Only in Texas.

Less than a day after the Texas Department of Agriculture unveiled its statewide broadband map, an opposition candidate running for the office of Agriculture Commissioner dismissed it as a re-election scheme that will never benefit rural Texas.

Hank Gilbert, the Democratic agriculture commissioner candidate, criticized the incumbent commissioner’s efforts as a cheap stunt that took four years to deliver and wasted taxpayer money.

“This is yet another stupid, sleazy, ‘look-at-me’ political trick designed to cover up the fact that he’s one of the best at wasting tax money in the history of the state,” Gilbert said. “That map will do nothing for people without broadband access.  I’m sure people on landline modems will be grateful to Todd—after the 45 minutes it takes them to actually view the map to determine, sure enough, that their area isn’t served by broadband,” Gilbert continued.

Gilbert is referring to a joint broadband mapping project by the Texas Department of Agriculture and telecom industry front group Connected Nation, which is stacked to the rafters with telecom industry executives with a vested interest in making sure those maps reflect the industry’s interests.

Current commissioner Todd Staples released the map with great fanfare, claiming 97 percent of Texas already had access to broadband service, with just three percent, representing 250,000 Texans without.  Those numbers were debatable, considering Connected Nation was involved.  In earlier mapping efforts, the group claimed ubiquitous broadband was already available over large sections of several communities, even though it turned out many of those homes could not qualify to receive the DSL service the group said was available.

Gilbert put a less fine point on it:

“Aside from the fact that he considers the federal stimulus dollars for broadband an excuse to gain further name recognition, what has Todd Staples really done to increase broadband connectivity in Texas,” Gilbert asked. He also questioned why TDA officials have said publicly, in the weeks prior to the map’s unveiling, that they didn’t know what areas of Texas were not served by broadband or high-speed internet access.

“It is a sad day when the agency and commissioner in charge of making sure rural areas get broadband don’t know which areas are underserved. It’s even more sad that the TDA had to depend on a public-private partnership with a non-profit agency to figure it out. I don’t think it will come as a surprise to anyone that telecom companies have far more granular information on existing service areas,” Gilbert said.

“Based on the information available on the website Staples is touting, anyone with a pulse, vocal chords, and the ability to dial the keys on a telephone could have collected this information from providers. I don’t see why it has taken Todd Staples nearly four years to do this,” Gilbert said.

Gilbert is apparently new to the broadband availability debate.  Telecom companies treat specifics about their broadband service areas and speeds as proprietary business information and will not disclose it to the government or any other third party, claiming it needs to protect the information for competitive reasons.  Earlier efforts to collect this information in other states met with stonewalling from providers.  Even the federal government has been unable to gather street-level statistics on broadband service from some providers.

But Gilbert has a point that a map project, especially with an industry front group in the mix, does not actually bring broadband to anyone.  Too often, such maps are used to block would-be competitors from getting federal broadband grant money, with nearby providers claiming the maps show the funding would help a community already served by broadband, even if it was not.  They also help paint a helpful picture for an industry seeking funding for middle-mile projects that divert broadband stimulus funding to help incumbent providers enhance their networks at the public expense.  In short, Texas cable and phone companies get to argue the stimulus program is a waste of money (unless they are recipients) because Texas doesn’t have a broadband problem.

Cue the Texas Cable Association:

“The map shows that less than 1 percent of all Texans cannot access some form of broadband, whether, wired, wireless or mobile. Yet – without this information – the federal government awarded more than $200 million in grants and loans to projects in Texas. Some of these projects propose to duplicate service in an area already served by multiple broadband providers.

“In addition, the federal government set a deadline for second-round funding applications that forced the Texas Department of Agriculture to again make recommendations without the benefit of the mapping data.

“As the federal government considers these new applications, the Texas Cable Association urges it to make its decisions based on the new Texas broadband availability map.

“Taxpayer dollars – in the form of government grants – should not be used to duplicate services or to provide free capital that allows grant winners to gain market advantage over private companies that have invested millions of dollars of their own money to make broadband available.”

The state cable lobby even has a 30 second ad running, thanks to the help of the mother-of-all-astroturf groups, Broadband for America — a front group for big cable and phone companies.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Texas Cable Association Broadband Ad.flv[/flv]

The Texas Cable Association has this not-too-subtle ad promoting private investment in broadband, suggesting Texas telecoms are helping, not hurting consumers and businesses.  (30 seconds)

The Staples campaign responded to Gilbert’s accusations Texas-style — by accusing their opponent of being a crook.

Staples’ campaign manager Cody McGregor said:

“Our opponent has a criminal conviction for theft, unpaid taxes, current tax liens, and allegedly accepted a bribe for $150,000. I hope all Texans will gain access to the Internet and have the ability to view www.guiltyguiltygilbert.com and get the facts about our opponent and his campaign’s trouble with telling the truth.”

Staples’ website is way over the top, accusing Gilbert of being a “villainous Obama Democrat” who is guilty of not wearing his seatbelt and being stupid.

Todd Staples owns stock in at least two telecom companies, AT&T and Fairpoint Communications, the latter of which is probably not helping his portfolio too much considering it declared bankruptcy.

Read Gilbert’s “fact sheet” on Todd Staples’ broadband mapping project below the jump.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Repeat Offender Hank Gilbert.flv[/flv]

And you thought your state’s campaign ads were too negative.  The Staples campaign goes back to the old west to drive home a message about their opponent.  (1 minute)

… Continue Reading

The key to turning America into a haven for Internet Overcharging schemes is Re-educating customers to accept that unlimited ‘isn’t fair,’ especially in wireless mobile broadband.

Mark Lowenstein, an industry analyst and commentator, has given his prescription to Internet providers just itching to slap usage limits and overlimit fees on consumers enjoying unlimited broadband service:  you have to Re-educate consumers to accept Internet Overcharging schemes as a “positive” rather than a “punitive” development.

Fierce Wireless, where Lowenstein’s ideas were published, left out the fact he was also a senior executive at Verizon Wireless.

Despite the billions in profits earned from today’s broadband marketplace, some in the industry want to banish “unlimited” from subscribers’ lexicons.  Sure it’s true that many companies’ investments in broadband expansion and upgrades have actually declined in the last few years, right along with the costs to provide the service.  But in a world where revenues in other parts of the business are drying up, someone has to make up the difference — you.

For AT&T, the decision was easy.  If you want the raging-popular iPhone, you’re going to need a two-year service contract and a data plan limited to 2 GB of usage per month.  Exceed that at your financial peril (or use a Wi-Fi hotspot and stay off our 3G network).  Don’t like it?  Too bad for you.  Where else will you find a subsidized iPhone?

Now that AT&T has thrown down the smartphone cap gauntlet, Lowenstein is ready to offer carriers advice on how to make their abusive pricing schemes go down better with consumers.  He wants everyone to take a crash course in computer science. Grandparents everywhere will come to understand the meaning of megabyte and get into the habit of contemplating how many of those will be eaten from usage allowances everytime they use their phones.

A key part of the transition to usage-based pricing is going to be educating users and the app development community about what a “megabyte” is, as well as developing more advanced tools and the right early warning systems to ensure wireless operators don’t end up testifying before Congress for Bill Shock, Part 2. U.S. consumers are accustomed to flat-rate pricing in all other aspects of their connected life: landline phone, wireless voice (increasingly), cable, broadband and so on.

Lowenstein considers AT&T Usage Estimator to be “nifty,” missing the irony of his own declaration that AT&T’s nasty cap means “moderate usage of anything multimedia gets you to 2 GB pretty fast.”  AT&T, he notes, also helpfully notifies customers they are about to bust through AT&T’s subjective definition of an appropriate usage allowance.

He concedes there are some “gray areas” — mere minutiae in AT&T’s greater scheme for fatter profits:

• New generation multitasking smartphones can run apps and other bandwidth-consuming features in the background, sometimes simultaneously, leading to exponential increases in data usage;
• The model of the “constant connection” means apps in the background exchanging data over the mobile network 24/7 could consume plenty of data, or perhaps not.  Few know for sure;
• Consumers are forced to pay for spam, advertising, unwanted file transfers and attachments, and other data not specifically requested;
• Family plan users now need to track something else on AT&T’s website — how much data their kids are using.  Remember the wars over cell phone voice calling plan overages and text messaging?  Wait.

In Lowenstein’s world-view, this all represents opportunity.

Among his suggestions:

1. Add special ratings to apps that are highly consumptive of content.
2. Provide notification before certain content downloads or heavy usage apps.
3. Provide a view into other family plan users.
4. Provide the option for sponsored content and value exchange.

That last one may prove to be the most controversial at all.  It assumes the Kindle model — where the content producer builds in the price of network consumption.  That would make AT&T’s day — forcing content producers to cough up money to deliver content over the same network AT&T already charges customers to access.  Who would turn down being paid twice for the same thing?  Lowenstein’s model allows for advertisers to defray part of the costs:

An advertiser or sponsor could pick up some of the network cost. Or the content publisher could bundle the price of data into the app. Users are comfortable with the “choice” model in the TV world: view it for free on broadcast or Hulu, with commercials; pay a monthly fee for the DVR service and skip the ads; or pay a premium to view that content on-demand, commercial-free.

That suggestion benefits AT&T enormously, but does nothing for content producers who can’t even sustain themselves with advertising.  Lowenstein suggests they should now seek out advertisers to remunerate AT&T?  The implications of wireless carriers deciding who gets the usage-cap-exempt content deal and who doesn’t opens a whole new Pandora’s Box.  It effectively allows a handful of companies to pick the winners and losers in the mobile broadband marketplace.  After all, if AT&T offered free videos on its own video portal but didn’t exempt other websites with the same video content, guess where users will choose to watch.

Lowenstein believes taking these kinds of steps will somehow insulate the wireless industry from charges it’s barely competitive, restricts too much, and charges even more.  Yet usage limits like AT&T’s, coming even as carriers enrich themselves with gotcha add-on plans and extra fees will speak far louder than AT&T providing customers a guide on how to be abused by the wireless carrier just a little less.

I also think how usage-based pricing is handled in wireless will be closely watched in the wired broadband world. Consumers have become accustomed to flat-rate pricing for unlimited data from their broadband provider. But with the exponential growth of video consumption, and the notion of more TV and movie programming being downloaded from or streamed via the Internet, usage-based pricing for certain types of content or highly consumptive customers might be coming to a broadband neighborhood near you.

The “unlimited” ride might be coming to an end, but there’s an opportunity to implement it in a positive, rather than a punitive, manner.

In spite of Lowenstein’s love of telecom industry talking points (hardly a surprise considering he works for that industry), his notions that consumers will accept increasing broadband bills even as the level of service provided is reduced makes him not only wrong, but hopelessly out of touch.

In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney convened the first meeting of the always-off-the-record National Energy Policy Development Group.  Secretly inviting executives of the nation’s largest oil companies and lobbyists for natural gas and mining, Cheney hoped to find “common ground” on energy issues that he could translate into legislation on Capitol Hill.  The final report kept the names of the self-interested corporate executives off the member roster, and predictably called for legislative actions that would directly benefit those in attendance.

In June 2010, a series of meetings with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s chief of staff and executives from AT&T, Verizon, Google and Skype got underway to find “common ground” on the issues of broadband regulation and Net Neutrality.  With irony, the same FCC that promised it would be “the most open and transparent ever” has barred the press and the public from participation.  No consumers were invited.  No minutes from the meetings will be disclosed.  In short, these are “closed-door” meetings.

Even more surprising, apparently the FCC forgot to invite Comcast, the cable conglomerate most directly responsible for the agency having its authority cut from beneath it in the first place.

When the Washington Post asked Eddie Lazarus, Genachowski’s chief of staff, what was on the agenda, only vague notions about “seizing the opportunity” to find common agreement on issues like Net Neutrality were disclosed.  Lazarus added the big four were also there to give input on Congress’ interest in revising the Communications Act.

That’s great news for thousands of Washington’s lobbyists who helped fashion the disastrous 1996 Communications Act that represented Christmas morning for corporate interests — more deregulation in the broadcast business which lead to massive consolidation, giveaways to the cable and telephone industry, and more handouts to wireless companies.

What was supposed to be a law to govern the public interest of the airwaves and telecommunications turned into a lobbyist feeding frenzy.  Consumers couldn’t afford the price of admission. Reopening the Communications Act means telecom companies from coast to coast can get busy working on their Christmas wish lists for the 500+ Secret Santas that live and work in the legislative branch of government these days, especially on the Republican side of the aisle.

Of course, the real outrage here is the FCC’s hope that the four companies can reach some agreement on contentious broadband issues and then the agency can do away with the entire matter of broadband regulatory reform.  Why fight the battle if you can compromise the issue away?  No matter what the four agree on, there are still many outstanding issues relating to consumer protection which cannot be negotiated by four corporate entities.

Those on both sides of the broadband regulatory issue are appalled at the secrecy.  Brett Glass, who opposes Net Neutrality and runs a WISP in Wyoming asked, “What happened to Chairman Genachowski’s promises of “the most open and transparent FCC ever?”

Indeed.

Lazarus tried his best to paper over the serious implications of holding secretive meetings in a blog post:

Senior Commission staff are making themselves available to meet with all interested parties on these issues. To the extent stakeholders discuss proposals with Commission staff regarding other approaches outside of the open proceedings at the Commission, the agency’s ex parte disclosure requirements are not applicable. But to promote transparency and keep the public informed, we will post notices of these meetings here at blog.broadband.gov. As always, our door is open to all ideas and all stakeholders.

In part, here was our response to Mr. Lazarus:

There is no transparency or openness in closed-door meetings that bar the public from participation. It’s just more of the same inside-the-beltway deal-making that will undercut consumers. Believe it or not, there is more at stake here than whatever issues Verizon, AT&T, Google, and eBay have to discuss.

And what if the four agreed on anything (improbable)? Does that mean the rest of us are expected to go along to get along?

The FCC’s door is -not- open to all ideas and stakeholders when the chairman’s chief of staff only invites four voices to his table.

There is nothing open and transparent about secret meetings peppered with excuses about why disclosure rules do not apply.

[Update 10:30am ET Wednesday — The DailyFinance quotes a government source: “We fu*ked up,” a government source familiar with the meetings told DailyFinance. “We deserve the bad press. It was a process foul at a minimum.”]

Time Warner Cable is back again with another offer to existing Frontier Communications customers trapped in multi-year service agreements.  If you dump your Frontier landline overboard for Time Warner Cable’s Digital Phone service, the cable company will send you a gift card worth $200 good towards defraying your early termination fee, if any.  If you don’t have such a fee, you pocket the $200.  A year ago on this date the company ran a similar promotion heavily promoted in local cable television ad spots.

Time Warner will provide free installation of the phone line including unlimited nationwide long distance for $24.95 a month for 12 months.  With the $200 gift card, that’s above and beyond their usual promotion.  The company is also extending a bundled discount if a customer also takes Road Runner broadband service with their “digital phone” service.

For Frontier customers looking for an early exit, this offers one opportunity.

Existing cable subscribers can take advantage of the offer.  There are terms and conditions to consider, starting with where the offer is available.  The following Time Warner Cable service areas qualify:

• TWC Western New York
• TWC Central New York
• TWC Albany, NY
• TWC New England
• TWC Dothan, AL
• TWC Enterprise, AL
• TWC Yuma, AZ
• TWC El Centro, CA
• TWC Gunnison, CO
• TWC Telluride, CO
• TWC Coeur d’Alene, ID
• TWC Moscow, ID
• TWC Madison, IN
• TWC Newburgh, IN
• TWC Terre Haute, IN
• TWC Ashland, KY
• TWC Owensboro, KY
• TWC Richmond, KY
• TWC Kansas City, MO
• TWC Lincoln, NE
• TWC Ironton, OH
• TWC Richlands, VA
• TWC Pullman, WA
• TWC Clarksburg, WV

Next, the offer is only good for residential customers switching from Frontier’s landline service.  Limit one gift card per customer.  Your final Frontier phone bill showing a disconnect request must be furnished to Time Warner Cable within 30 days to qualify.  Your name and address must match on both bills.  Offer is not available to customers with past due balances with Time Warner Cable, defined as any money owed in the past 30-60 days or customers who have been disconnected for non-payment in the twelve (12) month period preceding this offer.  Service must be ordered by Dec. 31, 2010, and installation must occur within thirty (30) days of order date.

If you’ve contemplated a change in providers but didn’t want to be subjected to a steep early cancellation fee, this isn’t a bad offer.  Although I don’t use Time Warner Cable Digital Phone myself, others in my family do and they are satisfied with the service, although there have been at least two serious outages so far this year that ran several hours.  Since most people also carry a cell phone, any cable outage or power interruption that also takes out your phone line isn’t as serious as it might have been in earlier years.

And, ahem, unlike Time Warner Cable’s attitude towards broadband, they really do provide unlimited calling with their “digital phone” service.

It’s not as if the Australian government didn’t warn private broadband providers, notably Telstra.  For the past several years, Australians have endured expensive, slow, heavily usage-limited broadband service that has put the country well behind many other Commonwealth nations.  Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy finally warned the nation’s largest telecommunications provider if it didn’t move forward on upgrades and improved service, the government would be forced to step in to protect the national interest.

Instead of improving service, Telstra spent years stonewalling the government and the Australian public, while banking high profits for broadband service.  That’s a familiar story for North Americans, stuck with companies like Bell, Rogers, AT&T, Comcast and Verizon — all of whom seek ultimate control over what kind of service you receive, what you pay for it, and what websites you can and, perhaps down the road, cannot visit without paying a surcharge.

Australia is closing the chapter on this story with a happier outcome for its 22 million citizens.  Perhaps the United States and Canada could learn a thing or two from the folks down under.

Bringing U.S. Oligopoly-Style Management to Australian Broadband: The Sol Trujillo Years — 2005 to 2009

Telstra, a former government monopoly comparable to the American Bell System, was privatized in the late 1990s.  Telstra looked to the United States for a chief executive that had experience navigating that transition.  They found Sol Trujillo working his way up the management ladder at AT&T, finally culminating in chairmanship of former Baby Bell Qwest Communications.  Would Trujillo like to take on the challenge of managing Australia’s largest phone company? Trujillo signed on with as Telstra’s CEO in 2005 promising to modernize the business and to bring American-style innovation to the South Pacific.

Instead, Trujillo established an American-style rapacious oligopoly.

[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Trujillo War on Unions.flv[/flv]

Channel Nine in Australia reported on Telstra’s sudden interest in union-busting after Sol Trujillo arrived in 2005.  (1 minute)

In his first year at the company, Trujillo started an all-out war to get rid of Telstra’s organized labor, slashing 10,000 jobs to “save the company money” all while boosting his own salary.  What started as $3 million in compensation in 2005 would rise to more than $11 million dollars just four years later, even as the value of Telstra declined by more than $25 billion on his watch.

Trujillo alienated his employees and officials in the Australian government.  Then-Prime Minister John Howard attacked Trujillo’s salary boost as abusive.

“I’m not complaining about the salary I get but I do think the average Australian, who gets paid a lot less than I do … regards that sort of salary as being absolutely unreasonable,” Mr Howard said on Southern Cross radio. “And it doesn’t help the capitalist system, which I believe in very passionately, that some people appear to abuse it.”

Trujillo’s salary was 38 times greater than the highest official in Australia’s government.

The average Australian retiree gets by on $219AUS a week.

Trujillo had to make due with more than $211,000 a week.

[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Telstra Salary Hike.flv[/flv]

Channel Nine ran this report on the controversy over Sol Trujillo’s compensation package.  That old meme about having to pay high salaries to attract quality talent would have been more convincing had Trujillo’s policies not caused a $25 billion reduction in Telstra’s value.   (2 minutes)

Customers weren’t exactly endeared to spending more of their money on Telstra products and services.  Telstra had already embarked on cost controls for network upgrades, leveraged its monopoly power in many parts of the country with high rates for usage-restricted service, and bungled a critical application to participate in Australia’s National Broadband Network.

Australia’s National Broadband Plan, a roadmap for broadband improvements, set pre-conditions to involve small and medium-sized businesses in network construction.  Trujillo balked, demanding that Telstra — and only Telstra — should have the right to determine what kind of network should be built in the country.  More importantly, unless they exclusively ran it, the company would do everything in its power to block or destroy it.

The Sydney Morning Herald business reporter Ian Verrender was stunned:

Telstra has employed a three-step strategy to muscle out any competition.

It can be neatly condensed into three words: Bluster, Belligerence and Obfuscation.  We [just] saw it again in spades.

Telstra has been excluded from one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects announced by a Federal Government in decades: the construction of a national broadband network.

Could it really be that Telstra’s board and management were so incompetent that they could not get past stage one in a tender process of this magnitude?

After all, there were only four main criteria that had to be met. The first was the proposal had to be lodged in English. The second and third had equally low hurdles. Metric measurements – not the old inches, feet and miles – were required and the bid had to be signed. Nothing too difficult there.

But the fourth criterion appeared to stump Telstra. It didn’t include any plan for the inclusion of small business. And so the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, was obliged to exclude Telstra, an announcement that shook 12 per cent from the value of the country’s biggest telecommunications company.

This was no accident on Telstra’s part. It knew it was lodging a non-conforming proposal. Why, you ask?

The answer is simple. Telstra does not want a national broadband network, particularly one that involves anyone else. That includes taxpayers.

And if one has to be built, Telstra will do everything in its power to delay or kill the process. Yesterday marked stage one in a protracted war, ultimately designed to defeat one of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s key election promises.

Trujillo claimed yesterday that Telstra had been unfairly excluded from the process on a technicality. That’s just rubbish.

In recent months, the company, its chairman, Don McGauchie, and Trujillo repeatedly threatened to walk away from the tender process, and lodged the proposal only a few hours before the deadline.

Trujillo’s rhetoric yesterday was laced with the usual mixture of bravado and threats. He compared Australia to North Korea or Cuba. He declared only Telstra was capable of building the type of network required by the Government.

But two lines stand out. First this: “Customers make the choice of who they do business with; regulators and governments and others do not.” And then: “We reserve our rights regarding future action.”

The message is clear. Telstra will launch legal action at every opportunity – and even when there aren’t opportunities.

That time-honored American practice of simply suing your way through any legislative or regulatory roadblocks threatened to come to Australia.

The exclusion of Telstra from such a revolutionary broadband project didn’t sit well with the board or shareholders, and directly led to Trujillo’s ouster in 2009.  By then, he had alienated customers, the government, and just about everyone else.  Perhaps the government would allow a second look at a Telstra broadband application if it was submitted by someone other than Sol Trujillo?  It couldn’t hurt to find out.

[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Telstra Trujillo Quits 2-26-09.flv[/flv]

Channel Nine covers the ousting of Sol Trujillo, wondering what sort of golden parachute he’d receive on the way out the door.  (3 minutes)

Just weeks after leaving, Trujillo decided to settle scores with Australia, telling reporters that he thought the country was backwards and racist.

[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Trujillo Calls Australia Racist 3-09.flv[/flv]

Payback time.  Trujillo threw a hissyfit in a BBC interview calling Australia’s lack of laissez-faire regulatory policies backwards, and treatment towards him racist.  (Channel Nine – 1 minute)

The Post-Trujillo Era: More Arrogance and Ruthlessness, But a Communications Minister Outmaneuvers the Telecom Giant — 2009 to Present Day

Telstra spent the summer of 2009 attempting to heal the Trujillo-caused wounds with conciliatory statements in the Australian media.  Telstra’s new chief executive, David Thodey, admitted the company’s customer service record needed improvement.  He distanced himself from some of the more caustic comments from the former CEO, and claimed the company was on-track to be a major participant in improving Australia’s broadband experience.

But as the months progressed, Australia’s Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy ultimately concluded he was getting the lip service treatment that Telstra had delivered Australians for years.  Conroy, already suspicious of the company’s control-minded tendencies, quietly began bending the ear of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.  Conroy had watched Telstra’s steadfast refusal to work constructively towards a National Broadband Network (NBN).  By last summer, the company was making proposals for underwhelming broadband expansion.  Fiber optic broadband was unnecessary and expensive, they said.  Besides, the service Telstra was providing was already good enough.

Australians didn’t agree.  Part of the platform that brought the Rudd government to power was the promise of better broadband service in Australia.  Waiting for Telstra to provide it was a futile exercise.

Conroy told Rudd the government should not be setting its broadband policy agenda based on what worked most conveniently for private providers.  If they won’t move, then let’s get them out of the way, Conroy suggested.  Rudd, working for the interests of the Australian people — not just a handful of telecom companies seeking riches with substandard service at monopoly prices, agreed.

After reviewing the proposals submitted to design and construct 21st century broadband service for Australia, Rudd dismissed them all, calling them inadequate.  The government, he announced, would go it alone and build the network itself — delivering a fiber to the home network for 90 percent of Australians on an open network available to any provider that wanted to rent access at wholesale rates.

More importantly, Conroy was not going to allow Telstra to continually block progress on the NBN.  Conroy was not some supine minister willing to compromise away the goal of super-fast affordable broadband.  His critics called him Machiavellian, slashing and burning anything that stood in his way.  But Conroy was steadfast — corporations would never be allowed to dictate broadband terms to the government.  He warned Telstra to cooperate or face the consequences.

Telstra continued to stall and stonewall, and last September, the Rudd government delivered what it promised — a forced break-up of Telstra.  The company was given a choice — either sell back its copper wire landline network to the government or divest itself of satellite TV service Foxtel and lose access to any additional wireless mobile frequencies for Telstra’s cellular service.

The equivalent in the United States would be to declare fiber to the home to be in the national interest, and if AT&T and Verizon didn’t deliver it to nearly every home in their service areas, the government would move in and do it themselves, taking back ownership of the AT&T and Verizon’s infrastructure along the way.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Network 10 Aus Telstra Break-Up 9-15-09.flv[/flv]

Network Ten covered the announced break up of Telstra by the federal government.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Network Telstra Breakup 9-15-09.flv[/flv]

Channel Nine ran several reports on the announced breakup of Telstra, including an interview with the opposition.  (6 minutes)

Australia Declares Broadband a Utility Service that Private Providers Cannot Control

Monday marked a day in history for Telstra, agreeing to sell back its copper wire landline business (for which it will receive $11 billion in compensation).  In return, Telstra is assured wholesale access to the new fiber broadband network, and can market products and services on it.  It cannot, however, serve as a gatekeeper to keep competitors out nor maintain virtual monopoly service, especially for less suburban and rural customers.

Some telecom analysts believe the deal is actually good news for Telstra, if they’d see beyond their control tendencies.  After all, they say, Telstra gets to rid itself of a legacy copper-wire landline network that is expensive to maintain and serves a dwindling number of consumers, many who have switched to wireless.  They also get to develop and market new high bandwidth applications on a network they are no longer responsible for financing.

It’s a win for the government as well who gets a single, national fiber network built in the public interest, which makes it far easier to recoup the billions in costs to build it.  They’ll even likely make a profit suitable to defray the costs of subsidizing wireless broadband service for Australia’s rural residents, to be served with at least 12Mbps connections.  No cost-recovery fees on customer bills, no usage limitations that restrict innovation, and broadband that serves everyone, not just a handful of corporations that seek to monetize every aspect of it.

Conroy wouldn’t think much of America’s National Broadband Plan, which relies near-exclusively on private providers voluntarily doing the right thing. Conroy stopped putting blind faith in Australia’s large telecommunications companies.  The Obama Administration hasn’t.

We’ve seen millions spent lobbying to permit a handful of providers to control broadband service on their terms.  Few will provide fiber to the home service and many are content leaving rural Americans with dial-up service.  With dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes to manipulate usage to maximize profits even higher, things could get much worse.  What’s right for AT&T isn’t right for us.

For Australia, who has lived under such monopolistic broadband regimes for over a decade, a National Broadband Network without arbitrary usage limits and available to all — rural and urban — is the promised land.  It will leapfrog Australia well ahead of the United States and Canada, with far faster speeds and better prices, all because a government stood up to a corporate provider that preferred to overpay its executives instead of getting the job done right.

Australia had a reality check — broadband is a utility service necessary for every citizen who wants it.  Just as electrification and universal phone service became ubiquitous in the last century, broadband will also join those services in the years ahead as commonplace in nearly every home.

If only the strength and conviction that is fueling Australia’s broadband future could also be found in the United States, where too often what is urgently needed today gets frittered away into “maybe we can have it someday” compromises with big telecom and their lobbyists.  That isn’t good enough.

ABC National Radio interviewed telecom analysts about the implications of today’s deal with Telstra to retire Australia’s copper wire phone network (June 21, 2010) (4 minutes, 17 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>