Susan Crawford, President Barack Obama’s former Special Assistant for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy has the solution for America’s lack of universal broadband, and she solves it in just four Tweets:

• Step 1 gives private companies the push they need to get rural broadband financing within their existing Return on Investment formulas by reducing capital costs for unserved areas;
• Step 2 stops the corporate welfare legislation that protects the incumbent duopoly from publicly-owned competition that can ignore Wall Street’s insistence that more competition = fat profit erosion;
• Step 3 gives the ISPs access to public land and infrastructure either at no or low cost in return for recognizing they are benefiting from that taxpayer-owned infrastructure, so they better not abuse the privilege;
• Step 4 makes ISPs common carriers that have no financial interest in the content transported down broadband lines, thus no incentive to favor their own services while discriminating against others.

Whether such policies can withstand court challenges claiming violation of corporation free speech rights is, of course, another matter. But Crawford’s ideas create incentives for broadband providers to aggressively wire their respective service areas while avoiding monopolizing what travels down those broadband pipelines.

Lafayette, Louisiana has never sit still for private companies bypassing the heart of Cajun country. When electric companies refused to wire the city, the community elected to do it themselves. When Cox Cable and AT&T said no to providing the kind of cutting-edge broadband that would allow Lafayette to protect its reputation as an entrepreneur-driven community, publicly owned utility LUS constructed a fiber to the home broadband network for every resident and business. Today, LUS Fiber has helped transform the parish, with half the unemployment rate of the rest of the country and an attractive place for digital economy jobs. It has even helped curtail well-educated recent graduates moving away in search of high-tech employment.

“There really is no infrastructure more important in the 21st century economy than fiber,” said Geoff Daily, executive director of Fibercorps, a non-profit group promoting digital economic development in Lafayette.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FTTH Council – LUS Profile 9-24-12.flv[/flv]

Watch how LUS Fiber has transformed the lives of students, attracted new high-tech business, and promoted job growth with broadband infrastructure most cable and phone companies simply won’t provide.  (9 minutes)

Comcast cable subscribers in Mattapoisett want less bundling and fewer fees.

They and everyone else.

This month, the 6,000 local residents of the small coastal town in southeastern Massachusetts got the opportunity to voice their concerns about Comcast Cable’s performance before the Board of Selectmen at an open town meeting contemplating the renewal of the cable operator’s five year franchise agreement.

The Sippican Week covered the proceedings:

Subscription plans and fees were the main concerns voiced by residents at the meeting.

“I’m just here to see if there is any way we can unbundle or offer some of the channels a la carte, rather than have to pay an exorbitant fee for the channels that are bundled at the different levels,” said Herb Webb.

“Instead of these large packages you have to buy, they could break them up into smaller sub-packages,” said Selectman Tyler Macallister. “Get some feedback from the town and develop packages specially for Mattapoisett.”

Resident Bob Spooner also questioned the $2 fee subscribers are charged for each cable box in addition to their main TV.

“What about the people who have four or five TVs,” said Spooner. “That’s another six or eight dollars a month.”

Macallister agreed, “I’m already paying for those channels, but now I have to pay $2 to get it.”

Selectmen chair Jordan Collyer tried to answer residents’ concerns, much like any local town or city official facing similar complaints would — with understanding and little else. After all, Comcast operates in a largely deregulated marketplace and need not fear threats from elected officials.

Local governments have no say over a cable company’s pricing for its most popular tiers of service, cannot dictate matters of channel bundling or equipment fees, and have little recourse beyond taking bids from other operators willing to serve when an incumbent company’s franchise goes unrenewed.

But that almost never happens. No major cable operator will offer to replace another major operator, meaning the chances that Time Warner Cable, Cox, Cablevision, or Bright House Networks would respond favorably to a request are effectively zero.

But parts of Mattapoisett are lucky enough to at least have a competitive option — Verizon FiOS, although that company also charges for set top equipment and bundles channels together. The local government has little control over Verizon’s service either.

One alternative open to residents and the local government is to support the construction of a community-owned provider that could, as much as programming contracts allow, respond more effectively to these kinds of concerns. Under current regulatory policies, that is about the only way Mattapoisett, and towns like it, can guarantee the presence of a responsive provider ready to meet the collective needs of the community.

Despite industry propaganda touting an “unlimited broadband future” (possibilities, that is, not an end to usage caps) and good sounding headlines about robust competition in the broadband market, the reality on the ground isn’t as rosy.

Americans looking for a better deal for broadband are largely stuck negotiating with the local cable company or putting up with less speed from the phone company to get a cheaper rate.

That is hardly the “success story” being pushed by the Mother of All Broadband Astroturf Front Groups, Broadband for America. BfA, backed by money from some of America’s largest telecom companies calls today’s marketplace “dynamic” and “rapidly changing.” For them, competition is not the problem, the way we define competition is.

Tell that to San Jose Mercury News columnist Troy Wolverton, whose dynamic and rapidly changing Comcast cable bill has now reached $144 a month, and threatens to go higher still when his two-year contract expires.

Wolverton is a case study of what an average American consumer goes through shopping around for broadband service. Despite assertions of a vibrant, competitive Internet access paradise from groups like Broadband for America, Wolverton found very little real competition on the menu, despite being in the high tech heart of Silicon Valley.

Valley residents can typically choose between AT&T and Comcast, if they have any choice at all. Neither company offers a great deal for consumers.

Comcast offers faster speeds at considerably higher prices that can be reduced somewhat by signing up for a costly triple-play service. AT&T’s prices are lower, but its service is slower and is based on a technology that in my experience is less reliable.

So it goes for millions of Americans who face the same dilemma: take a higher-priced package from the cable company or settle for less from the phone company. With the exception of Verizon FiOS, most large telephone companies still rely on basic DSL service to deliver broadband. AT&T’s U-verse and CenturyLink’s Prism are both fiber to the neighborhood services that deliver somewhat faster speeds than traditional DSL, but also have to share bandwidth with television and traditional phone service, leaving them topped out at around 25Mbps.

Wolverton could not believe his only choices were Comcast and AT&T, so he visited the California Broadband Availability Map, one of the state projects earnestly trying to identify the available choices consumers have for broadband access. Despite California’s vast size, it quickly became apparent that even companies like AT&T and Comcast largely don’t deliver broadband outside of cities and suburbs. Several smaller, lesser-known providers emerged from the map that were open to Wolverton, which he explored with less-than-satisfying results:

In addition to Comcast and AT&T, it listed Etheric Networks, which offers a wireless Internet service directed at home users that’s based on Wi-Fi technology, and MegaPath, which offers Internet access through a variety of wired technologies, including DSL.

After further research I found that neither of those companies was a legitimate option. MegaPath can’t deliver residential service to my house that’s faster than 1.5 megabits per second. Etheric, which focuses on business customers, offers a service level with speeds of up to 22 megabits per second, but it costs a cool $400 a month.

Other non-options for Wolverton included the highly-rated Sonic.net, which in his neighborhood is entirely dependent on AT&T’s landlines for its DSL service. That was a no-go, after Wolverton discovered he would be stuck with 3-6Mbps service. Clearwire also offers service in greater San Jose, but not at his home in Willow Glen.

That left him back with AT&T and Comcast.

But that is not really a problem in the eyes of industry defenders like Jeffrey Eisenach, managing director and principal at Navigant Economics and an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School. Navigant is a “research group” that counts AT&T as one of its most important clients. The firm provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues cover for clients trying to sell their agenda. Navigant’s “experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.”

Eisenach goes all out for the broadband industry in his paper, “Theories of Broadband Competition,” which throws in everything but the kitchen sink to defend the status quo:

• The cost of broadband service is declining;
• The duopoly of cable and phone companies are still competing for customers and introducing new services;
• Competition can take the form of provider innovation (ie. providers compete by offering a better services, not lower prices);
• Wireless competition is accelerating, citing LightSquared and Clearwire as two conclusive examples of competition at work;
• The cost of service on a per-megabit basis has declined.
• Competition in today’s broadband market delivers ancillary benefits not immediately evident when only considering the customer’s point of view;

Eisenach’s pricing proof stopped in 2009, just as cable providers like Time Warner Cable began raising broadband prices. TWC’s Landel Hobbs to investors: “We have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data.” (February, 2010)

Eisenach has appeared at various industry-sponsored evidence touting his views of broadband economics and competition that later turns up as headline news on Broadband for America’s website. But just as Wolverton’s initial optimism finding other choices for broadband faded with reality, so do Eisenach’s conclusions:

1. Eisenach’s evidence of broadband price declines stops in 2009, coincidentally just prior to the recent phenomena of cable broadband rate increases, which have accelerated in the past three years;
2. Competition still exists in urban and suburban markets, as long as phone companies attempt to stem the tide of landline losses, but it’s largely absent in rural markets and in decline in others where companies “reset” prices to match their cable competition. AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon’s FiOS both effectively ended their expansion, leaving large swaths of the country with “good enough for you” service. Cable operators have even teamed up with Verizon Wireless to cross-market their products — hardly evidence of a robustly competitive marketplace;
3. Innovation can take the form of services customers don’t actually want but are compelled to take because of bundled pricing or, worse, the decline in a-la-carte add-ons in favor of “one price for everything” models. Verizon Wireless set the stage for providers of all kinds to consider mandatory bundling for any product or service that can no longer deliver a suitable return on its own. For customers already taking every possible service or fastest speed, this pricing  may deliver lower prices at the outset, but for budget-focused consumers, compulsory packages or high prices on a-la-carte services assures them of a higher bill;
4. Eisenach’s examples of competition are a real mess. LightSquared is bankrupt and Clearwire has shown it cannot deliver an equivalent broadband experience for customers and throttles the speeds of those perceived to be using the service too much. Other wireless providers typically limit customer usage or cannot deliver speeds comparable to wired broadband;
5. While the cost per megabit may have declined in the past, cable providers are still raising prices, and as Google and community-owned providers have illustrated, delivering fast speeds should not cost customers nearly as much as providers continue to charge, with no incentive to cut prices in the absence of equally fast, competitive networks;
6. While broadband may open the door for additional economic benefits not immediately apparent, competitive broadband would further drive innovation and reduce pricing, delivering an even bigger bang for the buck.

Wolverton recognized taking a promotional offer from AT&T will temporarily deliver savings over what Comcast charges, but he would have to set his expectations lower if he switched:

I’m reluctant to switch to AT&T. [U-verse] Max Plus is the fastest level of service it offers at our house, but with a top speed of 18 megabits a second, it’s significantly slower than Comcast’s Blast. Speed matters to us, because my wife and I often share our Internet connection, and we frequently use it to transfer large files such as apps, videos, photos or songs to or from the Net.

[…] What’s more, as the FCC outlined in another recent report, Comcast does a better job of delivering the speeds it advertises than does AT&T.

What’s worse in my book is that AT&T’s U-verse’s Internet service is a version of DSL. It’s faster than regular DSL, because the copper wires in your house and neighborhood are connected to nearby high-speed fiber-optic cables. Even with that speed boost, though, I’m hesitant to go back to any kind of DSL service, because my wife and I suffered through years of unreliable DSL service from AT&T predecessor PacBell and then EarthLink, which piggybacked on AT&T’s lines.

Wolverton also objected to Comcast’s bundled pricing scheme, which delivers the best value to customers who sign up for broadband, television and phone service. Wolverton does not need a landline from AT&T or Comcast, and would like to drop the service. He’s not especially impressed with Comcast’s TV lineup (or pricing) either. But he noted if he switched to broadband-only service, Comcast would effectively penalize him with a broadband-only rate of $72 a month, exactly half the current cost of Comcast’s triple-play package.

In a later blog post, Wolverton confessed he liked Comcast’s broadband service and speeds, and with the carefully-crafted pricing the cable and phone companies have developed, he expected to remain a Comcast customer given his choices and pricing options, which are simply not enough.

Cox Communications has launched two new broadband tiers for business customers in the Acadiana region around Lafayette, La., offering speeds of  80 and 100Mbps.

With LUS Fiber providing community-owned fiber to the premises symmetrical broadband in the area, Cox Cable has been at a speed disadvantage, but hopes it is now better positioned to attract and keep commercial customers in southern Louisiana. LUS Fiber offers business customers speeds of 10/10, 50/50, or 100/100Mbps.

Cox’s new speeds, made possible with DOCSIS 3.0, are part of a $12 million upgrade the cable operator has underway in the state. Acadiana is the first Cox market in the country to get the new speeds. Other Cox markets will see upgraded speeds later this year or in early 2013.