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.

Vermont officials this month are learning broadband maps purporting to represent widespread availability of high speed Internet access across the state are much less accurate than originally thought.  Now into its second week, the BroadbandVT project to identify service gaps and collect actual broadband speeds is showing a chasm between provider claims and actual broadband reality on the ground for the state’s 625,000 residents.

Vermont’s broadband service availability map was originally reliant on service providers voluntarily contributing data about where service was available — data that has rapidly found to be faulty as Vermont residents report their actual broadband experiences to the state’s website.

The state’s Broadband Mapping Team used data from a phone survey conducted in January by the University of Vermont-Center for Rural Studies to verify providers’ claims of broadband availability.  On May 12, state officials reported that their provider-inspired maps were not accurate, and officials wanted residents to help verify coverage.

“I’m bound and determined to have Vermont connected by 2013 — high-speed Internet and cell service to every last mile. One of our challenges is that we don’t have information that we can trust about who has service and who doesn’t,” Gov. Peter Shumlin said. “So we need Vermonter’s help, so we can figure out where to go. So we’re urging Vermonters to use our new website to help us get truth about your service in your home or business.”

In similar cases Stop the Cap! has followed, the biggest sources of inaccurate data turn out to be telephone companies and wireless providers.  Phone companies like FairPoint Communications may advertise DSL available in certain communities, but be unable to actually provide the service to every household due to the distance between the central telephone exchange and the customer’s home, or because of deteriorated infrastructure.  Wireless providers often theorize where service should be available, but real world experience proves otherwise.

FairPoint told the Brattleboro Reformer the phone company intends to do much better delivering DSL to Vermont residents in the coming weeks.  The company claims it already provides DSL access to 82 percent of the state and intends to increase that number considerably higher in June.

“We have a plan with the state to bring total broadband coverage to half of our telephone exchanges in the state, so that’s the first three digits of your phone number. Ninety-five percent of that will be done in the next six weeks,” said FairPoint spokeswoman Sabina Haskell.

Vermont residents appear to be enthusiastic participants in the project, with 1,500 visitors a day using the website’s broadband maps and taking speed tests to share results with the state, who can compare them against providers’ speed claims.

Vermont’s expansion of broadband service is a state priority, and directing resources to areas of need has proved critical as the state receives and spends broadband stimulus funding.  Crowdsourced maps can expose exaggerated claims of broadband availability or confirm them as accurate.  The state intends to update its maps regularly based on data it receives, all part of an initiative to deliver 100 percent broadband coverage across the state.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh Lawmakers Debate Broadband 4-12-11.mp4[/flv]

WPTZ-TV in Plattsburgh explores Vermont’s new initiative to bring broadband to 100 percent of the state’s residents.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh Website Identifies Broadband Availability 5-12-11.mp4[/flv]

WPTZ-TV also reports on the state’s new website to verify broadband mapping data and speed claims made by the state’s phone and cable companies.  (3 minutes)

America’s broadband ranking has fallen once again, mostly at the expense of other countries who have accelerated service and speed upgrades above and beyond what is available in the United States.  That is the conclusion one can reach after reviewing the Federal Communications Commission’s second annual broadband report, delivered to Congress to fulfill obligations under the Broadband Data Improvement Act.

Through a combination of data from OECD broadband rankings and actual speed test results collected by the Commission, the FCC report notes American cities are at risk of losing the broadband speed race.

“This report compares data on average actual download speeds reported by a sample of consumers in a number of U.S. and foreign cities and finds that some large European and Asian cities exhibit a significant edge over comparable U.S. cities in reported download speeds, though reported speeds for some other international cities are roughly comparable to speeds in many U.S. cities,” the report concludes.

“The best currently available data set comparing the United States to other countries appears to be from the OECD, which collects data on various broadband deployment, adoption, and usage metrics and publishes rankings of its member countries. The OECD’s deployment data ranks countries based on particular technologies, rather than overall coverage. The U.S. ranking in these surveys ranges from 27th out of 30 in DSL coverage to 1st out of 28 in cable modem coverage.  The U.S. ranks 6th out of 16 in fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) coverage and 8th out of 29 in 3G mobile wireless coverage.”

Broadband Rankings (click to enlarge)

Most of the countries accelerating far beyond the United States in broadband speed and quality are in Asia and Europe, and many are upgrading their networks to fiber-based broadband.  As these fiber networks come online, the United States can be expected to fall further behind.

The cable industry lobby attacked the report's findings.

Just like last year, the Internet Service Providers turning in poor grades are rejecting the report’s conclusions.

“While the Commission’s headline proclaims that 20 million Americans are denied access to broadband, by that measure private investment has fueled the build-out of broadband networks to nearly 300 million consumers and is responsible for the jobs that flow from that investment,” said Michael Powell, president and chief executive of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.  Powell used to oversee the FCC as chairman during the first term of the Bush Administration.

Another trade association with ties to the telecom industry, USTelecom, attacked the findings noting most Americans think their existing broadband service is good enough.

Walter McCormick Jr., USTelecom CEO, noted the FCC’s own report found that 95 percent of Americans have access to fixed broadband and 93 percent are happy with their service.

...so did USTelecom, another industry funded group

But McCormick says nothing about the speeds those customers receive, a bone of contention with the Commission.  As part of this year’s report, the FCC is increasingly relying on its own verifiable data about broadband speeds, collected through its SamKnows broadband speed test project.  The Commission has repeatedly noted that broadband speeds marketed by ISPs do not always match the actual speeds customers receive.

Speed tests comparing broadband performance in comparably sized cities found some sizable differences.

The data suggest that mean actual download speeds in some European and Asian cities are substantially higher than in comparably sized U.S. cities (e.g., 24.8 megabits per second (Mbps) in Paris and 35.8 Mbps in Seoul versus 6.9 Mbps in San Francisco, 9.4 Mbps in Chicago, and 9.9 Mbps in Phoenix). Some of the U.S. cities in our sample have higher speeds than some foreign cities (e.g., Chicago with 9.39 Mbps versus Rome with 5.6 Mbps).

The most significant reason for the disparity in speed is the technology used in each respective area.  Fiber to the home service traditionally delivers the fastest broadband speeds.  Cable broadband technology, common in the United States but less so abroad, is responsible for a great deal of speed increases in the United States.  Telephone company DSL and wireless are responsible for some of the slowest speeds, with rural DSL service commonly providing just 1-3Mbps service.  Many European cities still relying on DSL technology have upgraded to bonded DSL, ADSL2+, or VDSL service, which can significantly boost speeds.

Unfortunately, the report concludes, the faster the broadband service delivered, the higher the price — often out of proportion with other OECD countries.

Results […] suggest that U.S. stand-alone residential broadband prices are generally “in the middle of prices in OECD countries,” after accounting for speed, terms of service, data caps, and service delivery technology. Similarly, prices in the United States for business stand-alone broadband services were fourteenth out of 30 among the OECD countries. A paper by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University found prices for U.S. broadband with download speeds of around 768 kbps to be “very good” by international standards. However, as download speeds increase, the paper found that U.S. prices become more expensive than most other OECD countries.

Some providers unimpressed by the independent research accused the FCC of using biased and inconsistent research methods.  AT&T, for example, was unhappy with comparisons among U.S. cities and those of comparable size abroad.  They accused the Commission of not using “a well-defined or consistent methodology for choosing the ‘communities’ or offers.”  In fact, several providers suggested the Commission’s pricing comparisons ignored significant, albeit temporary, discounts some new customers receive, as well as discounts for bundled service packages.  Promotional pricing factors are acknowledged by the Commission, but the report notes the findings do attempt to collect real world pricing paid by actual customers.

For consumers in the United States, broadband envy is as close as the next news report highlighting broadband expansion efforts abroad.  Some countries are deploying 1Gbps broadband networks that deliver consistently faster speeds than American providers, at dramatically lower prices and without a usage cap attached.

Homes and businesses across Singapore are rapidly being wired with fiber to the home broadband service as part of the country’s Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network.

Under the Intelligent National 2015 Master Plan, the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) has specified fiber broadband as the only technology capable of meeting the country’s requirement that all homes, offices, and schools have a minimum capacity of 1 Gigabit per second broadband no later than 2015.

Government officials have declared Gigabit broadband “a national priority” to keep Singapore a world leader in high tech business, medical care, and innovative education.  The country considers older broadband standards, including ADSL, cable broadband, and wireless service inadequate or outdated, and began installing fiber optic cables in 2009.

Singapore’s advanced fiber network is a public-private partnership between four partners – Axia NetMedia (Axia), Singapore Telecommunications (SingTel), Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and SP Telecommunications (SPT).  Government policy has helped reduce red tape and the country’s largest telecommunications companies are working together to build a single fiber platform on which various services can deliver what they call “a richer broadband experience with more choices at more affordable prices.”

Residents and businesses are being encouraged to participate with incentives like free installation, which represents a savings of $300 or more over regular installation costs.  A third-party company, OpenNet, has been contracted to handle wiring, installation, and maintenance of the fiber network.

Once installed, customers can choose any provider they like to establish service.  One of the country’s largest — SingTel, is already selling access at speeds currently up to 150Mbps:

Once the country’s fiber network is firmly established across the entire country, speeds will be increased.  Singapore has solved the domestic broadband speed problem, but like other countries in and around the South Pacific, international capacity remains constrained, and so are broadband speeds for international destinations.  But several undersea fiber projects are expected to vastly expand capacity within five years, allowing providers to eventually lift speed caps.

While many of Singapore’s residents live in multi-dwelling units like apartments and condominiums, many others live in individual homes.  Singapore decided fiber access must be ubiquitous, so coverage will extend to all types of buildings.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/OpenNet Overview Singapore 5-2011.flv[/flv]

This video contains an overview of Singapore’s fiber network, how it will be installed, what services it brings, and how it is being marketed across the country.  (14 minutes)

Telefonos de Mexico is known as Telmex, the country's largest telecommunications provider.

Mexico’s largest phone company Telefonos de Mexico SAB is not about to allow themselves to be outgunned by upstart competitors like mobile-phone carrier Grupo Iusacell SA, which is installing fiber to the home broadband service in up to 40 cities offering 100Mbps speeds.  Now they are working on a fiber to the home network of their own, planned to reach up to one million Mexicans by the end of this year.

Mexico’s broadband expansion is coming on all fronts.  Cablevision (no relation to the U.S. company with the same name) is delivering cable broadband service to an increasing number of cities.  But news that consumers will soon have the choice of not one, but two fiber to the home networks has the country buzzing with excitement.

“Fiber-to-the-home is the best technology that exists,” Martin Lara, an analyst at Corp. Actinver SAB in Mexico City told Bloomberg News. “It’s going to be good for the consumer.”

The broadband speeds in Mexico will rapidly exceed those in the United States if the two fiber providers end up in a speed and pricing war .  For now, Telefonos plans on offering packages of 10, 20 and 50Mbps to subscribers.  That may increase to 100Mbps if competitors make an issue about maximum available speeds.  That’s quite a change from traditional DSL packages from Telefonos, which range from 1-5Mbps in most areas.

Upstart Iusacell is Mexico's third largest cell phone provider, but it has big plans for fiber-to-the-home service.

Iusacell, mostly known for its cell phone service, is building its own quad-play of wired fiber broadband, television, and telephone service — wireless and wired.  It’s Totalplay package risks Telefonos’ decades of dominance in the Mexican telecommunications marketplace, so the phone company is investing to compete.  The company’s Telmex landline customers are switching to wireless just like customers in the United States and Canada, so developing an attractive multi-element package is critical to keeping customers.

Mexico’s telecommunications laws are different from those in the United States.  Mexico’s dominant phone company has traditionally been prohibited from offering video services to their customers — a policy designed to protect cable providers and other competitors from heavyweight competition.  Those policies are likely to be revisited as a result of competitive fiber initiatives.  Additionally, Mexican providers have not been required to wire entire communities as part of operating agreements, and many don’t.  Instead, most cable and fiber providers build in lucrative neighborhoods where higher income residents live, often leaving poorer neighborhoods unwired. Foreign investment is also common in Mexico, with American and British companies joining Mexican super-billionaire Carlos Slim in financing and/or building out the advanced networks.

Mexico’s decision to adopt the latest fiber technology straight to customer homes increases questions about why American providers are mostly unwilling to do the same.