FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act. The rhetoric rarely matched the results.

Washington insiders are predicting Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski will leave his position early in President Obama’s second term.

It cannot come soon enough, as far as we’re concerned.

One of the biggest disappointments of the Obama Administration has been the poor performance of a chairman that originally promised a departure from the rubber stamp-mentality that allowed Big Telecom providers to win near-instant approval of just about anything asked from the Republican-dominated FCC of the Bush Administration. If only to underline that point, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell joined Republican ex-commissioner Meredith Atwell-Baker on a trip through the D.C. revolving door, taking lucrative jobs with the same cable industry both used to oversee.

We had high hopes for Mr. Genachowski when he took the helm at the FCC — particularly over Net Neutrality, media consolidation, and predatory abuse of consumers at the hands of the comfortable cable-telco duopoly. Genachowski promised strong Net Neutrality protections, better broadband — especially in rural areas, an end to rubber stamping competition killing mergers and acquisitions, and more aggressive oversight of the broadband industry generally.

What we got was the reincarnation of the Cowardly Lion.

The Washington Post reviews Genachowski’s tenure during the first term of the Obama Administration and reports he has few unabashed supporters left. Telecom companies loathe Genachowski’s more cautious approach and consumer groups hate his penchant for caving in when lobbyists come calling. In short, another Democrat that talks tough and caves in at the first sign of trouble.

“His tenure has been nothing but a huge disappointment because he’s squandered an opportunity to give consumers the competitive communications market they deserve,” Derek Turner, head of policy analysis at public interest group Free Press told the Post. “If someone like him upholds compromise, it quickly leads to capitulation, which is what he’s done. He folds…to the pressure of big companies.”

Genachowski’s Record:

• Heavily promoted rural broadband and oversaw a review program measuring actual broadband speeds against those claimed by providers. But much of the money available for improving rural broadband has been separately awarded to “middle mile” and “institutional networks” that are not accessible to most consumers or businesses. Genachowki has heaped automatic praise on many of the phone companies winning broadband funding, despite the fact many of them are satisfied giving consumers no better than 4Mbps service;
• Reformed the outdated Universal Service Fund, which long outlived much of its usefulness, into a broadband expansion fund. But some unintended consequences have led to some rural providers suspending network upgrades because of funding uncertainties still unresolved;
• Approved a blockbuster merger deal between Comcast and NBC-Universal that included temporary “hard-won” concessions Comcast later admitted they were going to offer anyway – merger or not. The result is a new high bar for tolerating super-sized media consolidation with no serious consideration of the impact on consumers. The latest evidence: support for Rupert “Phone Hacker” Murdoch’s latest efforts to buy more newspapers in the United States;
• Rejected an AT&T/T-Mobile merger deal, but only after the Justice Dept. took the lead dismissing it as an anti-consumer, anti-competition nightmare. Within hours, Genachowski’s office issued a “me, too” press release condemning the deal he said little about earlier;
• Demanded a strong Net Neutrality framework to protect the open Internet, but utterly caved under pressure from politicians receiving hefty corporate contributions from AT&T and others. The resulting loophole-ridden “protections” do not apply to wireless, and the industry-approved compromise is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by some of the same companies that earlier applauded Genachowski’s flexibility;
• Genachowski handed out his direct phone numbers to the CEO’s of the top Big Telecom companies, and has been directly lobbied by those “super-citizens,” while ordinary consumers are stuck filing comments with the FCC’s arcane Electronic Comment Filing System. Genachowski also directed closed-door meetings be held on the subject of Net Neutrality with large telecom companies. These meetings were closed to the public with no consumer representatives on hand;
• Genachowski refused to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service,” which would give the agency clear-cut authority to oversee the service. Instead, he has stuck with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s odd interpretation of broadband as “an information service,” not subject to much review by the agency;
• Appropriately nixed Philip Falcone’s LightSquared venture, the biggest threat to GPS navigation around. But Genachowski’s controversial early boosting of the venture, including support for expedited special permission to launch the network without the usual scrutiny, resulted in an embarrassing about-face after long-standing critics’ fears of navigation interference were vindicated;
• In 2012, Genachowski’s cozy relationship with the industry reached whole new levels with unabashed support for Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, despite no evidence justifying them. The FCC has continued to ignore repeated requests for a review of these pricing schemes.

Google Fiber is more than the experimental publicity/political “stunt” many large cable companies and Wall Street investors have suspected since the search giant first announced it would build a 1,000/1,000Mbps fiber to the home network.

BTIG Research, which follows the telecom sector for large institutional investors and investment managers, says there is a lot more to Google Fiber than many initially thought.

If Google’s fiber project expands outside of Kansas City, it could ultimately transform the business model of broadband in the United States. It already has generated unease for Time Warner Cable, which has resorted to knocking on doors to preserve its customer relationships.

It is one thing to consider Google Fiber from a New York City office and another to see it working on the ground. BTIG’s Rich Greenfield and Walt Piecyk decided to travel to Kansas City to investigate the new fiber service first-hand.

“We believe Google Fiber will accelerate rapidly, changing consumer habits in its territory,” they concluded. “While it is very early in Google Fiber’s life, we fully expect Google to build out more markets after they perfect the broadband and TV offerings in Kansas City.”

There is ready-made demand, judging from the 1,100 cities that asked Google Fiber to set up shop locally. Local governments recognize their telecommunications future has been largely monopolized by one cable and one phone company, and it is important for that to change. Some have taken steps to build their own networks, others will throw a parade if Google does it for them. Reasoning with the likes of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and Verizon — among several others — has not gotten world class broadband at a reasonable price. Instead, many incumbent players have used their market power to raise prices, restrict usage with unnecessary usage caps, and retard innovation.

Google may prove to be the only force large and aggressive enough to throw a monkey wrench into the comfortable business plans and conventional wisdom about how broadband should be packaged and sold in this country. Community owned providers have shown they can deliver superior service and pricing, but face deep-pocketed incumbents that can use predatory pricing to save customers in one market while raising prices on captive customers in others. Incumbent providers also have successfully advocated for protectionist bans on publicly-owned broadband in a number of states. Washington regulators have thus far been largely supine and disengaged when asked to address the challenges consumers face from rising bills for more restricted service.

BTIG’s own research is a marked departure from the usual dismissive attitude incumbents and Wall Street have paid to the Google project. Greenfield himself acknowledges that the investment and business media communities typically respond with three reactions when one mentions Google Fiber:

• “Is it a sustainable business with those economics?”
• “How much cash are they blowing?”
• “Who cares about what they are doing in a couple of relatively small cities such as the Kansas Cities?”

But such thinking underestimates Google’s potential much the same way Yahoo! and AltaVista did with their dominant search engines a decade ago. The biggest mistake one could make is to assume Google just wants to be another competing cable or phone company. It goes far beyond that.

Greenfield believes Google is seeking to become an integral part of the communities it serves, equal in stature to the cable and phone companies, but without their reviled reputation.

But the most significant change Google brings is a challenge to the current business model of consumer broadband.

Phone and cable companies first monetized broadband speeds. The faster the speed chosen, the higher the price. The earnings power of broadband gradually increased as more Americans signed up for service and the costs to provide it declined. But as cable TV margins continue to erode, the money to cover the difference has come from broadband, which has seen regular, unjustified rate increases since 2010. Not content with monetizing broadband speed alone, many providers are also attempting to monetize broadband usage with usage limits and/or consumption-based billing schemes. A recent Wall Street Journal article estimated 90 percent of the price consumers pay for Internet access is profit.

With that kind of profit margin, the economics of Google’s ambitious fiber project do not look as unfavorable as some on Wall Street suggest.

Greenfield calls Google’s 1 gigabit speeds insanely low-priced at $70 a month. He’s right when one considers current pricing models of incumbents. At Time Warner Cable’s current pricing (50/5Mbps service for $99 a month), the cable company would charge consumers $1,980 a month for 1,000/1,000Mbps service, assuming they could actually deliver it. Upstream speeds above 5Mbps might cost even more. Cable television, which used to be the core service offered by cable companies, is almost an afterthought for Google. It can be added for $50 more per month, which is actually cheaper than many competing providers charge for a similar package.

Greenfield feels Google has an aspirational goal for its Kansas City network.

“In Kansas City, Google has a customer facing service with employees who are part of your community, trucks that come to your house and customer service reps that answer your questions when you need help,” Greenfield notes.

On that basis, Google can reboot itself into an entirely new entity in Kansas City, offering much more than a broadband service and a search engine.

Google’s sleek network box.

Greenfield notes Google Fiber has been carefully developed to break away from the familiar experience one has with the phone and cable company:

• The home terminals and DVR equipment more closely resemble a sleek Apple product, not a Motorola/Cisco set top box that has looked largely the same since the 1990s;
• The installation experience has been streamlined — the external network interface on the side of the customer’s home does not require anyone to be home during the installation, reducing the time needed for a customer to sit around while service is installed inside;
• In-home equipment envisions a more integrated IP-based network future with Ethernet and Wi-Fi connectivity, a centralized storage device which acts as an enhanced whole house DVR, and a minimalist TV box that can be hidden — no more unsightly hulking set top boxes. It represents a home entertainment network that goes far beyond what the competition is offering.

These factors deliver a positive customer experience, if only because Google paid attention to complaints from cable and telephone subscribers and decided to do things differently.

Other traditional business model busters noted by Greenfield:

• Google will deliver 6/1Mbps budget priced Internet for a $300 one time fee (payable in $20 installments) which includes an in-home router, breaking through the digital divide and getting Google’s infrastructure into homes that simply cannot afford traditional cable or phone company broadband. It blows away the current “lite” offering sold by cable and phone companies with much better speeds at a far lower price;
• Google is working with charitable organizations to help the poorest get broadband for even less, through donations and other fundraising;
• Google leverages the community as a crowd-sourced marketing engine. Word of mouth advertising and competition among different neighborhoods helps drive the expansion of the network. Even if a consumer has no interest in the service, many fight to see it in their neighborhoods for the benefit of local community institutions who will receive free hookups;
• Every new customer signed up for two years’ service receives a free Nexus tablet. The tablet is sold as the service’s “remote control,” but it is capable of much more;
• No data caps, no speed throttling. With just two speed tiers, Google has completely discarded the speed-based and usage-based business models for broadband.

A Nexus 7 tablet comes free with the service (and a two year commitment)

So what exactly does BTIG think is Google’s master plan? Greenfield suspects Google is not recouping its initial investment or costs with their current pricing model, but that may not matter. Google may earn profit in other ways.

A 33% increase in the number of homes with broadband could be a substantial boost for Google search and YouTube, earning Google additional revenue. Improved broadband available to an entire household guarantees people will spend more time online, especially with no data caps or slow speeds. Enormously faster upload speed promotes more content sharing, which in turn means more time online with services like YouTube. A home tablet enables even more broadband usage, according to Greenfield.

As broadband speeds improve, advertisers can expose web visitors to more attractive, multimedia rich advertising not easily possible on slower speed connections. That could let Google tap into a greater share of the $60 billion TV ad market, especially for YouTube videos.

Finally, Greenfield suspects the more Google develops brand loyalty, the more successful it will be pitching consumers and businesses on services of the future.

Greenfield notes there are still bugs and features to be worked on, particularly with Google’s TV offering, but the company will have plenty of opportunities to manage those before it introduces Google Fiber elsewhere.

The implications of an expanding fiber to the home universe in the United States under Google’s price model could deliver a potent punch to incumbents like Time Warner Cable. So far, the cable company has only faced satellite dish competition for television, a technologically inferior AT&T U-verse, which will never have the capacity Time Warner has so long as the phone company still relies on any significant amount of copper wiring, and Verizon FiOS, which has disengaged from a price war with the cable company and is raising prices.

The writing is already on the wall, at least in Kansas City. Greenfield relays that Time Warner has been going all-out to improve its own customer service. One customer noted Time Warner Cable came to his house twice in recent weeks, without a scheduled service call, to check on the quality of his Internet speeds and to make sure the customer was happy.

In some neighborhoods, Time Warner is going door to door to interact with customers, something not done since cable operators first knocked on doors 30 years ago to introduce you to their service.

Google Fiber could ultimately force the end of one more legacy the cable industry has earned itself over the past few decades: customers loathing its service and prices.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google Fiber Demo by BTIG’s Rich Greenfield and Walt Piecyk 11-23-12.flv[/flv]

BTIG’s Rich Greenfield and Walt Piecyk experience Google Fiber in Kansas City.  (3 minutes)

Veteran Assembly Speaker John Pérez, the Grand Marshal of a parade of incoming lawmakers attending AT&T’s festivities.

The ballots counted and the winners declared, newly elected members of the California State Assembly could have paused a few days to pen thank you notes or call supporters. Despite an uncommonly grueling campaign, there was simply no time for that when some of America’s largest corporations come calling with trips and gifts worthy of the grand prize on a game show.

More than a few consoled themselves (for now) with something closer to home — wiling away several hours inside AT&T’s luxury suite watching a Kings game with a corporate lobbyist.

Welcome to the world of lobbying on the state level — where “oversight,” “accountability,” and “unseemly” are mere words in a dictionary.

After a historic independent, bipartisan panel redrew California’s electoral districts without the usual political gerrymandering, a number of new faces are headed to Sacramento to do the people’s business. That represents trouble for AT&T and other major corporate interests, who promptly flooded the freshman class with offers of free trips, luxury suites, golf outings, and other “educational opportunities.”

“‘Hey guys, line up and receive your gifts,'” Bob Stern, former chief counsel to the state Fair Political Practices Commission half-joked to a reporter for the Los Angeles Times.

California’s electoral reform was supposed to discourage state lawmakers from finding themselves representing the interests of major corporate benefactors above those of the voters that elected them, but loopholes are everywhere.

The state Democratic party provides cover for legislators with their hands in the goody bag. Veteran Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles) led the unseemly parade of a dozen newly-elected lawmakers to AT&T’s informal shindig at the Sleep Train Arena, where their host — the chief lobbyist for AT&T in California — was standing at the door waiting to shake hands. Ethical violation? Not a chance.

The rule that lawmakers must not take more than $420 in gifts per year was easily sidestepped by redefining the gathering as a state Democratic Party event, not one sponsored by AT&T.

That allowed freshman Jim Frazier, representing Oakley, to confuse his time at AT&T’s Luxury Lounge with an open town hall. Frazier told the newspaper the time with AT&T corporate officials was “a great opportunity to start meeting the people who worked so hard to represent their districts.”

Jose Medina, the incoming assemblyman from Riverside readily agreed, noting that spending time with corporate lobbyists was “part of my job” and that it would have no impact on his decisionmaking, with the exception of pondering another plate of AT&T’s Clams Casino or holding out for the next round of Hot Cheese Puffs.

The face time is a golden opportunity for company lobbyists to “educate” freshman lawmakers about the issues, at least the way companies like AT&T see them.

If sports with AT&T isn’t exciting enough, lawmakers can select from a wide menu of vacationing alternatives, ranging from trips to Hawaii paid for by tobacco lobbyists and Big Pharma, or jet-setting to Brazil bankrolled in part by Chevron.

Philip Ung, an advocate with Common Cause, was unimpressed with the freshman defense for racking up corporate frequent flyer miles.

“They have obviously convinced themselves that the people’s business is best solved poolside with mai tais in hand,” he told the Times. “Congress [on the federal level] banned this type of travel years ago.”

Phillip “Do you want to depend on AT&T for phone service that could be gone with the wind for weeks?” Dampier

Superstorm Sandy is getting credit for exposing the thin veneer of the “wireless future” some phone companies want to give their most rural customers after disconnecting their home phone lines in favor of wireless service.

Unfortunately for the providers selling you on the wireless revolution, reality intruded last month when Category 1 Hurricane Sandy arrived. In its wake, the storm obliterated a significant amount of wireless phone service for weeks in some of the most urbanized sections of the country, while leaving underground, traditional wired phone service largely untouched.

The storm that blew into the northeastern U.S. Oct. 29 left a legacy of interrupted or inadequate cell service that lasted more than two weeks. AT&T and Verizon Wireless reported their networks were not fully restored until Nov. 15. Sprint and T-Mobile are still addressing some issues with their networks as of today.

Although the storm was enormous in scope, it was only a Category 1 hurricane. It could have been much worse.

So where did things go wrong?

Although some sites lost their wired backhaul connection which connects the tower to the provider, the biggest problem was commercial power interruption. Without power, many providers were caught flat-footed with inadequate on-site backup plans to keep cell towers up and running until regular power could be restored.

The wireless industry fought tooth and nail against common sense regulations proposed by the Federal Communications Commission after Hurricane Katrina devastated infrastructure and power facilities in southern Louisiana and Mississippi.

The FCC proposed that every cell tower be equipped with on site battery backup equipment that could sustain service for a minimum of eight hours — sufficient time for power to be restored or company engineers to arrive with more robust generators.

Providers howled about the cost of outfitting the nation’s 200,000 cell sites with even a conservative amount of backup power. The cellular industry lobbying group and Sprint sued, calling it a wasteful and unnecessary mandate. The Bush Administration eventually dropped the whole matter in November 2008 as part of its war on “burdensome” regulation.

Since then, providers have been free to design their own emergency backup plans, or have none at all. Few have made those detailed plans public, giving customers information about how likely their cell phone will work in the event of a disaster.

Verizon Wireless has been the most aggressive, voluntarily adopting the proposed FCC standards and outfitting all of their cell sites with a minimum of eight hours of battery backup power. Other providers have backup facilities at some sites, often with lower capacity batteries that won’t last as long.

Sandy illustrated that even eight hours might be inadequate. Many cell sites were on generator power for more than a week, assuming engineers could regularly reach each tower with equipment and fuel.

Other cell sites could not be returned to service immediately because of major wind damage or flooding. Those that were in service were often overburdened by enormous call volumes.

Meanwhile, unless your landline provider’s central office was flooded, your phone line kept working during and after the storm, especially if your neighborhood wiring is buried underground.

In many cases, it was the only thing working, because traditional phone lines are independently powered and not dependent on electric service in your home to operate. That is what kept your dial tone humming even as your smartphone’s battery ran out.

Ironically, the network that performed the best through the storm is the same one AT&T and Verizon would like to phase out, starting in rural areas. AT&T wants to completely abandon wired service in its most rural service areas, where calling and waiting for emergency assistance is already a hindrance. AT&T plans to spend billions to bolster its rural cell tower network to cover the landline areas it wants to abandon, but those communities would be entirely dependent on the reliability of that network, because AT&T’s competitors are unlikely to build additional infrastructure to compete.

As Sandy just demonstrated, if high-profit Manhattan customers could not be assured of reliable cell phone service from any company that provide service there, how likely is it that a customer in rural Kansas will be in real trouble summoning help over AT&T’s wireless infrastructure in the event of a cell tower failure, wiping out the only telecommunications service available in nearby towns?

Wall Street pans AT&T’s plans to spend billions to upgrade and expand its U-verse service.

Wall Street credit ratings agencies are unhappy with AT&T’s plans to increase spending on its broadband network to upgrade U-verse speeds and provide the fiber to the neighborhood service to more customers.

First, Moody’s placed AT&T’s “ratings on review for downgrade,” because AT&T’s plan to spend $22 billion to upgrade service and repurchase its own shares would throw AT&T’s debt level too high. Now Fitch Ratings has gone further, telling clients it has “downgraded” AT&T with a “negative outlook” because the phone company will spend money to provide U-verse to customers not profitable quickly enough to make the spending worthwhile.

Several Wall Street firms question the return on investment providing Internet service in rural areas where capital costs are higher. But many investment analysts are more positive about AT&T’s wireless service, which delivers substantial profits in much shorter time periods. Fitch called AT&T’s investments in LTE 4G service positive and important as Verizon Wireless continues to build and expand its own 4G LTE network.