The views of the Adam Smith Institute, despite the near-global financial meltdown engineered by the Masters of the Universe.

Forbes columnist Tim Worstall is unimpressed with Google’s foray into fiber optics.

Worstall, a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, has repeatedly penned columns tsk-tsking the global broadband speed race.

In his world view, nobody except certain specialists needs any connection faster than 2Mbps:

The most obvious being that outside certain very specific uses (video editing for example, where people can pay up for their own T1 line) there’s not really much evidence that speeds above 2 Mbps or so actually improve productivity or economic performance/growth. Sure, they’re great for consumers who want to download movies but that’s not really a justification for a large scale infrastructure program.

Worstall’s Luddite-like knowledge of broadband technology makes it difficult to take him seriously. Notwithstanding the fact a T1 line delivers just 1.5Mbps (at a cost several times a typical cable or DSL broadband connection), Worstall’s declaration that faster speeds are only good for “downloading” movies (the concept of streaming also escapes him) is simple nonsense.

Worstall’s tantrum is really part of a bigger discussion about how to do broadband better in both the United Kingdom and the United States. Incumbent providers are dragging their feet while reaping profits for overpriced, too-slow service. Consumers and businesses are fed up, and some are now increasingly turning to the government to do-something to shake up the status quo.

Government? For those slavishly devoted to free market ideals at the Adam Smith Institute, such a notion guarantees an intemperate outburst with phrases like “government takeover,” “government interference in private business,” or “government monopoly” — all ideas Worstall complains are “blindingly awful.”

“The idea that the solution to anything is a government run engineering monopoly just boggles the mind,” Worstall declares.

In his piece, “Why High Speed Broadband Just Doesn’t Matter,” Worstall has just a single litmus test to define broadband worthiness: how much economic value can be extracted from the Internet — Ferengi economics at their finest.

Worstall (Image: Forbes)

Worstall:

So more people can watch TV. Apologies, but this doesn’t really convince. Higher definition TV just isn’t the sort of technology that boosts the economy of a country. It might be nice to have but it most certainly does not justify taxing some to provide the service to others.

[…] The truth is that as long as you’re getting broadband of a kind (2 Mbps say) then it’s possible to extract that economic value. Faster speeds might be nice but they’re just not necessary for economic development.

Even if you accept Worstall’s inaccurate contention fast Internet is only good for watching online entertainment, he evidently forgets PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated the value of that industry at $2 trillion, and that was by 2011. Why even have a cable television business, if the only thing it is good for is watching reality shows and Law & Order reruns? Because it makes money — lots of it.

Back to Google, which is creating a bit of a pickle for the cable and phone companies — an increasingly fat and happy bunch earning easy profits selling broadband at duopoly market prices. Proponents for better broadband advocating for new, publicly-owned broadband networks have had to confront astroturf and conservative groups using popular memes that “big government” cannot do anything right and if there was a market for gigabit broadband, private companies would already be selling it.

Starting this summer, Google is.

That spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e for the corporate love muffins at the Adam Smith Institute and their industry friends who are quite happy with the way things are today, thank you very much. Google just happens to be an example of a free market success story — a ‘responsible’ company willing to invest money in the game-changing broadband Worstall and friends spent years arguing we don’t actually want or need.

As Kansas City residents line up around the virtual block, eagerly plunking down $10 to “pre-register” for Google service, it becomes difficult to continue the standard line that super-fast Internet is just a tech-geek curiosity.

So what does a free-market-knows-best-devotee do in light of all this? Change the story.

Worstall picks up a premise first offered by The Guardian and runs with it. Namely, Google is actually riding the wave of past phone company failures to cheaply benefit from assets those companies deployed first:

There’s a very large difference between being able to do something usefully experimental with an orphaned asset and having to pay for the construction of that asset in the first place. The telecoms companies lost fortunes on laying that fibre (indeed, several, including such as Global Crossing, went resoundingly bust for billions in doing so). That something that was built for $100 can find a use when it is sold for $1 (just to make up some numbers) is not an argument in favour of spending the $100.

Yet that is exactly what the argument being proposed is. Look, Google’s got really cool fast broadband, now we should build it for everyone! What’s being missed is that, at least so far as we know as yet, that really fast broadband isn’t worth the cost of building it. It only makes sense even for Google because they’ve not had to pay full price for it.

Google got a discount, so that is why they are in the business.

Worstall’s declaration is news to Kansas City, which has been enduring Google’s construction crews for months as they lay fiber infrastructure across the metropolitan area. Evidently Google hired illusionist David Copperfield to perform the masterful trick of shading the truth:  re-purposing already-there fiber while pretending it was being buried and strung for the first time.

Adam Smith didn’t have super fast broadband when he posited his views on unfettered free markets in the 1700s. If his devoted followers are left in charge, you won’t either.

While perusing the latest investor conference call with Time Warner Cable executives, this question from the always-admiring Craig Moffett at Sanford Bernstein & Associates popped up, directed at Rob Marcus, president and chief operating office (underlining ours):

Craig Moffett – Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division

[…] Rob, I know how competitive you are. As you look at the results at Comcast and their greater success in — particularly in the video product, I’m sure it has to sort of get the competitive juices flowing. Can you talk more about where that is on your priority list? And what are the levers that you think you can pull to improve the results in basic video?

Robert D. Marcus – Time Warner Cable

Yes. So let me start by saying, I don’t really want to take anything away from Comcast performance, they had a nice quarter. And I think the fact that both we and they posted really good results this quarter probably speaks most to the fact that we’re in a terrific business, so that’s point number one. Second, I always sort of shy away from these comparisons between the two of us on any particular metrics given that there are differences in our disclosure practices.

[…] The truth is, I want to win, but I want to win relative to the guys we’re facing in the markets that we’re competing with. So all of the initiatives I described in my prepared remarks really relate to our performing even better than we have been, independent of any comparisons you might make to Comcast. So we’re hard at work on product, we’re hard at work improving our marketing. I think we’ve made great strides there. We’re definitely doing things on the customer service side to make doing business with us easier and better. And we’re always trying to improve on logistical things like improving sales processes and retention processes. So you’re right in characterizing me as competitive. I absolutely want to win. And I think we’re initiating the right processes to get there.

It’s just one more fact of life for American cable subscribers — cable companies never compete against each other. Comcast has carved out its territory, Time Warner Cable has theirs. The two will never meet in head-on competition.

So we’re wondering just how “competitive” Time Warner Cable (and Comcast) really are. Apparently not much, based on the hearts and flowers moment cable executives have praising the financial performance of each other.

AT&T loves corporate free speech rights, the same ones it is using to deny customers access to Google’s Play Movies service.

With wireless Net Neutrality rendered largely ineffective with the help of AT&T and Verizon Wireless’ extensive lobbying and legal threats, AT&T has leveraged its right to govern its own network by deciding to block its wireless customers from watching Google Play Store’s streaming movie service over its 3G and 4G networks. This block is enforced even though AT&T already throttles heavy “unlimited” users and charges others more for using more data.

Geek.com was the first to discover AT&T’s curious dislike of Google Play Movies, while leaving other streaming services like Netflix, HBO Go, YouTube, and others alone (for now):

Instead of The Anchorman […] I was greeted with an error message telling me that I was not allowed to stream this movie over the mobile network. Assuming it was just an error, I tried again and got the same message. After a few minutes of playing with settings, it became clear that I was not going to be able to watch this movie without WiFi.

Yes, it seems that AT&T has removed the ability to watch Google Play Movie files over their 3G and LTE networks. This only happens with Google Play Movies, and only on AT&T. […] Curiously enough, you can download or “pin” a Google Play Movie over 3G and LTE and the only warning you get is one from Google explaining that you might incur data costs.

AT&T and Verizon have both declared Net Neutrality violates their free speech rights as corporate citizens — rights further expanded with the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision.

When Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski sought to introduce mild Net Neutrality protections for the Internet, both companies threatened to sue (Verizon has a case pending) and conservative commentators launched into tirades about “an Obama takeover of the Internet.”

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Today the FCC approved a proposal by chairman Julius Genachowski to give the FCC power to prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic. And that’s just a ruse. Net Neutrality is not what this is really all about. This is about the feds wanting to control the Internet just as they control the public airwaves. They want to be able to determine who gets to say what, where, how often — they want to be able to determine what search services are providing what answers to your queries. It’s total government control of the Internet, and the regime has just awarded it to itself.

It’s another gleaming aspect of free speech, free market, private industry Obama has decided to take over as a Christmas present to himself and the Democrat National Committee and to Mr. Soros. He’s even beaten Hugo Chavez to the punch. Chavez is just talking about taking over the Internet in Venezuela; Obama has got it done.

Geek.com doesn’t think the Obama Administration is blocking Google Play over AT&T — AT&T is. They just cannot understand the reasoning why:

I can’t imagine any real world justification for this behavior. If you pay your carrier for an internet connection to your phone, should the provider really be allowed to control how you use that connection? What’s more is that this happened over AT&T’s high speed and mostly empty LTE network. I can easily create a wireless hotspot on this same phone and stream a video from the Nexus 7, using the exact same data connection to accomplish the exact same task. This move is confusing at best, and AT&T is going to quickly alienate customers eager to take advantage of their brand new LTE devices as they receive them.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Corporateland.flv[/flv]

Mark Fiore channels Disney-sentimentality schtick on a whole new level with his take on AT&T’s Pinocchio-CorporateLand dream come true: the right to be human. (1 minute)

Wildblue’s customer forum will not allow its readers to link to Stop the Cap!, because in the view of Wildblue’s forum moderators, we are “counter-productive.”

We suspect the company is uncomfortable about exposing customers to the fact Wildblue is selling “broadband” satellite service with a “fair usage policy” so strict many customers cannot actually use the service for more than basic web browsing and e-mail. Wildblue consistently ranks  near the very bottom of broadband service providers rated by Consumer Reports (only HughesNet is worse).

The good news is Wildblue still allows customers to use Google. Most will have no trouble finding us even when the company spends time and effort censoring a direct link.

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

AT&T’s real priorities are to satisfy Wall Street demands for regular revenue growth. Rural wired broadband just cannot compete with the margins the company earns on its enormously profitable wireless and ARPU-raising U-verse services. (Graphic adapted from original work of Mark Fiore)

Today: AT&T — More Rural Broadband? Don’t Call Us, We’ll Call You

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson earlier this year declared expansion of its U-verse fiber to the neighborhood service “largely complete,” despite the fact almost half of AT&T’s customers only have access to much slower DSL service, or cannot receive any broadband service at all.

For those living in AT&T’s service areas, which include a large portion of the midwest, southern states east of the Mississippi, Connecticut, and parts of California and Texas, Stephenson has not inspired confidence the company is rethinking what is possible in rural broadband.

“We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America?,” Stephenson told investors earlier this year. “And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid.”

AT&T’s lack of confidence this year is in contrast with their bombastic rural broadband lobbying campaign of 2011, launched as part of an effort to win approval for its aborted merger with T-Mobile USA. The company sent slick talking points promoting the deal to community groups it supported with contributions, politicians it bought with contributions, and astroturf efforts it bankrolled with contributions.

The result was declarations like this from former Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who swept through Washington’s revolving door and came out on the other side working for AT&T-backed lobbyist-law firm Sidley Austin and serving as an “honorary chairman” of the industry-backed Internet Innovation Alliance:

Thousands of the smallest communities outside of urban areas either lack broadband service or have just one option that can be pricey for a relatively low connection speed, inadequate for modern business demands. The joining of AT&T’s and T-Mobile’s wireless spectrum will largely fill the gap and bring robust Internet connectivity to rural localities where wired infrastructure is cost prohibitive.

With the merger now nothing more than a bad memory, Stephenson’s interest in the innovation of Internet access quickly faded.

Last week, AT&T customers learned the company isn’t even interested in taking free money from the federal government and ratepayers to do better. Offered access to $115 million in broadband subsidies from the reform of the Universal Service Fund (USF), AT&T officials shrugged their shoulders and indicated they were not interested because they are not yet “ready” to participate.

Quinn

“AT&T is in the midst of evaluating its options for further rural broadband deployment,” said Robert Quinn, AT&T’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs wrote in a letter to the commission. “As our chairman stated last month, we are optimistic about AT&T’s ability to get more broadband into rural areas, particularly as the technology continues to advance. However, until AT&T finalizes that strategy, it cannot commit to participating in the incremental support program. ”

For communities like Orangeburg, S.C., that answer is not good enough. The community received an $18.65 million federal grant of broadband stimulus funds to develop high-speed broadband in an area where only 20-40 percent of residents have Internet service today. AT&T is the dominant phone company and offered the same non-committal response to Orangeburg’s pleas for better service that the  company gives to customers elsewhere.

While AT&T reports it is not yet ready to do better in rural South Carolina, it is very motivated to make sure nobody else does either, funding a massive lobbying effort in coordination with its friends at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to pass a virtual ban on community broadband development across South Carolina.

Christopher Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks calls it “monetizing scarcity.” Orangeburg officials call it a big headache and are working around AT&T, frustrated with the phone company’s disinterest while it also helps build barriers to impede the community’s efforts to build its own network.

“If some of these other providers had a desire to serve these rural areas, they would have already been doing it,” said county administrator Bill Clark. “We are entering the broadband business because third-party providers are reluctant to provide the service.”

AT&T’s reluctance to accept USF money may have a lot to do with the company’s focus on its wireless network which is seen as a much more lucrative investment. Profit margins for barely-competitive wireless service remain sky high, and are growing higher as AT&T raises prices and the industry works to cut costs.

Even the company’s urban-focused U-verse network delivers opportunities for greater revenues from AT&T customers likely to buy additional services. Investing in DSL just does not pull in the same level of profits, and companies like AT&T will remain reluctant to expand rural broadband unless the government delivers a much larger government subsidy, according to Benjamin Lennett, a policy director at the New America Foundation.

“It underscores how flawed it is to rely on private companies to serve these rural areas where their margins are not going to be that high,” Lennett said.

Unfortunately for communities trying to work around AT&T’s roadblock, the company has made sure towns and villages building their own networks soon discover that road remains closed in more than dozen states thanks to  AT&T with the help from corporate groups like ALEC, who feed willing legislators bills often drafted by the corporations they are designed to protect.