Outside of a handful of consumer groups, just about everyone — including one “anti-tax” Republican on the Federal Communications Commission — favors the imposition of a new broadband tax on your Internet connection.

It is all a part of the Federal Communications Commission’s effort to transform a badly-outdated Universal Service Fund (USF) into the Connect America Fund (CAF) — an ongoing project to help defray the costs of wiring rural America for broadband service.

Phone and cable companies are on board. So are several state regulators. Even search engine giant Google favors applying a surcharge to consumer bills to retire a funding formula currently dependent on declining landline phone revenue.

In April, the FCC began accepting comments on its proposal to expand the number of telecommunications services subject to the surcharge, currently found on telephone bills. The FCC has proposed a number of possible taxes including the new broadband fee, a tax on text messages, or moving to a flat fee for each phone line instead of a variable tax rate (currently around 18%).

Virtually every major telecommunications company provisionally supports the new tax, for at least three reasons:

1. Most can benefit from future CAF funding opportunities, dipping into the fund to help subsidize expanding broadband into areas where current “return on private investment”-standards make deployment unprofitable;
2. Consumers will pay the tax, not providers;
3. The companies are confident their fierce lobbying will get the FCC to drop a proposed requirement the fee be included in the advertised price of broadband service. They want the fee broken out separately on customer bills, in part because they fear higher-advertised-prices for broadband will discourage customers from buying.

Google also supports the new tax because they profit from a larger broadband audience accessing their web pages and services. If the FCC were to tax online services, as Google fears, it would be bad news.

“Saddling these offerings with new, direct USF contribution obligations is likely to restrict innovative options for all communications consumers and cause immediate and lasting harm to the users, pioneers, and innovators of Internet-based services,” Google argued.

The Fiber to the Home Council, another industry group, was disturbed by one FCC proposal that would levy an increasingly higher percentage of the new tax on customers with progressively faster high speed connections. Although the Council agreed with many consumer groups that any new broadband tax would discourage broadband adoption, it was alarmed with the proposition of taxing consumers the most for selecting the highest speed broadband tiers.

“The Commission should not impose a fee that increases with greater performance capabilities (capacity/speed) because that would discourage plant and service upgrades and hinder the expansion of critically important high-speed broadband services,” the Council wrote in its comments to the FCC.

The Fiber to the Home Council is concerned about one proposal that would levy increasingly higher taxes the higher your connection speed.

With 19 million Americans currently unable to obtain broadband service, adding a new tax on existing broadband customers’ bills would bring in millions that the CAF will ultimately award to rural landline providers and cable operators to encourage them to expand their broadband networks.

But consumer groups including Free Press worry the new tax would rob Peter to pay Paul, and further discourage poor Americans who can’t afford current broadband prices from ever signing up for service.

“In other words, as the Commission reforms the overall USF system in the name of greater broadband adoption, particularly among rural, poor and elderly consumers, assessing [a broadband tax] could lead to an overall lower level of broadband adoption, despite the availability of new broadband subsidies,” writes Free Press research director S. Derek Turner in an official filing with the FCC.

Free Press called the current comments from industry players largely as expected.

“Industry commenters simply offered self-serving proposals that will ensure that their (but not necessarily their customers’) contribution burdens are as low as possible,” Turner wrote. “We instead are strongly encouraging the Commission to conduct actual cost-benefit analysis prior to adopting rule changes that could have massive unintended consequences for consumers.”

Thinks a broadband tax will reduce broadband adoption.

Outside of a small handful of remarks from end users, the overwhelming majority of comments received by the FCC are from providers, industry groups, and telecommunications regulators. Almost none come from actual consumers, who will ultimately pay the proposed tax.

Some conservative anti-tax groups have been alarmed by the tax expansion and Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell’s apparent support of it. McDowell issued a statement in April declaring his support for reform of the USF system to broaden the tax to additional telecommunications users:

[…] “To put the importance of contribution reform into perspective, the contribution factor, a type of tax paid by telephone consumers, has risen each year from approximately 5.5 percent in 1998 to almost 18 percent in the first quarter of this year. This trend is unacceptable because it is unsustainable. Furthermore, the cryptic language on consumers’ phone bills, combined with the skyrocketing “tax” rate, has produced a new form of “bill shock.” We must tame this wild automatic tax increase as soon as possible.

[…] “Controversy, however, should not deter us from lowering the tax rate while broadening the base according to the authority granted to us by Congress. The current pool of contributors is shrinking. It must be expanded, but we must do so only within our statutory authority while keeping in mind the international implications of our actions.”

In a new twist, Comcast has announced rate increases for cable television that are roughly at the rate of inflation (2.3%) — the lowest rate increase for the company since 2001 — but is also hiking rates for Internet service at a substantially higher rate.

The company claims the Internet rate increase is partly due to the increased number of channels on its cable systems in Oregon and southwest Washington, as well as the cost to launch new interactive applications and multi-platform content that customers want and value.

Comcast’s rate increase for video represents the new reality for the cable business — companies continue with 7%+ increases in cable TV rates at the risk of cord cutting, analysts say. With cable television packages increasingly seen as ripe for cutting as they grow more expensive, cable operators are turning to broadband — a service customers can’t live without — to make up the difference.

Comcast had not touched broadband rates in the Pacific Northwest for seven years, until the company began hiking them in 2011. Monthly rates for the popular “Performance” Internet service (15Mbps) are going up again this year, from $48.95 to $51.95, according to The Oregonian. Prices are higher for standalone broadband service. Comcast’s Digital Starter TV package is increasing to $67.49 a month. Rates for customers on promotions will not  increase until those offers expire.

But some customers complain Comcast is now charging nearly $200 a month for its triple-play package.

One customer told the newspaper after his introductory triple play promotion expired, the bill rose to $190 a month for phone, Internet, and cable service with two DVR boxes. The customer does not have any premium movie channels.

The Oregonian has tracked Comcast’s rates in the Pacific Northwest for almost a decade. The staircase of climbing prices for cable television is leveling off as Comcast makes up the difference from its Internet rates.

The newspaper noted Frontier Communications, which provides competition for Comcast in the suburbs of Portland, has given Comcast only a slight headache.

Frontier continues to offer its barely-advertised FiOS television package for around $65 a month, but customer complaints about Frontier’s service in the area have been reflected by Comcast’s growing subscriber numbers.

One Oregonian reader summed up his feelings about Frontier:

Frontier was atrocious. I don’t just mean bad, I mean an embarrassment to humanity […] which chimpanzees and dolphins laugh at us for putting up with. I’ve had Frontier service for a little over a year now only because there is nothing else where I live.

The nightmare started with them coming out hook up DSL at my new house, but instead of hooking me up, [they tore] out the demarc box on the house and left with it,  lost all records of ever having talked to me, much less scheduling an appointment.

After finally getting Internet service a week late, the original [service order] showed up leading them to bill me for multiple accounts, which took five months to  resolve. They never were able to prove to me I actually owed what I ultimately paid (I got them to within one bill’s worth of my calculated value and gave up).

Half of the time I’ve held off paying my bill until a day or two before the due date so it’s too late to mail a check and their online payment system is down, forcing me to call in my payment and pay a $3 service fee.

All of that is on top of the blatant theft of forcing customers who already own modems to pay a “modem rental fee” for a modem they aren’t renting.

Suddenlink’s decision to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme that couples usage caps with overlimit fees can be a real revenue-booster for the cable company, especially if a usage measurement tool decides to nip at your allowance with phantom usage that can eventually expose you to overlimit fees.

Simon, a Suddenlink customer in northern Texas contacted Stop the Cap! with news he managed to catch Suddenlink in the act of ginning up his broadband usage, measuring around 23GB of broadband usage in just one day:

Here is what Suddenlink’s usage measurement tool reports Simon has used during the month of August. Not the 23GB measurement recorded for Aug. 18.

“Suddenlink believes I used ~23GB and my router confirms I only used 2.22GB (a difference of 936%),” Simon writes. “It’s insane.”

Even more unusual is Suddenlink’s measurement tool recorded that usage on a day when a thunderstorm knocked out his cable broadband service for nearly six hours during peak usage times. It is not the first time Suddenlink’s meter has gone haywire.

Consumers are at the whim of broadband provider-supplied measurement tools, which are unregulated and unmonitored by federal, state, or local authorities. What those tools measure is what customers will be billed for, with no verification or proof of accuracy required.

Companies utilizing these measurement tools require customers to accept the provided measurements as the final word on the matter.

“I think it’s a repugnant money grab that needs to be regulated by the state or federal government,” Simon shares.

Unregulated metered billing is a dream come true for providers who can bill customers whatever they want.

Here is what Simon’s router measured on that same date – 2.22GB, almost a 1,000% difference… in Suddenlink’s favor.

Spending money to earn more money is a fiscally sound principle of doing business, but short term investors often decry increased spending as harmful to the value of a company’s stock and dividend payout. That is why Hawaiian Telcom (HawTel) earns mixed reviews from Wall Street about the company’s aggressive infrastructure improvement project, a fiber to the neighborhood network that intends to bring television, phone, and faster broadband service to an increasing number of Hawaiians.

HawTel’s stock price has bounced up, down, up, and then down again as investors digest the company’s ongoing effort to reinvent itself as a 21st century telecom company.

The Old HawTel

HawTel’s fiber buildout began on the island of Oahu in 2011, eventually passing 27,400 homes on the island. At the end of 2011, 1,600 (6%) of those homes signed up for the service. That’s an acceptable number, especially for a service barely promoted. HawTel does not mention the television service on its primary website, and approaches potential customers one-on-one with in-person and targeted mail marketing.

At the end of the second quarter or 2012, HawTel TV had 6,400 subscribers. The company hopes to have an additional 50,000 homes enabled for its TV service by the end of 2012, with the goal of enabling 240,000 households across Hawaii over the next five years. HawTel hopes to eventually capture 30% of the Hawaiian market.

HawTel’s principal competitor is Oceanic Time Warner Cable, which provides traditional cable service across the Hawaiian Islands. HawTel had been at a substantial disadvantage competing with Time Warner’s television package and faster broadband service. But the fiber upgrades are allowing at least some customers to purchase speeds up to 50/10Mbps, slightly faster than what the cable operator offers.

Time Warner has taken note of the phone company’s re-emergence as a strong competitor, targeting Oahu with special promotional offers that lock customers in place with triple play discounts designed to make it inconvenient to switch providers.

The New HawTel

Unfortunately for HawTel, fiber upgrades do not come cheap, and the company’s earnings have taken a hit.

Capital expenditures totaled $41.2 million for the six-months ended June 30, 2012, up from $35.4 million for the six-month period a year ago due primarily to investments in broadband network infrastructure and expansion of video enabled households.

Hawaiian Telcom reported an 18 percent decline in second quarter earnings, which it blamed primarily on broadband network expansion.

The company also announced it lost another 6% of traditional landline customers during the second quarter, but that was offset by expansion in its broadband and television service. For HawTel, the solution to ending landline losses is to upgrade their network to compete with the types of communications services consumers are interested in buying today.

But those plans can and do conflict with at least some stock traders who are interested primarily in short term financial results. Spending can cut into profits, so some analysts downgrade stocks of companies spending the most, even if only to compete more effectively down the road.

So far, HawTel executives have not been discouraged carrying their network expansion plans forward. In July, Hawaiian Telcom announced it would acquire Wavecom Solutions Corporation’s local exchange carrier business in a stock purchase transaction valued at $13 million.

Wavecom’s undersea fiber network

The acquisition would give Hawaiian Telcom access to Wavecom’s fiber optic network connecting the main Hawaiian islands. Wavecom, formerly known as Pacific Lightnet, Inc., serves more than 1,700 customers across Hawaii.

In an application with the Federal Communications Commission, HawTel officials said access to Wavecom’s 400-mile undersea telecommunications cable network will permit the company to expand and enhance its broadband and television services beyond Oahu to other Hawaiian islands, and help position the company to effectively compete with Time Warner.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Hawaiian Telcom TV Tour.flv[/flv]

Watch a HawTel-produced video tour of the company’s new TV service.  (4 minutes)

Dish Network is planning to introduce 5Mbps nationwide satellite broadband service after its partner company EchoStar successfully launched the satellite that will host the new service.

Bloomberg News reports Dish will introduce the service in late September or October this year and intends to market it in areas where DSL or cable broadband has been spotty or unavailable.

Dish’s broadband service will use its new EchoStar 17 satellite launched in July. The satellite can technically support download speeds up to 15Mbps, but Dish wants to start with slower speeds to maximize the number of potential customers the satellite can accommodate, which the company estimates can be as high as two million.

With an estimated 8-10 million Americans currently bypassed by broadband, Dish may have little trouble establishing a substantial customer base, if the service works as advertised. Past satellite broadband ventures have traditionally offered slow speeds and draconian “fair usage policies” which strictly limit how much customers can use the service.  The services are not cheap either.

EchoStar’s vice president of investor relations Deepak Dutt said the newest generation of satellite broadband services offer much faster service and higher capacity by an order of magnitude. But average usage per subscriber has also risen, providing a challenge for satellite broadband providers that may lack the capacity to sustain high bandwidth content, especially streaming video.

Dish already offers up to 12Mbps satellite broadband through a marketing partnership with Carlsbad, Calif.-based ViaSat, Inc. But ViaSat’s service is limited to certain geographic regions in the United States. Dish insiders say their service with EchoStar will compliment, not replace their deal with ViaSat, and will expand coverage nationwide.

The combination of broadband and satellite television may make it possible for Dish to sell new bundled packages that can compete with phone and cable companies. Dish also claims to be waiting for Federal Communications Commission approval to use its wireless spectrum to offer mobile Internet and phone service, which could also be included in a future bundled offer.