[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Frontier vs CityNet Pt 1 12-11-10.mp4[/flv]

DecisionMakers: Frontier vs. Citynet, Part One  (10 minutes)

Bray Cary

Bray Cary, who runs a Sunday news-talk-interview show on his network of West Virginia-based television stations, turned his attention back to the mediocre broadband picture across the state.  Once again, the “free market can do no wrong”-host showered attention and praise on Frontier Communications for their promises to improve West Virginia’s bottom-of-the-barrel rankings in broadband adoption, availability, and speed.  Only this time, one of his guests took him to school on why Frontier Communications is not the state’s broadband savior.

In this round, Cary invited Frontier’s senior vice president Dana Waldo and Citynet president and CEO Jim Martin to discuss where the state’s broadband is today and where it is going tomorrow.

The community of French Creek can't get Frontier broadband even after promising the company dozens of new broadband customers.

Cary wears his opinions on his sleeve, and he’s no fan of the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program, believing private companies will deliver West Virginia from its broadband doldrums. That’s wishful thinking Cary can afford as he browses the web from well-wired cities like Charleston.  But if you live in a community like French Creek in Upshur County, that talk isn’t going to get you broadband from Frontier or anyone else.  Stop the Cap! has heard from residents in the community who have delivered petitions from dozens of residents ready and willing to sign up for -any- broadband service, but Frontier hasn’t responded.

Martin opines that as long as stimulus money is available, using it to get the best bang for the buck could improve service for residents from the Panhandle to the Virginia border, instead of simply improving Frontier’s bottom line.

Cary did seem concerned that Frontier was ill-equipped to deliver service to all residents, regardless of cost.

Martin argues Frontier’s broadband network will do nothing to stimulate competition and bring better service.  Martin wants funds redirected into a robust middle-mile statewide backbone, preferably fiber-based, that is open to all-comers at reasonable wholesale pricing.  Citynet has been aggressively complaining about broadband stimulus grants in the state which seem to benefit a handful of companies and projects that don’t actually result in service to individual residents.

The reality is, Cary’s “free market” approach will not deliver service to tens of thousands of West Virginians who will never get wired because of “return on investment” requirements for service in the mountainous state.  Martin’s middle-mile mentality won’t bring access to the last mile, critical for wiring individual homes, either.  But one thing Martin does see that Frontier doesn’t — fiber is the future.

There is a third way to get service without waiting from Frontier’s 1-3Mbps service with an Internet Overcharging scheme or Martin’s middle-mile network that goes past your home but never stops there — petition your local government to empower itself and build a community-owned network that answers to residents, not to Frontier’s dividend-obsessed shareholders.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Frontier vs CityNet Pt 2 12-11-10.mp4[/flv]

DecisionMakers: Frontier vs. Citynet, Part Two  (9 minutes)

Ontario County, N.Y. has completed its 200-plus mile fiber ring and is now open for business… at least for area businesses that want commercial accounts.

But the county’s Office of Economic Development has no intention of building a 21st century fiber network that consumers can’t use — it wants fiber-to-the-home service for every resident.

The formerly rural Finger Lakes county has become an economic growth spot in western New York, with urban sprawl from nearby Rochester and new high-technology businesses attracted by the area’s relatively low taxes and pro-technology attitude.

The high tech fiber ring is the most recent example of the county’s growth-oriented philosophy.

Axcess Ontario, a public-benefit corporation established to oversee the project, built the ring well under its $7.5 million budget.  In the end, the whole project ended up costing just $5.5 million.

The project benefited from faster than expected contracting work and the installation of a natural gas pipeline, through which some of the county’s fiber travels.  Much of the rest is attached to utility poles that stretch across the county’s rural farmlands and small cities, towns and villages.

Now complete, the project is capable of delivering ultra-fast service from cities like Geneva and Canandaigua to the wine-growing region of Naples, to the outer ring towns like West Bloomfield, Victor, Manchester, and Phelps.

Ontario County, N.Y.

“Our mission from the outset was to ensure that every community in Ontario County had access to fiber, no matter how remote that community might be, geographically speaking,” said Geoff Astles, chairman of Axcess Ontario’s board of directors. “We’re proud to say that not only have we accomplished that piece, but we’ve done it under budget.”

The county says the network is open to all-comers, and eight companies are currently using the network themselves or reselling access to commercial businesses that need the capacity fiber brings.  Among them — Verizon Wireless; TW Telecom; Finger Lakes Technologies Group and its sister company, Ontario Telephone Co.; WavHost; Clarity Connect; OneStream Networks; Layer 8; and Integrated Systems.

But nothing prevents a residential service provider from hopping on board, if they’re interested in providing wiring from the fiber ring to individual homes.

“We’re working with several service providers who now have plans to bring fiber to each individual residence,” Michael Manikowski of Ontario County’s Office of Economic Development says. “That’s a little bit down the road. It’s a fairly complicated technical thing that we have to attract other partners to come to the county to help us.”

“The concept of ‘fiber to the home’ is the ultimate game-changer,” said Axcess Ontario CEO Ed Hemminger. “Once residents have fiber to the home, everything changes. Someone who wants to work from home or start a home-based business can do so with ease. Not only will they have instant access to the online global marketplace, but they’ll also have confidence that their home-based Internet connection will be as fast, as reliable and as competitively priced as any office-based system. Imagine conducting videoconferences on your iPad with business partners halfway across the world, all from your living room or your back deck.”

“This project is going to make a difference in the lives of residents and business-owners for the next 25 years,” he said.

Among those reportedly interested: Frontier Communications, which runs limited fiber to some of the county’s new housing developments, but currently does not leverage that technology to deliver broadband faster than traditional DSL accounts the company sells elsewhere in the region.  Time Warner Cable also covers the more populated areas of county through its Rochester/Finger Lakes division.

Individual communities inside the county could also decide to build their own community fiber service for residents, if they are willing to wire individual homes.

Residential fiber service has rarely attracted commercial service providers, convinced the technology is overkill for most consumers.  Some also balk at the capital costs, which are considerably higher than existing copper phone wire or running coaxial cable to homes for traditional cable service.  But many communities suffering from very low speed DSL service and not well served by cable-TV find doing it themselves can deliver service that commercial companies may never provide.  Without the immediate need for quick returns on investment, towns and villages clamoring for faster broadband can finally have it, without the expense of building and running their own fiber ring.

Axcess Ontario threatens to deliver service better and faster than what is on offer further north in much larger Monroe County, which includes Rochester.  That’s because Ontario County’s advanced fiber network could ultimately scrap Frontier’s obsolete copper wire landlines and call out the incremental, slow upgrades from Time Warner Cable.

The Ontario County fiber ring is a nationally recognized broadband model. Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the John F. Kennedy School of Government this fall recognized the fiber ring as a “Bright Idea” — a promising, innovative solution that can assist other communities as they face their own challenges. And earlier this year, county officials met with the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C., to educate FCC officials about the fiber ring and how it can be implemented elsewhere in the country.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHAM Fiber Ring in Ontario County 12-29-10.flv[/flv]

WHAM-TV in Rochester reports Ontario County’s new community-owned fiber ring could eventually deliver fiber to the home service to every resident in the county.  (2 minutes)

No, don't get up. We've got it.

Want an example of the kind of lazy journalism you get from one of America’s largest news operations, about to become a part of the Comcast family?  Look no further than MSNBC’s Wilson Rothman, who shared some serious Net Nonsense in his piece: ‘Open’ Internet just a pipedream.

Rothman apologized in a tweet after publishing the essay, admitting it was “cynical.”  But we want to know where the apology is for being wrong on the actual facts.

The author tells readers it’s a Comcast world this winter:

As long as you buy Internet access via cable provider, wireless carrier or telecom, you’re going to have to play — or at least pay — by their rules. They’ll just have to make sure to tell you what those rules are. That seems to be the real gist of the FCC order that was ratified today.

[…]The only people currently getting throttled by their broadband providers are file-sharing pirates who wouldn’t be protected by any net neutrality regulation anyway; meanwhile, wired and wireless broadband networks are increasingly controlled by a smaller, more powerful cadre of competitors.

Tiered pricing has to happen

You can use as much electricity from the power grid as you want, but you have to pay by the kilowatt hour. If you think of the Internet as a utility — and why shouldn’t you? — network management should look something like that. Prices offered by regulated private companies should be competitive and reasonable, but highly metered. Sadly, that means no more flat-fee unlimited access.

[…]I don’t mean to sound cynical, but I come at this from a technology background, not a legal or political one. What I see are all the ways in which “public” access to utilities become profit centers for increasingly massive companies.

After the break-up of the Bells, the phone companies eventually consolidated and worked their way back together like some kind of liquid-metal Terminator. The good news? Instead of a single monopolistic phone company, we have two Leviathans and some smaller fish. Long-distance service used to be their cash cow; now it’s wireless and broadband, and they’re not going to let those slip so easily.

“Give that man a raise,” said Brian Roberts, Comcast CEO.

Seriously, Rothman might come from a technology background, but he sure doesn’t know his way around the broadband public policy debate. Digging into the reasons for today’s broadband mess would require actual reporting.

Rothman suggests Americans are effectively required to accept today’s decision from the Federal Communications Commission.  That’s akin to telling Time Warner Cable customers they should have just knelt down to the cable company’s 2009 pricing experiments.  Or that North Carolina needed to padlock community broadband networks until they could be sold on eBay to the highest Big Telecom bidder.  Or that Frontier can and should get away with a 5GB usage cap.

We said no.  You said no.  And we won all three of those battles.

Today’s FCC vote has relevance only until the first major cable or phone company (or interested third party) files a lawsuit.  The outcome is predictable — the same court that threw out the FCC’s authority earlier this year will do so again, for many of the same reasons.  For consumers, that isn’t all bad.

Rothman’s claim that only pirates are victims of speed throttling is demonstrably false, and nothing less than journalistic malpractice.  Innocent consumers are routinely throttled on wireless and wireline broadband networks using “network management” technology.  Are Clear’s customers all pirates?  How about Cricket’s clients?  Exceeding an arbitrary amount of usage on these networks guarantees you a spot in the dial-up-like doghouse.

The author also misses the point about increasing consolidation in the Big Telecom marketplace.  Cadre?  Sure.  Competitors?  Hardly.  Most Americans endure a broadband duopoly for reasonable Internet access — a cable and phone company.  Cable and phone companies have quite a deal.  They effectively charge around the same price for service and never have to worry about a third cable or phone company entering the marketplace.  Cable companies don’t compete with other cable companies.  Same for telephone companies.  Community broadband networks deliver the only real competition some areas have, which is why Big Telecom wants to ban these upstarts wherever they can.  Big Telecom believes Americans should not get to choose an alternative cable company if Comcast delivers terrible service.  Consumers living in small communities like Penn Yan, N.Y., live with Verizon DSL, if they are lucky.  Outside of the immediate town limits, there isn’t a cable competitor, much less another phone company.  That’s the real “take it or leave it” Americans contend with.

Rothman's electric utility analogy is as valid as charging for broadband by the foot.

Why shouldn’t Americans think of broadband as just another electric utility?  Because it isn’t.  This common talking point/analogy adopted by Rothman’s future employer has as much validity as pricing broadband by how many feet of wire was necessary to install it.

Broadband is neither a limited resource nor a product that requires a utility to purchase raw materials to perpetually generate.  His argument works only if a provider “generated” the actual content you consume online.  They don’t — they simply transport content from one point to another over a network that becomes enormously profitable once the initial construction costs are paid.  Rothman can discover this for himself reviewing the quarterly financials of broadband providers.  After billions in profits are counted, it’s clear this is one recession-proof industry that is hardly hurting.

It’s no mistake these analogies always leave out the one utility that is most comparable to broadband — telephone service.  You know, the one service that is rapidly moving towards unlimited, flat rate — talk all you want.  Providers using the consumption billing argument cannot afford to include phone service in their analogy, because then the ripoff would be exposed.  One would think a reporter for NBC News might have managed to figure that one out as well, but no.

The fact is, there is no healthy competition in broadband.  You know what that means — high prices for limited service.  Rothman seems ready and willing to take whatever Big Telecom wants to dish out, but then his paycheck is about to be paid by one of those companies, so he can afford to be cynical.

Unfortunately for his readers, Rothman is oblivious to the reasons why phone companies have consolidated and consumers are stuck with the results.  The recipe:

• A multimillion dollar lobbying effort that includes huge contributions to politicians, astroturf “dollar-a-holler” groups paid to front for Big Telecom’s agenda, and a mess of scare tactics predicting horrible things if they do not get their way;
• A supine media that simply accepts provider arguments as fact, deems the abusive practice that follow as inevitable, and apologizes later for being cynical;
• An uninformed public that decreasingly relies on media companies that also happen to have direct financial interests in the outcome of these public policy debates.

Consumers have more power than Rothman thinks when they take a stand with elected officials.  When taking AT&T money becomes more costly than voting for their constituents, elected officials will do the right thing.  That takes individuals letting elected officials they are watching them closely on these issues.

Consumers can also tell their local elected officials that the Big Telecom Money Party needs to come to an end.  A community-owned broadband network that throws out the online toll booths and creates a network for Main Street instead of Wall Street is the functional equivalent of handing unruly Verizon and Comcast their coats and escorting them the door.

Crowell

Fibrant, Salisbury, N.C., community-owned fiber to the home network, shares advice to other communities considering building their own self-reliant, locally-owned broadband networks: work together and outsource the headend.

Christopher Mitchell from Community Broadband Networks alerted us to a video from TelecomTV interviewing Michael Crowell, Fibrant’s Director of Broadband Services.  In it, Crowell shows off Fibrant’s GPON fiber network and explains what the city has learned from the experience of building its own network.

Ironically, a significant part of Fibrant’s network came cheap thanks to Windstream.  It seems what the residents of Salisbury won was also a loss for those living in Concord, N.C.

Crowell explains Concord was served by a small independent phone company — Concord Telephone.  They had decided to build their customers an advanced fiber to the home network similar to Fibrant, until the company was sold to Windstream.  Windstream has no interest in delivering world-class fiber broadband to Concord (or anywhere else), and left Concord with dismal DSL, selling the fiber network equipment to Salisbury dirt cheap — for around 10 cents on the dollar.

But not everything has come so easy to Fibrant, says Crowell.  One of the company’s largest expenses is its headend, which receives, monitors, and distributes the hundreds of video channels Fibrant customers receive.

“What we think would be a better model going forward is for the other cities and counties to do what is called an open access network.  They build and maintain the fiber but get other providers to provide the service,” Crowell said.

Crowell proposes allowing the state’s two largest municipal broadband projects — Wilson in the east and Salisbury in the central-west part of the state, handle the headend, as well as customer service calls and billing on behalf of other communities interested in building their own municipal fiber networks.  Both cities can deliver bulk feeds of video channels to different parts of the state and that saves other communities from spending money to hire employees to monitor redundant, expensive equipment.

That is more or less what is happening further south in Opelika, Ala., where work is underway constructing a fiber to the home network.  But in Opelika, city officials have decided to let cable overbuilder Knology run the network.

Knology’s network is already up and running in nearby Auburn, according to Royce Ard, general manager for Knology.  Ard told WRBL TV:

“We met our scheduled date for installing our first Auburn test customers and the test is progressing nicely. We will begin adding our first paying customers by the end of October,” Ard said. “Initially, our services will be available in a limited number of neighborhoods, but as we build out our network we will contact homeowners and let them know when services are available in their area.”

Knology projects being able to offer service to its first Opelika customers by the second quarter of 2011.

“Knology is very excited about entering the Opelika market,” Ard said. “The technology that we are deploying in the Auburn/Opelika markets will allow us to offer consumers a much better product than they have today. This, along with Knology’s commitment to customer service, will greatly improve the overall experience for consumers in Auburn and Opelika.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Salisbury Discusses Motivation Behind Fibrant on TelecomTV 12-16-10.flv[/flv]

Fibrant’s Michael Crowell, interviewed by TelecomTV, walks viewers through Fibrant’s fiber network and discusses community-owned fiber networks.  (7 minutes)

Some 1100 communities will have to wait until next year to learn if they are among the one(s) chosen for Google’s new 1 gigabit fiber to the home network.

An announcement on Google’s official blog broke the news to anxious readers this morning:

We had planned to announce our selected community or communities by the end of this year, but the level of interest was incredible—nearly 1,100 communities across the country responded to our announcement—and exceeded our expectations. While we’re moving ahead full steam on this project, we’re not quite ready to make that announcement.

We’re sorry for this delay, but we want to make sure we get this right. To be clear, we’re not re-opening our selection process—we simply need more time to decide than we’d anticipated. Stay tuned for an announcement in early 2011.

Google has also been working on a “beta” network, serving 850 private homes and condominiums on the main campus of Stanford University, owned primarily by the faculty.

That a company the size of Google faces delays from the challenges involved in building a fiber-to-the-home network speaks to similar delays that often slow down municipal broadband deployments.  Community broadband critics often seize on such delays as evidence the networks are not viable and run by unqualified personnel.  But as Google illustrates, such delays are common whether they are run by private or public entities.