Phillip Dampier

This week, the tech community has been buzzing over new entrants in the world of cloud computing.  Apple’s iCloud in particular has sparked enormous media coverage as the company plans to encourage customers to access all of their favorite content over their broadband connection.  Apple is also moving towards online distribution of many of its software products, including the forthcoming OS X Lion operating system, suggesting consumers can pass up traditional physical media like CD-ROMs or DVDs.

Cloud storage theoretically allows you to store your entire music, video and photo collection online for easy access from any device.  Watching the 20-somethings buzz about 100GB+ secure file lockers and the end of traditional file storage as we know it has been amusing, but these people need to get their heads out of the clouds.  Unless they become politically involved in America’s broadband debate, it is not going to happen the way they hope it will.

Tech entrepreneur?  Meet broadband provider reality check: the Internet Overcharging usage cap and “excessive use” pricing scheme.

While Steve Jobs was introducing iCloud, broadband providers and their industry friends have been ruminating over the impact all of this new traffic will have on their broadband networks.  In an homage to former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre’s “you can’t use my pipes for free,” the drumbeat for implementing “control measures” for cloud computing and video traffic has been amplified several times over by certain providers, Wall Street analysts, and their trade press and equipment supplier lackeys.

One alarmed provider pondered the impact of iCloud in terms of their past experience with iTunes, which also spiked traffic when it was first released.  Others balk at the notion of consumers using broadband platforms to move entire libraries of content back and forth, especially on wireless networks.  The only sigh of relief detected?  Apple won’t start iCloud with video content — just music, at least at first.

The enemies list

The biggest targets — the companies that get a lot of pushback from providers for using “their networks” to earn millions for themselves are Google, Netflix, Amazon and Apple.  Each of them are rapidly moving into the online entertainment business, threatening to provoke more cable TV cord-cutting.  Netflix is now responsible for 30 percent of online traffic during primetime hours, a fact that some use as an accusation — as if Netflix should be held to account for its own success. Amazon has opened its own cloud based music storage and is also increasingly getting into online video content streaming.  Apple has a novel approach at handling its forthcoming iCloud music feature which should save hours in uploading, but the company is also moving towards online distribution of a growing proportion of its software, including the huge bug fixes and upgrades that will easily exceed a gigabyte if you own several Apple products.

Google is a frequent Washington target and honestly delivers the only truly effective corporate pushback to anti-consumer broadband pricing some providers have contemplated.  In fact, Google is putting its money where its mouth is building a gigabit network larger providers repeatedly scoff at as unnecessary, too costly, and too complicated.

While millions in venture capital funds new online innovations, only a miniscule amount of money is being spent to counter the lobbying major providers are doing in Washington to redefine the broadband revolution in their terms, complete with usage pricing that bears no relation to cost, arbitrary usage limits, and ongoing lack of true competition.

Online innovation is grand, but allowing providers to strangle it with Internet Overcharging schemes guarantees to end the party real fast.

Individually, none of the new cloud services are likely to blow out usage caps in excess of 100GB, but in combination they certainly could.  Anyone using online file backup, cloud storage of video and large music collections, uses Netflix or other online streaming services, and spends lots of time on the web will easily approach the limits some providers have established.  That doesn’t even include large software updates.  Unless you have an unlimited usage plan on the wireless side, don’t even think about using most of these services with AT&T’s 2GB monthly wireless usage cap.

Glenn Britt: The Internet is a utility which is why we can keep raising the price.

In the handful of countries with ubiquitous Internet Overcharging, little of this will pose a problem — companies won’t launch cloud computing services in markets where usage caps will effectively keep customers from using them.

That is why it is critical for some of America’s largest technology companies to get on board the fight against Internet Overcharging, and demand Washington recognize broadband as a utility service that should be wide open and usage cap free.  The evidence is right in front of you.  Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt recognizes the fact broadband is an essential part of our lives today, which is why he is confident enough to keep raising the price and charging even more in the future.  It’s not about “network congestion,” “building the next generation of broadband,” or “pricing fairness.”  Stop the Cap! started at ground zero for Time Warner Cable’s 2009 version of “pricing fairness” — $150 a month for an unlimited use broadband account that likely cost major providers less than $10 a month to provide.  It’s about pure, naked profiteering, unchecked by free market competition in today’s broadband duopoly.

Unless a company like Google can vastly expand its own broadband rollouts, it is increasingly apparent to me (and many others), we may have to move towards an entirely different model for broadband in the United States — one built on the premise of the Interstate Highway System.  One advanced, publicly-owned fiber network open to all providers on which telecommunications services can travel to homes and businesses from coast to coast.

Nobody says private companies shouldn’t be able to compete, but every day more evidence arrives they will never be inclined to deliver the next generation of service that other countries around the world are starting to take for granted.  They will instead protect their current business models at all costs, even if that means throwing America’s broadband innovation revolution under the bus.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Will iCloud Measure Up 6-7-11.flv[/flv]

CNN takes a look at what makes Apple’s iCloud service different from competitors from Google and Amazon.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Dropbox Cloud Computing 6-8-11.flv[/flv]

CNN talks with the folks at Dropbox about their cloud file storage system.  (3 minutes)

An artist rendering of Don River Park, part of the mixed-use spaces that hallmark the Toronto Waterfront revitalization project.

About seven years ago, Rochester’s Fast Ferry offered daily service between Rochester, N.Y. and Toronto’s Waterfront.  Tens of millions of dollars later, the Rochester Ferry Company discovered that nobody in southern Ontario was that interested in a shortcut to Rochester, many locals found driving to Canada’s largest city faster, more convenient, and cheaper, and the point of arrival on the Canadian side was hardly a draw — situated in a rundown, seedy industrial wasteland.

By the end of 2006, the ferry was sold and sent on its way to Morocco, the CBC got a barely used International Marine Passenger Terminal (built for the Rochester ferry) to use as a set location for its TV crime drama The Border, and the rundown waterfront was well-embarked on a major reconstruction effort.

This week, Toronto’s Waterfront learned it was getting a broadband makeover as well, with the forthcoming launch of insanely fast 10/10Gbps fiber broadband for business and 100/100Mbps for condo dwellers along the East Bayfront and West Don Lands.

Best of all, Beanfield Metroconnect, the parent company responsible for constructing the network, promises no Internet Overcharging schemes for residents and businesses… forever.  No usage caps, no throttled broadband speeds, no overlimit fees.  Pricing is more than attractive — it’s downright cheap for Toronto:  $60 a month for unlimited 100/100Mbps broadband, $30 a month for television service, and as low as $14.95 for phone service.  Bundle all three and knock another 15 percent off the price.  The provider is even throwing in free Wi-Fi, which promises to be ubiquitous across the Waterfront.

The project will leapfrog this Toronto neighborhood into one of the fastest broadband communities in the world.

Toronto Waterfront Fiber Broadband Coverage Map

“Having this sort of capacity available to residents will allow for a whole new world of applications we haven’t even conceived of yet,” said chief executive Dan Armstrong.

The rest of Toronto, in comparison, will be stuck in a broadband swamp courtesy of Rogers Cable and Bell, where average speeds hover around 5Mbps, with nasty usage caps and overlimit fee schemes from both providers.  DSL service in the city is notoriously slow and expensive, as Bell milks decades-old copper wire infrastructure long in need of replacement.

The public-private broadband project is a welcome addition for an urban renewal effort that has been criticized at times for overspending. Created in 2001, Waterfront Toronto has a 25-year mandate to transform 800 hectares (2,000 acres) of brownfield lands on the waterfront into a combination of business and residential mixed-use communities and public spaces.  At least $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been earmarked for the renewal project, although project managers say no taxpayer dollars will be spent on the broadband project.

Waterfront Toronto’s efforts have been recognized as bringing Toronto’s first “Intelligent Community” to the city with the construction of the open access fiber network.

Still, the public corporation has its critics.  Earlier this spring Toronto city councilman Doug Ford called the urban renewal project a boondoggle.  Other conflicts rage with the Toronto Transit Commission and the mayor’s office over other redevelopment projects.  But the revitalization project’s broadband initiative has significant support, especially among knowledge workers that could eventually become residents… and paying customers.

The 21st century broadband project is also likely to bring broadband envy across the entire GTA, who will wonder why service from the cable and phone companies is so much slower and more expensive.

For broadband enthusiasts, Toronto’s broadband future looks much brighter than yesterday’s failed ferry service, which proves once again that regardless of the technology — slow, expensive, and inconvenient service will never attract much interest from the value-conscious public.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TVO The Need for High Speed 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Canada’s digital networks are some of the slowest in the world, running between one hundred to a thousand times slower than other countries in the developed world. In this episode of “Our Digital Future – The Need for High-Speed,” Bill Hutchison, Executive Director of Intelligent Communities for Waterfront Toronto describes the sorry state of Canada’s digital infrastructure, stressing the need for major investments in advanced broadband networks.  (4 minutes)

Gov. Purdue: I Was for More Competition Before I Was Against It

Democratic Gov. Bev Purdue from North Carolina has managed to twist her logic into quite a pretzel over two statements from her office in the past two weeks.  On the community broadband front, Purdue protested legislation to reduce competitive choices in broadband in her state (all underlining ours):

May 20, 2011:

“My concern with House Bill 129 is that the restrictions the General Assembly has imposed on cities and towns who want to offer broadband services may have the effect of decreasing the number of choices available to their citizens. For these reasons, I will neither sign nor veto this bill. Instead, I call on the General Assembly to revisit this issue and adopt rules that not only promote fairness but also allow for the greatest number of high quality and affordable broadband options for consumers.”

Just 11 days later, Purdue inferred the exact opposite in her letter of support for the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, which will reduce most of North Carolina to choosing among AT&T, Verizon, and in some cases Sprint.  One of her reasons?  The city of Raleigh is getting a new area code:

May 31, 2011:

The proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile presents another development in the marketplace which can benefit the people of my state.

The communications market in North Carolina, particularly in the wireless arena, is dynamic. Recently, the NC Utilities Commission announced the Raleigh area will soon implement a new area code, the eighth in the state, due primarily to the tremendous growth in wireless service.

In North Carolina we are committed to stimulating investments in advanced technology, and encourage quality service for the public. We look forward to working closely with AT&T to foster these important goals.

On behalf of the people of North Carolina, I appreciate your strong consideration in favor of the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.

Allow AT&T and T-Mobile to merge because Raleigh needs a new area code, proving wireless growth.  That may account among the most novel of all reasons to support a merger that will further reduce competition in the wireless market.

CenturyLink is asking their employees to write “thank you notes” to North Carolina legislators for passing an industry-written telecommunications bill that will reduce competition and inhibit community broadband competition in the state.

Broadband Reports received a copy of the message from a CenturyLink insider:

With the battle over and under-served North Carolina communities losing, a CenturyLink insider writes us to note the company this week sent employees an e-mail urging them to send their representatives a thank you letter for doing what Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink lobbyists told them to. “We encourage you to send an e-mail to your Representative, thanking him or her for supporting the bill,” says the e-mail to employees. “Opponents of the legislation, including the NC Municipal League and other groups, lobbied fiercely against the bill. So, your Representative’s support of the bill showed courage and conviction,” the letter insists. The e-mail included this recommended form letter:

A research report sponsored by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the nation’s largest cable lobbying group, has concluded that millions of broadband stimulus dollars are being wasted by the government on broadband projects that will ultimately serve people who supposedly already enjoy a panoply of broadband choice.

Navigant Economics, a “research group” that produces reports for its paying clients inside industry, government, and law firms, produced this one at the behest of a cable industry concerned that broadband stimulus funding will build competing broadband providers that could force better service and lower prices for consumers.

• More than 85 percent of households in the three project areas are already passed by existing cable broadband, DSL, and/or fixed wireless broadband providers. In one of the project areas, more than 98 percent of households are already passed by at least one of these modalities.

• In part because a large proportion of project funds are being used to provide duplicative service, the cost per incremental (unserved) household passed is extremely high. When existing mobile wireless broadband coverage is taken into account, the $231.7 million in RUS funding across the three projects will provide service to just 452 households that currently lack broadband service.

Navigant’s report tries to prove its contention by analyzing three broadband projects that seek funding from the federal government.  Northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Kansas, and southwestern Montana were selected for Navigant’s analysis, and unsurprisingly the researcher found the broadband unavailability problem overblown.

The evidence demonstrates that broadband service is already widely available in each of the three proposed service areas. Thus, a large proportion of each award goes to subsidize broadband deployment to households and regions where it is already available, and the taxpayer cost per unserved household is significantly higher than the taxpayer cost per household passed.

The cable industry funds research reports that oppose fiber broadband stimulus projects.

But Navigant’s findings take liberties with what defines appropriate broadband service in the 21st century.

First, Navigant argues that wireless mobile broadband is suitable to meet the definition of broadband service, despite the fact most rural areas face 3G broadband speeds that, in real terms, are below the current definition of “broadband” (a stable 768kbps or better — although the FCC supports redefining broadband to speeds at or above 3-4Mbps).  As any 3G user knows, cell site congestion, signal quality, and environmental factors can quickly reduce 3G speeds to less than 500kbps.  When was the last time your 3G wireless provider delivered 768kbps or better on a consistent basis?

Navigant also ignores the ongoing march by providers to establish tiny usage caps for wireless broadband.  With most declaring anything greater than 5GB “abusive use,” and some limiting use to less than half that amount, a real question can be raised about whether mobile broadband, even at future 4G speeds, can provide a suitable home broadband replacement.

Second, Navigant’s list of available providers assumes facts not necessarily in evidence.  For example, in Lake County, Minnesota, Navigant assumes DSL availability based on a formula that assumes the service will be available anywhere within a certain radius of the phone company’s central office.  But as our own readers have testified, companies like Qwest, Frontier, and AT&T do not necessarily provide DSL in every central office or within the radius Navigant assumes it should be available.  One Stop the Cap! reader in the area has fought Frontier Communications for more than a year to obtain DSL service, and he lives blocks from the local central office.  It is simply not available in his neighborhood.  AT&T customers have encountered similar problems because the company has deemed parts of its service area unprofitable to provide saturation DSL service.  While some multi-dwelling units can obtain 3Mbps DSL, individual homes nearby cannot.

Navigant never visited the impacted communities to inquire whether service was actually available.  Instead, it relied on this definition to assume availability:

DSL boundaries were estimated as follows: Based on the location of the dominant central office of each wirecenter, a 12,000 foot radius was generated. This radius was then truncated as necessary to encompass only the servicing wirecenter. The assumption that DSL is capable of serving areas within 12,000 is based on analysis conducted by the Omnibus Broadband Initiative for the National Broadband Plan.

Frontier advertises up to 10Mbps DSL in our neighborhood, but in reality can actually only offer speeds of 3.1Mbps in a suburb less than one mile from the Rochester, N.Y. city line.  In more rural areas, customers are lucky to get service at all.

Cable broadband boundaries were estimated based on information obtained from an industry factbook, which gathered provider-supplied general coverage information and extrapolated availability from that.  But, as we’ve reported on numerous occasions, provider-supplied coverage data has proven suspect.  We’ve found repeated instances when advertised service proved unavailable, especially in rural areas where individual homes do not meet the minimum density required to provide service.

We’ve argued repeatedly for independent broadband mapping that relies on actual on-the-ground data, if only to end the kind of generalizations legislators rely on regarding broadband service.  But if the cable industry can argue away the broadband problem with empty claims service is available even in places where it is not (or woefully inadequate), relying on voluntary data serves the industry well, even if it shortchanges rural consumers who are told they have broadband choices that do not actually exist.

Navigant’s report seeks to apply the brakes to broadband improvement programs that can deliver consistent coverage and 21st century broadband speeds that other carriers simply don’t provide or don’t offer throughout the proposed service areas.  The cable industry doesn’t welcome the competition, especially in areas stuck with lesser-quality service from low-rated providers.