Phillip Dampier on USF Reform: It might have been great, it could have been a lot worse, but ultimately it turned out to be not very good.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission unveiled their grand plan to reform the Universal Service Fund, a program originally designed to subsidize voice telephone service in rural areas deemed to be unprofitable or ridiculously expensive to serve.  Every American with a phone line pays into the fund through a surcharge found on phone bills. Urban Americans effectively subsidize their rural cousins, but the resulting access to telecommunications services have helped rural economies, important industries, and the jobs they bring in agriculture, cattle, resource extraction, and manufacturing.

The era of the voice landline is increasingly over, however, and the original goals of the USF have “evolved” to fund some not-so-rural projects including cell phone service for schools, wireless broadband in Hollywood, and a whole mess of projects critics call waste, fraud, and abuse.  For the last several years, USF critics have accused the program of straying far from its core mission, especially considering the costs passed on to ratepayers.  What originally began as a 5% USF surcharge is today higher than 15%, funding new projects even as Americans increasingly disconnect their landline service.

For at least a decade, proposals to reform the USF program to bridge the next urban-rural divide, namely broadband, have been available for consideration.  Most have been lobbied right off the table by independent rural phone companies who are at risk of failure without the security of the existing subsidy system.  Proposals that survived that challenge next faced larger phone company lobbyists seeking to protect their share of USF money, or by would-be competitors like the wireless industry or cable operators who have generally been barred from the USF Money Party.

This year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski finally achieved a unanimous vote to shift USF funding towards the construction and operation of rural broadband networks.  The need for broadband funding in rural areas is acute.  Most commercial providers will candidly admit they have already wired the areas deemed sufficiently profitable to earn a return on the initial investment required to provide the service.  The areas remaining without service are unlikely to get it anytime soon because they are especially rural, have expensive and difficult climate or terrain challenges to overcome, or endure a high rate of poverty among would-be customers, unable to afford the monthly cost for the service.  Some smaller independent phone companies are attempting to provide the service anyway, but too often the result is exceptionally slow speed service at a very high cost.

The new Connect America Fund will shift $4.5 billion annually towards rural broadband construction projects.  Nearly a billion dollars of that will be reserved in a “mobility fund” designated for mobile broadband networks.

The goal is to bring broadband to seven million additional households out the 18 million currently ignored by phone and cable operators.

The FCC believes AT&T will take a new interest in upgrading its rural landline networks, even as the company continues to lobby for the right to abandon them.

Unfortunately, the FCC has set the bar pretty low in its requirements for USF funding.  The FCC defines the minimum level of “broadband” they expect to result from the program — 4/1Mbps.  That’s DSL speed territory and that is no accident.  The phone companies have advocated a “less is more” strategy in broadband speed for years, arguing they can reach more rural customers if speed requirements are kept as low as possible.  DSL networks are distance sensitive.  The faster the minimum speed, the more investment phone companies need to make to reduce the length of copper wiring between their office and the customer.  Arguing 4Mbps is better than nothing has gotten them a long way in Washington, but it also foreshadows the next digital divide — urban/rural broadband speed disparity.  While large cities enjoy speeds of 50Mbps or more, rural towns will still be coping with speeds “up to” 4Mbps.

The FCC does not seem too worried, relying heavily on a mild incentive program to prod providers to upgrade their DSL service to speeds of 6/1.5Mbps.

The irony of asking AT&T to invest in an aging landline network they are lobbying to win the right to abandon is lost on Washington, and future speed upgrades for rural America from companies like Verizon are in serious doubt when they sell off their rural areas to companies like FairPoint and Frontier and leave town.

Critics of USF reform suggest the program is still stacked in favor of the phone companies, and considering the state of their copper wire networks, would-be competitors are scratching their heads.

The cable industry, in particular, is still peeved by reforms they feel leave them at a disadvantage.  Of course, Washington may simply be recognizing the fact cable companies are the least likely to wire rural America, but when they do, the service that results is often faster than what the phone company offers.  The nation’s biggest cable lobbyist — ironically also the former chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell — still feels a little abused after reading the final proposal.

“While we are disappointed in the Commission’s apparent decision to ignore its longstanding principle of competitive neutrality and provide incumbent telephone companies an unwarranted advantage for broadband support,” said National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Michael Powell, “we remain hopeful that the order otherwise reflects the pro-consumer principles of fiscal discipline and technological neutrality that will bring needed accountability and greater efficiency to the existing subsidy system.  We are particularly heartened by the Commission’s efforts to ensure that carriers are fairly compensated for completing VoIP calls.”

Wireless operators are not happy either, because the arcane requirements that come with the USF bureaucracy were written with the phone companies in mind, not them.  Small, family-owned providers find it particularly difficult to do business with the USF, if only because they don’t have the staff or time to navigate through endless documents and forms.  Phone companies do.

Your phone bill is going up.

Many consumer groups are relieved because it could have been much worse.   The FCC could have simply capitulated and adopted the phone companies’ wish-list — the ABC Plan.  Thankfully, they didn’t, but the FCC has naively left the door open to substantial rate increases for consumers by not capping the maximum annual outlay of the fund.  That follows the same recipe that invited higher phone bills and questionable subsidies awarded in an effort to justify the original USF program even after it accomplished most of its goals. Consumers may face initial rate increases of $0.50 almost immediately, and up to $2.50 a month five years from now.

The FCC, unjustifiably optimistic, suspects phone companies and other telecommunications interests won’t gouge customers with higher prices.  They predict rate increases of no more than 10-15 cents a month.  I wouldn’t take that bet and neither will consumer groups.

“We’re going to press the FCC to ensure that these are temporary increases, because history has shown that these types of costs tend to stick around and go on and on and on,” said Parul Desai, policy counsel for Consumers Union.

An even bigger question left unanswered is just how far the FCC will get into the broadband arena when it refuses to take the steps necessary to ensure it has an admission ticket.  The agency has avoided classifying broadband as a telecommunications service, an important distinction that would bolster its authority to oversee the industry.  Without it, some members of Congress, and more importantly the courts, have questioned whether the FCC has any business in the broadband business.  Just one of the many high-powered players in the discussion could test that theory in the courts, and should a judge throw the FCC’s plan out, we’ll be back at square one.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/C-SPAN Tom Tauke from Verizon on Changes to the Universal Service Fund 10-29-11.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s chief lobbyist Tom Tauke spent a half hour last weekend on C-SPAN taking questions about USF reform and the side issues of IP Interconnection and Net Neutrality policies. Tauke supports consolidation of small phone companies into fewer, larger companies.  He also expands on his company’s lawsuit against Net Neutrality, which fortuitously (for Verizon) will he heard by the same D.C. Court of Appeals that threw out the FCC’s fines against Comcast for throttling broadband connections.  Politico’s Kim Hart participates in the questioning, which also covered wireless spectrum issues impacting Verizon Wireless, AT&T’s stumbling merger deal with T-Mobile, and Verizon’s latest lawsuit against the FCC for data roaming notification rules.  (28 minutes)

The phone company gives its WeatherLine the boot.

Verizon and other phone companies are finding it increasingly profitable to get out of the information business, and the days of calling numbers for the current time of day or hiring someone to deliver local weather, sports scores or lotto numbers are increasingly behind us.

For decades local phone companies have run recorded announcement services, first as a free public service and then as a profit center.  The venerable “Time of Day” service, which in some areas was broadened to include the current temperature and an abbreviated weather forecast, was initially envisioned as a labor saver.  That’s because your grandparents used to call and bug the operator for the current time to synchronize their clocks, which tied up switchboards and potentially delayed emergency calls long before there was a “911” to call instead.

In the 1970s, phone companies began to realize they were giving away a lot of information for free, and with some numbers getting tens of thousands of calls a day, that meant leaving money on the table.  And so began “recorded information message charges,” typically around 8.3-25 cents cents a call (phone companies always round up no matter what) charged when customers dialed numbers with prefixes of 974 or 976.  Later still, the 900 area code would open the door to even more expensive pay-per-minute services.

Some phone companies charged for the local time and weather, others gave away the local forecast for free.

For Washington, D.C. residents, Verizon’s local weather line died a quiet death last week.  Callers to (202) 936-1212 now hear a message telling them the number has been disconnected.  And so ends an era.

It’s not to be completely unexpected.  Smartphone owners can get the time or weather just by looking at their phones.  The Weather Channel and NOAA Weather Radio provides much the same service 24-hours a day.  Some cities have competing weather lines each delivering the weather to interested callers.

But Verizon’s 936 number has become so ingrained in local residents’ heads, it’s now a valuable commodity one company wants to purchase.

Telecompute, which runs recorded information lines across the country, wants to pick up where Verizon left off.  They are attempting to negotiate with the phone company to acquire that magic 936 number for their own weather line, already running at (202) 589-1212.  But that’s no 936 number.

If you believe the Internet age has made the concept of recorded information lines obsolete, and Verizon certainly thinks that’s true, you might be surprised to learn Telecompute’s lesser-known, existing weather line receives over 2,000 calls a day.  That’s welcome news for Howard Phoebus, the veteran forecaster who will keep his job providing customers in the District, Virginia, and Maryland their daily forecast.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/976-8881 Commercial.mp4[/flv]

A commercial for a California 976 dial-a-date number.  Warning: 80’s feathered hair and fashions may cause allergic reactions in some viewers.  (1 minute)

In August, Time Warner Cable’s billing system went haywire for some 15,000 Ohio customers, some of whom found their promotional rates canceled, resulting in a doubling of their monthly bills.

One such Time Warner customer is Linda Sacash, who lives in Russell Township.  She had a three-year deal, in writing, with Time Warner that provided her family with a triple play package of Internet, telephone, and cable service for $89.95 a month.  But when her August bill arrived, Time Warner insisted she owed twice that amount — $179.

Sacash, among others, started calling Time Warner to complain about the inaccurate bills and was told the cable company unilaterally decided to expire promotional packages a year early.  Sacash wasn’t happy with that explanation, and noted a clause in her written agreement that limited rate increases to no more than 10 percent a year.  That didn’t matter much to Time Warner, who looked forward to receiving her new $179 payment by the due date on her bill.

Time Warner’s attitude changed, however, when WEWS-TV consumer troubleshooter Joe Pagonakis turned the camera on himself, and called the cable company looking for answers:

The company responded immediately, admitting some 15,000 bills were processed inaccurately during the summer.

Time Warner quickly corrected Sacash’s bill, and confirmed that her promotional offer will remain in place until November 2012, as stated in the Time Warner service invoice.

If considering a promotional offer, get it in writing and keep the paperwork for the length of the promotion, just in case your provider decides to renege on the deal. If signing up for a promotion over the phone, always get the name, extension/employee ID, and the exact details of the offer and keep those details in your files.  It’s often easier to get a company to stand up to their commitments when you have the name and extension number of the employee who sold it.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WEWS Cleveland Russell Township woman fights wins battle over inaccurate Time Warner digital cable bill 10-24-11.mp4[/flv]

WEWS-TV in Cleveland intervenes on behalf of a local woman who faced a doubling of her cable bill when Time Warner elected to end her promotion a year early.  (2 minutes)

Phillip "Wants a High Fiber Diet" Dampier

Believe it or not, there are still some people out there who believe wireless broadband, as it exists today, is the future of high bandwidth communications in North America.  Forget DSL, forget cable, forget fiber optics, they say.  Technology like 4G and WiMax are “far superior” and cheaper.

To be fair, most of the people advocating the technology Sprint is in the process of abandoning have a vested interest in stopping fiber broadband projects.  That is because while Verizon continues to sit on its hands expanding its excellent FiOS fiber-to-the-home service, some of the most aggressive fiber projects in the country are being built by your local town, city, or village government.  It’s community-owned broadband, by and for the people in your own area.  Large telecom interests that have always refused to deliver fiber service (or pretend to by using the word ‘fiber’ while not bringing a single strand to your home) have it in for potential competitors that are willing to provide the advanced fiber technology they won’t.

So why aren’t big phone and cable companies providing this level of service?  In a word, money.  Their shareholders don’t like the initial cost of deploying fiber to the home service, even though the technology is superior to what reaches your home today, is infinitely expandable without stringing new cables across town, and can support money-making applications developers and providers have not even dreamed of yet.  With a pervasive lack of competition, there is nothing to overcome Wall Street’s conclusion that fiber doesn’t deliver fast enough profits to justify the initial expense.

When you take Wall Street out of the equation, especially in the telecom sector, the math works very differently.  While the phone and cable company is probably telling you “no,” companies like Google are saying yes in Kansas City.  So are municipally-owned rural co-operative phone and cable companies.  Communities deciding broadband is too important to leave to the phone companies that deliver half their residents 1-3Mbps DSL and call it a day are saying yes to fiber optics as well.

Overseas, fiber networks are being built in countries in Eastern Europe where the economics would never make sense by Wall Street standards, yet residents (and perhaps more importantly new digital economy businesses) are now getting Internet speeds of 100Mbps or better.  The next countries that could import good-paying American jobs might be Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria.

So what does it take to adapt to this reality in North America?  Providers that are willing to make a long term investment in fiber broadband — one that may take a few extra years to pay back, but will generate dividends like increased employment, capacity to provide better, faster service, more reliable networks, and earning a piece of the action powering North America’s new digital economy.  If they won’t listen, tell your elected officials to support policies that promote additional competition and back community broadband expansion that can make all the difference between 3Mbps DSL and 100Mbps fiber.

[flv width=”640″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fiber is Better.flv[/flv]

Watch and share this video with friends and family to educate them about the infinite possibilities of fiber optic broadband and learn why it is superior to usage-capped wireless, slow speed DSL, satellite fraudband, or lopsided cable “High Speed Internet” broadband that delivers high speed in only one direction. (3 minutes)