While large private corporations return profits to shareholders and avoid major infrastructure upgrades, publicly owned municipal providers are moving customers to carefully planned and budgeted fiber-to-the-home networks that offer service at speeds AT&T, the state’s largest telecom company, cannot touch.

This summer, Spencer, Iowa (pop. 11,200) is getting a fiber upgrade utility officials consider an investment in the community.

“Just like Internet service has evolved from dial-up to DSL and cable modem, fiber will give customers the next level of service to continue to improve the way they live, work and play here in Spencer,” Amanda Gloyd, Spencer Municipal Utilities marketing and community relations manager told The Daily Reporter.

SMU will spend $2 million to extend fiber service this year, decommissioning copper telephone wires and coaxial cable as it brings the new network online in different sections of the community.

“This will offer a lot more capacity than the old system with less shared,” Jeff Rezabek, SMU’s telecom manager told the newspaper. The project will create much-needed work for area contractors that will install the new fiber lines.

Customers are happy to learn the upgrade will not affect their rates, because SMU has been carefully setting aside money to pay for the project without burdening customers.

“This project is all paid for with cash in the bank,” said SMU general manager Steve Pick. “This is an investment in the system.”

Outside of Spencer, rural AT&T customers still cannot get DSL or U-verse service and are now at risk of losing their landlines as AT&T ponders taking down its wired network and forcing customers to more expensive wireless service.

The upgrades in Spencer will take several years to complete, as available funding allows. SMU is a municipally owned utility providing water, electricity, telephone, cable television, and broadband at speeds up to 100/10Mbps. The utility also resells T-Mobile wireless service.

AT&T continues its quest to make landline service a really bad deal with the introduction of a new bill-padding fee that wireless customers will not have to pay.

AT&T’s $1.99 “Tennessee Regulatory Inspection Fee” appeared on customer bills in March, much to the surprise of customers.

“My regular service is only 22 bucks,” Charles “Buck” Meyer told the Chattanooga Times Free Press. “If they add $2 to it, that’s almost a 10 percent increase. I’ve been on the fence about switching off my landline for some months, and this could be the thing that pushes me over the edge.”

AT&T says it is entitled to recoup the money it pays to the Tennessee Regulatory Authority. The $1.99 fee appearing on March bills is a “one-time” fee until AT&T figures out how much it plans to charge customers on an ongoing basis. Most companies subject to TRA fees build them into the monthly cost of the service. AT&T is the only phone company in the state to break the fee out on the bill and collect the money separately.

In 2009, when the company lobbied for widespread deregulation of phone bills in Tennessee, it claimed deregulation would not bring about increased rates.

Meyer does not see it that way. He considers AT&T’s new fee a stealth rate hike.

“Slip a little line item on there that’s just a couple bucks and is a one-time deal,” he told the newspaper. “Then pretty soon it’s on there every month.”

The new fee is permitted because of a 2009 change in Tennessee’s statutes that now allow companies to pass along regulatory fees on customer bills.

Companies like AT&T heavily lobbied for statewide deregulation of telephone bills that year, and spent $180,000 in campaign contributions to lawmakers, their political action committees or party organizations. AT&T hired at least 20 lobbyists to help push deregulation through the Tennessee legislature. Critics of the bill warned its passage would lead to rate increases, something AT&T denied at the time.

AT&T Tennessee president Geoff Morton told the Times Free Press back in 2009, “the company needs to compete with rivals and is not interested in raising rates.”

AT&T refused to say how much it will collect from the new fee, but Morton said the company is now lobbying for another law that would gut the fees AT&T pays to the TRA to oversee the quality of phone service in the state.

“In the previous administration, telecommunications inspection fees increased despite a dramatic decrease in telecommunications services regulated by the commission,” AT&T spokesman Bob Corney told the newspaper. “We are hopeful that legislation will pass this session to reduce the regulatory burden on landline telephone customers in Tennessee.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMC Memphis ATT Mystery Fee 3-21-13.mp4[/flv]

WMC’s “Ask Andy” segment has some non-answers from AT&T about their new $1.99 “regulatory authority inspection fee.” When the Memphis consumer reporter called AT&T, the company said, “no comment.”(1 minute)

The head man in charge at Cable One of Natchez, Miss. admits the local cable system he runs is old and outdated and needs significant upgrades to improve service.

Cable One General Manager John Hilbert told an audience at a public hearing last week that many of the complaints Cable One’s customers in the area are making are simply not ones the company can fix.

While Hilbert’s candid admission may have refreshed an audience used to getting empty promises from providers, Hilbert has been in charge of the cable system in Natchez for several years and is just now discovering that “a lot of the problems with telephone and Internet service stem from old and outdated infrastructure.”

Cable One is preparing what it calls a $500,000 “reinforcement project” to replace and update wires and other equipment.

City officials listened carefully to Hilbert, because the community has been up in arms about the poor service Cable One has been providing western Mississippi. The city and the cable operator are currently negotiating a franchise renewal agreement.

One former judge complained her Cable One phone service has often failed, sometimes for up to three days. The local electric utility said it has lost thousands of dollars over the last few weeks because Cable One’s Internet service has gone offline.

“When I’m sitting here losing money when I know I shouldn’t be, I have a serious problem with that,” Natchez Electric Manager Ricky Long told the Natchez Democrat.

In 2014, customers are likely to face more challenges when the company switches to an all-digital lineup, requiring customers to get a set-top box for every television in the home.

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.

A Financial Times blog post has started a buying frenzy for Vodafone Group Plc on news AT&T and Verizon Communications are about to bid for the British mobile phone giant, despite denials from Verizon it is involved in any deal to acquire the British mobile phone company.

The Times Alphaville blog quotes unnamed sources deemed “usually reliable people” who claim Verizon and AT&T are working together on a blockbuster $245 billion takeover deal for one of the world’s largest wireless carriers. After the story appeared, Vodafone shares were up 6.1 percent.

Verizon is interested in buying out Vodafone’s part ownership in its Verizon Wireless venture and AT&T is looking to overseas markets for future wireless revenue opportunities that are harder to find in the United States.

The sources told the Times they expect the deal will initially merge Vodafone and Verizon into a single entity, but only briefly. Verizon would promptly sell Vodafone’s extensive international assets to AT&T at a premium. Verizon would end up the sole owner of Verizon Wireless, and AT&T would acquire Vodafone’s enormous wireless operations in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Barclays Plc is working on putting together the potential transaction, Alphaville said today.

Informal talks have reportedly been underway between AT&T, Verizon and Vodafone since December according to Bloomberg News. The biggest impediments seem to be among the company’s top executives arguing over who ends up in the leadership and where the combined companies will be located — in the UK or the USA.

Vodafone has been a tolerated partner in Verizon Wireless since 1999 when Bell Atlantic and Vodafone merged their respective mobile ventures into Verizon Wireless. Vodafone has held tightly to their part-ownership of Verizon’s wireless network, which has proven an enormous earner in an American wireless marketplace considered less competitive than in Europe. The talks indicate Verizon is willing to pay a premium price to disconnect the British wireless company from its American operations. Allowing AT&T to help finance the largest wireless takeover in years makes it more likely a deal can be done, assuming regulators on both sides of the Atlantic agree.