Residents in mountainous western North Carolina have been frustrated by broadband availability maps from the Federal Communications Commission that suggest broadband service is plentiful and fast. But on the ground, customers trying to sign up for Internet access the FCC says is readily available is anything but.

The FCC’s National Broadband Map has been repeatedly criticized by broadband advocates for relying on voluntary data supplied by Internet Service Providers — data that has often proved incomplete, exaggerated, or just plain inaccurate.

Wally Bowen, executive director of Asheville’s Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN), wants to show the FCC its broadband map is out of touch with the real world. MAIN has announced a new website that will let western North Carolina residents test and report the real broadband speeds they are getting from providers to the FCC. If no broadband service is available at all, residents can report that as well.

“Based on our experience, we believe the FCC is underestimating the scope of this problem,” said Bowen, an advocate for Internet access in rural areas. “The FCC’s estimate is based primarily on data provided by the cable and telephone companies.”

With a growing amount of federal money available to wire unserved areas, phone and cable companies may have a vested interest exaggerating their coverage areas and Internet speeds to stop would-be competitors from entering their territories and building new networks. New providers could find a very enthusiastic customer base of more than 48,000 aggravated residents in 16 counties in western North Carolina that have no broadband options at all.

“This new website empowers citizens to compare their real-life experience with the FCC data, but more importantly, it dissects the broadband problem, provides ideas for solving it, and shows citizens how to add their voices to the policy debate,” said Bowen.

Bowen believes profit-minded private companies are unlikely to ever be enthusiastic about wiring rural communities when larger profits can be earned in larger cities.

“Solving this problem isn’t rocket science,” said Bowen. “We’ve seen this movie before. Seventy-five years ago, for-profit electric utilities left rural America in the dark, so Congress passed the Rural Electrification Act and allowed local communities to solve the problem themselves by creating nonprofit electric cooperatives.”

But federal funds are off-limits if another provider already claims to offer service in an area, no matter how poorly they deliver it. Many large cable and phone companies have also worked to ban community-owned broadband networks from ever getting off the ground with the passage of corporate-sponsored bills passed by state legislatures. That leaves rural residents waiting endlessly for the telephone company to get around to providing some level of broadband service.

Problems with Frontier Communications’ DSL in the region tells the story:

Paul Manogue lives in an area considered “served” by Frontier Communications. The phone company sold him 3Mbps service, but after installation, Manogue found Frontier locked down his DSL modem to 1.5Mbps, the fastest speed his telephone line could comfortably handle. Today, Manogue pays $60.98 for 1.5Mbps service that has since further degraded. Today his top speed is 1Mbps or less, even though his monthly bill remains the same. His broadband connection does not come close to the 4/1Mbps minimum speed the FCC expects from today’s rural broadband networks.

“We have been bluntly told [by Frontier] that the level of service we receive is what we pay for,” Manogue told MAIN. Manogue has no other options.

Bill Duffell of Burningtown thinks Frontier broke its promise to deliver broadband where Verizon, his old provider, refused. He is still waiting, along with a number of other residents, for even basic DSL.

“Frontier promised to bring high-speed Internet access to remote areas of western North Carolina within three years,” he said. “They have not done this and now tell me there are no plans to bring high-speed Internet to the area. Internet access via satellite costs me $129.99 per month with Exede/WildBlue and is weather dependent.”

Allen in Madison County says Frontier delivered tolerable service until six months ago, when his speeds began to drop.

“The breaking point was when I was going to upload a 30 minutes video and found out it was going to take over 13 hours to upload.” Allen says. “I called Frontier and they [told me I was] ‘in a high volume area.'”

Anyone considering launching a competitive broadband service to improve the online experience of Manogue, Duffell, Allen and others will not qualify for any federal assistance because Frontier, the incumbent provider, already provides DSL broadband. Frontier also receives significant aid from the Connect America Fund — up to $775 to extend broadband to each individual home or business it earlier deemed unprofitable to serve. Each additional connection risks slowing down every other connection in the immediate area if Frontier does not maintain regular upgrades.

Two of the largest phone companies in the country — AT&T and Verizon — have both refused CAF money altogether. AT&T sees a bigger financial opportunity disbanding their wired telecommunications networks in rural America and forcing customers to switch to more costly (and much more profitable) wireless data services.

“The refusal of Connect America funding by the big carriers, plus their plans to abandon their wired networks in rural areas, is a policy earthquake that’s been ignored by corporate media,” Bowen said.

Time Warner Cable customers in central New York will face paying higher cable bills next month as the company boosts rates.

The cable operator is raising prices on a range of services and equipment. Most customers on double-play or triple-play packages of phone, Internet, and television service will see increases of around $3 a month. Cable TV-only customers will pay $5 more.

Time Warner has been testing its new Navigator cloud-based interactive cable guide on selected set top boxes in Syracuse (and Charlotte, N.C.) The newest software also comes with a significant monthly fee for the enhanced service — $2.79 a month, in addition to usual equipment rental fees. As Time Warner rolls the new set top equipment out to other cities, customers will pay around $11 a month for the boxes, up from $9.50.

A spokeswoman for Time Warner says two-thirds of its customers in central New York are enrolled in promotional packages and are exempted from rate increases until their current package expires.

Others are not waiting for the rate increase to take effect and are departing for Verizon FiOS, where available. Syracuse resident Bill Venson is one of them.

“[When I] dropped off Time Warner Cable’s equipment at their office, I wasn’t even asked why,” he comments to the Syracuse Post-Standard. “The clerk just gave me a receipt and didn’t even tell me to have a nice day. That speaks volumes.”

Unfortunately for many Syracuse residents, Verizon FiOS remains out of reach. Verizon canceled expansion of its FiOS fiber to the home project, leaving service only available in a handful of suburbs outside of the city.

A big 40oz can of Hype from the Washington Post.

Conservative bloggers are calling it socialized “Obama-Wi-Fi,” broadband advocates claim it represents salvation from high-priced wireless service plans, and the media echo chamber is amplifying reports that the federal government in on the verge of launching a nationwide free Wi-Fi network.

Sorry folks, it is not to be.

An article in Sunday’s Washington Post originally titled, “FCC Proposes Large Public WiFi Networks” got the ball rolling, and almost 3,000 reader comments later, a full-scale debate about the merits of government-supplied Wi-Fi Internet access is underway.

Cecilia Kang and her headline writer mislead readers with statements like these:

The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month.

[…] If all goes as planned, free access to the Web would be available in just about every metropolitan area and in many rural areas.

There is nothing new about the FCC’s effort to set aside unlicensed spectrum for so-called “white space” Wi-Fi. As the spectrum wars continue, wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T are pushing proposals to further shrink the number of channels on the UHF television band and repurpose them for expanded cellular data networks. That newly available spectrum would be secured through an FCC auction. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski wants to set aside some of that available spectrum for unlicensed use, including the next generation of Wi-Fi, which will greatly extend its range and speed.

There is no proposal on the table for the government to fund or create a free, national Wi-Fi network as an alternative to paid commercial services. At issue is simply how 120MHz of newly-available television spectrum would be made available to new users. Republicans and large wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T are demanding the vast majority of that spectrum be auctioned off. AT&T and Verizon would like to expand their spectrum holdings, and a straight “highest bidder wins” auction guarantees the vast majority of it will be divided by those two companies. Many Democrats and broadband advocates want a portion of that spectrum set aside to sell to AT&T and Verizon’s competitors — current and future — to promote competition. They also support set-asides that make frequencies available for unlicensed uses like Wi-Fi.

Genachowski’s proposal could potentially spur private companies or communities to build community-wide Wi-Fi networks operated on unlicensed frequencies. With more robust signals, such high speed wireless networks could be less costly to construct and serve a much wider geographic area.

The potential for competition from the public or private sector is what bothers companies like AT&T and Verizon. Both argue that since they had to pay for their spectrum, allowing other users access to free spectrum would be unfair, both to themselves and to the government’s effort to earn as much as possible from the auction. AT&T has been the more aggressive of the two companies, repeatedly attempting to insert language into legislation curtailing the FCC’s ability to set aside a significant amount of spectrum for unlicensed use. While AT&T’s lobbyists do not go as far as to advocate banning such networks, the technical conditions they demand would make them untenable. AT&T and others also demand the FCC must close down unlicensed networks if they create “harmful interference,” which is open to interpretation.

Helping the wireless companies in the campaign against the next generation of Wi-Fi are hardware manufacturers like Cisco, which has been trying to deep six the proposal for at least two years. Why? Because Cisco’s vision of wireless networking, and the products it has manufactured to date, are not in sync with the kind of longer distance Wi-Fi networks the FCC envisions. Cisco faces overhauling products that were designed under the premise Wi-Fi would remain a limited-range, mostly indoor service for consumers and businesses.

The threat to incumbent Internet Service Providers is clear enough. If a new version of Wi-Fi launched that could blanket entire neighborhoods, communities, non-profits, or even loosely-knit groups of altruistic individuals could launch free Wi-Fi services sharing their Internet connection with others. If the technology allowed users to seamlessly hand off wireless connections from one free Wi-Fi hotspot to another, much like cell sites do today, customers might downgrade their wireless data plans with big telecom companies. Machine-to-machine networking could also rely on Wi-Fi instead of commercial wireless data plans. It could threaten billions in potential revenue.

Stopping these networks is a priority for corporate interests with profits at stake. But one thing they do not have to worry about, at least for now, is the federal government getting into the wireless Internet business.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Washington Post FCC offers path to free Internet access 2-4-13.flv[/flv]

After the original story ran in the Post, Cecilia Kang participated in this interview which clarified what the FCC is actually proposing. This video explains what spectrum allocation and unlicensed spectrum is all about. Kang clarifies her article, explaining private companies and/or communities will have to decide what to do with the unlicensed spectrum. The federal government is only facilitating the space and has no plans to run a national network itself. (5 minutes)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/tech-telecom-giants-take-sides-as-fcc-proposes-large-public-wifi-networks/2013/02/03/eb27d3e0-698b-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story.html

Verizon Wireless has been making a killing herding customers into its Family Share data plans.

Originally introduced last year, Verizon charges outrageously high prices for a paltry mobile data allowance that can be shared (think Oliver Twist on a diet) with other wireless devices attached to your plan.

The company’s latest financial report shows growth in average revenue earned from each account shot up 6.6 percent in the fourth quarter to a budget-busting $146.80 a month. The more Verizon can push customers to its shared data platform, the richer the company will get. With just 23 percent of Verizon customers currently on such plans, there is plenty of room for even more earnings.

Even though the value for money has deteriorated, Verizon has placed its data plans on a usage allowance diet for two years running.

Originally, Verizon charged $29.99 a month for unlimited data usage. In 2011, the company kept the price the same but slapped on a 2GB monthly allowance. This year, new customers pay $50 for just 1GB of data on the company’s data share plan.

The lower the limit and the more devices added to your wireless account, the more money Verizon will collect as customers are forced to upgrade to more expensive plans with more generous data usage allowances.

At the same time, Verizon’s network costs are dropping because the company’s LTE 4G network is five times more efficient moving data than the older 3G network it may eventually replace.

Although Verizon Communications has stopped expanding its FiOS fiber-to-the-home service outside of areas it already committed to serve, its gradual rollout continues in Philadelphia.

Gradual is right. On Kalos Street in the Wissahickon section of Philly, it all depends on which side of the road your house resides. Odd-numbered customers were in luck this week as Verizon took its marketing efforts to the street, with a temporary tent emblazoned with Verizon’s logo installed on the sidewalk, giving pedestrians a few minutes of warmth from a portable heater.

FiOS tent (Courtesy: J. Chakars/WHYY NewsWorks)

Inside the tent, would-be customers are given a preview of the fiber optic service and some free gifts just for stopping by on the cold winter night. Those who took Verizon up on its offer walked away with free ice skating tickets. Those that didn’t got a refrigerator magnet and a tote bag as consolation prizes.

Verizon’s sales force, braving the weather, has made inroads in the city that is home to Comcast’s corporate headquarters.

Joanne Weill-Greenberg told WHYY/NewsWorks she called Comcast to deal for a lower rate and Comcast refused to match Verizon FIOS’ introductory offer. She is now an ex-Comcast customer, and not just for the money. She explained FiOS offers channels Comcast does not carry, and because FiOS also carries Comcast’s regional sports channel, there is nothing holding them to the cable company.

The Verizon tent does not stay in any one location too long.

In a few days, they will relocate to another neighborhood that is now primed for fiber upgrades from the phone company.

Pennsylvania residents can just be thankful the winter weather has not gotten brutal enough for Verizon to deploy its inflatable igloo.