Back in May of 2009, I started a series called Follow the Money to illustrate the large amounts of money the telecommunications companies spend on legislators to push their agendas for them.  You can always tell how most legislators will vote if you simply follow the money.

Through the wonders of public records searches at the North Carolina State Board of Elections, I am able to see the PAC contributions that legislators have received.  I can also cross reference this information with the dates the legislators are in session and the Secretary of State’s online lobbyist database.  In North Carolina you can take PAC money from a PAC who has a registered lobbyist so long as the General Assembly is not in session. If you take the contribution while in session, the state’s General Statute says it must be forfeited to the state’s General Forfeiture fund.

In this Moratorium Watch 2010 edition I want to focus on two North Carolina legislators leading the charge to ban or restrict municipal broadband projects — Sen. Daniel Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) and Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston).

Clodfelter is the co-chair of the Revenue Laws Study Committee.  In just 24 months, he took in a total of $16,000 in PAC contributions from big telecom companies and their friends:

• $1500 from North Carolina Cable PAC
• $1000 from Sprint/Nextel
• $1500 from Embarq
• $500 from the NC Association of Broadcasters
• $5500 from Time Warner Cable
• $5000 from AT&T
• $1000 from North Carolina Broadcast PAC

Senator “Obsolete Fiber” Hoyle dwarfed Clodfelter over the past 24 months:

• $3500 from Sprint/Nextel
• $4500 from Embarq
• $8250 from Time Warner Cable
• $4000 from AT&T
• $2000 from Electricities (Drew Saunders is a lobbyist with Electricities and was a primary sponsor on the Level Playing Field bill for big telco a few years back)
• $1500 from North Carolina Broadcast PAC
• $1500 from North Carolina Cable PAC

That’s $25,250 for Hoyle from companies with an active interest in the telecommunications debate in this state.

When you consider more than $40,000 was spent to boost the campaign coffers of just two state legislators, it’s not hard to see big money is involved statewide.  It doesn’t even have to arrive in the form of a PAC contribution.  Clodfelter just had a $29 million Time Warner Cable headquarters building placed in Mecklenburg County.  Hoyle helped procure the Apple Data Center, located 22.5 miles north of his district in Maiden, NC.

When cross-referencing Hoyle’s PAC contributions with the state lobbyist database, I found several possible conflicts that warrant investigation, and I will bring my concerns to the North Carolina State Board of Elections.  If my complaint is upheld, perhaps Hoyle’s concerns about the need for additional state revenue could be eased knowing some potentially improper contributions made to his campaign were turned over to the General Forfeiture fund.  Hoyle has already announced he is not running for re-election so he doesn’t need the money anyway.

Once you count that money, it’s easy to discover why some of our state legislators are actively working against our own best interests here in North Carolina.  The corporate campaign contribution, which can be likened to legalized bribery, makes it difficult to convince legislators to always vote with their constituents’ best interests at heart.  Whenever legislators are willing to cash corporate contributions and vote against consumer interests, we’ll be here to call them on it.  Until this country gets corporate money out of government, it’s all we’ve got.

Stop the Cap! readers Terry and Scott write to let us know it was an Astroturf weekend in the pages of the New York Times‘ ‘Letters to the Editor’ section as two traditional allies in big telecom’s fight against Net Neutrality and broadband regulation blasted the newspaper’s recent pro-FCC regulatory authority editorial.

Mike Wendy, vice president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a disingenuously-named telephone and cable-backed front group, was first up, proclaiming the bipartisanship of the glorious Telecommunications Act of 1996 which made unregulated broadband’s growth possible:

Over the last five years alone, American companies — incentivized by the absence of Internet regulation — have invested more than half a trillion dollars to build broadband infrastructure. Consequently, this has exploded broadband choice and access, boosting jobs, productivity and commerce, as well as other important societal-civic benefits, for more than 90 percent of America. This growth will continue, fostered by vibrant competition among cable, wireless, wire line and other evolving means.

It is understandable that you ignore the second fact: it reveals an inconvenient truth. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which put Internet services outside of 75-year-old telephone regulations, was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Democratic president, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner. The Bush-era regulatory changes, which ensure that Internet services get treated in accord with the law, only followed through on the pro-deregulatory, pro-marketplace intent of the law.

Speaking of inconvenient truths, it took the newspaper’s editors to fully disclose that “the writer is vice president of […] a think tank that takes support from the information technology, telecom, wireless, media, cable and content industries.”  Kudos to the Times for disclosing that — too often such hackery goes unchallenged, without informing readers who is paying for it.

In the case of P&F, it’s all our favorites:

• AT&T
• Comcast Corporation
• Cox Enterprises
• National Cable & Telecommunications Association
• Time Warner Cable
• T-Mobile
• USTelecom – The Broadband Association
• Verizon Communications

Of course, those big dollar amounts representing industry investments ignores the even bigger profits reaped from those investments, particularly in barely-competitive broadband.  Nobody in the broadband industry is lining up for a bailout, that’s for certain.

As to the group’s assertion that bipartisan bliss made telecom deregulation all worthwhile, the only thing they managed to prove is that both political parties are ready and willing to be suckered into believing the broken promises of lower pricing and better service for their constituents (helped along with a generous campaign contribution to ease any disappointment later on.)

President Clinton, who signed the Act, considers it one of his mistakes after he saw the results.

Next up is a letter from Brent A. Wilkes, Executive Director, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).  He doesn’t like Net Neutrality either, and regurgitates familiar industry talking points our readers can recite in their sleep:

We’ve seen more than $200 billion invested in broadband networks — more private investment than anywhere in the world — and the Internet in the United States has been an unquestioned success.

Second, network neutrality regulations are largely a solution in search of a problem. The F.C.C. adopted “Open Internet” principles in 2005. Since then, there have been only a few alleged breaches that were quickly resolved under this framework.

On the other hand, net neutrality regulations could shield the companies that make billions in profits from the Internet — search engines and other providers — from contributing toward the $350 billion in investment broadband upgrades needed to handle bandwidth demands, which double every two years. That would shift these bandwidth costs exclusively — 100 percent — onto consumers and could thereby deter broadband adoption in Latino and other communities.

Net neutrality could also bar broadband providers from managing, in a nondiscriminatory manner, the few bandwidth-hogging applications and services that can consume nearly all of a neighborhood’s bandwidth. If and when critics identify a real problem, Congress should quickly grant the F.C.C. the express authority to fix it.

Now why would a Latino interest group be so ready and willing to carry the industry’s water in the pages of the New York Times?  Whenever AT&T and Verizon have a public policy concern, LULAC is sure to follow.  For years, this group has been a part of more than a few industry-backed astroturf campaigns designed to trick consumers into buying their corporate agenda.  For disadvantaged Latino communities already hard hit with an ever-expanding price tag for telecommunications services, it’s shameful to see a group openly advocating an agenda that extracts more money from consumers’ wallets.

LULAC was there as a card-carrying member of both TV4Us and Consumers for Cable Choice, front groups promising consumers in states served by AT&T that statewide video franchises would lower their cable bills.  LULAC was front and center in the cheerleading section.  Only Latino Wisconsins, along with everyone else, got rate increases instead.  Thanks, LULAC!

Telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick tears the lid off:

This “deception … is about playing on America’s caring about the public interest and about minorities getting a fair shake,” Kushnick says . Worse, “these organizations have very deep-pocketed funders with lobbying groups, PR firms and others to get them the loudest ‘volume’ in the media or access to regulators and legislators. They often overwhelm the message of independent consumer groups.”

LULAC was there in states like New Jersey when Verizon was looking for its own statewide franchises.  To not offer them, LULAC suggested, would harm Latino communities across the region.  Actually, for many of them, the fact their cable and phone bills continue to march relentlessly higher actually hurts more.

The group is an equal opportunity sellout.  During discussions about XM Radio and Sirius merging, LULAC was ready with a letter of support for the merger.  Because when you think about pressing concerns for today’s Latino community, dwelling on the merger of two satellite radio services is a real front burner issue.

When Verizon wanted to acquire Alltel, guess what group was there to cheer the deal on:

LULAC supports this merger because the networks of the two companies are largely complementary. That means that when the merger is complete, even more consumers will enjoy the innovations Verizon Wireless plans to bring to market in years to come.

It’s getting hard to find a cause célèbre for AT&T or Verizon where LULAC doesn’t have their back.

But why?

Money, of course.

AT&T and Verizon have both donated millions of dollars over the years to LULAC.  General Motors, which had a direct interest in the outcome of the XM/Sirius merger is a donor as well.

Don’t fall for hackery.  Net Neutrality protects consumer interests and guarantees online freedom, something especially important as the forthcoming immigration reform debate begins anew.  That’s an issue Latinos are concerned with.  Too bad those issues don’t generate multi-million dollar contributions, which might get groups like LULAC to stop advocating against the interests of their own members.

Back in 2006, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens emphatically declared that the Internet was not a truck, but rather a series of tubes.  That’s why Net Neutrality was such a bad idea, get it?

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Senator Ted Stevens on Net Neutrality.mp4[/flv]

Senator Ted Stevens Infamous “Series of Tubes” Speech from 2006.  (11 minutes)

Fundamentally misunderstanding technology and the Internet is not exclusively the domain of an ex-senator from the State of Palin, however.

North Carolina State Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston County) managed to illustrate he didn’t know what he was talking about either.

Hoyle’s pretzel-like logic, in opposing municipal fiber broadband projects in the state, is that fiber optics could be obsolete within five years, so we shouldn’t even bother with them:

“You know the technology’s changing daily. Five years, ten years from now … wireless could replace most of fiber optics of coaxial cable or, or copper even. Might become not totally obsolete, but their ability to, uh, you know, to fund the debt service from the hard assets they had to put into the ground.”

If one extends that reasoning to his good friends in the cable and telephone industry — if fiber is potentially obsolete in five years, what about the phone company’s copper wires and the cable company’s coax?  Copper wiring was used for telegraphy starting in the 1830s and is still the backbone of today’s telephone networks.  Coaxial cable was invented in 1880 and still runs into virtually every cable subscriber’s home.  The first commercial application for a fiber optic communications system came in 1977.  In fact, most experts believe fiber optics will be the platform for America’s telecommunications network for at least the next quarter century.  The cable industry promotes its own use of fiber, and forward thinking phone companies like Verizon are relying on fiber to the home networks to stay relevant for the future.

Fiber optic has all of the advantages:

• SPEED: Fiber optic networks operate at high speeds – up into the gigabits and still rising
• BANDWIDTH: large carrying capacity, and growing larger as advances continue
• DISTANCE: Signals can be transmitted further without needing to be “refreshed” or strengthened.
• RESISTANCE: Greater resistance to electromagnetic noise such as radios, motors or other nearby cables.
• MAINTENANCE: Fiber optic cables costs much less to maintain, and upgrades can occur without disturbing existing cable — just switch the laser technology used.

The costs to construct fiber networks, which used to be in the thousands of dollars per household, is now well under $1,000 for companies like Verizon.  Keeping happy customers and having the ability to market phone, broadband, and television services across an all-fiber network open new revenue streams which help defray initial expenses.  Fiber is an investment in the future.

Why isn’t wireless going to make fiber networks obsolete?

Allocating sufficient spectrum to support today’s high bandwidth applications is a practical impossibility, especially considering the politics and in-fighting from current spectrum holders to keep their allocations.  Spectrum is a limited resource, which guarantees limited competition, limited bandwidth, and higher prices.  While wireless applications will continue to be an important part of our communications future, it is unlikely they’ll be the favored method to support high bandwidth content in the near term.  Considering the implications of all of the new cell sites required to provide blanket coverage, it may never survive the inevitable howls of protest from neighborhoods who have to live with the eyesores.

Senator Hoyle opened his mouth and stupid fell out.  He’s not just wrong — his comments also carry implications for his constituents.

The City of Gastonia, along with Gaston County jointly filed an application alongside 35 others here in North Carolina seeking to get Google’s 1 Gigabit Fiber Optic to the Home Network.

How do city officials feel about their representative in the state legislature actively trashing fiber networks?  I will have that answer for you soon.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/fiber_obsolete_DS_You_Tube_HQ.mp4[/flv]

Senator David Hoyle (foreground, with back to camera) tells meeting fiber could be obsolete within five years.  (25 seconds)

Today’s merger between CenturyTel (soon to be CenturyLink) and Qwest will combine 10 million Qwest customers and 7 million from CenturyTel into a single company serving 37 states in every region of the country except the northeast and much of California and Nevada.  CenturyLink gains access to Qwest’s highly valued portfolio of services sold to business customers and Qwest gets a partner that can help manage its $11.8 billion debt and help grow the last remaining Baby Bell, formerly known as US West, into a national player capable of withstanding ongoing erosion of landline service.

The deal will impact consumers and businesses, and will challenge regulatory authorities to consider the implications of ongoing consolidation in the traditional telephone service marketplace.  It brings implications for broadband service strategies for both companies, which we’ll explore in greater detail.

Breaking Up Was Too Hard to Do, So Let’s Put It Back Together

Ultimately, the genesis of this, and most of the other big telecom deals that we’ve witnessed over the past few years comes from the 1996 Communications Act, which deregulated large parts of the telecommunications industry and triggered a massive wave of consolidation that is still ongoing.  That legislation was the antithesis of the 1984 court ruling which ultimately led to the breakup of AT&T and the Bell System monopoly in 1984.  When President Clinton signed the 1996 bill into law, it allowed much of the Bell System to eventually recombine into two major entities:

• AT&T ultimately pieced itself back together with the acquisitions of:

BellSouth — serving the southeastern United States

Ameritech — serving the upper Midwest

SBC/Southwestern Bell — serving Texas and several southern prairie states

Pacific Telesis — serving California and Nevada

• Verizon became a regional powerhouse by combining:

NYNEX — serving New England and New York

Bell Atlantic — serving mid-Atlantic states

The remaining orphaned Baby Bell was US West, which comprised Mountain Bell serving the Rocky Mountain states, Northwestern Bell which covered the Dakotas, Minnesota, the prairie states not covered by SBC, and Pacific Northwest Bell which managed service for Oregon, Washington, and northern Idaho.  US West was subjected to a hostile takeover in 2000 by an upstart telecommunications company that was laying fiber optic cable in the late 1990s alongside the railways its owner, Philip Anschutz, also happened to own.  Qwest assumed control of US West that summer and rechristened it with its own name.  Owned by a Bell outsider, Qwest has always been the company that didn’t quite fit with the rest.

The company gained respect for its enormous fiber backbone that weaves across many American cities, including several in the northeast.  It is best known for its services to business customers.  On the residential side, the story is less impressive.  The company’s customer service record is spotty and the company has accumulated an enormous amount of legacy debt left over from earlier acquisitions.  Despite the company’s repeated efforts to find a partner, it took until today for it to finally find one.  There are several reasons for this:

1. Qwest’s service area is notoriously rural and expensive to serve.  Outside of its corporate headquarters in Denver, the majority of its service area is either mountainous or rural.  Even today, Qwest serves only 10 million residential customers, almost matched by CenturyTel’s own seven million largely rural customers scattered across the country.
2. Qwest’s history has been littered with financial scandals, starting with a series of deals with disgraced Enron from 1999-2001.  That was followed with charges of fraud and insider trading in 2005.
3. Qwest does not own its own wireless division and its previous efforts to deliver television service to customers were largely unsuccessful.  That made Qwest’s ability to withstand erosion in its core business – landline phone service, more difficult.
4. Qwest’s debt is downright frightening for would-be suitors.

Why Does CenturyTel Want to Buy Qwest?

CenturyTel claims such a transaction allows a combined company to become a larger player on the national scene.  By combining Qwest’s good reputation in the business telecommunications sector with combined efforts to deliver broadband products including high speed Internet, the company thinks the combination can’t be beat.  CenturyTel envisions packages of video entertainment, data hosting and managed services, as well as fiber to cell tower connectivity and other high bandwidth services to deliver replacement revenue lost from disconnected landlines.  It also believes it can realize cost savings from the merger and keep the company relevant on a stage dominated by Verizon, AT&T, and a few large cable companies.

But there are other reasons.  For the three super-sized independent phone companies that Americans are growing increasingly familiar with — Frontier Communications, Windstream Communications, and CenturyTel, their business models depend on their ability to constantly engage in deal-making and acquisitions.  All three companies have built their businesses on investors who see their stocks as “investment grade” financial instruments that dependably return a dividend back to shareholders.  As we’ve seen in countless quarterly financial results conference calls, all three companies are preoccupied answering questions from Wall Street about the all-important dividend.  TV personalities like Jim Cramer has specifically recommended these telecom stocks based, in part, on their dividend payout.  If that dividend dramatically shrunk or stopped, the share price for all three stocks would likely plummet.

One of the side effects of companies dependent on dividend payouts is their constant need to be on the lookout for additional merger and acquisition opportunities.  Here’s how it works.  Let’s say CenturyTel’s debt load and reduced revenue, caused by customer defections to cell phones or cable phone service, delivered a bad fiscal quarter for the company.  Cash flow was down, and company officials simply couldn’t keep the dividend payout at the same level as the previous quarter.  Since many people hold CenturyTel stock specifically because of the dividend, a downward turn in that payout could cause some to sell their shares, driving the stock price downwards.

One way around this is to seek out a new merger or acquisition target.  By bringing two companies together, preferably one with a healthy cash flow, suddenly the big picture changes.  Your balance sheet now reflects the combined revenue from both companies, which incidentally makes the percentage of debt versus revenue look a lot healthier.  Cash flow immediately improves, especially if you can slash redundant costs.  Come next quarter, that dividend payout is right back up in healthy territory.

Sometimes companies become so preoccupied with their dividend and corresponding stock price, it can lead them to pay out more in dividends than a company earns in revenue.  While that’s great for investors, it is unsustainable in the long run.

Many critics of telecommunications companies employing this strategy claim it’s evidence that a company is biding time and unwilling to invest in innovation for the future.  Some also believe dividend payouts shortchange customers because they can eventually bleed a company’s ability to invest in service improvements, research and development, and capital investments to maintain their network and expand service.

As consolidation continues, the number of new buyout opportunities begins to shrink, and one shudders to think what happens when there is no one else to buy.  How long is this business model sustainable?

Both CenturyTel and Qwest also recognize the impact of ongoing disconnections from landline service, now averaging 10 percent of their customers a year.  Those departing customers are now relying on their cell phones or alternative calling services like cable company “digital phone” service or broadband-based calling from companies like Vonage or Skype.

The one service they hope can stem customer defections is broadband.  Unfortunately, telephone companies are increasingly losing ground against their cable modem competitors, who have an easier time increasing broadband speeds for customers now seeking online video and other high bandwidth applications.

Of course, one of the benefits of being a “rural phone company” is the fact cable competition is often unlikely.  In fact, some of the lowest erosion rates for landline service are in rural communities where the telephone company is the only game in town.  There is plenty of money still to be made offering high priced slow speed DSL service in communities with no cable competitor and spotty wireless broadband that is often slower and usage-limited.

All three of these big independent players are well aware of this, and maintaining a strong position in relatively slow speed DSL service also protects another revenue stream — Universal Service Fund revenue given to rural providers to equalize telephone rates.  CenturyTel recognizes the increasing likelihood much of that money will be diverted to stimulating broadband expansion, something the phone company is more than willing to do if it means preserving their subsidies.

The new combined Qwest-CenturyTel company hopes the merger can help both survive obsolescence.

For Qwest, a debt reduction may make it possible to spend more to deliver fiber-to-the-curb service, similar to AT&T U-verse.  That could increase broadband speeds and prompt them to reconsider their earlier decision to abandon IPTV in the western half of the country.

CenturyTel can continue to offer traditional DSL service with a more incremental upgrade approach in its more rural service areas, but tap into Qwest’s fiber network to reduce backhaul expenses and potentially pick up new business customers by offering Qwest-branded business services.  Company officials strongly hinted that, at least for now, CenturyTel’s existing customers will continue to find the video portion of their “triple play” package delivered by DirecTV satellite service, so no IPTV for them.

What Does This Mean for Employees of Both Companies?

Mergers like this always generate great excitement over “cost savings” made possible by the merger.  Much of these savings typically come from employee expenses.  When you hear “cost savings,” think layoffs and pay cuts for all but top management.  Based on past precedent, Qwest employees can anticipate some serious job losses if this transaction closes, especially in the business office.  The combined company will be henceforth known as CenturyLink, with headquarters remaining in Monroe, Louisiana.  That is potentially bad news for Qwest’s employees in Denver.

The transaction is expected to generate annual operating cost savings (which CenturyTel calls “synergies”) of approximately $575 million, which are expected to be fully realized three to five years following closing.  The transaction also is expected to generate annual capital expenditure “synergies” of approximately $50 million within the first two years after close.  That means spending less on infrastructure improvements.

Billing and customer service are traditionally handled by CenturyTel when a company joins the CenturyTel family.  North Carolina customers can attest to that as EMBARQ, an earlier CenturyTel target, finally moves to CenturyTel’s billing system in the coming weeks.

For the sake of pushing the merger through state regulatory agencies, cutbacks in unionized technicians who handle service installations, repairs, and maintain the lines are not expected.  The Communications Workers of America issued a statement today that mildly acknowledged the merger announcement, saying the union “looked forward to serious negotiations with both companies” regarding employment security and assurances of aggressive high speed broadband rollout throughout both companies’ territories.

What Does This Mean for Qwest and CenturyTel Customers?

In the short term, nothing.  This merger will take at least a year to complete, assuming regulatory approval in every state where a review is required by state officials.  In 2011, should the merger be approved, Qwest customers can anticipate transition headaches as the Denver-based company winds down operations in favor of CenturyTel.  Billing and customer service will both be impacted.  Long term plans for major projects are likely to be stalled until the merger settles into place.  CenturyTel business customers will eventually see Qwest’s strong business products line become available in many CenturyTel service areas.  Eventually, some larger CenturyTel-served cities may find Qwest’s more advanced DSL service arriving on the scene delivering faster speeds.

Although CenturyTel has hinted it may review whether it’s now large enough to operate its own wireless mobile division, for the near term, expect the partnership to resell Verizon Wireless service to continue.

What is the View of Stop the Cap! on the CenturyTel-Qwest Merger?

Generally speaking, most of the industry consolidation that has been fueled by a deregulatory framework established by the Clinton Administration has not benefited consumers anywhere near the level promised by deregulation advocates.  The three largest independent phone company consolidators — Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyTel are spending more time and resources looking for new acquisitions and schemes to pay out dividends than they are working to enhance service in their respective service areas.  Smaller independent phone companies are deploying fiber to the home networks and answer to the communities where they work and live.  From companies like Frontier, we get Internet Overcharging schemes combined with slow DSL service, tricks and traps from “price protection agreements” that automatically renew, rate increases, and cost cutting.  Windstream plagues some of their customers with extended service outages, and CenturyTel’s promised broadband speeds often don’t deliver.

Unfortunately, bigger is not always better in telecommunications.  While the biggest players like Verizon seek to discard rural American customers, getting one of these three companies instead doesn’t always represent progress.  Our regulators are too often satisfied with basic answers to questions about broadband and service improvements that come with few details and deadlines.  It is just as important to ask what kind of broadband service a company will bring, at what speeds and price, and what usage limits, if any, will accompany the service.

Companies engaged in these mergers hope regulators don’t pin them down to specific service commitments and standards, which could harm the financial windfall these deals bring to a select few.  But they must be the first thing on the table, guaranteeing that customers also get the enjoy the “synergies” these deals are supposed to bring.

Bell Labs, a division of Alcatel-Lucent, has found a way to extract more speed over aging copper wire most phone companies still rely on to deliver service.  Its latest achievement, in the lab anyway, proved those wires could accommodate 300Mbps downstream speeds, at least if you were within 400 meters (that’s just over 1,300 feet) from phone company facilities.  Further on, the company was able to achieve 100Mbps speeds over a distance of one kilometer (0.62 miles).

Stop the Cap! reader Jeff writes wondering what impact such improvements have when they are measured in distances more commonly associated with a sprinting event.  Phone companies are well aware of the limitations of their legacy networks.  Some, like Verizon, decided the network designed more than a century ago was destined for the scrap heap.  They began to deploy fiber-optic based networks instead.  Others are trying to extract as much as they can from copper, as cheap as they can for as long as they can.

The problem with copper wiring is that the longer the distance, the slower the data speed those lines will support.  Interference or crosstalk from neighboring cables crammed together into a bundle can also create major problems, especially at longer distances.

Bell Labs says it has devised a way around the crosstalk problem with the testing of its “DSL Phantom Mode” solution:

At its core, DSL Phantom Mode involves the creation of a virtual or “phantom” channel that supplements the two physical wires that are the standard configuration for copper transmission lines. Bell Labs’ innovation and the source of DSL Phantom Mode’s dramatic increase in transmission capacity lies in its application of analogue phantom mode technology in combination with industry-standard techniques: vectoring that eliminates interference or “crosstalk” between copper wires, and bonding that makes it possible to take individual lines and aggregate them.

In the eyes of Alcatel-Lucent, Bell Labs has found an answer to the dilemma of what role phone companies can play in a 100Mbps broadband future.

“We often think of the role innovation plays in generating technologies of the future, but DSL Phantom Mode is a prime example of the role innovation can play in creating a future for existing solutions and injecting them with a new source of value,” said Gee Rittenhouse, head of Research for Bell Labs. “What makes DSL Phantom Mode such an important breakthrough is that it combines cutting edge technology with an attractive business model that will open up entirely new commercial opportunities for service providers, enabling them in particular, to offer the latest broadband IP-based services using existing network infrastructure.”

Before getting too excited, remember these demonstration tests occurred in a laboratory environment.  No squirrels chewed up the cables. No water leaking into cracks in the cable’s insulation or a connection box caused issues.  No aging splices of corroded copper wiring up on poles since the late 1960s were found.  Your home’s own phone wiring was also never part of the equation.

Distance is still a considerable limiting factor in DSL deployments.  Most of the benefits of this research will go to companies like AT&T, which uses a hybrid fiber-copper wire network in its U-verse areas.  The fiber cuts down the distance from a phone company office to a neighborhood.  Once in your neighborhood, traditional copper wires run the rest of the way, right up into your home.  If AT&T can leverage additional speed from its weakest link — the copper-based phone line — it may be able to use the additional bandwidth to boost broadband speed or accommodate more concurrent applications they cannot support today.

For phone companies still dependent on long distances of copper wiring, the expense of bootstrapping Alexander Graham Bell’s century-old network begins to look silly.

Sometimes it’s better to build anew instead of repeatedly trying to fix the old.  And many are doing exactly that.

Hundreds of small independent telecoms, broadband service providers, municipalities and cable television companies have brought gigabit-enabled, all-fiber service to a total of more than 1.4 million North American homes – about a quarter of all fiber to the home connections on the continent – according to the Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) Council.

The FTTH Council noted in a recent study more than 65 percent of small independent telephone companies that have not upgraded to FTTH said they would very likely do so in the future, with another 11 percent saying they were somewhat likely. More than 85 percent of those that have already deployed FTTH said they would be adding more direct fiber connections going forward.

Surprisingly most of this expansion outside of Verizon’s FiOS service comes from small family-owned companies, cooperatives, and the remaining independent phone companies not snapped up by Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyLink.

“To continue to meet the rapidly growing bandwidth requirements for emerging applications and services, these companies know that they have to ‘future-proof’ their networks by running fiber all the way to the premises – and that’s why we are seeing all this activity,” says Joe Savage, President of the FTTH Council.

“In many cases, these small telephone companies are longtime family-owned businesses that are deeply involved in local affairs and are responsive to their community needs for faster broadband as a key to future economic development,” said Mike Render, president of RVA LLC and the author of the study. “That’s why so many of these companies are looking to get into FTTH or expand their deployments,” he said.