How accurate is the map?

The biggest story you know nothing about is taking place at the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, where regulators are trying to figure out what to do with $185 million in leftover broadband expansion funds Internet Service Providers either could not qualify for or did not want. The FCC is on the verge of making a decision, one that will rely on broadband map data that service providers are now calling grossly inaccurate.

During the first phase of the Connect America program to fund broadband expansion in rural areas, the Commission offered up to $300 million to providers willing to wire consumers and businesses deemed too unprofitable to serve.

The rules largely favored phone companies, and although some including Frontier Communications gratefully accepted the funding to expand their DSL service, both of America’s largest phone companies expressed little interest. Many others, including CenturyLink and Windstream, petitioned to change the rules.

In the end, less than half of the available funding — $115 million — was actually spent, none in areas served by AT&T and Verizon.

The initial guidelines for participation were not exactly a high bar to cross. Under the program’s original rules, providers are required to deploy broadband within three years to certain locations that receive less than 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream (or no service at all). That “means test” set the bar far below the minimum speed providers can even call “broadband” under the FCC’s own current definition: 4/1Mbps.

Anyone served by 1-3Mbps DSL “broadband” was instantly ineligible because the FCC effectively deemed those speeds ‘good enough for now.’ The FCC argued it wanted to first target funds to those without any service at all, not those who had inadequate service.

Participating carriers receive compensation up to $775 per home to defray connection costs, bringing expenses closer to the Return on Investment-test that decides whether your rural home will have broadband service or not. Large phone companies complained the subsidy was not nearly enough and did not bother applying. Some others said even with the subsidy, it was still too unprofitable to wire rural homes in their service areas.

This not-so-auspicious start of the Connect America project has driven the FCC to propose modifying the rules to increase participation by disinterested providers. In an opaque “Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” the Commission proposes new rules that will “further accelerate the deployment of broadband facilities to consumers who lack access to robust broadband.”

Under the new guidelines, providers could be able to apply for funding if the areas they propose to serve are not already getting at least 4/1Mbps service. But in a surprising footnote, the FCC announced they will “use 3Mbps downstream and 768kbps upstream as a proxy for 4/1Mbps service.” In other words, the FCC is ignoring its own standard definition of broadband and settling for something less. That will leave customers waiting for something better than 3Mbps service up the creek, excluded from Connect America funding.

The U.S. Telecom Association is a lobbying group dominated by AT&T, Verizon and other phone companies.

The U.S. Telecom Association (USTA), which represents phone companies, was appalled, suggesting this footnote will block funding from approximately one million rural households that receive what most of us would consider substandard broadband.

“This is particularly true for rural areas served by DSL which in most cases has been engineered to provide an upstream speed of 768 Kbps,” the USTA wrote in comments to the FCC. “In such cases, significant and costly network upgrades would be necessary to provide broadband service meeting the 4/1Mbps  benchmark. Therefore, rather than relying on evidence of 3/768 service to exclude areas from eligibility, the Commission should use the next speed tier—6/1.5Mbps as a proxy for 4/1 service.”

Windstream, in its own comments, was reduced to educating the FCC about the basic technical facts of DSL:

One Mbps upload speeds are not necessarily available to all customers served by standard ADSL 2+ architecture over a 24 AWG copper pair of 12,000 feet. Rather, delivery of reliable upload speeds of 1 Mbps would require an upgrade, such as two-pair bonded ADSL 2+. Two-pair bonded ADSL2+ essentially doubles last mile deployment cost since the end user modem is two to three times the cost of a normal single pair modem, two cable pairs are used instead of one, and two ADSL2+ ports are required at the DSLAM. Moreover, to achieve 1 Mbps of customer payload throughput would require an upload connection speed of more than 1.2 Mbps, while an upload connection speed of 1 Mbps would produce an actual throughput of about 820 Kbps.

Even where the loop length from the DSLAM to the customer is less than 12,000 feet, a service provider can only deliver service meeting the 4/1 requirement—or more precisely, service at speeds of 6/1.5Mbps, the next-fastest standard service tier—if the DSLAM is ADSL2+ capable and fiber-fed.

Windstream provides a primer on DSL to the FCC.

The resource that will determine who qualifies for broadband funding and who does not is the National Broadband Map, which seeks to describe the broadband options available at hundreds of millions of American addresses. If the map shows an area unserved, it qualifies for funding. If the map shows there is no broadband inadequacy, no funding will be offered.

Unsurprisingly, providers of all kinds are hurrying in comments that declare often considerable inaccuracies in the FCC’s map. This is ironic since much of the collected data on which the map is based was voluntarily supplied by those providers.

In various submissions filed with the FCC, several ISPs suggest the national map is not to be trusted. Some complain the updated service areas they earlier submitted have never been incorporated into the map, others are discovering inaccuracies for the first time because they can make the difference between winning or not qualifying for rural broadband funding (either for themselves or a competitor). Among other complaints: providers are overestimating their coverage and fibbing about actual speeds, the map’s census tract granularity ends up declaring an area served if even one household manages to get DSL service while others cannot, and providers only serving business customers are treated as if they serve everyone.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant is asking the FCC to clean up the inaccuracies in the Mississippi portion of the National Broadband Map.

The state of Mississippi is the poster child for inaccuracies in the National Broadband Map. All that was required to disqualify most of the state from rural broadband funding was a boastful and inaccurate submission from one cable broadband reseller that claimed they served virtually all of Mississippi. Nobody bothered to question the veracity of their submission or verify it. Now the governor’s office is involved in efforts to scrub the inaccurate broadband map they consider more a fantasy than reality on the ground.

With the FCC preparing to launch the second phase of the Connect America Fund with up to $1.8 billion of available funding per year over five years, the money sharks are in the water circling one another.

Cable operators and wireless ISPs are asking the FCC not to hand out money to their competitors and phone companies are returning fire claiming those providers are lying about their coverage areas and have restrictions on service.

Companies ranging from Comcast to small, independent cable operators working with the American Cable Association are filing objections to the existing map. Wireless ISPs, often family-owned, are even more worried what will happen if phone companies like Windstream get federal dollars to upgrade their DSL service while unsubsidized WISPs are left to compete on their own.

In fact, the Competitive Carriers Association argues wireless providers are best positioned to make use of the unspent funds to deploy rural wireless broadband immediately.

“Wireless carriers offer the best opportunity to bring much needed broadband services to unserved and underserved areas, and it only makes sense for the FCC to consider proposals from wireless carriers,” said CCA president Steven K. Berry. “Many of our members are ready and willing to build out these networks, but depend on [financial] support in order to do so.  Wireless remains underfunded, and this could be an opportunity for the FCC to provide significant support for the services consumers want most.”

Not if the USTA and Windstream have anything to say about it. Both are on the attack in comments filed with the FCC:

WISPs: “Coverage should be independently verified before such areas are considered ineligible for Connect America funding. Like satellite providers, WISPs often have capacity caps and service quality issues, including unpredictable degradation from third-party interference from common devices such as cordless phones, garage door openers and microwave ovens when WISPs use unlicensed spectrum. The sustained speeds WISPs offer, particularly during busy times, also tend to be slower than those offered by [phone company broadband], and certainly slower than the 4Mbps downstream standard required of future recipients of federal funding.” — U.S. Telecom Association

The USTA also attacks WISPs for their usage caps, which they claim should disqualify them from serious consideration because their networks are technically and realistically inadequate to service today’s broadband consumer.

Cable “Competitors”: Windstream claims the bare existence of a cable operator alone should not disqualify the phone company from funding. Windstream suggests cable companies in its service areas may only serve one or two customers in a census tract, not really offer service at all, or provide sub-standard broadband that is so bad, nobody will do business with them.

Windstream proposes its own competition test: “In many areas […] with an alleged presence of an unsubsidized competitor, Windstream has received no requests in the past two years from customers for telephone number ports that are accompanied by cancellation of the customer’s Windstream broadband service. In other words, despite the alleged presence of a competitor providing service at speeds of at least 3/768 in areas where Windstream itself does not provide service exceeding 3/768, Windstream has not received a single request in two years in an entire area to port a phone number to a competitor and cancel the associated Windstream broadband service. Windstream submits that the lack of such porting requests throughout an entire area over a reasonable historical period is strong evidence that there is no competitor providing 3/768 or better service in that area.”

The independent phone company proposes that alleged unsubsidized competitors offer proof they are actually providing service before the FCC excludes an area from funding consideration.

“Here is our view.” — Phillip Dampier

Consumers are free to share their own views with the FCC on these matters by filing their own comments here. The Proceeding Number you will need is 10-90. It is generally easier to create a .PDF, standard .txt file, or Microsoft Word document and attach it to the submission form. Your comments will be publicly visible and posted to the FCC website.

Stop the Cap! feels the FCC should not renege on its commitment to fund rural providers that will guarantee customers will receive at least 4/1Mbps service. This barely adequate minimum will require phone companies to upgrade their facilities to next generation DSL technology that can support future speed upgrades. Compromising on lower speeds gives phone companies the option to deploy outdated early generation DSL that cannot be upgraded easily. In a positive development, many phone companies seem willing to commit to these upgrades with some financial assistance.

Funding should also be available to the provider that can deliver the best broadband service at the lowest cost. As urban and suburban customers have learned, that service often does not come from the phone company. Cable operators willing to commit to rural broadband upgrades should not be disqualified from funding, nor should community-owned providers who want to build their own networks.

We have also repeatedly complained about broadband mapping that lacks a formal mechanism to clearly verify coverage and speeds independent of the ISP supplying the data. Providers have an incentive to artificially boost or reduce coverage, particularly if it means the difference between qualifying for federal broadband expansion funding or disqualifying a competitor because the provider can falsely claim they already offer the service.

Our thanks to Cassandra Heyne, who dubbed the current situation an FCC ‘maptastrophe.’

Echoing the sentiment of many of the member organizations that finance it, the nation’s largest cable lobbying group — the National Cable and Telecommunications Association — may now see itself as a trade organization of broadband providers, so it is considering a name change.

The group filed a trademark application for the brand, “NCTA The Internet and Television Association” at the end of December according to a report by Fierce Cable.

An NCTA spokesperson claimed the new name was just an idea at this point and no formal name change is anticipated at this time. But the move does represent a growing trend away from the product its members are most famous for providing: cable television.

The NCTA got its start in September 1951 as the National Community Television Council, representing the interests of operators that provided community antenna service primarily in the mountainous Appalachian region. The following year it was rebranded the National Community Television Association (NCTA).

By the late 1960s, “community television” was dropped in favor of “cable television” and the group remained known as the National Cable Television Association until 2001, when operators realized the growing importance of broadband. As a result, the group adopted the name it still uses today: the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

The NCTA is dominated by the nation’s largest cable operators, particularly Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Smaller, independent cable operators have felt disenfranchised from the NCTA, which caters to the interests of enormous corporate telecommunications companies, so 150 independent operators banded together and formed the American Cable Association (ACA) in 1993.

From writing friendly reports defending Internet Overcharging to the FCC’s new chief economist — D.C.’s revolving door keeps on spinning for Professor Steven Wildman.

The Federal Communications Commission has proved that Washington’s revolving door enjoys perpetual motion with the announcement it hired a new chief economist who just three weeks earlier was peddling his findings favoring usage caps and consumption billing before a National Cable & Telecommunications Association gathering that paid for his research.

Professor Steven Wildman’s move from the cable industry’s go-to-guy for defending Internet Overcharging to a cushy new position at the FCC just weeks after shilling for the country’s largest cable industry lobbying group is shocking even by Washington’s standards.

Remarkably, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski praised this cheerleader of wallet-pilfering by saying “his deep economic expertise and problem solving abilities” are the perfect fit for an agency pressed with challenging initiatives – like charging you more for your broadband service and calling it “pro-consumer.”

There is no doubt Wildman has deep economic expertise — he has found success penning dubious research bought and paid for by an industry that expects his findings to echo their own talking points. His problem-solving abilities at fixing the facts around the cable industry’s agenda are also unquestioned.

But his research reports aren’t worth wasting your monthly usage allowance to download because they only tell part of the story.

At the December NCTA Connects event, Wildman was the darling of the cable industry echo chamber telling tall tales about the problems of broadband penetration in a country where providers enjoy up to 95 percent gross margins on broadband pricing:

“One of the key mechanisms through which positive welfare effects are realized is the crafting of lower-priced plans for users who otherwise might not take service, while users who have a more intensive demand for broadband are able to contract for more advanced services. We also showed that UBP has flexibility advantages for users whose data service needs vary over time. Because UBP creates an incentive to offer lower cost-lower usage plans to consumers who otherwise could not profitably be served at a unitary price, UBP can be an effective tool for promoting increased broadband penetration in the United States, a role that is enhanced by the fact that low price-low usage options reduce the financial risks to consumers thinking about trying broadband for the first time.”

“Tiered pricing also has benefits for the recovery of shared network costs and for network investment. Whereas investment decisions are also influenced by other factors, including the costs of extending networks, potential revenues, and overall economic conditions, we found that, other things equal, usage tiers will likely contribute to better cash flows and stronger incentives to invest in broadband plant, both to improve the quality of service for current customers and to extend networks into unserved and underserved territories.”

Wildman does not mention his cable benefactors earn a higher percentage of profit on broadband than oil sheikhs in the Middle East rake in charging $90+ for a barrel of oil. So it is unsurprising his analysis lacks one simple solution providers could use to differentiate their services and enhance broadband penetration: lower the price to compete. He also ignores the fact that true usage pricing would offer consumers a chance to pay only for what they actually consumed during a month, but those plans are not on offer anywhere.

Wildman ignores the real industry agenda: monetizing broadband usage to create even higher profits. The cable industry is well on its way, using the enormous market power enjoyed in the current monopoly/duopoly state of consumer broadband to preserve today’s near-extortionist pricing while trying to pick up customers currently unwilling to pay, charging for slightly discounted service that comes with a paltry usage allowance.

The meme that unlimited, flat rate broadband is somehow responsible for America’s broadband-unserved is a popular one at the FCC, where Chairman Genachowski has applauded usage based pricing as an “innovative” experiment that could change how broadband is marketed in the U.S. and promote its expansion.

While those in D.C. may live in a bubble populated by industry lobbyists, others do not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NCTA Connects The Pros and Cons of Broadband Peak Load Pricing Dec 2012.flv[/flv]

Message Confusion: While some in the cable industry still advocate usage pricing and caps as a matter of “fairness” and as a salve for peak time congestion, today’s advocates of usage-based billing appearing at a cable-industry event in December admit congestion is simply no longer a problem on wired networks. Sandvine’s Dave Caputo and Professor David M. Lyons of Boston College Law School dismiss the notion of congestion-based pricing only during peak usage, arguing congestion is no longer the real issue driving usage caps. That is why everyone must be subjected to higher priced, usage-capped broadband no matter what time of day they use the network. (3 minutes)

The inevitable outcome of “differentiated pricing” is charging consumers more to access popular websites, as is already the case in countries like Colombia.

Wildman argues that like car manufacturers that offer many different models ranging from basic to well-appointed with luxury extras, providers should be free to offer different types of plans to consumers.

Wildman’s auto analogy fails because consumers have more than a dozen different manufacturers to choose from, each making a range of different models. For broadband, the overwhelming majority of Americans have two choices: the cable and phone company. Unlike auto manufacturers that respond to consumer demand, broadband providers are hellbent on eliminating the overwhelmingly popular flat rate, unlimited option in favor of mandatory usage pricing and/or usage caps. It would be like telling auto-buyers that their Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, or Chevy Malibu no longer met the needs of manufacturers. Instead, you have one choice: the Toyota Yaris. But you can get it with heated leather seats, so what’s the problem?

Wildman also ignores the fact providers already sell different plans, based on different speeds. Customers with only light web use can select a cheaper, lower speed tier and never notice the difference. Heavier users buy up into premium speed tiers, paying higher prices to cover their additional usage and expectations of performance.

Providers have spent the last few years trying to justify adding a usage component to the pricing equation and Wildman is perplexed by public policy and consumer groups overwhelmingly hostile to plans that would leave current pricing largely intact and add an artificial usage cap. Considering who pays for his research, this is not too surprising.

Wildman’s style of “innovation” already exists in countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and in parts of Europe allowing everyone to witness what actually happens when these pricing schemes gain a foothold. Usage-based pricing has successfully boosted the profits of providers but has done nothing to expand rural broadband networks or offer customers big savings. When providers gorge on profits made possible in uncompetitive markets, the money goes straight into bank accounts or back to investors, not into capital spending to improve service or expand into areas deemed unprofitable to serve.

Customers despise usage caps so much that in Australia and New Zealand, the government has partially taken over rebuilding infrastructure with new fiber to the home networks and promoting international capacity expansion that will eventually banish usage pricing for good. In western Canada, Shaw Cable heard so much condemnation about usage caps during its listening tour, it greatly relaxed them. (The fact its biggest competitor Telus barely enforces their own caps didn’t hurt either.)

In the rest of Canada, independent ISPs have found a growing niche selling plans with considerably larger usage allowances or flat rate access. How did dominant providers like Bell (BCE) respond? They asked regulators to force the competition to stop selling flat rate service.

How Sandvine helps providers “innovate.” Alaska’s GCI implemented its draconian caps and overlimit fees using Sandvine’s Internet Overcharging technology.

Wildman’s report flies in the face of reality, and every so often the cable industry itself admits as much. Take the word of Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent, who runs a largely rural cable company that launched its own Internet Overcharging scheme:

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Unsurprisingly, that sentiment did not make it into Wildman’s analysis either.

Wildman

Financial reports from providers that have usage caps and those that don’t show the same remarkable trend: broadband expenses are way down, capital intensity is well within expected norms, and cable operators are not pouring their profligate earnings into expanding rural broadband.

That makes Wildman the consummate team player, and hardly the best choice for taxpayers who will cover his salary for a few years before he takes another trip through the revolving door back to his industry friends. When Americans wonder why Washington doesn’t seem to be living in the reality-based community, this is why. We can hardly expect Mr. Wildman to represent our interests when he has spent the last several years representing an extremely profitable industry reviled for its overcharging, poor service, and scheming, and will be more than welcomed back if he remembers his friends while working at the FCC.

This latest move represents another disappointment from Chairman Julius Genachowski, who increasingly appears to be warming up to a telecommunications industry he used to aggressively oversee at the start of his tenure.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NCTA Connects The Evolving Internet – Patterns in Usage and Pricing Dec 2012.flv[/flv]

Three weeks ago, the Three Musketeers of Internet Overcharging appeared at a cable industry-sponsored event promoting usage caps and consumption billing. Sandvine CEO Dave Caputo makes his living scaring providers and consumers about Internet growth and (conveniently) selling the equipment that manages the traffic “tsunami” with speed throttles and usage limits. Professor David M. Lyons of Boston College Law School calls usage pricing “second degree price discrimination,” a term he hopes the industry will rebrand into something less ominous and obvious. He argues selling broadband at incremental costs will never recover “fixed costs” for networks the cable industry itself admits have already been largely paid off. Professor Steven Wildman, now on the way to the FCC as its new chief economist, peddles research bought and paid for by the cable industry. They got their money’s worth. (1 hour, 9 minutes)

Phillip “Oh look, more industry-backed research in denial regarding unpopular usage caps and consumption billing” Dampier

It seems America’s biggest industry-funded broadband astroturf group, Broadband for America, thinks the New America Foundation completely misses the point of “new pricing strategies” like restrictive usage caps, costly consumption-based billing, and fiendishly high overlimit fees. In a hurry, they released this particularly weak argument favoring usage pricing:

A new report by the New America Foundation suggests that “dwindling competition is fueling the rise of increasingly costly and restrictive Internet usage caps” in the broadband sector. But as we’ve explained before, these experimental new pricing strategies are actually signs of competition in the market and ultimately benefit consumers.

In terms of competition between broadband service providers, a study by Boston College Law School Professor Daniel Lyons concluded “data caps and other pricing strategies are ways that broadband companies can distinguish themselves from one another to achieve a competitive advantage in the marketplace.” He also concluded these practices were not anti-consumer: “When firms experiment with different business models, they can tailor services to niche audiences whose interests are inadequately satisfied by a one-size-fits-all flat-rate plan.” Indeed, many consumers are no longer satisfied with one-size-fits-all rate plans. Since data usage by individual users can vary dramatically, imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to pricing would result in light data users subsidizing the use of heavier ones. As Michigan State University Professor of Information Studies Steven Wildman explains, not having usage-based pricing models “means that light users pay a higher effective rate for broadband service, cross-subsidizing the activities of those who spend more time online. With usage-based pricing, those who use more bandwidth contribute more toward the cost of building and maintaining broadband networks.”

Broadband providers should be free to experiment with usage-based pricing and other pricing strategies as tools in their arsenal to meet rising broadband demand on their networks. Moving forward, Lyons recommends instituting public policies that allow providers the freedom to experiment, in order to best preserve the spirit of innovation that has characterized the Internet since its inception.

Broadband for America thinks they are clever when they introduce “academic papers” that extend credibility to their arguments. No, Broadband for America, we get the point. Your benefactors want to charge customers more  money for less service and call that a fair deal.

The wheels driving their talking points start to fall off the moment one peaks under their covers:

1. Broadband for America (BfA) is America’s largest telecom industry front group, backed almost entirely by cable and phone companies and dozens of supporting groups that are typically funded by those companies, have telecom industry board members, or whose lifeblood depends on doing business with Big Telecom companies.

2. Experimental pricing plans that largely leave existing pricing in place –and– impose new service limitations is not a sign of competition that benefits consumers, it is proof of its absence. With today’s broadband duopoly, there is little risk imposing new fees or service restrictions when the only competition you have typically follows suit. There is no evidence that usage-based pricing is saving consumers money, particularly when broadband providers are using their marketplace power to further increase prices.

3. There is no evidence “many consumers are no longer satisfied with one-size-fits-all rate plans” for home broadband. In fact, the reverse has been proved conclusively, sometimes by industry-funded researchers.

4. With a 90-95% gross margin on broadband, there is plenty of room for price cuts –and– unlimited broadband, but why give those profits away when lack of competition doesn’t provide the necessary push. Instead, providers’ ideas of “innovative pricing” are always upwards and include usage limits, modem rental fees, and other restrictions.

5. The railroad industry argued much the same case in the early 20th century when communities complained about wide pricing disparity, depending on local competition. We all know what eventually happened there.

6. Full disclosure, as is too often the case, is completely lacking at BfA. So we’ve offered to help:

The “study by Boston College Law School Professor Daniel Lyons” is accurate. He is now a faculty member there. But BfA fails to disclose the study was actually produced on behalf of the Koch Brother-funded Mercatus Center, which specializes in industry-friendly position papers on deregulation. Lyons is also on the Board of Academic Advisers at the Free State Foundation, itself an industry-backed astroturf group that advocates on behalf of large telecom companies, among others.

His colleague Michigan State University Professor of Information Studies Steven Wildman is also an adviser at the Free State Foundation. He is also a bit more transparent about where the money comes from for his studies advocating usage-based pricing – the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the largest cable industry lobbying and trade group in the United States.

The only surprise Lyons and Wildman could have delivered is if they advocated against these Internet Overcharging schemes. But then they probably would not have been invited to present their findings at an NCTA Connects briefing last week entitled, “Connecting the Dots on Usage-Based Pricing.”

We at Stop the Cap! can connect the dots as well.

Susan Crawford, President Barack Obama’s former Special Assistant for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy has the solution for America’s lack of universal broadband, and she solves it in just four Tweets:

• Step 1 gives private companies the push they need to get rural broadband financing within their existing Return on Investment formulas by reducing capital costs for unserved areas;
• Step 2 stops the corporate welfare legislation that protects the incumbent duopoly from publicly-owned competition that can ignore Wall Street’s insistence that more competition = fat profit erosion;
• Step 3 gives the ISPs access to public land and infrastructure either at no or low cost in return for recognizing they are benefiting from that taxpayer-owned infrastructure, so they better not abuse the privilege;
• Step 4 makes ISPs common carriers that have no financial interest in the content transported down broadband lines, thus no incentive to favor their own services while discriminating against others.

Whether such policies can withstand court challenges claiming violation of corporation free speech rights is, of course, another matter. But Crawford’s ideas create incentives for broadband providers to aggressively wire their respective service areas while avoiding monopolizing what travels down those broadband pipelines.