Last month, Stop the Cap! shared with you the inside story of the ABC Plan — a self-serving attempt by large phone companies to reform the Universal Service Fund (USF) in ways that would raise phone bills and deliver favored treatment for slow speed telephone company DSL service.  The FCC elected not to adopt the industry plan and cobbled together one of their own.  It will still raise the cost of telephone service, and likely won’t bring broadband to every rural American who wants it, but it could have been worse.

Despite the reforms, the challenges to deliver rural broadband remain serious.  In these out of the way communities, cell phone service is hit or miss, cable television is nowhere to be found, and the community looks to their independent local phone company for just about every telecommunications service they can buy.

In areas deemed unprofitable for even voice telephone service, co-op phone companies are commonplace.  So are family-owned and operated private providers.  These small providers don’t just exist to make money.  They are one-part community service, one part cover-your-costs to keep the lights on.  Without support from the USF, many of these companies could never have sustained their operations, much less expand into broadband.  So in a world of AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink, there are rural phone companies like Bevcomm, Valley Telephone Cooperative, Volcano Communications, Blackfoot, and Grand River Mutual Telephone that are expanding broadband in places larger companies would never think of serving.  While some of these companies supported the ABC Plan, the rural telephone associations that helped underwrite the Save Rural Broadband campaign also had a plan of their own to protect these small phone companies.

Over the next several days, you can get an inside look at each of these communities and the providers that serve them.  They are the rural phone companies that deliver the innovation so many larger phone companies forgot.

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

Learn how people in Amador County, California rely on broadband services from Volcano Communications.  Cell phone service is non-existent and without telecommunications service like broadband, economic growth in the community would be seriously challenged.  (6 minutes)

Canadians will learn at 4PM whether their Internet future will be unlimited or rationed with usage-based-billing (UBB) plans that could potentially charge consumers for every website they visit.

The much-anticipated decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) comes months after last winter’s hearings on how Internet service is priced in Canada.  It pits the largest phone company in the country — Bell — against small independent providers that are fighting to stay in business offering customers unlimited usage plans.

Most independent Internet Service Providers in Canada ironically buy wholesale access directly from Bell.  These upstart competitors like Primus and TekSavvy deliver unlimited DSL service at attractive prices.  In fact, some Bell customers have found them attractive enough to switch providers.  Bell’s wholesale division indirectly competing with its own retail business has proved unsatisfactory to Bell management, who proposed repricing wholesale access to resemble what Bell charges its retail customers.  But more importantly, Bell would demand that their competitors impose usage-based billing themselves, which would make unlimited Internet service in Canada a thing of the past.  The CRTC initially agreed with Bell, which sparked outrage among independent providers and consumers who faced the prospect of paying inflated prices for Internet service with no unlimited usage options in sight.

The backlash brought a half-million Canadians together to demand an end to unfair Internet pricing through a petition from Openmedia.ca.  That in turn attracted the attention of Canadian politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government’s Industry Minister Tony Clement.  Clement told reporters on Feb. 3 if the CRTC didn’t reverse its approval, and fast, the government would probably overrule the commission.

A day later, outgoing CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein said the commission would review its decision, the first in a series of backpedals in response to government pressure.

Even Bell, accustomed to having its way with the CRTC, has backtracked, now offering a compromise proposal that would charge independent ISPs 17.8c per gigabyte.  Many providers consider that excessive, too.

The CBC explains how Internet access is sold by independent providers in Canada.

Since the hearings, several marketplace changes have deflated some of Bell’s arguments that UBB was necessary to control over-eager users congesting their network.  Providers in western Canada — Shaw Cable and Telus, have dramatically boosted their respective usage caps, which call into question just how much of a congestion problem exists on Canada’s Internet networks.  The Canadian Network Operators Consortium, the voice of independent service providers, has offered its own proposal to charge wholesale customers based on peak network traffic.  MTS Allstream, itself a smaller player in Canadian telecom, proposed wholesale service be sold much like retail Internet in the United States — based on the speed/capacity of the service level selected.  If an ISP underpredicted usage, traffic would slow for everyone until the line was upgraded.

What ultimately gets approved by the CRTC may still be subject to government review, especially if the decision proves unpopular with consumers.  In a CBC online poll being conducted this afternoon, consumer sentiment is clear.  More than 91 percent of voters want the option of unlimited Internet access.

Whatever the CRTC decides will be reviewed by new Industry Minister Christian Paradis, who has managed to keep his head down and views to himself since he replaced Clement.  He may be hoping more than most that the CRTC will ultimately placate everyone, just so he doesn’t have to weigh in on the thorny issue.  But the CRTC’s track record representing consumers has been pretty dismal over the last few years, so we will not be surprised if the commission ultimately acquiesces to Bell’s substitute plan unaffectionately dubbed ‘GougeLite’ by Bell critics.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Internet pricing ruling expected from CRTC 11-14-11.flv[/flv]

The CBC reports on today’s expected ruling from the CRTC and what it means for Canadian Internet consumers.  (3 minutes)

Cable and satellite companies are the worst offenders when it comes to forcing customers to wait around for scheduled service calls, wasting time and money.

Who hasn’t taken time off from work for the cable installer or a repair crew, who inevitably arrive just minutes before the end of the six hour “window” the company provided.

Making people sit at home for service calls wastes money — a lot of it.  A new study from TOA Technologies found Americans hang out at home an average of 4.3 hours waiting for the cable guy to arrive, much longer than most people think they should have to wait.  TOA added up the cost of lost wages and reduced productivity that results when employees are absent — $37.7 billion annually.  That works out to an average of two eight-hour working days off a year per person, costing $250 a year.

More infuriating: you find yourself indisposed when the cable crew finally shows up and you can’t reach the door in time before they leave, or the promised visit never materializes.  That results in the dreaded “sorry we missed you” sticker attached to your front door and a rescheduled service call, often a week later.

When your cable company is also your Internet Service Provider, it can be double trouble.  ISP service calls were the second worst, phone companies fourth.

The cable industry’s lousy reputation among consumers is not lost on them. More than a decade ago, the industry voluntarily offered $20 service credits for late or missed service calls to improve their image. But TOA found the longer companies keep customers waiting, the more likely it is they will consider taking their business elsewhere.

With the advent of telephone company competition, customers infuriated by Comcast or Time Warner Cable may decide to switch to Verizon FiOS or AT&T U-verse, or vice-versa.  Now the cable industry is back with new ways to placate customers and save everyone time and money.  Shortened service call windows and self-install kits are increasingly common ways customers can avoid a day home from work.

Time Warner Cable is one of the cable industry’s most-improved players, reducing waiting windows, calling customers to give them a heads-up when they are on the way, and offering weekend and evening service calls. In upstate New York, Time Warner customers can, in certain circumstances, be given an estimated time of arrival accurate to within 10 minutes.

The 10-minute “Tech on the 10s” program only works on the first scheduled service call of the day.  If the cable repairman starts his shift at 9am, the only guaranteed time slot will be from 9-9:10am.  Because different technicians start their shifts throughout the day, the company promises that several hundred slots are available each week.  If the technician blows it and still arrives late, the customer gets $20 for their troubles.

The company hopes shortening wait windows will give customers fewer reasons to use that time to shop around for a different service provider.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse How much does it cost you to wait 11-13-11.mp4[/flv]

WSYR in Syracuse takes a look at the impact of waiting for the cable repair man to show up and what Time Warner Cable is doing about it.  (2 minutes)

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)

Republicans in the Senate are falling in line behind their colleagues in the House in voting to repeal the Federal Communications Commission’s anemic Net Neutrality rules.

Virtually every Republican in the Senate is expected to vote in support of a resolution introduced by outgoing Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) that would strip the FCC of its authority to impose the new rules, which would prohibit Internet Service Providers from interfering in the free flow of Internet content across their networks.  Nearly every Democrat in the Senate is expected to oppose the Republican-backed measure in a vote expected later today.

Republicans serving at the FCC and in Congress claim the federal agency has no congressional mandate to oversee the Internet.  The agency itself under Chairman Julius Genachowski has refused to fully enable its authority by reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service.  Because the agency’s role to oversee the conduct of the country’s service providers is at issue, it has left the FCC in a grey area, with its authority challenged both politically and in the courts.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) claims Net Neutrality rules are completely unnecessary because providers have already promised they will not tamper with traffic and, in his words, “This is a another big government solution in search of a problem.”

Hutchison said enforcement of Net Neutrality would stall broadband Internet development.

“It will increase costs and freeze many of the innovations that have already occurred under our open Internet system,” she said in a statement.

Democrats like Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington State think otherwise.

Cantwell pointed to Comcast’s secretive effort in 2007 to throttle the speeds of peer-to-peer file sharing traffic.  Comcast initially denied it was interfering with torrent traffic, until eventually admitting it was.  The FCC sought to fine Comcast for the practice, but the cable giant sued the FCC and won in federal court.  The judge in the case ruled the FCC didn’t appear to have the authority to regulate Internet traffic or impose the associated fine.

Cantwell believes sensible Net Neutrality policies will prevent further instances of provider interference.

“These providers think if [they] can control the pipe [they] can also control the flow,” Cantwell said. “Why allow telcos to run wild on the Internet charging consumers anything they want based on the fact that they have control of the switch?”

Reporters questioned Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller about Net Neutrality, noting the measure opposing FCC involvement won support from several House Democrats.

Rockefeller pointed to the universal support for the anti-Net Neutrality measure on the Republican side as evidence this has become a partisan political issue.  Rockefeller hopes his Democratic colleagues in the Senate will see it the same way.

“There’s still 53 of us [Democrats], and if we stay together we’ll win,” Rockefeller said. “I think we’re going to prevail.”

Should the measure pass, President Barack Obama indicated he will veto it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/C-SPAN Net Neutrality 11-9-11.flv[/flv]

C-SPAN talks with National Journal reporter Josh Smith about Net Neutrality’s prospects and the background issues surrounding Net Neutrality.  (3 minutes)

Verizon Communications, a highly-profitable multi-billion dollar corporation, has not paid a penny in taxes for the past three years.

That charge comes from a new report issued by two non-profit groups that want America’s tax burden spread more fairly.

“Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Tax Dodgers, 2008-2010,” released by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, scrutinized financial reports from nearly 300 profitable Fortune 500 companies.

At least 30 companies — including Verizon — were found to have maneuvered their way through corporate tax breaks and incentives, exporting revenue offshore, and other creative accounting to avoid paying a cent in taxes over the period.

Some of Verizon’s unionized workforce, fighting company efforts to curtail benefits and reduce pay, call the news a disgusting development.

“We wouldn’t mind if Verizon wasn’t paying taxes if they used the money saved to invest in American jobs,” said Myles Calvey, business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union Local 2222. “Instead, while they dodge paying taxes in the U.S., they’re eliminating jobs and opening centers in Mexico and India. They wonder why the union hates them.”

Verizon disputes the findings, which do not allege the company broke any laws while trying to reduce the company’s tax bill.  In fact, American corporations have exported billions of dollars to offshore bank accounts specifically to avoid America’s corporate tax rate.  Some of those companies, including Verizon, now want the government to provide a special discount on corporate taxes in return for an agreement to repatriate corporate earnings.

Phil Santoro, a Verizon spokesman called the report “union-orchestrated” and says the company isn’t avoiding taxes, it is deferring them through government incentive programs designed to boost the economy.  The company also says it invested $16.5 billion over the time period in infrastructure expansion.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Companies Avoid Taxes 11-3-11.flv[/flv]

CNN reports on the growing number of American corporations that no longer pay taxes thanks to special tax breaks and incentive programs available only to them.  (3 minutes)