Austin, Texas is likely the next Google Fiber city.

Austin, Texas will be the second major U.S. city to receive Google Fiber’s 1,000/1,000Mbps service, perhaps as early as 2014.

A “major announcement” at a news conference scheduled for Tuesday morning is expected to bring more than 100 community leaders together to hear Google’s plans for the city.

Local media reports, an accidental mention of Austin as the next Google Fiber city on Google’s Fiber Blog, and at least one confidential source at Austin’s public utility company (that owns the poles Google Fiber will be strung across) makes it all-but-certain Austin and its nearby suburbs will get the service.

Austin would seem a natural target for Google as home to the high-tech South by Southwest. Austin also hosts Dell, Texas Instruments, AMD, Samsung, IBM, Intel, and a myriad of Internet start-ups. But a key factor for Google also seems to be the presence of Austin Energy, the nation’s 8th largest community-owned electric utility, serving more than 420,000 customers and a population of almost one million. Kansas City, the first choice for Google Fiber, also has a municipal utility company.

Milo Medin, Google’s vice president of access services, made it clear that Google is targeting cities where it does not have to deal with intransigent privately owned utility companies that make life difficult (or expensive) to attach Google Fiber to utility poles. Municipally owned providers have proved easier to work with, and in Kansas City elected officials also helped cut through administrative red tape and facilitated a working relationship between Google and government officials responsible for issuing work permits and clearing up zoning headaches.

Areas served by investor owned electric giants like Southern California Edison, Florida Power & Light, Commonwealth Edison, Consolidated Edison, Georgia Power, Dominion Resources, Detroit Edison, Public Service Enterprise Group, and others may be at an immediate disadvantage in the race to become the next Google Fiber city if those companies attempt to throw expensive roadblocks or disadvantageous bureaucracy in front of Google.

Another factor in Kansas City’s favor was the large amount of pre-existing conduit available to pull fiber infrastructure through without tearing up streets. Cities with this type of infrastructure already in place dramatically reduces construction costs and permit delays.

Google Fiber’s project in Austin will compete directly with Time Warner Cable and AT&T U-verse. Time Warner Cable customers antagonized Austin residents in the spring of 2009 with a planned market test of consumption billing and usage caps for its Internet service. Google Fiber makes a point to say its broadband service is never usage-limited. AT&T U-verse customers in Austin have so far  not faced punitive measures from the phone company when exceeding its 250GB U-verse usage cap.

Many cable industry analysts predicted Google Fiber was simply a show project in Kansas City, designed to embarrass the telecommunications industry’s mediocre and expensive broadband service offerings. But a move into Austin signals Google more likely sees its fiber network as a lucrative business opportunity — one that could gradually be expanded to other cities.

What communities could get the service next? Google seems likely to avoid serving areas covered by Verizon FiOS, because competing fiber networks would likely not produce the bang for the buck Google needs to draw subscribers, and Medin makes it clear the company has found working with publicly owned utility companies easier than privately owned ones, so future Google Fiber cities will likely have these factors in common:

Having a publicly owned utility helps.

• A high-tech business community and well-educated workforce in a medium to large city;
• A publicly owned municipal utility willing to work with Google;
• Pre-existing infrastructure to support fiber service without tearing up streets and neighborhoods;
• A local government willing to cut red tape and ease Google’s expansion;
• No Verizon FiOS fiber service in the immediate metropolitan area;
• A reasonable level of regulations covering environmental impacts of utility infrastructure work, permits, and licensing.

Such requirements would wipe out almost all New York (except Rochester, Binghamton and the Southern Tier around Ithaca — all completely bypassed by Verizon FiOS) and New Jersey as possible candidates. California outside of Mountain View would also seem untenable because of government regulations, sprawling cities, and private utilities. Florida and Georgia have two major private power companies to contend with as well. But there are opportunities in Texas, the Carolinas, Minnesota, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and across several midwestern states, especially those served by AT&T’s inferior U-verse system.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KXAN Austin Google Fiber Expected in Austin 4-5-13.mp4[/flv]

KXAN in Austin spent almost seven minutes of its weekend evening newscast talking about forthcoming Google Fiber in Austin.  (7 minutes)

We do love fiber to the home broadband around here, especially when Verizon responsibly avoids usage caps of any kind, but we’re still surprised they re-tweeted us on their official Verizon Twitter channel. Verizon has received well-deserved compliments for offering fiber upgrades while other phone companies tough it out with DSL or offer half-measures like AT&T’s U-verse. Our biggest complaint is that the rest of VerizonLand doesn’t have a clear path to get the service (and the fact our headquarters are in Rochester, N.Y., the only major city in New York not served by Verizon, so no FiOS for us… ever. Frontier Communications is our local telephone provider, and they have underwhelmed us for years.)

Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal’s not-living-in-the-real-world editorial page strikes again.

The commentary pages have always been the weakest part of the Journal, primarily because they screech pro-corporate talking points in contrast to the more balanced reporting in the rest of the newspaper.

Mr. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. decided to distort broadband reality (again) in yesterday’s edition with a glowing commentary on how wonderful broadband providers are in his piece, “Springtime for Broadband.” The only thing missing was a border in fine print labeled, “Sponsored by Verizon, AT&T, and your cable company.”

While your Internet bill is being hiked at the same time your provider is slapping usage limits on your connection, Jenkins dismisses consumer-fueled complaints about broadband price gouging, assaulting Net Neutrality, and overall poor customer service as part of Washington’s “broadband policy circus.”

Charges fly hourly that Google or some other company is guilty of gross insult to net neutrality (that sacred principle nobody can define). Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has introduced legislation to regulate data caps and Internet pricing. Law professor Susan Crawford, until recently a White House technology adviser, clearly craves to be America’s next go-to talking head on broadband. Lately she’s been everywhere calling for a crackdown on the competing “monopolists” who supply Internet access.

How dare they complain, decries Jenkins in a robust defense of the 21st century version of the railway robber barons.

Comfortably playing patty cake with provider-fed talking points from the industry echo chamber, Jenkins is ready for battle, facts or not.

But wireless providers have invested big money to deploy high-speed mobile networks, and fixed and mobile are inevitably beginning to compete. The latest evidence: Australia recently predicted that up to 30% of households will go the all-wireless route and won’t be customers for its vaunted national broadband project.

Jenkins

Not exactly. The basis for this 30% figure is the National Broadband Network’s own business plan, which warns –if– the company raised prices to a maximum theoretical level, up to 30 percent of its customers would rely on wireless instead… by the year 2039. That is 26 years from now. You have nothing better to do in the meantime, right?

In fact, conservative critics of the fiber network, some defending the big wireless cell phone industry in Australia, have suggested fiber optics is a big waste of money because “wireless is the future.”

That old chestnut again.

“Now you can present a bulletin without touching a typewriter … it’s just there on the computer system, you don’t need a reel to reel tape recorder. I’ve got a touchscreen in front of me. Back then I had a big cartridge deck,” said Ray Hadley on 2GB radio. “Can you imagine the advances in technology in the next 26 years? I can’t. I can’t comprehend it. By the time they finish the NBN, it could be superseded by something we don’t even know about.”

NBN Myths, a website set up to tackle the disinformation campaign from political and industry opponents has one simple fact to convey: “Despite what you may have read from certain clueless commentators, there is not a single country or telecommunications company anywhere in the world that is attempting to replace fixed networks with wireless in urban areas, or even planning to do so in the future.”

Which would you rather have?

Even Telstra, the biggest telecom company in Australia scoffs at such a notion, noting a growing number of its customers have both wired and wireless service, and they do not depend on one over the other.

Research firm Telsyte found that 85 per cent of Australians want speeds of 50Mbps or higher, speeds impossible for wireless to offer. In fact, when the NBN fiber network became available to Australians, almost half the current users as of October last year had chosen an even-faster 100Mbps plan option. But Australians also want mobile broadband, and they are signing up for that as well.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics notes the number of mobile broadband Internet connections also grew by around 40% in Australia between 2009 and 2010. But here is the Achilles heel of wireless: it cannot deliver the same speeds or capacity, and providers charge high prices and deliver low usage caps. As a result, the wireless industry has pulled off a coup: they earn enormous revenues from networks they have successfully rationed. The total amount of data downloaded over Australia’s wireless networks actually fell on a per user basis, despite the growth in customers.

Much of Jenkins’ commentary is spoon-fed by the industry-funded Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which produces industry-sponsored studies designed to tell America all is well in our broadband duopoly.

In the latest federal survey, the average broadband speed in America is up to 15.6 megabits per second, from 14.3 a year earlier. Nearly half of customers who six months ago made do with one megabit or less have now moved up to higher speeds. Since 2009, the U.S. has gone from 22nd fastest Internet to the eighth fastest.

The 15.6Mbps figure comes from the Federal Communications Commission. The statistics about our global speed ranking come from Akamai’s voluntary speed test program. Other studies rate America much lower. More importantly, while providers in the U.S. try to squeeze out more performance from their copper networks, other countries are laying speedier fiber networks that are destined to once again leapfrog over the United States. Most charge less for their broadband connections as well.

Jenkins also quotes the ITIF which touts 20 million miles of fiber were laid in America last year. But the ITIF, when pressed, will admit the majority of that fiber was “middle mile” connections, institutional or business network fiber you cannot access, or fiber to cell towers. Fiber to the home expansion has stalled, primarily because Verizon has suspended expansion of its FiOS network to new areas after Wall Street loudly complained about the cost.

Jenkins argues that if we leave providers alone and stop criticizing their growing prices, declining competition, and fat profits, the marketplace will suddenly decide to invest in network upgrades yet again.

“The day may come when even Verizon, which visibly soured on its $23 billion FiOS bet, rediscovers an urge to invest in fixed broadband infrastructure to meet growing consumer lust for hi-def services,” writes Jenkins.

Would Wall Street rather see providers invest in network upgrades or return profits to shareholders? Investment expansion in the broadband industry comes when a company senses if they do not spend the money, their business will be swept away by others that will. Cable broadband threatens telephone company DSL, so AT&T cherry-picked communities for investment in its half-measure U-verse fiber to the neighborhood network. Google Fiber, should it choose to expand, will be an even bigger threat to both cable and phone companies. Municipal fiber to the home networks upset the incumbent players so much, they spend millions of ratepayer dollars in efforts to legislate them out of existence.

Jenkins’ view that giving the industry carte blanche to do and charge as it pleases to stimulate a better broadband future is as fanciful as NBN critics in Australia suggesting fiber upgrades should be canceled in favor of waiting 20+ years for improved wireless to come along.

He even approves of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, calling it proper price discrimination in a “fiercely competitive” environment to defray a network’s fixed costs.

Do you think there is fierce competition for your broadband dollar?

Broadband’s fixed costs are so low and predictable, it literally calls out consumption pricing as just the latest overreach for enhanced profits. As Suddenlink’s CEO himself admitted, the era of big expensive cable upgrades are over. Incremental upgrades are cheap, the costs to offer broadband are declining, so it is time to reap the profits.

Jenkins closes with one recommendation we can agree with: “A low-tech way to stir up broadband competition would be to relax the regulatory obstacles to the actual physical provision of broadband.”

We can start by scrapping all the state laws the industry lobbied to enact that prohibit community-owned broadband competition. If big cable and phone companies won’t provide communities with the quality of broadband service they need to compete for 21st century jobs, let those communities do it themselves.

Just how bad is your cable company?

Apparently pretty bad, considering the number of viral videos and guerrilla campaigns being launched against the industry these days, and Time Warner Cable in particular.

“Time Warner Cable Customer Service” is a group that has already heard from Time Warner Cable’s legal team about the cable operator’s trademarks and the potential for apparent “customer confusion.” The parodists might be at risk of losing their domain name, have already had their YouTube and Twitter accounts suspended, and have been told they are not allowed to record any phone calls with Time Warner Cable employees (although the company is allowed to record them… and you.)

What has the cable operator so upset? This:

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Cable What Can We Do Worse 4-13.flv[/flv]

Members of “Time Warner Cable Customer Service” take to the streets of Manhattan asking passersby what can the cable company do worse. Then they invade a Time Warner Cable store…. (Warning: Adult Language – NSFW) (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Honest Cable Company 4-13.flv[/flv]

Another group decided a more general parody was in order. The “First Honest Cable Company” provides full disclosure about your cable service and what they really think of you. (Warning: Adult Language – NSFW) (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”376″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Wireless Mas Ad.flv[/flv]

Ever wonder what happened to comedian Paul Rodriguez? Me neither, but here he is anyway, shilling for Verizon Wireless’ overpriced, out-of-touch-with-middle-class-bank-accounts ‘Share Everything’ Wireless Data Overcharging plan. Who will Verizon choose next:

Judy Tenuta?

Wilford Brimley?

Ruth Buzzi?

TV’s Frank? (I sure hope not.)