A coalition of high tech companies including Google and Alcatel-Lucent are warning South Carolina legislators they are playing with future high tech jobs and will stifle the state’s digital economy if they grant the request of large phone and cable companies to make it difficult, if not impossible for community-owned broadband to compete.  Alcatel-Lucent, American Public Power Association, Atlantic Engineering, Fiber to the Home Council, Google, OnTrac, Southeast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, Telecommunications Industry Association, and the Utilities Telecom Council all co-signed the letter addressed to the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee:

Dear Senator McConnell and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

We, the private-sector companies and trade associations listed below, urge you to oppose H.3508 because these bills, on top of South Carolina’s existing barrier to public communications initiatives, codified in SC Code §§ 58-9-2600 et seq., will harm both the public and private sectors, stifle economic growth, prevent the creation or retention of thousands of jobs, hamper work force development and diminish the quality of life in South Carolina. In particular, these bills will hurt the private sector in several ways: by curtailing public-private partnerships, stifling private companies that sell equipment and services to public broadband providers, and impairing educational and occupational opportunities that contribute to a skilled workforce from which businesses across the state will benefit.

Clearwire's coverage map shows no service in South Carolina.

The United States continues to suffer through difficult economic times.  The private sector alone cannot lift the United States out of this crisis.  As a result, federal and state efforts are taking place across the Nation to deploy both private and public broadband infrastructure to stimulate and support economic development and jobs, especially in economically distressed areas.  For example, in South Carolina, Orangeburg and Oconee Counties have received broadband stimulus awards to bring much-needed broadband services and capabilities to communities that the private sector has chosen not to serve adequately.  H.3508, together with SC Code §§ 58-9-2600 et seq., would impose burdensome financial and regulatory requirements that will prevent public broadband providers from building the sorely needed advanced broadband infrastructure that will stimulate local businesses development, foster work force retraining, and boost employment in these economically depressed areas.

Consistent with these expressions of national unity, public entities across America, including South Carolina, are ready, willing, and able to do their share to bring affordable high-capacity broadband connectivity to all Americans. Enactment or retention of direct or effective barriers to community broadband, such as H.3508 and SC Code §§ 58-9-2600 et seq., would be counterproductive to the achievement of these goals.  These measures are also inconsistent with our country’s National Broadband Plan, which recommends that no new barriers be enacted and that existing barriers be removed.

We support strong, fair and open competition to ensure that users can enjoy the widest range of choices and opportunities.  H.3508 is a step in the wrong direction.  South Carolina should be removing barriers to public broadband initiatives rather than establishing new ones, so that high technology companies can spread and prosper into all the communities in this beautiful state.  Please oppose H.3508, repeal SC Code § 58‑9‑2600 et seq., and reject any future measures that could significantly impair municipal broadband deployments or public-private partnerships in South Carolina.

Stop the Cap! earlier noted this legislation is heavily sponsored by AT&T and other telecommunications companies already operating in South Carolina.  Several months ago, we reported on South Carolina’s woeful broadband: A Corridor of Shame, with large sections of the state without anything close to “broadband” service, even as state legislators in 2009 leased away the state’s publicly owned Educational Broadband Service-spectrum to private companies like Clearwire that don’t appear to be delivering any service in South Carolina.

One of the things we have tried to teach readers over the last few years is how important it is to follow the money trail when encountering a group, politician, or researcher counter-intuitively arguing “up is down” or “right is left.”  So when a business columnist in the Press of Atlantic City slammed rural broadband as a service provided “to a group of people who mostly don’t want it,” we started digging:

The FCC claims this effort will give 7 million rural people reliable access to high-speed Internet connections. So the hundreds of millions of urban and suburban Americans who wish their Internet was faster and more reliable will pay for 2 percent of us to get just that.

Or maybe we’ll be paying for redundant, overpriced telecom work by companies that donate to rural politicians.

Federal stimulus spending in response to the recession already included $7.2 billion for this same purpose. An analysis by Navigant Economics of three big projects under that Broadband Initiatives Program found:

Even “areas in which very high proportions of households were already served by multiple existing broadband providers” were eligible for subsidized broadband work.

The author’s suspicion that money was involved in all this was correct, but he completely missed who was boarding the money train.

Navigant Economics, the “research group” that produced the inflammatory report slamming rural broadband funding, happens to count AT&T as one of its important clients.

The group, a subsidiary of Navigant Consulting, provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues to law firms, corporations and government agencies.

In fact, Navigant pitches its services to a range of corporate clients:

Navigant Economics provides economic analysis in litigation and regulatory proceedings involving competition issues. Our experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.

We provide economic analysis and testimony in connection with mergers and acquisitions and antitrust claims of:

• Anticompetitive horizontal agreements (price fixing, bid rigging, potential anticompetitive effects of joint ventures)
• Unilateral conduct (predatory pricing, refusals to deal, monopolization via patent fraud)
• Vertical restraints (exclusive dealing, requirement contracting, tying and bundling)

We also offer economic analysis and testimony on issues of price and rate of return regulation, mandatory access, quality of service, and benefit-cost analysis, with especial expertise in regulatory proceedings involving communications and the Internet (software and hardware sectors, network unbundling and “net neutrality” issues affecting telecom and cable firms, retransmission consent and other content-related issues, and the range of wireless spectrum issues) and all types of energy markets.

Phillip "Making Sense, Not Dollars" Dampier

The result is what critics refer to as “dollar a holler research” — bought-and-paid-for-results that coincidentally fit the framework of a client’s public policy agenda.  In this case, AT&T (among other phone companies) has fretted about broadband stimulus funding ever since the Obama Administration made it clear the industry would not collectively control the program or reward themselves at taxpayer expense.  In addition to criticizing the decision-making process, phone and cable companies have objected to numerous applicants who applied for grants to build networks serving communities those companies have ignored or under-served for years.

To say AT&T has no vested interest in the outcome of rural broadband would be the first major understatement of 2012.

Martyn Roetter with MFR Consulting said Navigant was giving a bad name to researchers.

“Navigant Economics as well as other economists in academia and the consulting profession seem increasingly prepared to support arguments in favor of their clients’ desires and goals regardless of whether they are reasonable or preposterous,” Roetter wrote. “Unfortunately this behavior tends to blur the distinction between (a) respectable advocacy with findings based on evidence and rational arguments and (b) indefensible nonsense, discrediting both academics and consultants.”

Navigant spent much of 2011 trying to convince regulators and the public that T-Mobile actually doesn’t compete with AT&T, so there should be no problem letting the two companies merge.  Readers win no prizes guessing who paid for that stunner of a conclusion.  Thankfully, the Department of Justice quickly dismissed that notion as a whole lot of hooey.

Navigant’s second ludicrous conclusion is that there is no rural broadband availability problem.  Navigant has a love affair with slow speed, spotty DSL (sold by AT&T) and heavily-capped 3G wireless (also sold by AT&T) as the Frankincense and Myrrh of rural Internet life.  With those, you don’t need any broadband expansion (particularly from a third party interloper).

“The notion that a nominal maximum speed in a shared radio access network is comparable to a nominal maximum speed of a fixed broadband line to a location is a striking example of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the very different operating characteristics and capabilities of these two transmission media,” Roetter soberly observed.

But he knows better.

Roetter

Kevin Post, columnist for the Press of Atlantic City, bought Navigant’s conclusions hook, line, and sinker and repeated them in the press.  In fact, he upped the ante parroting the time-honored provider argument that rural America doesn’t need 21st century broadband because, well, they just don’t want it:

This costly effort is aimed at bringing broadband to a group of people who mostly don’t want it, according to a 2010 Pew Internet survey.

Half of Americans who don’t use the Internet told Pew that the main reason is they don’t find it relevant to their lives.

Only one in 10 nonusers said they would be interested in starting to use the Internet sometime in the future.

Actually, the Pew Internet survey came well before Navigant’s outlandish conclusions, and didn’t directly address the rural broadband availability problem.  Instead, Pew was looking at broadband adoption rates, primarily in places that already have one or more broadband providers.  Pew found what providers have already realized themselves: broadband growth and adoption is slowing; everyone who wants the service in urban America already has it or wants it.  Those that don’t are typically older and lack computers or are too poor to afford the asking price.

Post’s suggestion that a Pew Study concluded rural America does not want broadband service is an exercise in fixing the facts.

That’s the magic of the Dollar-a-Holler Echo Machine.  Big telecom companies hire public policy consultants and researchers to find their way to “scientific” evidence proving their corporate agenda, and then feeds the “facts” and “research” to receptive reporters, astroturf “consumer groups,” and politicians to bolster their case.  It’s not AT&T suggesting there is no rural broadband problem — it’s Navigant Economics.

As Roetter writes, “A basic knowledge of wireless markets exposes the […] indefensible nature of the positions outlined above. A policy based on ‘tell me what you want to hear, pay me, and I will reproduce it all regardless of its merits’ is a disservice to professionals who try to remain objective and independent, i.e. professional.”

Comcast’s decision to spend $300,000 attempting to defeat one community’s public broadband initiative illustrates how America’s largest cable company invested a portion of your monthly cable bill.  It turned out to be a bad investment — Longmont voters saw right through the dollar-a-holler vote buying operation run by a Denver-based “public strategies” firm.  Every vote in favor of the cable company cost Big Cable $35.17 — a bit less than many pay for a month of broadband service.

The pro-fiber forces spent a collective $5,000, some of which came from individuals who want more competition in Colorado.  The Institute for Local Self-Reliance notes the cable industry couldn’t even find a local spokesperson to cheerlead their campaign.

It is proof positive citizen activism can still beat back corporate-financed propaganda campaigns and make all the difference.

Sometimes you can’t please some people no matter what you do.

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative’s $64 million fiber-to-the-home expansion project will finally bring 21st century broadband speeds to northern New Mexico. The electric co-op intends to deliver broadband speeds up to 100Mbps to 20,000 largely rural residents and businesses in Taos, Colfax, and Rio Arriba counties who have had limited access to cable broadband or live with speeds often less than 1Mbps from CenturyLink-delivered DSL.

“It’s a whole new ballgame for rural New Mexico,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Raul. “But the pinheads at the local weekly newspaper are ringing their hands over the project, suggesting only businesses deserve 100Mbps while the rest of us should be satisfied with speeds under a megabit per second.”

Indeed, editors at the Sangre de Christo Chronicle are wringing their hands over the project:

But many of us in the Kit Carson service area already have Internet service — and we’re completely happy with it. Kit Carson CEO Luis Reyes, Jr. said a large portion of the organization’s electric customers are currently under-served by other providers with Internet speeds of less than one megabit (1,000 kilobits) per second.

We have no reason to doubt that, but many of these customers probably don’t need the higher speeds. For the Internet customers who use the Internet for email, Facebook, news and other basic functions, Kit Carson’s prices will be most important. Most of us will not pay more for faster Internet speed we don’t need, but we will consider switching to a local provider if it offers identical or better service and prices.

“CenturyLink barely delivers DSL today, and has shown no interest in investing substantially in northern New Mexico, and outside of concentrated built-up areas there is no cable competition,” Raul says. “Kit Carson is the only local concern that has shown any real interest in making our community better, and the local newspaper is complaining about it.”

Proposed service area for Kit Carson Electric's new fiber to the home network serving northern New Mexico.

Kit Carson Electric’s project will provide a true fiber-to-the-home service bundling television, telephone, and broadband service — a substantial upgrade over what the telephone company has on offer.  With speeds far beyond what cable and phone providers in New Mexico are accustomed to providing, the region stands to benefit from entrepreneurs building digital economy businesses over a broadband network that can actually help, not hinder online development.

Currently, area residents pay CenturyLink up to $55 a month for 1.5/1Mbps DSL service.  Residents are so excited by the prospects of much faster speeds at significantly lower prices, Kit Carson Electric has developed an innovative stop-gap service for residents still waiting for direct fiber connections — fiber-to-wireless service.  New and existing customers can sign up for the service for a $100 installation fee and choose from three service tiers:

• 3Mbps — $29.95/month
• 7Mbps — $39.95/month
• 10Mbps — $49.95/month

A three year contract is required (early termination fee is $200).  But customers who eventually obtain Kit Carson Electric’s fiber service will automatically satisfy their contract requirement.

“Kit Carson’s wireless project already blows away CenturyLink’s speeds and pricing, and that is for inferior wireless,” Raul argues. “The Chronicle doesn’t have a clue.”

We can’t understand the newspaper’s concerns either.  Kit Carson Electric has already demonstrated their prices (and interest) in northern New Mexico is superior to that of CenturyLink, owner of former Baby Bell Qwest, which serves New Mexico.

Republican Sen. Jeff Bingaman is thrilled with Kit Carson’s broadband initiative.

“This major investment in broadband technology is exactly the kind of project I had envisioned when I voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman said. “This grant is not only creating jobs now in northern New Mexico, it is laying the groundwork to attract new businesses, improve healthcare services and create new education opportunities in the future.”

The electric co-op has been successful operating non-profit businesses selling propane, telecommunications, and economic development space.  The fiber project will also allow the electric utility to deploy “smart grid” technology to increase the efficiency of their electric service.

A groundbreaking ceremony at the broadband project’s command center held this past summer also coincided with a public emergency communications network upgrade which will increase the efficiency and reliability of first responders and other emergency and public safety agencies.

A research report sponsored by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the nation’s largest cable lobbying group, has concluded that millions of broadband stimulus dollars are being wasted by the government on broadband projects that will ultimately serve people who supposedly already enjoy a panoply of broadband choice.

Navigant Economics, a “research group” that produces reports for its paying clients inside industry, government, and law firms, produced this one at the behest of a cable industry concerned that broadband stimulus funding will build competing broadband providers that could force better service and lower prices for consumers.

• More than 85 percent of households in the three project areas are already passed by existing cable broadband, DSL, and/or fixed wireless broadband providers. In one of the project areas, more than 98 percent of households are already passed by at least one of these modalities.

• In part because a large proportion of project funds are being used to provide duplicative service, the cost per incremental (unserved) household passed is extremely high. When existing mobile wireless broadband coverage is taken into account, the $231.7 million in RUS funding across the three projects will provide service to just 452 households that currently lack broadband service.

Navigant’s report tries to prove its contention by analyzing three broadband projects that seek funding from the federal government.  Northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Kansas, and southwestern Montana were selected for Navigant’s analysis, and unsurprisingly the researcher found the broadband unavailability problem overblown.

The evidence demonstrates that broadband service is already widely available in each of the three proposed service areas. Thus, a large proportion of each award goes to subsidize broadband deployment to households and regions where it is already available, and the taxpayer cost per unserved household is significantly higher than the taxpayer cost per household passed.

The cable industry funds research reports that oppose fiber broadband stimulus projects.

But Navigant’s findings take liberties with what defines appropriate broadband service in the 21st century.

First, Navigant argues that wireless mobile broadband is suitable to meet the definition of broadband service, despite the fact most rural areas face 3G broadband speeds that, in real terms, are below the current definition of “broadband” (a stable 768kbps or better — although the FCC supports redefining broadband to speeds at or above 3-4Mbps).  As any 3G user knows, cell site congestion, signal quality, and environmental factors can quickly reduce 3G speeds to less than 500kbps.  When was the last time your 3G wireless provider delivered 768kbps or better on a consistent basis?

Navigant also ignores the ongoing march by providers to establish tiny usage caps for wireless broadband.  With most declaring anything greater than 5GB “abusive use,” and some limiting use to less than half that amount, a real question can be raised about whether mobile broadband, even at future 4G speeds, can provide a suitable home broadband replacement.

Second, Navigant’s list of available providers assumes facts not necessarily in evidence.  For example, in Lake County, Minnesota, Navigant assumes DSL availability based on a formula that assumes the service will be available anywhere within a certain radius of the phone company’s central office.  But as our own readers have testified, companies like Qwest, Frontier, and AT&T do not necessarily provide DSL in every central office or within the radius Navigant assumes it should be available.  One Stop the Cap! reader in the area has fought Frontier Communications for more than a year to obtain DSL service, and he lives blocks from the local central office.  It is simply not available in his neighborhood.  AT&T customers have encountered similar problems because the company has deemed parts of its service area unprofitable to provide saturation DSL service.  While some multi-dwelling units can obtain 3Mbps DSL, individual homes nearby cannot.

Navigant never visited the impacted communities to inquire whether service was actually available.  Instead, it relied on this definition to assume availability:

DSL boundaries were estimated as follows: Based on the location of the dominant central office of each wirecenter, a 12,000 foot radius was generated. This radius was then truncated as necessary to encompass only the servicing wirecenter. The assumption that DSL is capable of serving areas within 12,000 is based on analysis conducted by the Omnibus Broadband Initiative for the National Broadband Plan.

Frontier advertises up to 10Mbps DSL in our neighborhood, but in reality can actually only offer speeds of 3.1Mbps in a suburb less than one mile from the Rochester, N.Y. city line.  In more rural areas, customers are lucky to get service at all.

Cable broadband boundaries were estimated based on information obtained from an industry factbook, which gathered provider-supplied general coverage information and extrapolated availability from that.  But, as we’ve reported on numerous occasions, provider-supplied coverage data has proven suspect.  We’ve found repeated instances when advertised service proved unavailable, especially in rural areas where individual homes do not meet the minimum density required to provide service.

We’ve argued repeatedly for independent broadband mapping that relies on actual on-the-ground data, if only to end the kind of generalizations legislators rely on regarding broadband service.  But if the cable industry can argue away the broadband problem with empty claims service is available even in places where it is not (or woefully inadequate), relying on voluntary data serves the industry well, even if it shortchanges rural consumers who are told they have broadband choices that do not actually exist.

Navigant’s report seeks to apply the brakes to broadband improvement programs that can deliver consistent coverage and 21st century broadband speeds that other carriers simply don’t provide or don’t offer throughout the proposed service areas.  The cable industry doesn’t welcome the competition, especially in areas stuck with lesser-quality service from low-rated providers.