state are 10.1 to 11.5Mbps; upstream speeds are 2.1 to 2.6Mbps.

Where are the worst speeds?  In the Northern Plains states, where rural populations predominate.  Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana delivered the worst combined upload/download speed results.  But speeds are only marginally better in the midwest and southeast — with lots of low scores in the Carolinas, Tennessee, and Mississippi.  Customers in northern New England stuck with FairPoint Communications also have little to celebrate.

South Africa is the latest country on the way to finally discarding Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and usage-based billing.

MWEB, one of South Africa’s largest residential broadband service providers, last week “threw down the gauntlet” and unveiled an unlimited broadband option among its various rate plans.

“We realized there’s a major gap in the market. South Africa doesn’t experience the Internet like the rest of the world does. It’s a fantastic opportunity to change the Internet in South Africa,” MWEB CEO Rudi Jansen told News24.

For a country that has never known anything but expensive, slow, usage-capped Internet, MWEB’s announcement is nothing short of a broadband revolution for 49 million South Africans.

“This is not the end. There are still probably three or four big things that have to change in this market and for us, this is the first step. The other things that have to change are we have to get the mobile operators to offer wholesale data. The more competition there is, the better it is for the market,” said Jansen.

For $73.50US per month, MWEB offers 4Mbps DSL service that is truly unlimited, which is a radical notion in a country used to usage caps averaging 3GB per month.  Customers willing to tolerate slower speeds can reduce their unlimited broadband bill considerably — 384kbps starts at $30 a month; 512kbps is priced at $41 a month.  The company does admit to throttling torrent services, but customers have managed to bypass the throttle by encrypting their torrent traffic.

Although these speeds and prices are terrible in comparison to North American broadband plans, for South Africans, MWEB’s announcement was big news.  That’s because the competition charges far higher prices, often for limited service:

• Telkom, South Africa’s state phone company, wants $35US monthly, five dollars more than MWEB’s lowest speed unlimited alternative, for its DSL service with a 3GB usage allowance;
• Paying $39.50US per month buys you 10GB of usage from Afrihost;
• Using 3G wireless mobile alternatives are for the deep-pocketed only.  Paying $65.50US per month nets you less than a 2GB usage allowance;
• South Africa’s ‘Screamer’ offers a pricey unlimited plan at $54US per month for 384kbps service;
• Neotel offers an unlimited service package, but it’s so confusing few customers can be certain what they’re getting.  (Read this South African blogger’s experience with Neotel.)

MWEB hired marketing firm Quirk to generate buzz about the company’s unlimited service option.  Earlier this month, a Facebook group called Free the Web popped up asking consumers what improvements were needed in South Africa’s broadband service.  It attracted more than 15,000 followers in just two weeks.

What were South Africans complaining about?  Usage caps. Broadband users despise them, especially in a country where 5-10GB allowances are considered ‘generous.’  But the lack of competition for monopoly state-owned phone company Telkom also featured prominently.  Most South Africans rely on DSL service that first starts with renting a line from Telkom.  Telkom prices those in accordance with its monopoly status, and requires consumers to pay line rental fees combining both data and voice services, even if a customer only intends to use the line for data.  Because ADSL broadband speed is totally dependent on the phone company, and Telkom has no incentive to upgrade, few in South Africa can expect to see broadband service exceeding 4-8Mbps.  Most obtain considerably less, often well below 1Mbps.

“Telkom has to allow users of ADSL to split the line rental for the telephone line and the line rental for ADSL. That absolutely has to happen; then this market will grow,” Jansen said.

Jansen

MWEB hopes the unveiling of unlimited broadband will transform South Africans use of the Internet and bring prices down.

“Ubiquitous broadband is what this country needs to grow. We want to do our part in getting South Africa there,” said Jansen. “I hope [our competitors] follow us because I think as a country we desperately need it.”

Jansen may have his wish.  Hours after MWEB announced unlimited broadband, its competitors began to follow suit, meaning South Africans can finally follow Australians and New Zealanders discarding hated Internet Overcharging schemes.

Mybroadband.co.za took note of several broadband package changes coming as a direct result of MWEB’s new service (One South African Rand = 13.6 US cents):

Vox Telecom responded quickly and announced that @lantic will be launching bundled ADSL offerings – which include both ADSL access and an uncapped ISP account.  Pricing starts at R339 for a DSL384 bundle while a 512 Kbps service will cost R589 and a 4 Mbps solution R889.  This undercuts MWEB’s bundled pricing by R10 per month.

Openweb also joined the price war by announcing that they will resell MWEB accounts at the same rates as MWEB.

This is however not where it ends.  Afrihost said that consumers can look forward to their uncapped ADSL services next week, and G-Connect also indicated that they will respond to MWEB’s recent announcement with a competing service.

Even the state monopoly phone company Telkom has started talking about offering unlimited service.

“Uncapped speed-locked ADSL service consumer offerings are in development. However, no time-frames, offering specifications or price points can be disclosed at this stage. In the development process, Telkom is striving for optimal quality, reliability and affordability,” said Ajith Bridgraj, Telkom Senior Specialist for Media Relations.

MWEB expects a surge of new customers, which leads some to worry if the company can sustain its network under the burden of throngs of new customers.  Jansen says they can, noting their connectivity ultimately comes from Seacom, which is an important provider of international connectivity between Africa, Europe, and beyond.

Early tests by Mybroadband appear positive:

MyBroadband got its hands on an uncapped 4 Mbps test account to take the service through its paces – and early test results are very promising.

For basic email and surfing the MWEB uncapped account performed well, and results from Speedtest.net were on par with SAIX and IS based offerings.

Local Speedtest.net downlink speeds ranged between 3.28 Mbps and 4.13 Mbps while local uplink speeds ranged between 0.26 Mbps and 0.42 Mbps.

International Speedtest.net results – tested with servers in London, New York and Brussels – ranged between 2.96 Mbps and 3.61 Mbps while international uplink speeds were fairly steady at between 0.3 Mbps and 0.32 Mbps.

Local latency was fairly consistent and ranged between 17 ms and 41 ms in tests to Johannesburg and Cape Town based servers.  International latency was however less consistent, and ranged between 285 ms and 528 ms to the UK and US.

The MWEB uncapped account performed well with all bandwidth intensive applications.

YouTube videos streamed without any buffering, but some buffering was needed when moving to high definition video streaming (480p and more specifically 720p).

Standard file download speeds were quite consistent at between  2 Mbps and 3.4 Mbps while multi-threaded FTP and HTTP downloads sat at around 3.2 Mbps.

Good news for those keen on torrent services is that the MWEB uncapped account seems torrent friendly.  We selected 10 of the most popular torrents, and total download speeds ranged between 2.8 Mbps and 3.2 Mbps.

American broadband providers contemplating Internet Overcharging schemes of their own often point to usage limits and usage-based billing schemes that exist in other countries, implying they are well-tolerated by consumers abroad and should be likewise domestically.  The truth is, such pricing schemes are as despised abroad as they are domestically, and most countries seeking to improve broadband consider eliminating them a top priority.

[flv width=”448″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Carte Blanche Consumer – No Broader Than a Band.flv[/flv]

South African news program ‘Carte Blanche’ provides this general overview of the current state of broadband in South Africa, and the challenges that must be faced to improve it. (10 minutes)

[flv width=”384″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/News24 MWEB Unveils Unlimited Broadband 3-19-10.mp4[/flv]

South Africa’s News24 network reported on MWEB’s unlimited broadband package including an interview with MWEB CEO Rudi Jansen. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/South African Broadband.flv[/flv]

As part of MWEB’s social marketing campaign, ordinary South Africans talk about their broadband experiences, what the Internet has done for them, and the things they hate the most about South African Internet Service Providers. (9 minutes)

Last week, Stop the Cap! considered the challenges America faced developing universal electric service — so much of that debate echos in today’s struggle to provide universal broadband service.

Although hindsight allows us to recognize the benefits universal electrification has brought Americans over the past 100 years, the transformational benefits from universal broadband are bit more mysterious because many applications haven’t even been envisioned yet.

IBM is a proponent of two revolutionary concepts universal broadband makes possible: The Internet of Things and The System of Systems.  The company produced a video to consider the implications of improved connectivity and how that will impact our daily lives:

[flv width=”641″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/IBM – The Internet of Things.flv[/flv]

IBM Social Media produced this video explaining The Internet of Things, one of the concepts made possible with universal broadband. (5 minutes)

Now imagine the implications if the platform which makes this all possible remains in the hands of a broadband duopoly intent on securing big profits earned from high pricing, limits on service, and other cost-controlling measures.  Transformational broadband — for the right price as long as you don’t use too much, brought to you by big cable and telephone companies.

Strauss

This week Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski appointed Karen Peltz Strauss Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Deputy Chief.

Strauss is supposed to focus on disability issues, among other things, and will help the Commission to implement the components of the National Broadband Plan that address access for people with disabilities, including leading the effort to develop a proposed Accessibility and Innovation Forum.

“The FCC has a vital role to play in empowering and protecting all consumers and ensuring they have access to world-class communications networks and technologies” said Chairman Genachowski. “I look forward to drawing on Karen’s extensive experience with telecommunications access issues to realize those goals.”

A news release from the FCC includes a brief review of her 25 years’ experience working on telecommunications access for people with disabilities.

But the agency forgot to mention Strauss also serves on the board of directors of an industry front group — the Alliance for Public Technology.  APT claims it represents the best interests of consumers, but considering who is writing the checks, that’s highly doubtful.

APT’s website suggests the group “makes policy decisions based on the potential benefit to consumers. The Board members themselves as well as APT’s member organizations serve the education, health care, social service and economic development needs of senior citizens, people with disabilities, minorities, children, low income families, rural communities, and all consumers.”

That’s true, if you, as a consumer, are for big telecom mergers like AT&T and BellSouth, which APT supported, oppose Net Neutrality, which APT feels should not be imposed on providers, liked the idea of Cingular being absorbed into AT&T’s empire of wireless, which APT also supported, and so on.

In fact, this group even praised Verizon’s willingness to invest in West Virginia:

Verizon has demonstrated a commitment to increased investment in advanced telecommunications capabilities. According to the company, Verizon invested almost $560 million in its Maryland network and $150 million in West Virginia in 2001 (2002 figures not available). Verizon added more than 31,000 miles of fiber optic cable in Maryland and 20,500 miles of fiber optic cable in West Virginia. Over 2.5 million access lines in Maryland now have access to DSL. Authorization to provide in-region long distance service in Virginia will facilitate Verizon’s capacity to build on economies of scale and scope in order to provide a high standard of service and accelerated deployment of advanced technologies to the consumers of Maryland, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

The only thing Verizon wants to accelerate in West Virginia is their exit.

Laughably, one of the reasons APT supports AT&T so much (besides the big checks the company writes to fund their operation) is:

With BellSouth’s entry into the Florida and Tennessee long-distance markets, AT&T began to offer 30 minutes of free long distances to its customers and inserted “thank you” messages into the time between a customer dials a number and the connection occurs. These actions demonstrate tangible benefits for consumers because of an increased number of competitors in the long distance market.

I know that makes me feel warm all over.  Who should I call first?

Wading through APT’s public policy positions unearths absolutely no surprises.  They exist to advocate for the interests of the companies that fund their operations, and that includes all the bully boys:

• AT&T
• CTIA
• Embarq
• Qwest
• United States Telecom Association
• Verizon

Despite this, APT writes with a straight face, “These companies give donations based on a shared vision for the ubiquitous deployment of high-speed telecommunications technology, but have no say in the governance of the association.”

Sure they don’t.  But then again, those checks would stop coming if APT began actually representing the consumers they claim to care so much about.

It’s disappointing the FCC would want someone so closely aligned with the interests of large telecommunications companies working to implement a National Broadband Plan that is supposed to represent the public interest.

It’s just another example of the Inside the Beltway Tickle Party, where lobbyists and “dollar a holler” experts flow between government jobs, privately-funded think tanks, and the private sector.  Consumers are only too aware that their best interests are not represented by employees whose loyalties change depending on what hat they wear to the office.

In addition to our ongoing concerns about Internet Overcharging schemes like usage allowances and caps, Stop the Cap! is a strong advocate for Net Neutrality protection.  As part of yesterday’s unveiling of the Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski spent 30 minutes answering questions from CitizenTube participants about broadband policy.

Among the 18 questions asked was one from yours truly, taking on broadband industry lobbyists who make evidence-free claims that Net Neutrality will somehow kill investment in broadband expansion.

Pointedly, I pressed Chairman Genachowski about whether we had to sacrifice the Internet’s openness in order to bring broadband service to the presently unserved.  We sure don’t think so.

Based on the answer, which appears about 24 minutes into the video, he doesn’t think so either.

The false argument providers make to scare legislators is little more than hollow rhetoric, especially when you accept their claim they are not engaged in the kinds of activities today that Net Neutrality would ban tomorrow.  How exactly does prohibiting what providers claim they are not doing anyway harm investment?

Answer: it doesn’t.

What it harms are further efforts to monetize broadband from every angle in an effort to further fatten already engorged profits.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>