The network envisioned with the help of a $30 million federal broadband grant, now in jeopardy.

A consortium of 15 rural north Florida counties awarded a $30 million federal broadband grant to provide a “middle-mile” wireless broadband network for the region has spent almost $7 million of its federal grant on consultants, design engineers, land acquisition and staffing without breaking ground on a single construction project.

In February 2010, the Obama Administration announced the broadband grant to deliver rural Florida residents a way to finally obtain high-speed access to the Internet within three years.  Now, a year-and-a-half later, not a single tower of the wireless network has been built, residents have been told they will never receive Internet service directly from the project, and one of the key members of the North Florida Broadband Authority charged with constructing the network has called one of the major contractors “incompetent.”

Last week, federal officials suspended the grant amid growing accusations of wasteful spending and lack of oversight.

NFBA was supposed to be building a wireless wholesale-access network across 15 counties that would deliver ISPs, government agencies, libraries, and other institutional users packages of 6, 12, 25, 60, 150Mbps or faster service, linked with fiber to Orlando and Tampa.

Although media coverage touted the project as delivering improved access to residential customers in Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Putnam, Suwannee, Taylor, Union and Wakulla counties, the NFBA project will not directly make broadband service available to consumers.  Would be residential customers will have to hope an incumbent Internet Service Provider chooses to participate and resells access to the network across the region.  Otherwise, those taxpayers will only be able to use the network they paid for at a local library.

That is, if the project ever gets completed.

To date, financial statements from the NFBA reflect the biggest checks paid to-date have gone to architecture and design consultants, which have received a total of more than $3.37 million dollars.  In contrast, NFBA has paid $0.00 for on-site construction and site work as of the end of the last quarter.  Money has also been spent on “Administrative and Legal Expenses” amounting to more than $863,000, and $1.54 million has been spent on property appraisal, acquisition, and expenses related to establishing rights-of-way.

When questions began to be raised about why the project had spent so much on so little, the fur began to fly, according to the North Florida Herald:

Christopher Thurow of Bradford County, accused [contractor] Government Services Group of being “incompetent.” Government Services Group answers to the Authority and is in charge of managing the project.

Then Rapid Systems, one of the project’s engineering companies, began making accusations of not getting paid. But GSG pointed to what it said was inadequate documentation by Rapid Systems and not following payment procedures.

Adding to the controversy was that GSG had been let go from managing the Florida Rural Broadband Authority (FRBA), a program similar to the North Florida Broadband Authority.

Multiple FRBA meetings were canceled, and the project was behind schedule, said Rick Marcum, chairman of FRBA.

“We felt like we needed to move in a different direction,” he said.

Since then, Government Services Group has filed a lawsuit against FRBA, saying there is a breach of contract.

At the North Florida Broadband Authority, some members allege a conflict of interest between GSG and Capital Solutions, which was contracted by GSG to oversee the administration of the grant money.

The apparent conflict comes from the accusation that Government Services Group CEO Robert Sheets is 25-percent owner of Meridian Services group, where Lisa Blair is CEO and president. Blair also is the CEO of Capital Solutions.

NFBA project members seem content to blame most of the problems on others, as well as on a sudden discovery their initial network design would not meet the performance requirements of potential wholesale customers.  That meant a wholesale re-design of the project into a “interconnected-ring network” design topology.  The rest of the delay, according to the NFBA, was because the project was sitting around waiting for government approvals:

This entire process (which included design re-evaluation, engineering services procurement, and network redesign) was carried out over a period of two to three quarters, which was the period of time designated in the original Baseline Plan for the turnkey link design phase as well as for subsequent equipment procurement, site acquisition, and pre-deployment activities. Additional variance from the Baseline Plan resulted substantial delays that were incurred awaiting wage-rate determinations (more than 3 months), awaiting a response to a waiver request to allow eligibility of Long term Operational leases (requested process in December, 2010, AAR submitted in April 2011, received in June, 2011); and comments from the Program Office on a Route Change Request (2 months).

That explanation did not pass muster with grant administrators at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the federal agency overseeing broadband grants.

“NFBA has experienced a number of external and internal delays on its project and, as a result, NTIA has serious concerns regarding the project’s long-term viability and, in the short-term, its ability to implement and deploy the proposed project during the grant award period,” the NTIA wrote in a statement.

As a result, the NTIA has suspended the program, ending all work, pending some sort of oversight agreement with the NFBA being concluded before Oct. 10.

The NTIA wants all invoices and disbursements from the $30 million grant approved directly by them before any more money is spent on the project.

To date, filings indicate the project has no signed customers of any kind, institutional, commercial or otherwise.  NFBA anticipates it will “outline service to 308 anchor institutions by project closeout,” with “outline” at this point defined as “offer.”

However, NFBA claims to have received a “Commitment Letter for a substantial monthly service commitment from one of our last mile partners, and we expect to receive additional Commitment Letters over the next quarter as we continue to actively engage last mile providers in the network region.”

Last-mile partners are the ones that will ultimately deliver service to residential and business customers.

Dixie County resident and Stop the Cap! reader Jimmy Dixon, who alerted us to the latest developments, calls it “a good government program hijacked by greedy consultants and incompetent local officials.”

“This was supposed to be about serving the unserved — we the people — and instead the project will only sell to government buildings and libraries, and whatever ISPs choose to buy access,” he writes. “But when an ISP won’t sell DSL to your home today, nothing about this grant will make them sell it tomorrow.”

Indeed, Dixon says the local phone company in his area continues to have no plans to wire his neighborhood for DSL, grant or no grant.

“They frankly told me it did not make economic sense to extend DSL here, and unless the government directly defrayed those expenses, they never will service us,” Dixon shares. “But I guess until recently it was just fine to line the pockets of consultants with millions in taxpayer dollars to not deliver service to anyone else, either.”

“We’re all in the same boat, and it’s sinking fast.”

Read the special investigative report published by the North Florida Herald here.

Earlier this month, many Verizon prepaid customers with texting plans began receiving messages on their phones from the company, typically after completing a minutes refill:

“Starting on October 14th, 2011 when sending a picture or video message, you will be charged for each recipient for each message sent.”

Controversy ensued, as customers interpreted that message to mean Verizon was now only including plain text messages, not picture or video messages, in their texting plans.

But hang on a moment, says Verizon social media rep JoeL_VZW.  It doesn’t mean that at all.  Verizon was attempting to clarify how they charge for messages sent to multiple recipients.  Send it to one person, it counts as one message.  Two people, two messages… and so on.  Customers can still send picture and video messages without extra fees, assuming they have a texting plan with a sufficient allowance.

“If you sent one picture to two people it would count as two messages that would come out of your 250 bundle. You wouldn’t incur any extra picture messaging charges as long as you haven’t exceeded 250 text or pictures,” he says.

Unlimited customers are not impacted by the change at all, but those on texting plans with 250 message allowances might be, if they send a lot of text messages to multiple recipients.

Still, it was easy to interpret the message very differently, all thanks to not having sufficient space in a single text message to explain it better.

Cellular South, a regional wireless provider serving Mississippi, western Tennessee, and parts of Florida and Alabama, relaunched operations this morning as C Spire Wireless.

Company officials claim C Spire will be the first carrier to offer “personalized wireless services” that will adapt to customers based on how they use their phones and other  devices.

“We have entered a new era in wireless – an era centered on broadband networks, mobile computing devices and now personalized services. Completing calls is only a small part of what we deliver our customers,” said Hu Meena, president and CEO of C Spire. “Since 1988, our main focus has been on providing exceptional service for our customers and their wireless needs. Those needs have changed dramatically and will do so at an even more rapid pace in the future.”

Among the changes underway across the mobile industry is an effort to end unlimited wireless data plans for smartphone customers, but that won’t be the case at C Spire, which is retaining unlimited smartphone data usage for many of its service plans, sort of.

“C Spire understands that when customers have to measure and limit their data, they aren’t getting the optimal experience with their wireless provider. That’s why the company is introducing Individual and Family Choice Plans that offer customers the ultimate in choice and flexibility, and access to infinite data,” the company said in a statement.

But there is a major catch — that “infinite” data usage does not include streaming multimedia content.  That comes extra: priced free through October 29. Then 2 hours for $5, 5 hours for $10, or unlimited usage for $30.

How many "percs" can I win picking out the sloppy spelling errors on C Spire's website?

C Spire does away with counting megabytes or gigabytes and asks customers to guess how many hours they expect to use streaming media applications on their phones. That means customers will pay $50 a month for C Spire’s Choice D 500 plan, which includes unlimited web browsing and e-mail, plus 500 talk minutes per month.  But if you want to listen to unlimited online radio or stream video, that price increases to $80 a month.  But that $80 does buy an unlimited experience at that point.

C Spire’s pricing reflects the failure of strong Net Neutrality protection, allowing carriers to charge extra for different types of content on its network.

Wireless mobile broadband customers still face a cap on C Spire’s data-only plans: 1GB for $19.99, 3GB for $29.99 or 5GB for $49.99.

Users must spend at least 50 percent of their usage during the month within a C Spire service area.  Excessive roaming can get your service suspended.  As a regional carrier, that means “home usage” is limited to a handful of southern states.

But company officials are spending little time discussing their pricing and plans, instead focusing on how C Spire will “personalize” the wireless experience.

No other wireless provider understands its customers and adapts to their wireless needs like C Spire. Customers will see this unique personalization in apps and content that fit who they are, services that anticipate their needs, and rewards they’ll get just for using their phone in new ways. C Spire’s industry-leading personalization capabilities are powered by Pulse, a proprietary system that enables the company to understand and develop a closer relationship with its customers. In turn, C Spire recommends and provides the right selection of technology experiences tailored for each customer – giving them unmatched wireless personalization.

C Spire offers what they are calling “percs” — points that customers can collect based on interacting with the company’s website and social media platforms, the number of years they remain loyal to C Spire, and opting into company research programs including their Scout Program, which track apps usage.

The rewards on offer at the moment are not impressive — waiving late bill payment fees, priority access to customer service, feature upgrades, and discounts on accessories and shipping.

The company’s website has been unresponsive at times this morning and customers on C Spire’s Facebook page are complaining they are confused about pricing and plan changes, particularly those related to streaming data usage.

C Spire's Rewards Program

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/C Spire Ads 9-26-11.flv[/flv]

Magic Sparklies: The wireless company’s new advertising campaign introduces Cellular South’s new brand: C Spire Wireless (1 minute)

AT&T customers in western Colorado are furious at AT&T for suggesting expensive phone upgrades were required to get back cell phone service that actually went out because of a cell tower failure.

Stop the Cap! first reported this story earlier this week, when Grand Valley customers discovered their cell phone service (and 2G data services) suddenly stopped working last weekend.  Customers lined up inside and outside the doors of AT&T stores in the Grand Junction area to get an explanation for the service disruption, only to be told their 2G data service had been discontinued and they’ll need to buy new phones to get their service restored.

An undisclosed number of customers signed new two year contracts and upgraded to smartphones — which carry a considerably upgraded price to cover the mandatory data plan that accompanies them.

But now AT&T says a cell tower failure was responsible for customers losing access to voice calling, and any disruption to 2G service will be temporary until the company completes shifting that data service to a different frequency band.

Now customers are complaining they were defrauded by AT&T store employees who emphatically told them no cell service outage existed in the area.

“Is that fraud,” AT&T customer Bill Somerville asked KJCT-TV. “Are they taking advantage of people by not giving them the information they should have gotten?”

“They categorically lied about the status of the service and [forced] people into a new contract and new equipment,” said AT&T customer Jay Anderson.

“If that is customer care, that’s not the customer care I’d like to have,” added Somerville.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJCT Grand Junction ATT Customers Without Service And Definite Answers 9-21-11.mp4[/flv]

KJCT-TV talked to more angry customers who feel AT&T mislead them into signing expensive new two year contracts for new phones when a tower outage actually was responsible for the disrupted service.  (3 minutes)

In a blow to their image, Texas-based AT&T has lost a major wireless customer to one of their competitors with the announcement the city of Houston is dumping the wireless company in favor of Sprint.

That the city government has been a long-time AT&T customer is an understatement — they have been with AT&T since the 1980s, when the concept of a cell phone was a brick-sized behemoth that could fit in a briefcase, but never a pocket.

But now the city has had enough of AT&T’s high prices, dropped calls, and otherwise bad service and are taking $15 million worth of their business to Kansas City-based Sprint.

“Sprint delivered for Houston on price, support, products and solutions,” said Mayor Annise Parker in a statement. “Their sales and support organizations delivered a proposal that made sense and proved the most cost effective for our city. Over the life of the contract we expect Sprint to save the city’s taxpayers nearly $3 million due to the company’s efficiency.”

Sprint will be supplying Houston government workers with more than 6,000 different wireless devices, ranging from cell phones to tablets, for both civil servants and emergency communications.