Community broadband networks deliver the best value and speed for North Carolina consumers and businesses

Word has reached Stop the Cap! that hundreds of e-mails and phone calls are pouring into Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) office protesting her hard work on behalf of the state’s largest cable company.  We are being called “mean and nasty” by those supporting Avila’s anti-consumer bill, H.129.

Our answer to that: we are not “mean” or “nasty.”  We are fed up c0nsumers (and voters) who have serious concerns about certain state legislators who introduce bills custom-written by cable lobbyists to enact their business agenda into law.

These anti-community broadband bills have come year after year in North Carolina, despite the fact the state has an “also-ran” reputation as a broadband backwater, with tremendous room for improvement in broadband speed, price, availability, and choice of providers. The bills have also been nothing but trouble for those that have introduced them, alienating constituents and bringing them bad press:

Ty Harrell resigned his office in disgrace over financial irregularities, but he was already in hot water when he introduced his bill. We were stunned when his office staff literally handed the phone to a cable industry lobbyist sitting there to answer questions.  We held him accountable.

David Hoyle did not leave office at his finest moment either, openly admitting on television Time Warner Cable wrote the bill he introduced.

This year, it’s Ms. Avila, who repeatedly promised to hold existing community-owned networks harmless by exempting them from the draconian, project-killing legislation she has proposed.  But after closed door meetings, we learned those promises were hollow.  The words of her bill may have changed, but the results are exactly the same — she is micromanaging community networks into insolvency (while exempting the companies that wrote the bill she introduced).

The unanswered, critical question every legislator needs to ask is: How does H.129 improve North Carolina’s dismal broadband ranking and deliver improved service?

The former Rep. Harrell

The answer is, it does nothing.  Not only does it ignore the chasm of low quality service prevalent west of Charlotte and north of Winston-Salem, it specifically erects roadblocks to keep any community from trying to resolve a situation they’ve dealt with for years and years.  Ask any rural community’s leader if they’ve heard from constituents upset by the unavailability or quality of broadband in their area and you will get an earful.  The truth is, had the cable and telephone companies in the state had a real interest in providing 21st century service to these communities, they would have already done it.  With H.129, they can rest easy knowing nobody else will try.

This is not an auspicious position for Ms. Avila to take.  She ran for office upset with backroom deals, insider political maneuvering, and closed government.  Reviewing her campaign platform, the one thing she emphasized time and again was her promise to bring “open government” to the people in her district, just north of the state capital.

Where is the open government on H.129?  Nowhere to be found.

Stop the Cap! would have loved to include the complete video record of the first meeting to modify her bill to protect incumbent providers.  Only there is no video record.  The meeting was held behind closed doors, and it took a source to reveal details about how the cable and phone companies ran it as their own.  It’s the epitome of the kind of back-room deals Ms. Avila railed against in her campaign.

Considering the results, we can understand why the meeting was secret.  The cable lobby understands full well the power of sunshine’s disinfecting power.  Shining a bright light on the cozy connection between legislators and the companies whose interests they brazenly represent tells a story they do not want the voting public to hear.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.  We’ve learned Ms. Avila plans to bring H.129 to a vote in the Finance Committee as early as this Thursday, with no public discussion allowed.  Voters can be spectators of their own broadband demise, but they will not be allowed to say a word about it.  Meanwhile, certain members of the legislature have had plenty of time to meet repeatedly with cable and phone company lobbyists.

As we’ve seen time and time again, that lobbying campaign of disinformation tries to muddy the implications of bills such as these.

You cannot hear if you are not open to listening.

Legislators who may not understand what H.129 is really all about need to hear from the public and communities to understand precisely what they are voting for and what impact this legislation will have.  The ripple effects go far beyond just keeping Time Warner and CenturyLink free from pesky competition.

Neither company is truly harmed by community broadband networks.  In fact, both of them have thumbed their noses and shrugged their shoulders even in the presence of much larger competitive threats in their urban markets — Time Warner for the phone company and AT&T’s U-verse, which is available in limited areas.

The best thing Ms. Avila could do is withdraw her legislation because it simply is not in the best interests of North Carolina.  Barring that, she should do what she promised and specifically exempt ALL existing community networks in the state from the provisions of her bill.  At this point, that delivers a win to bondholders who will see their investment pay off, communities can continue to provide service to interested customers, and everyone else will continue to enjoy the benefits of lower rates these networks bring every telecommunications customer.

That’s common sense to everyone except the cable and phone companies that will stop at nothing to bury community-owned providers.

Where does your legislator stand?  If you have not made your feelings known to the members of the Finance Committee, time is running out.  Call and e-mail them and let them know you expect them to vote NO on H.129 when it reaches their committee this week.  We’re going to do our best to watch what may turn out to be another “voice vote” that prevents voters from knowing how individual members voted.  This time, we’ll be paying close attention to the lips and movements of individual committee members and take our own vote so we know who to thank and who needs to held accountable.

Finance Committee Members

(click each name for contact information)

Two years ago, when Time Warner proposed to limit consumption of consumer broadband accounts with an Internet Overcharging experiment, Stop the Cap! suggested they should instead upgrade their networks to meet the demands of their Internet-hungry customer base.

With thanks, they have taken our advice.  As DOCSIS 3 upgrades continue to roll across the cable company’s service areas, it is bringing immediate benefits to every Road Runner customer, and the company itself.

Several weeks ago, we shared the story of Time Warner customers in Webster, N.Y.  Time Warner had hopelessly oversold its broadband service in the growing town just northeast of Rochester.  Speeds plummeted to as low as 900kbps most evenings and weekends, and did not return to normal until most customers were back at their day jobs.

As a shared network, cable broadband delivers a limited amount of bandwidth into individual neighborhoods, shared by every customer.  When too many people pile on, speeds plummet.  When this happens, cable companies are supposed to either increase capacity, or more commonly divide a congested area into two or more parts, each served with their own broadband pipe.  In less densely populated towns, or where less net-savvy consumers tend to reside, capacity upgrades may come only once or twice over several years, and speeds are consistently fast day and night.  But where college students predominate, or where new housing developments deliver plenty of new upper-income homeowners more likely to leverage their broadband connections, the tell-tale evening and weekend slowdowns create problems.

A speedtest performed before the upgrade

“A good clue of overcongestion is when download speeds suffer, but upload speeds remain fairly consistent,” shares Prakash Patel, who consults with cable companies on HFC “cable” broadband deployment.  “Typically, if both speeds falter at different times of the day, that is usually a sign of a technical fault on one’s cable connection — not network congestion.”

For Stop the Cap! readers in Webster, the ongoing congestion made Road Runner virtually unusable during the evening and weekends, particularly for higher bandwidth applications like video or downloads.

Several of our readers filed complaints with the cable company and one took his case to the Better Business Bureau, who obtained a sympathetic response from Time Warner — but no immediate solution.  The Bureau accepted that explanation and “administratively closed” the complaint.

As we recommended, customers remained very vocal about the ongoing congestion problems in the town.  We’ve found the old adage, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” effective in moving upgrades higher up the list of priorities cable engineers deal with in maintaining their networks.

Original plans to deal with the problem were scheduled for late March, but Time Warner bumped the upgrade forward to this past weekend.  Instead of simply dividing up the town, Time Warner installed DOCSIS 3 technology, which greatly increases the size of the broadband pipeline available to customers.  The upgrade did the trick.

Our reader Tim shares the good news:

“I ran some speed tests Tuesday night and the improvement was very noticeable,” he writes.  “We were able to achieve speeds in the early evening that were previously only possible in the very early morning hours.”

Patel believes cable companies will continue to win a majority in the broadband marketplace using DOCSIS 3, which he considers an affordable and easy-to-deploy upgrade.

The results after the upgrade was completed.

“Not only is DOCSIS 3 relatively inexpensive, it provides plenty of new revenue opportunities for the companies that deploy it,” Patel says.  “It also fits well from an engineering standpoint, because it is an evolutionary update to a successful technology.”

Patel believes DOCSIS 3 and future versions of the cable broadband standard will allow operators to successfully compete, at least in download speeds, with virtually any provider.

“Cable companies can simply bond several channels together and accelerate download speeds,” Patel says.  “Upload speeds are proving to be a bigger issue, as most companies limit them to around 5Mbps.”

At least for now, customers in Webster are happy they are once again getting the service they paid to receive.  The upgrade solved the congestion issue for Time Warner, and the cable company plans to sell higher speed service to interested customers later this spring, earning new revenue to pay for the upgrades.

That’s a win-win everyone can appreciate — all done without an Internet Overcharging scheme.

H.129 will insure rural North Carolina's broadband will resemble the backwaters of the Great Dismal Swamp.

Despite promises to protect North Carolina’s existing community-owned broadband providers, Reps. Julia “My Word is My Bond” Howard and Marilyn “I Do What Time Warner Tells Me” Avila have reneged and intend to ram through their anti-community-broadband bulldozer bill.

Stop the Cap! learned this evening that Avila has no intention of meeting with North Carolina communities again, even as resolutions continue to pile up in Raleigh condemning their special interest legislation.

Asheville and Rockingham County have joined the city of Raleigh issuing resolutions opposing H129 and are openly wondering why state legislators are so contemptuously overruling the interests of North Carolina communities for the benefit of out-of-state corporations.

The answer, clearly, is money.

Rep. Howard apparently answers to the interests of companies like AT&T, which has donated more than $1,500 to her campaign, CenturyLink — $4,000, and Time Warner Cable, which so far has shorted her with just $750.  It evidently doesn’t take much to influence a legislator these days, and we anticipate her telecommunications contributions will spike in the near future for a job well done.  That enormous contribution from CenturyLink is telling, considering they are not the primary phone company in Howard’s district.

As a result of the sellout, H129 will likely move to the Finance Committee as early as next Thursday, effectively unchanged from its original.  The implications for the state are staggering, particularly if it drives existing community networks out of business.  That will take the state’s bond rating with it.

Howard accepted $4000 from CenturyLink.

The sad part of all this is that both representatives were elected to serve the interests of their districts, and instead they are paying more attention to the well being of big cable and phone companies who honestly don’t need their help to earn enormous profits in the state.

While unserved communities and those stuck with dismal, antiquated DSL service have their pleas for better broadband ignored, Avila and Howard are doing all they can to sabotage the networks that do provide 21st century broadband to their residents.

With this kind of hostility, don’t look for Google to bring Gigabit broadband to the Tar Heel State anytime soon.  With all of the impediments and roadblocks these two legislators have thrown up on behalf of their friends at the cable and phone company, can Google expect to be treated any better?  The search giant even signed a letter strongly opposing H129, to no avail.

It’s not too late for Rep. Howard to prove us wrong.  She can turn this around in a second by demanding real exemptions for existing municipal networks — and I mean real exemptions, not the fake passes contained in the so-called substitute amendment.  Better yet, she can distance herself altogether from this disaster.

North Carolina residents must get on the phone and call Finance Committee members and tell them this broadband train wreck needs to stop in their committee with a resounding NO vote.

Let them know H129 will not only deliver years of sub-standard broadband service in the state, it will also ruin two showcase fiber networks, harm the state’s bond rating, and make North Carolina an also-ran in broadband innovation.

At a time when the state needs to move towards digital economy jobs, thumbing your nose at the likes of Google, Alcatel-Lucent, and Intel is a giant mistake — adding insult to injury to the potential loss of community broadband networks the cable and phone companies will stop at nothing to eliminate.

Finance Committee Members

(click each name for contact information)

Jenkins

The Wall Street Journal attempted to attach its own conventional wisdom in an opinion piece about cloud-based streaming that suggests Canada “is just ahead of the U.S. in introducing usage-based pricing [and] has bloggers and politicians accusing Bell Canada of unconscionable ‘profiteering’ from usage caps. The company, they rage, is reaping huge fees for additional units of bandwidth that cost Bell Canada virtually nothing to provide.”

The author, Holman Jenkins, is a regular on the ultra-business friendly editorial page of the Journal, and has been raging against Net Neutrality and for higher Internet pricing for several years now.

Jenkins’ latest argument, just like his earlier ones on this subject, falls apart almost immediately:

This critique, which is common, could not more comprehensively miss the point. Another car on the roadway poses no additional cost on the road builder; it imposes a cost on other road users. Likewise, network operators don’t use overage penalties to collect their marginal costs but to shape user behavior so a shared resource won’t be overtaxed.

Jenkins needs to spend less time supporting his friends at companies like AT&T and Bell and more time exploring road construction costs.  If you are going to try and make an analogy about traffic, at least get your premise straight.

Before debunking his usage-based billing meme, let’s talk about road construction for a moment.  In fact, the kind of traffic volume on a roadway has everything to do with what kind of road is constructed.  In the appropriately named “Idiots’ Guide to Highway Maintenance,” C.J.Summers explores different types of road surfaces for different kinds of traffic.  Light duty roads in rural areas can get results with oil and stone.  Medium duty side streets and avenues are frequently paved with asphalt, and heavy duty interstates routinely use concrete.  Traffic studies are performed routinely to assist engineers in choosing the right material to get the job done.

Digital information doesn’t wear down cables or airwaves.  If broadband traffic occupies 5 or 95 percent of a digital pipeline, it makes no difference to the pipeline.  Jenkins is right when he says Internet Overcharging schemes are all about shaping user behavior, but for the wrong reasons.

Jenkins thinks Netflix and other high bandwidth applications face usage-based pricing to allow providers to keep their broadband pipes from getting overcongested:

Netflix is one of the companies most threatened by usage-based pricing, and it has quickly geared up a lobbying team in Washington. In a recent letter to shareholders, CEO Reed Hastings downplayed the challenge to Netflix’s video-streaming business. In the long run, he’s probably right—the market will settle on flat-rate pricing once the video-intensive user has become the average user.

In the meantime, however, Netflix shareholders had better look out.

In fact, providers are reaping the rewards of their popular broadband services, but almost uniformly are less interested in investing in them to match capacity.  It is as if the AT&Ts of this world assumed broadband users would consume    T H I S    M U C H   and that’s it — time to collect profits.  When upgrade investments don’t even keep up as a percentage of revenue earned over past years, the inevitable result will be a custom-made excuse to impose usage limits and consumption billing to manage the “data tsunami.”

Canadian providers did not slap usage caps on broadband users because Netflix arrived — they lowered them. Telling users they cannot consume the same amount of bandwidth they used a month earlier has nothing to do with managing traffic, it’s about protecting their video businesses by discouraging consumers from even contemplating using the competition.  Jenkins works for a company that understands that perfectly well.  News Corp., has a major interest in Hulu as well as satellite television services in Europe and Oceania.

The rest of Jenkins’ piece is as smug as it is wrong.  In attacking Net Neutrality supporters as “crazies” trying to defend their “hobby horse,” Jenkins claims public interest groups are pouting about usage-based billing, too:

All along, what the net neut crazies have lacked in intellectual consistency they’ve made up in fealty to the business interests of companies that fear their services would become unattractive if users had one eye on a bandwidth meter. That’s why opposition to “Internet censorship” morphed into opposition to anything that might price or allocate broadband capacity rationally. But such a stance is rapidly becoming untenable, whether the beneficiary is Google, with its advertising-based business model, or Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others who hope to capitalize on the entertainment-streaming opportunity.

All are betting heavily on the cloud. All need to start dealing realistically with the question of how the necessary bandwidth will be paid for.

Part of Jenkins’ theory calls back on his usual Google bashing — he perceives the company as a parasite stealing the resources bandwidth providers paid for, while forgetting the success of their businesses ultimately depends on content producers (who indeed pay billions for their own bandwidth) making the service interesting enough for consumers to buy.

But there is nothing rational about Jenkins’ support for Internet Overcharging.  North Americans already pay some of the highest prices in the world for the slowest service.  While providers attempt to lick the last drop of profits out of increasingly outdated networks (hello DSL!), their future strategy is less about expanding those networks and more about constraining the use of them.

Jenkins is ignorant of the fact several of Net Neutrality’s strongest proponents, Public Knowledge being a classic example, have not historically opposed usage-based pricing, much to my personal consternation.  As we’ve argued (and I submit proved), Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging go hand in hand for revenue hungry providers.  If they cannot discriminate, throttle, or block traffic they consider to be costly to their networks, they can simply cap demand on the customer side with usage limits or confiscatory pricing designed to discourage use.  That is precisely what Canadians are fighting against.

It’s all made possible by a broken free market.  Instead of hearty competition, most North Americans endure a duopoly — a phone company and a cable company.  Both, particularly in Canada, have vested interests in video entertainment, television and cable networks, and other entertainment properties.  As long as these interests exist, companies will always resist challenges to their core business models, such as cable TV cord cutting.  It’s as simple as that.

The “realistic” way bandwidth will be paid for escapes Jenkins because his quest for condescension takes precedence over actual facts.  Content producers already pay enormous sums to bandwidth providers like Akamai, Amazon, and other cloud-based distribution centers.  Consumers pay handsomely for their broadband connections, part of which covers the costs of delivering that content to their homes and businesses.  AT&T and other providers don’t deserve to get paid twice for the same content.  Indeed, they should be investing some of their enormous profits in building a new generation of fiber-based broadband pipelines to keep their customers happy.  Because no matter how much data you cram down a glass fiber, the ‘data friction’ will never cause those cables to go down in flames, unlike Jenkins’ lapsed-from-reality arguments.

Although more than 30 million Americans have experienced getting bill shocked with a cell phone bill loaded with overlimit fees and penalties, a wireless industry group says 19 out of 20 of these customers are economically better off getting those high bills, and any plan to notify customers in advance when their usage limits are reached would “harm innovation, limit consumer choice, and impair the potential for competitive differentiation.”

These incredible conclusions come in a filing from the Wireless Communications Association International, an industry group funded by AT&T, Sprint, Clearwire, and Time Warner Cable.

The WCAI just released a new white paper claiming Americans facing Internet Overcharging from usage-capped wireless data plans are actually saving money when carriers impose overlimit fees.  Their reasoning for this new math?  You might overpay for a usage plan that delivers a higher usage allowance than you need.

"And to think they actually believed us when we said Internet Overcharging saved people money!"

The wireless industry is heavily lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to stop the agency from imposing new rules to deal with the bill shock problem.  The FCC favors an advance warning system, which would force providers to notify customers by e-mail or text message when they near their usage allowance.  Letting customers know when they are about to pay enormous penalty usage rates before they are reflected on a future bill could save Americans millions annually.

The WCAI-funded study says consumers don’t need the agency’s help, going as far as to claim the majority of Americans are already well aware they are exceeding their plan limits, and are better off paying short-term penalties.

“The FCC is weighing new regulations that it says will eliminate so-called ‘bill shock,’ but this analysis makes plain that consumers don’t need regulators’ help,” WCAI President Fred Campbell said. “If you give them the right information, they know how to pick the best deal.”

But critics charge providers fighting this provision want to hide the most basic information of all — when consumers are on the verge of running up huge bills.

“The FCC’s effort on bill shock is long overdue in a wireless environment where today’s heavy user is tomorrow’s average user, and where the wireless Web is more and more important to commerce and to society,” Free Press Policy Counsel M. Chris Riley said. “It is vital that consumers are empowered with the information and the tools needed to make decisions about their own wireless usage so they can avoid outrageous charges.”

The WCAI white paper suggests that if providers are forced to issue advance warnings, companies may have to raise rates to compensate.  The paper’s author suggests consumers would find that worse than just paying the bills with overlimit fees:

The Nielsen Study indicates that many consumers incurring overages do so willfully and repeatedly. Their behavior suggests it is unlikely that usage notifications or usage controls would change their behavior because they are either indifferent to the overage charges or have determined that the occasional overage charge is more economical for them than choosing a more expensive plan. Notwithstanding that these overage-incurring consumers may not want or need additional notifications or controls, the adoption of the FCC‘s regulatory proposals would impose on all consumers the financial burden of ―protecting this one small group.

The WCAI dismisses the huge number of complaints that arrive at the FCC each year over this issue as simply “opinions” from consumers, not nearly as credible as their own analysis of actual customer bills.

The paper even argues with the definition of ” bill shock,” suggesting that the nearly 7 percent of wireless customers who blow past their voice allowances only face an average penalty of around $18.  That is “surprising or inconvenient; but it is unlikely to be shocking.”

Bill Shock

The WCAI study admits the dollar amounts for data-usage bill shock can be considerably higher, sometimes $100 or more.  The charges occur more frequently, too — impacting nearly 18 percent of customers.  But the group dismisses it as a rare occurrence anyway and that carriers will issue credits for astronomical surprise bills.  Besides, the paper concludes, when it was written most consumers were enrolled in increasingly-rare “unlimited use” plans.  Since the raw data was collected largely before AT&T abandoned its flat rate data pricing in 2010, statistics regarding bill shock for AT&T’s new limited use plans were not available.  The white paper inaccurately dismisses that major rate change, claiming it “had no impact on the data analyzed.”  That leaves readers believing the rate changes made no difference.

But the group’s logic completely derails when it concludes there are “consumer benefits to overages.”  Namely, providers “simplified” rate plans to reduce choice which was causing “customer confusion.”  The paper concludes “there is substantial evidence that consumers make deliberate choices to incur overages rather than upgrading to a more expensive monthly rate plan, and that they overwhelmingly benefit from such choices.”

The white paper ignores several important factors:

1. The diminishing number of unlimited access plans which give consumers a way to avoid overlimit fees, especially for data;
2. Carriers themselves arbitrarily set the arbitrary rules for the playing field – calling plan allowances, data allowances, limits, overlimit fees and penalties, and roaming rates;
3. The study ignores the record number of consumers complaining about surprising bills and the true economic impact providing simple text message or e-mailed notifications would have, and doesn’t give any reason why a consumer can’t simply shut off services once limits are reached, to prevent excess charges.

The white paper notes that 736,000 Americans annually are getting surprisingly high bills.  Assuming they are an average of $20 higher than anticipated, that represents nearly $15 million dollars in extra revenue for carriers — ample reason to hire dollar-a-holler groups to produce nonsensical reports that conclude a system to notify consumers they are about to be one of those 736,000 customers is actually bad for them and their wallets.

The FCC’s Consumer Task Force recommends these strategies to avoid bill shock:

•    Understand your calling pattern for making voice calls, and ask your carrier for a plan that would be best for your kind of use.
•    If you are an infrequent phone user, consider a pre-paid plan. Because you “pre-pay” for all your minutes, these plans make it impossible to go over your set limit.
•    Understand what your roaming charges are and where you will incur them.
•    Understand your options for data and text plans.
•    If you are going to use your mobile phone outside the U.S. for voice, email, and other services, make certain to find out beforehand what charges may apply. (Visit Wireless World Travel for more information about using a wireless phone in other countries.)
•    Ask how your carrier can help you avoid bill shock – with phone or text alerts, by letting you monitor your account online, or by giving you other information.
•    If you have tried to resolve a billing issue with your carrier and can not reach an acceptable resolution, complain to the FCC. You can call our Consumer Center, toll-free, at 1-888-CALL FCC (1-888-225-5322), or file a complaint here.

To learn more, read the FCC’s White Paper on Bill Shock.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FCC Bill Shock.flv[/flv]

The Federal Communications Commission discusses the problem of “bill shock.”  (1 minute)