The successful launch of ViaSat 1, the new satellite broadband satellite.

ViaSat, the parent company of satellite Internet service provider WildBlue, will introduce new pricing and speed packages Tuesday for its satellite broadband service.

WildBlue has offered satellite-based Internet access for several years, but the speeds and heavily-restricted “fair access policy” have left many customers looking for something better.  But for many satellite Internet customers, DSL or cable broadband is miles away and will be indefinitely, so any improvement in satellite broadband is good news.

“Are the days of satellite fraudband finally over?” asks Stop the Cap! reader Madeline who lives in rural Idaho. “I was a customer of WildBlue and Hughes in the past and both were not worth bear spit.”

Madeline and her family are potato farmers, and have been for three generations.  She remembers when the phone company started selling dial-up Internet access and got hooked on the Internet to get updated weather reports, trade farming information, and stay in touch with relatives.  But as the web has grown more multimedia-oriented, dial-up has progressively become an intolerable way to experience it.

“In the 1990s, web ads and pages were simple and they’d load quick,” she says. “Now it’s all video ads and other things that take five minutes or more to appear, so you become stuck waiting until you give up.”

WildBlue’s new satellite, ViaSat 1, may change the perception of a satellite Internet experience that is only slightly more tolerable than dial-up.  With speeds up to 12Mbps, WildBlue’s new speed packages will finally deliver something more than the 1.5Mbps “Pro” service the company currently sells for $80 with a 17GB usage cap.

“The key words with satellite are ‘up to‘ because you never get the speeds they promise, especially at night when everyone is on,” Madeline says. “If you use what they consider to be ‘too much,’ your speeds are cut further.”

ViaSat 1 has a total capacity of 140Gbps, double that of the company’s other satellite — KA-SAT.  That wireless pipeline will eventually be shared by commercial, government and residential customers.  With several hundred thousand anticipated users, WildBlue will continue to restrict usage even with the new capacity.  No word on what specific limits will be put in place, but it is likely customers will at least enjoy a speed boost from the new satellite.  ViaSat hopes to economize using web compression technology and other traffic management techniques to make efficient use of the satellite’s broadband capacity.

Madeline remains unconvinced, however.

“You don’t choose satellite Internet because you want to, you choose it because you have to,” she says. “My guess is WildBlue will continue the same low caps — especially to make sure we steer well clear of web video — and will still charge us a lot of money for service you can’t use all you want.”

Madeline went back to dial-up and frequently visits some nearby relatives who receive Internet from a Wireless ISP.

“While everyone else in the country is talking about Netflix and making video calls to relatives, we are still sending e-mail and setting egg timers to make sure we don’t stay online too long and get throttled before the month is out.”

WildBlue’s Existing Packages (Company-supplied information)

WildBlue’s Acceptable Use Policy.

*A “threshold” (a/k/a “usage cap”) is the amount of data that you can upload or download in a 30-day period before WildBlue’s Fair Access Policy (speed throttle) applies.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Wildblue Demo.flv[/flv]

WildBlue produced this demonstration to show off web browsing over its new ViaSat 1 satellite.  Keep in mind this browsing session took place before the satellite was available for general customer use and the company avoids mentioning its usage limits, which are extremely small in comparison to wired broadband.  (3 minutes)

Wall Street is encouraging Verizon Communications to sell off its landline telephone operations to clear a path for a potentially-profitable merger with British mobile phone company Vodafone Group Plc.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs Group are behind the research report, which suggests Verizon’s recent non-aggression treaty with Comcast and Time Warner Cable makes the sale of Verizon’s landline phone and FiOS fiber to the home network more likely. Verizon will earn a percentage of every cable TV/phone/broadband subscription sold, effectively making Verizon’s own wired network redundant. Potential buyers could include Frontier Communications, CenturyLink, or Windstream, which all have business plans that depend on landline networks fewer Americans are using.

Should Verizon clear away its legacy landline and FiOS networks, Goldman Sachs suggests, a merger with Vodafone would be a “clear fit” for the two companies.

“The remaining wireless and enterprise businesses would have faster growth and a clear fit with Vodafone’s assets and strategy, making it a more attractive merger partner,” Bloomberg News quotes from the report.

“Given that it no longer faces the threat of integrated cable competitors, Verizon could potentially spin off its remaining [landline] assets,” along with “large” pension and benefit liabilities, the Goldman analysts added.

Verizon would also eliminate its ongoing dispute with the two largest unions representing its landline workers — Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.  Both unions are still trying to negotiate a new contract with Verizon after a brief, but contentious, summer strike. Verizon Wireless is almost entirely non-unionized.

Vodafone’s share price has been rising recently, perhaps anticipating a potential merger that would give Vodafone a stronger hand in the U.S. marketplace.

Verizon’s investment in its landline network, along with interest in expanding its well-regarded FiOS fiber to the home service, has remained stalled for the past few years.  Recently, the company indicated an interest in moving away from fiber optics to serve broadband customers, and rely on its wireless LTE 4G network instead.

Verizon’s new CEO Lowell McAdam comes from Verizon’s wireless division, and has not shared his predecessor’s enthusiasm for fiber upgrades.

Merger Partner?

While the prospect of an all-wireless future for Verizon may seem good for shareholders, consumers are likely to pay the price:

1. The Justice Department is reviewing the antitrust implications of the non-aggression treaty between Verizon and its cable competitors;
2. The sale of Verizon’s landline network to an independent provider could doom the company’s fiber optic network and limit rural Verizon customers to 1-3Mbps DSL;
3. Verizon Wireless’ prices reflect its market share and lack of strong competition.  The company’s LTE wireless network, although fast, has suffered from reliability problems and is heavily usage-limited.  It may prove unsuitable as a home broadband replacement for rural customers;
4. Reduced competition for telephone, video, and broadband will likely result in higher prices for existing cable subscribers, too.

Verizon is hardly the first phone company to ponder getting out of the phone business.  AT&T has been lobbying to rescind rural universal service requirements for years.  If successful, AT&T could abandon its rural landline network and provide customers with higher-priced cell phone service instead.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Parody of Verizon Video.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s unionized workers are still fighting for a new contract, and released this parody video in response to a company-produced DVD mailed to union workers’ homes.  (3 minutes)

One of the things we have tried to teach readers over the last few years is how important it is to follow the money trail when encountering a group, politician, or researcher counter-intuitively arguing “up is down” or “right is left.”  So when a business columnist in the Press of Atlantic City slammed rural broadband as a service provided “to a group of people who mostly don’t want it,” we started digging:

The FCC claims this effort will give 7 million rural people reliable access to high-speed Internet connections. So the hundreds of millions of urban and suburban Americans who wish their Internet was faster and more reliable will pay for 2 percent of us to get just that.

Or maybe we’ll be paying for redundant, overpriced telecom work by companies that donate to rural politicians.

Federal stimulus spending in response to the recession already included $7.2 billion for this same purpose. An analysis by Navigant Economics of three big projects under that Broadband Initiatives Program found:

Even “areas in which very high proportions of households were already served by multiple existing broadband providers” were eligible for subsidized broadband work.

The author’s suspicion that money was involved in all this was correct, but he completely missed who was boarding the money train.

Navigant Economics, the “research group” that produced the inflammatory report slamming rural broadband funding, happens to count AT&T as one of its important clients.

The group, a subsidiary of Navigant Consulting, provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues to law firms, corporations and government agencies.

In fact, Navigant pitches its services to a range of corporate clients:

Navigant Economics provides economic analysis in litigation and regulatory proceedings involving competition issues. Our 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.

We provide economic analysis and testimony in connection with mergers and acquisitions and antitrust claims of:

• Anticompetitive horizontal agreements (price fixing, bid rigging, potential anticompetitive effects of joint ventures)
• Unilateral conduct (predatory pricing, refusals to deal, monopolization via patent fraud)
• Vertical restraints (exclusive dealing, requirement contracting, tying and bundling)

We also offer economic analysis and testimony on issues of price and rate of return regulation, mandatory access, quality of service, and benefit-cost analysis, with especial expertise in regulatory proceedings involving communications and the Internet (software and hardware sectors, network unbundling and “net neutrality” issues affecting telecom and cable firms, retransmission consent and other content-related issues, and the range of wireless spectrum issues) and all types of energy markets.

Phillip "Making Sense, Not Dollars" Dampier

The result is what critics refer to as “dollar a holler research” — bought-and-paid-for-results that coincidentally fit the framework of a client’s public policy agenda.  In this case, AT&T (among other phone companies) has fretted about broadband stimulus funding ever since the Obama Administration made it clear the industry would not collectively control the program or reward themselves at taxpayer expense.  In addition to criticizing the decision-making process, phone and cable companies have objected to numerous applicants who applied for grants to build networks serving communities those companies have ignored or under-served for years.

To say AT&T has no vested interest in the outcome of rural broadband would be the first major understatement of 2012.

Martyn Roetter with MFR Consulting said Navigant was giving a bad name to researchers.

“Navigant Economics as well as other economists in academia and the consulting profession seem increasingly prepared to support arguments in favor of their clients’ desires and goals regardless of whether they are reasonable or preposterous,” Roetter wrote. “Unfortunately this behavior tends to blur the distinction between (a) respectable advocacy with findings based on evidence and rational arguments and (b) indefensible nonsense, discrediting both academics and consultants.”

Navigant spent much of 2011 trying to convince regulators and the public that T-Mobile actually doesn’t compete with AT&T, so there should be no problem letting the two companies merge.  Readers win no prizes guessing who paid for that stunner of a conclusion.  Thankfully, the Department of Justice quickly dismissed that notion as a whole lot of hooey.

Navigant’s second ludicrous conclusion is that there is no rural broadband availability problem.  Navigant has a love affair with slow speed, spotty DSL (sold by AT&T) and heavily-capped 3G wireless (also sold by AT&T) as the Frankincense and Myrrh of rural Internet life.  With those, you don’t need any broadband expansion (particularly from a third party interloper).

“The notion that a nominal maximum speed in a shared radio access network is comparable to a nominal maximum speed of a fixed broadband line to a location is a striking example of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the very different operating characteristics and capabilities of these two transmission media,” Roetter soberly observed.

But he knows better.

Roetter

Kevin Post, columnist for the Press of Atlantic City, bought Navigant’s conclusions hook, line, and sinker and repeated them in the press.  In fact, he upped the ante parroting the time-honored provider argument that rural America doesn’t need 21st century broadband because, well, they just don’t want it:

This costly effort is aimed at bringing broadband to a group of people who mostly don’t want it, according to a 2010 Pew Internet survey.

Half of Americans who don’t use the Internet told Pew that the main reason is they don’t find it relevant to their lives.

Only one in 10 nonusers said they would be interested in starting to use the Internet sometime in the future.

Actually, the Pew Internet survey came well before Navigant’s outlandish conclusions, and didn’t directly address the rural broadband availability problem.  Instead, Pew was looking at broadband adoption rates, primarily in places that already have one or more broadband providers.  Pew found what providers have already realized themselves: broadband growth and adoption is slowing; everyone who wants the service in urban America already has it or wants it.  Those that don’t are typically older and lack computers or are too poor to afford the asking price.

Post’s suggestion that a Pew Study concluded rural America does not want broadband service is an exercise in fixing the facts.

That’s the magic of the Dollar-a-Holler Echo Machine.  Big telecom companies hire public policy consultants and researchers to find their way to “scientific” evidence proving their corporate agenda, and then feeds the “facts” and “research” to receptive reporters, astroturf “consumer groups,” and politicians to bolster their case.  It’s not AT&T suggesting there is no rural broadband problem — it’s Navigant Economics.

As Roetter writes, “A basic knowledge of wireless markets exposes the […] indefensible nature of the positions outlined above. A policy based on ‘tell me what you want to hear, pay me, and I will reproduce it all regardless of its merits’ is a disservice to professionals who try to remain objective and independent, i.e. professional.”

This co-op provides 25Mbps broadband in rural Minnesota.

Parts of rural Minnesota are teaching the nation a lesson or two about how to deliver rural broadband — form a community co-op and provide it yourself, or wait forever for a commercial provider to deem it sufficiently profitable to deliver a reasonable level of service.

Minnesota’s Broadband Task Force indirectly proved the case for community Internet access with their first official report on the state of broadband in the North Star State.

While the populous Twin Cities are well-provided-for by large cable and phone companies, most of rural Minnesota gets far slower (and spottier) access to telephone company DSL, which is increasingly uncompetitive and inadequate for the 21st century knowledge economy.  Commercial providers have repeatedly told rural Minnesota their 1-3Mbps DSL service is plenty fast enough, at least for those who can purchase the service.  City slickers enjoy speeds of 10Mbps or more in Minneapolis and St. Paul.  But as many more rural residents and small businesses will tell you, DSL just cannot get the job done at current speeds, especially for higher bandwidth applications.

Not all of Minnesota is stuck with second-class Internet access.  Two sections of the state where residents were unwilling to accept the broadband status quo now have speeds that rival anything on offer in Minneapolis or St. Paul, because they decided to provide the service themselves.

Farmers Mutual in Madison, Federated Telephone in Morris, and Paul Bunyan Communications in Bemidji have been running fiber optic cables up and down area streets and delivering next generation broadband to some very happy customers.  All are cooperatives — community-owned providers that put their customers (who also happen to be the owners) ahead of Wall Street shareholder profits.  The result: modern and reliable service, instead of “good enough for you” Internet access at sky-high prices from for-profit phone companies.

Farmers Mutual provides service at speeds up to 20/20Mbps, with faster service forthcoming in the future.  They also believe in an open Internet, free from provider interference.  Just outside of their service area, DSL (where available) often runs at speeds of 1Mbps or less.

Federated Telephone offers a unique Ethernet-based broadband service at 20/20Mbps speeds that advertises unlimited usage — a selling point when larger phone companies like AT&T now place limits on Internet access.  Outside of their service area, many rural Minnesotans are stuck using satellite Internet service or dial-up.

Paul Bunyan Communications goes one step further with a network that already delivers 25Mbps broadband in communities like Bemidji and Grand Rapids (Minn.)  Those speeds are simply unavailable from commercial providers in northern Minnesota.

Minnesota’s broadband story is retold across America.  Urban communities have fast speed, but high prices.  Rural communities have inferior DSL at high prices or nothing at all.  Only about 57 percent of Minnesota households now meet the statewide speed goal of 10/6Mbps service.  Cable operators have no problems achieving 10Mbps download speeds, but 6Mbps upload speeds are very uncommon.  Phone companies cannot reliably achieve either with traditional ADSL service.

The state’s broadband goals are aggressive:

By 2015, the state of Minnesota will:

• a. Be in the top five states of the United States for broadband speed universally accessible to residents and businesses; and,
• b. Be in the top five states for broadband access (availability); and,
• c. Be in the top 15 when compared to countries globally for broadband penetration (adoption).

Community owned co-ops are the most likely to help the state achieve their broadband goals. The state is currently ranked 24th in broadband speed.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Broadband Blindness.flv[/flv]

Toast Sacramento produced this 28-minute documentary which succinctly tells the story of North American broadband, and how commercial providers have set us up for long-term failure, especially in rural and suburban areas.  Whether you live in the United States or Canada, phone and cable companies dominate the telecommunications landscape.  Unlike other modern-day necessities, broadband is almost entirely in the hands of an unregulated free market that fails millions.  Where competition exists, customers can get reasonably fast service, but it costs more than it should.  Where competition is hard to find: slow speeds, spotty access, and out-of-sight prices predominate.

The documentary explores:

• the neglect of suburban and rural DSL from large phone companies like AT&T;
• how phony, industry-influenced broadband availability maps convince public officials there isn’t a big broadband problem;
• why the country’s broadband demands may be too great for providers to handle without major new investments, leading to usage limits and slowdowns to delay needed upgrades;
• and how the latest broadband technologies being installed overseas fall victim to Wall Street temper tantrums back home.