Not a problem

Who knew America’s largest cable and phone companies were in the broadband shortage business?

Broadband evangelist Craig Settles has been as outraged about this year’s crop of anti-broadband legislation as we have here at Stop the Cap!

He wrote about the implications of allowing state laws to be changed in favor of the big cable and phone companies in a piece published by GigaOM that details where these anti-community Internet bills are coming from:

This push is brought to you by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group of corporate lobbyists who ghostwrite state bills behind closed doors that their pocket legislators then push on the floor. This “model” of anti-muni broadband legislation contains wording that is replicated in these latest bills and newspaper op-eds that attack community broadband.

Many of the nation’s largest phone and cable companies funnel funds into ALEC, and even sponsor wine-and-dine trips for state legislators and their families as part of a comprehensive effort to get their foot (and later proposed legislation) in the door.

Download this archive of ALEC-written and sponsored state legislation/policies affecting telecommunications and IT.  (16mb .zip file)

Few state legislators fully realize the implications of some of these measures, which can hamstring their state’s broadband networks into “good enough for you” broadband, as determined by Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and others.

ALEC’s dog-and-pony show opens with its corporate backers enhancing their campaign contributions to legislators likely to support their agenda.  ALEC’s lobbyists can then provide “boilerplate” templates for legislation that can be slightly modified and introduced at the state level for consideration.

With a significant increase in campaign contributions targeting friendly legislators, community broadband suddenly becomes a hot topic at the statehouse.

Legislators do not work alone to pass these measures.  As we’ve seen in other states, industry-backed lobbying firms deliver a comprehensive set of support services for the campaign to stop community broadband competition:

1. Talking points for legislators and others opposed to municipal Internet;
2. Professionally produced mailers that can be distributed to every home in a community bashing community networks;
3. Sample letters to the editor intended for local newspapers and easy-to-send letters to legislators asking them to support anti-broadband legislation;
4. Help from seemingly “independent” outside groups that criticize such networks, without disclosing their funding comes, in part or whole, from the cable or phone company.

Settles

Being hoodwinked by the companies that want these kinds of bills passed leave your community’s broadband needs entirely in the hands of providers that have performed so poorly in some cities, local governments have decided they have to provide the service themselves.  Settles illustrates the obvious:

This isn’t about unfair competition by local government. When Wilson’s 12-person IT department can plan, build and manage a network that can deliver speeds (up to a gig) 20 times faster than the best Time Warner Cable offers, that’s competing with superior technology. When Comcast customers switch to Chattanooga’s gig network because of their public utility’s better customer service, that’s competent competition. When tiny Reedsburg, Wis. refuses to compete against the large cable company on price, but beats competitors by offering greater value such as a better selection of Internet services, they compete based on local credibility.

So U.S. communities have to ask themselves, are they going to stay stuck on the train or will they be zipping along at warp speed?

Providers and their industry friends will always argue that you don’t need gigabit broadband speed — what you get from your cable or phone company today is “fast enough.”  Some go as far as to argue current providers are equipped to deliver whatever service customers need, but the demand “just is not there.”

Big Problem.

But as we argued on GigaOM ourselves, the nation’s largest telecom companies have already proven they apparently cannot meet the demand that exists today.  That is because an increasing number of them have started to slap arbitrary usage caps and other limits on their customers’ broadband usage.  Customers don’t want these Internet Overcharging schemes, yet they persist because of what providers effectively admit is a broadband shortage on their networks.

So for a city like Chattanooga, Tenn., which of the following providers should be punished (and potentially even banned) for being in the broadband business:

1. AT&T, which delivers around 6-7Mbps DSL in suburban Chattanooga or up to 24Mbps on its U-verse platform with 150GB/250GB usage limits respectively;
2. Comcast, which delivers up to 50Mbps over cable broadband with a 250GB usage cap;
3. EPB Fiber, which delivers up to 1,000Mbps over fiber optics with no usage cap.

If you are AT&T or Comcast, clearly the provider that must be stopped is #3 — EPB Fiber.  After all, you can’t be in the broadband shortage business when the competitor next door offers a broadband free-for-all made possible from an investment in a superior network that exists to serve customers, not shareholders and investment banks.

The Bailiwick of Jersey, one of the British Channel Islands off the coast of Normandy, France, is being wired for fiber broadband speeds as high as 1Gbps and the island’s 100,000 residents are thrilled.

Jersey Telecom (JT), a government-owned service provider, expects to reach every one of the island’s 42,000 homes with Gigabit Jersey — a super-fast fiber network by the end of 2016.  The first 24 homes were switched on for service this week, with new homes coming online daily.

Graeme Millar, JT CEO, says Jersey’s new fiber network replaces the island’s antiquated copper wire based DSL service, and will result in much faster speeds for residents.  The initial trial is focused on La Rocque, Fauvic, and La Moye, and all commercial broadband providers are welcome to use the network to sell their services to residents and businesses on the island.

JT is offering a minimum of 40/40Mbps service to casual users and 1Gbps for Internet addicts.

Millar

The fiber project makes no distinctions between urban and rural residents and provides the same speeds to both businesses and residences.  Broadband has become such an important part of island life, it is essential every home have equal access.  With home-based businesses and home-based workers, it doesn’t make sense to only sell fast service to business customers.

The government spent £19m ($29.8 million) on the fiber network it calls an investment in the future.  None of the funding comes from the pockets of the island’s taxpayers.

Jersey officials claim the project will attract new high-tech businesses to the island, which is closer to France than England.

Government officials, and many residents, have rejected complaints from private providers like Airtel-Vodafone who claim the Internet’s future is mobile/wireless, not fiber.  Airtel-Vodafone fought Gigabit Jersey, claiming “fast enough” Internet access was possible over their mobile broadband network.  The company claimed the government investment interfered with private companies’ business plans for Jersey.

“Airtel had no intention of delivering anything close to the speeds we are going to get from JT, and they would hand us plans with small usage allowances and high prices to boot,” says Stop the Cap! reader Marie, who lives on Jersey.  “These companies believe it is more important to let private business dictate the Internet future of Jersey instead of letting people, through our local government, make that choice for ourselves.”

JT’s Gigabit Jersey project claims to be the most ubiquitous and comprehensive Gigabit fiber network in the western world, because it will reach every resident and business on the island.

“Why would anyone want an expensive, slower, and congested wireless network from Vodafone when you can have 1Gbps fiber broadband instead?” asks Marie. “If you want to walk around with a tablet, put a wireless router up and point it into the garden and be done with it.”

JT will gradually replace the island’s existing copper infrastructure as the project continues over the next four years.  The fiber network is expected to also bring down broadband prices, which run as high as $79 a month for 20Mbps service.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ITV Channel Islands Ozouf under fire over Gigabit Jersey 12-11.mp4[/flv]

ITV in the Channel Islands reports on Gigabit Jersey, the island’s new fiber to the home network, and the controversy over its funding and opposition from private providers.  (2 minutes)

Ethernet over Copper is becoming an increasingly popular choice for business customers stuck in areas where companies won't deploy fiber broadband (Graphic: OSP Magazine)

With Verizon and AT&T effectively stalling expansion of their respective “next generation” fiber and hybrid fiber/coax networks, and independent phone companies fearing too much capital spent improving their networks will drive their stock prices down, telephone companies are desperately seeking better options to deliver the faster broadband service customers demand.

The options over a copper-based landline network are not the best:

• ADSL has been around for more than a decade and is highly distant dependent. Get beyond 10,000 feet from the nearest switching office and your speeds may not even qualify as “broadband;”
• DSL variants represent the second generation for copper-broadband and can deliver faster speeds, but usually require investment to reduce the amount of copper between the customer and the switching office;
• Fiber networks are more expensive to build, and some companies are using it to reduce, but not eliminate copper wire in their networks. But companies traditionally avoid this solution in rural/suburban areas because the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t work for shareholders;
• Ethernet Over Copper (EoC) is increasingly the solution of choice for independent phone companies because it is less expensive to deploy than fiber and can quickly deliver service at speeds of up to 50Mbps.

Unfortunately for consumers, EoC is typically way above the price range for home broadband.  Most providers sell the faster service to commercial and institutional customers, either for businesses that have outgrown T1 lines or where deploying fiber does not make economic sense.  Some companies have tried to improve on DSL by bonding multiple connections together to achieve faster speeds, but Ethernet is quickly becoming a more important tool in the broadband marketing arsenal.

With phone companies pricing EoC service from several hundred to several thousand dollars a month, depending on the speed of the connection, they hope to remain competitive players against a push by the cable industry to more aggressively target business customers.  In more rural areas, phone companies lack cable competition, so they stand a better chance of success.

Fierce Telecom‘s Sean Buckley published an excellent series of articles outlining the current state of EoC technology and what phone companies are doing with it:

• AT&T: Inherited EoC from its acquisition of BellSouth, and barely markets it. Instead, AT&T uses it as a quiet solution for challenging customers who cannot affordably be reached by fiber.  AT&T will either deliver the service over copper, copper/fiber, or an all-fiber path depending on the client’s needs.
• CenturyLink: No phone company is as aggressive about EoC as CenturyLink. When CenturyLink acquired Qwest, interest in the technology only intensified. EoC is a CenturyLink favorite for small businesses that simply cannot get the speeds they need from traditional DSL.  Most EoC service runs up to 20Mbps.
• Verizon: Verizon’s network is the most fiber-intense among large commercial providers, so EoC is not the first choice for the company. However, it does use it to reach multi-site businesses who have buildings and offices outside of the footprint of Verizon’s fiber network/service area.
• Frontier: In the regions where Frontier acquired Verizon landlines, EoC has become an important component for Frontier’s backhaul traffic. EoC has been deployed to reach cell tower sites and handles broadband traffic between central office exchanges and remote D-SLAMs, used to let the company sell DSL to a more rural customer base.  Frontier looks to EoC before considering spending money on fiber service, even for commercial and institutional users.
• Windstream: EoC is the way this phone company gets better broadband speeds to business customers without spending a lot of money on fiber. Small and medium-sized customers are often buyers of EoC service, especially when DSL can’t handle the job or the company requires faster upstream speeds.  Windstream markets upgradable EoC capable of delivering the same downstream and upstream speeds and can deliver it more quickly than a fiber project.
• FairPoint: Much of this phone company’s EoC efforts are in territories in northern New England acquired from Verizon.  FairPoint targets small and medium sized companies for the service, especially those who have remote offices or clinics that need to be interconnected. FairPoint has also gotten more aggressive than many other companies working with ADSL2+ or VDSL2 to deliver faster broadband to office buildings and complexes more economically than fiber.
• SureWest: This company is strong believer in fiber to the premises service, so its interest in EoC has been limited to areas where deploying fiber makes little economic sense. In more out-of-the-way places, EoC is becoming a more common choice to pitch businesses who need more than traditional broadband.
• Hawaiian Telcom: HawTel uses copper-based EoC to provide connectivity across the diverse Hawaiian Islands.  Speeds are generally lower than in mainland areas, partly because HawTel still relies heavily on traditional copper-based service. But fiber-based EoC is increasingly available in more densely populated areas.

Broadband life in Frankford, Greenbrier County, W.V. may be slow, but few customers of Frontier Communications thought things could get even slower.  And then they did.

Stop the Cap! reader DJ has been frustrated with the performance of his phone company — Frontier, that took control of Verizon’s landline network across the state.  Verizon rarely got the hopes up for customers waiting more than a decade for broadband service to reach them.  Dana Waldo, Frontier’s senior vice president and general manager did, telling West Virginians Frontier would propel the Mountain State from its current rank of 47th in the country to the top 5.  Achieving that goal seems unlikely when the company quietly reduces some customers’ broadband speeds.

“We are on the High Speed Max plan which gives us, or should I say gave us 3.5Mbps,” DJ shares.  Although his phone line supported that speed, Frontier’s congested network could not, especially at night when speeds dropped dramatically.  It took several months for Frontier to upgrade local facilities in the county to better manage the broadband demands of customers who pay $110 a month for DSL and phone service.

Frontier representatives promised the Pocahontas Times further upgrades were on the way by February of 2011, DJ says. February came and went and promised speeds of 5Mbps never arrived and Frontier representatives told DJ they didn’t know a thing about a 5Mbps broadband plan.

Fast forward to last spring: Frontier’s website suddenly advertised speeds up to 12Mbps.

Frontier's Mysterious Upgrade List

“I first contacted them through their Twitter account and was told I could receive 8Mbps, went through all the processes and a few days later I was told I [already] had the maximum speed available for my area and nothing was ever done,” DJ writes.

The Phantom “Network Upgrades” List

More discouraging to DJ was the surprise appearance of a Network Upgrades listing on the company’s website that again promised better days for customers in states like West Virginia.

“The geniuses at Frontier listed us as Frankfort instead of Frankford but either way we were listed to get upgrades at the end of [this past] November,” DJ says. “The date came, the date passed. Never once did I see a Frontier truck out working. I still found myself [with] 3.5Mbps and after being lied to about upgrades for the third time in a few years I was ticked.”

Frontier representatives would later wonder where DJ obtained the Network Upgrades list, which has since disappeared from the company’s website.  Stop the Cap! has an archived copy here (PDF).

The worst part of DJ’s story came on Jan. 24, when Frontier reduced his speed from 3.5Mbps to 1.3Mbps without notice or explanation.  Frontier, the phone company that provides free speed decreases for customers, is not part of any marketing plan DJ knows about, so he began calling the company for answers.

“I was told my speed would be fixed when “upgrades” were complete,” DJ reports. Later that day, after a series of complaint calls, his old speed returned, leaving him right where he started in 2010.

“There is no excuse for that kind of treatment and it has been going on for years,” DJ says. “It’s a shame we can’t get anything else; Suddenlink literally stops serving just down the road with 10Mbps service — sad.”

[Updated 3/26 2:31pm ET:  Changed piece to reflect unincorporated Frankford is actually in Greenbrier County, not Pocahontas.]

Georgia's broadband map shows just a smattering of 50Mbps broadband. That is half the speed required to attract new businesses, says the IEDC.

Suffering the Great Recession blues?  As communities continue to face the loss of manufacturing, heavy industry, and textile jobs to overseas outsourcing, local economic development specialists have discovered one of the most effective ways to lure new high-tech industry into areas hard-hit with job losses is the availability of cheap, plentiful, and fast broadband.

• 42% believe that that 1Gbps is the minimum speed needed to lure new businesses.
• 35% believe the minimum must be at least 100Mbps.
• Rural economic developers appear to be well ahead their urban counterparts in the area of planning. 58% of rural respondents either have broadband strategies and tactics worked into their economic development plans or are writing plans with these elements. Only 39% of urban respondents have done the same.
• 92% see no benefit from the FCC’s minimum broadband standard of 4Mbps, defined largely to suit telephone company DSL service common in rural areas.

Why are rural economies benefiting from better broadband planning? Because in the absence of commercial providers willing to provide the service, an increasing number of small towns and cities are building their own municipal networks to get the job done themselves.  Those networks are routinely superior to the facilities provided by most cable and phone companies serving less populated areas.

Community broadband is working in Wilson and Salisbury, N.C., where a transition from a textile/tobacco-based economy into higher-tech knowledge economy jobs required state-of-the-art broadband as a foundation.  Chattanooga, Tenn.-based EPB Fiber has already attracted dot.com giants like Amazon.com, creating hundreds of millions in local investment and thousands of new jobs.  Why Chattanooga?  Gigabit broadband for just a few hundred dollars a month is just one phone call away.

Relying on commercial providers to build 21st century broadband as a platform for economic transformation has delivered uneven results, especially outside of the largest cities. Large cities traditionally get most of the provider’s time, attention, and upgrades.  Smaller, more out of the way places often see little or nothing.

That is why this year’s latest push in Georgia and South Carolina to tie the hands of communities trying to remake themselves with modern broadband is so risky. While AT&T and the cable companies may position their argument as “protecting consumers,” in fact they are only protecting their own interests, even if it means the next Amazon.com distribution facility or Google data center finds a better home somewhere else.

Updated 3:55pm ET: We added a link to the full report, with appreciation to the author.