Oregon's telephone company service areas

Frontier Communications has won approval to assume control of telephone lines serving 310,000 Oregonians.

The Oregon Public Utilities Commission Friday unanimously approved the transfer of service from Verizon to Frontier as part of a 14-state transaction.

“First and foremost we want to ensure that customers are not harmed by this transaction.  That’s why we are requiring more than 50 conditions, all aimed at making sure customers are not harmed by this sale,” Chairman Lee Beyer said. “In addition, we are requiring Frontier Communications to spend $25 million on expanding high-speed internet access to its Oregon customers by July 2013.”

In return for approval, Frontier agreed to PUC demands for customer service protections:

• A commitment that Frontier spend at least $25 million to expand high-speed broadband in Oregon by July 2013;
• No changes in “commission-regulated” retail service plans for at least three years;
• Costs of the transition must not be paid by customers in the form of rate increases;
• 90-day window to change long distance carrier without any fees;
• An independent audit, paid for by Verizon, to ensure Frontier can handle service for those customers affected by the deal;
• An opt-out provision letting Oregon’s FiOS subscribers terminate their contracts without penalty if Frontier reduces Internet speeds or drops any of its television channels.

What is missing from Oregon’s agreement?

• A prohibition of Internet Overcharging schemes like Frontier’s 5 gigabyte “acceptable use” policy that potentially limits customer’s broadband use.  Expanded broadband that customers can only use for basic web browsing and e-mail, without fear of exceeding the limit, indefinitely punishes rural Oregonians with no broadband alternatives;
• A specific definition of what constitutes “broadband” speeds.  Frontier can continue to deliver the 1-3 Mbps it routinely provides to its less urban service areas.  While better than nothing, Oregon regulators could have used the deal as leverage to win 21st century broadband speeds from Frontier, not yesterday’s ‘barely broadband;’
• Fines and penalties that will punish a provider that does not invest appropriately in high service standards to provide quality service, and a trigger to permit automatic cancellation of operating certificates should Frontier go bankrupt.

Too many of these deals offer upsides for Wall Street and little benefit to consumers, especially those dependent on their landline phone company for basic communications services.  By forcing requirements that prove costly for a provider to renege on, investors will understand their gains will only happen when they are assured Frontier is doing right by their customers, as well as their shareholders.

Oregon is the sixth state to approve the sale.

Frontier currently serves only 12,000 customers in the state, mostly in southwest Oregon, including the communities of Azalea, Canyonville, Cave Junction, Days Creek, Glendale, Myrtle Creek, O’Brien, Riddle, Selma, and Wolf Creek.

The company’s new customers will come mostly from Washington County, east Multnomah County, and from several pockets of customers in the northwestern part of the state.  Oregon’s largest telephone provider is Qwest Communications, but the state has numerous smaller independent providers as well.

Americans have got it all wrong.  Their ‘faster is better’ obsession over broadband speed threatens to harm jobs and hurts those looking for work.

Those are the views of Stuart N. Brotman, a senior fellow at the Digital Policy Institute, which calls itself “a vehicle for faculty research that coalesces around the arenas of law, regulation, economics, intellectual property, and technology as these relate to public policy issues of local, state and national interests.”

Brotman argues that while broadband speeds matter, regulators should not be focused on speed as much as considering how broadband can help Americans find jobs.

The Agriculture and Commerce Depts. are tasked with administering $7.2 billion in stimulus funding for broadband by Sept. 30. As they decide where to place the bulk of those funds, which remain unawarded, government officials should show preference to grant and loan applicants that can use broadband to reach displaced workers more quickly.

There also need to be more funds made available to, and a greater focus on, public institutions, such as libraries, community centers, job training facilities, and adult education sites, where broadband spending may have the largest impact on jobs.

Greater broadband competition, which the FCC recognizes is essential to promote more infrastructure development and more varied pricing, also will be helpful. So, too, will be more efficient use of our spectrum resources, particularly those that have been controlled by colleges, schools, and other educational institutions for decades. Those airwaves can be better deployed to deliver high-speed wireless broadband services or leased to private-sector companies offering them.

Large telecommunications providers couldn’t have said it any better.  They have repeatedly argued broadband speeds are besides the point.

Brotman

AT&T last fall wrote the Federal Communications Commission, suggesting residential customers would do fine with broadband speeds that let them “exchange emails, participate in instant messaging, and engage in basic web-browsing.”  For AT&T, speed was less important than setting “a baseline definition of the capabilities needed to support the applications and services Americans must access to participate in the Internet economy—to learn, train for jobs, and work online….”

Verizon echoed AT&T, asking the Commission to retain the current minimum definition of broadband speed at 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream.  That allows them the chance to participate in stimulus funding projects that set the broadband speed bar low, especially in the rural areas Verizon wants to spend less on or is trying to sell-off.

“It would be disruptive and introduce confusion if the Commission were to now create a new and different definition,” Verizon said in its letter to the FCC.

Some of the smaller telecommunications companies also believe broadband speed should be de-emphasized.

Embarq, before completing a merger with CenturyTel (now CenturyLink) told the FCC 1.5Mbps broadband service has become “the most common offering.”  Embarq called that “consistent with an emphasis on economic development and jobs as many important applications, such as video conferencing are arguably possible only with 1.5 Mbps service and above. Any higher speed threshold, however, would risk defining as unserved the large number of satisfied customers of 1.5 Mbps service, which seems implausible.”

Embarq underlines the real reason providers are concerned about broadband speed — they’re not delivering it.  Once legislators or the Commission increases minimum broadband speed levels, many of these companies may find themselves below the threshold, guilty of “just enough speed to scrape by” in non-competitive markets.  That could lead to the prospect of facing federally-funded stimulus projects from others in their service areas, now deemed “unserved” or “underserved.”

Brotman further advocates that funding be focused on those that can deliver results “quickly.”

Embarq would agree with him there as well, stating “funds through grants directly to broadband providers rather than loans or other measures as this will have the greatest and quickest impact in bringing broadband to the hardest-to-serve areas.  …there is no time to wait for complete broadband maps or block grants to states for redistribution.”

Telecommunications companies would also do well by Brotman’s suggestion that federal funding for broadband projects reaching public and community service institutions should be emphasized.  As communities often request companies provide those services at a deep discount or free in return for franchise agreements or other licensing provisions, that’s money AT&T, Verizon, and others need not spend out of their own pockets.  Getting free airwaves swiped from educational institutions to deliver wireless broadband also benefits AT&T and Verizon, who are in that business as well.

When a “policy institute,” “research group,” or other seemingly unaffiliated entity starts rehashing telecommunications industry talking points, it’s time to start digging.

Buried on page five of a PDF file describing the work of the Digital Policy Institute, one comes to a section titled, “DPI Impact and Influence.”  DPI doesn’t list their financial supporters or partnerships as such.  Instead, they call them “national, collaborative relationships.”  Who does DPI collaborate with?

• AT&T
• Embarq
• National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (rural telco lobbyists)
• Verizon
• …among others.

Imagine my surprise.

But that’s not all.  Stuart N. Brotman Communications counts (or counted) among his clients AT&T, Cox Cable, National Cable and Telecommunication Association, and the New England Cable TV Association.

Perhaps Business Week would have done a better service to readers had they also disclosed that.

A controversial proposal by Montana’s largest cable operator to use public funding for construction of a fiber optic network linking the state’s seven Indian reservations has been rejected by federal officials.

Bresnan Communications sought $70 million broadband stimulus grant to construct the 1,885-mile fiber-optic network to improve broadband connectivity.  Independent and cooperative telephone providers objected, claiming the proposal would duplicate services they already provide.

The debate over broadband stimulus funding in rural Montana has been contentious, particularly after incumbent telephone providers accused Bresnan of lying on their application — implying funds would directly improve broadband service to Native American communities.  They accused the cable operator of using public funds to enhance their own “middle mile network,” infrastructure that helps Bresnan distribute broadband traffic between its central offices and data centers, but not “the last mile” connection customers actually rely on to obtain service.

Montana is not alone in the debate over how federal broadband stimulus money should be spent.  With a limited pool of funds, and an overwhelmed National Telecommunications and Information Agency tasked with processing an unexpected flood of applications, funding decisions have become increasingly political, and many incumbent providers have learned they can jam up an applicant just by flooding federal agencies with comments opposing projects that impact on their service areas.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KULR Billings Montana Broadband Workshop and Broadband Speed 1-19-2009 and 8-30-2009.flv[/flv]

KULR-TV in Billings covered the NTIA Grant Broadband Workshop held last January and also covered Montana’s woeful existing broadband speeds in these two reports. (1/19/2009 & 8/30/2009 – 2 minutes)

Because “last mile” projects are the most threatening to incumbent providers, these applications typically get the most opposition.  The NTIA, in an effort to reduce their workload, has in turn started focusing on “middle mile” projects which often benefit incumbents, pushing public tax dollars into pre-existing private networks.  That looks great on provider balance sheets — that’s money they don’t have to raise from stockholders or other investors.  Diverting those funds away, even from currently unserved areas, also protects providers’ flanks from the potential threat of competition, both now and in the future.

In Montana, chasing few potential customers spread out over vast distances in rural areas makes the potential threat from competition even scarier.  There, many small phone companies exist as co-ops, less concerned with raking in profits.  They fear the potential threat Bresnan Communications could bring to their viability if the cable operator gets a stronger foothold in their territories, especially when using tax dollars to do so.  But is the threat that large for well-run, customer-oriented companies and co-ops?

Many rural areas served by co-ops and other small independent companies actually receive better and faster broadband service than their more urban counterparts, argues Bonnie Lorang, general manager of Montana Independent Telecommunications Systems, an independent phone company trade group.  That’s because the state’s large urban phone company – Qwest, does not provide DSL into more distant suburban and rural service areas, and has only reached 75 percent of its customers with broadband service.  Smaller independent providers, particularly member-owned cooperatives, are accustomed to serving residents Qwest has been slow to reach.

While true for those forced to rely on Qwest DSL service, those with access to cable modem service can do better.  Bresnan provides up to 8Mbps service for residents in its mountain west region covering parts of Wyoming, Montana, and the western slope of Colorado.  Expanding Bresnan’s service where economically feasible remains a priority for the company, and broadband stimulus funding may make the difference between an “unprofitable” area and one that can be profitable if certain infrastructure costs are underwritten.

“Bresnan has a history of investing in communities that are not considered larger communities,” according to said Shawn Beqaj, spokesman for Bresnan. “Our philosophy is that smaller communities deserve every bit of the services that large communities have.”

Bresnan’s grant application received support from Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, the state’s Native American population, and some consumers unhappy with their current broadband choices, if any.

Montana's phone companies are running these print ads objecting to the broadband stimulus proposal from Bresnan Communications (click to enlarge and see the full ad)

On the other side, the phone companies and their trade groups: the Montana Telecommunications Association and Montana Independent Telecommunications Systems, and the state’s utility oversight agency.  They protested Bresnan was unnecessarily duplicating existing service, and potentially getting taxpayer money to do so.  They also hinted Bresnan exploited Native Americans in an application tailor-written to appeal to federal officials seeking improved service for disadvantaged and challenged minority groups.  Besides, the phone companies argued, Bresnan broke the rules from the outset by only agreeing to provide $6 million in company-provided matching funds, less than the 20 percent in matching dollars required by the stimulus program.

“If an area is unserved, prove it and spend the money on that,” Geoff Feiss, a representative of the Montana Telecommunications Association (MTA), told the Billings Gazette.  “But don’t spend $70 million on an overbuild network that’s going to deprive investment from existing networks and leave behind collateral damage that we’ll never recover from.”

Montana’s Public Service Commission ended up on the side of the MTA, calling Bresnan’s proposal “seriously flawed.”

Bresnan and their allies shot back that phone companies complaining about federal dollars being spent on broadband projects was hypocritical, considering many of those companies receive government assistance from the Universal Service Fund to stay in business themselves.

Consumers looking for broadband were left in the middle or left out entirely.  Many residents of the state are forced to rely on dial-up, satellite, or have been left indefinitely on waiting lists for future DSL expansion projects that take forever to materialize.  Choice is an option too many residents don’t have.  The Great Falls Tribune shared a story familiar to many Montanans:

Tim Lanham can’t get Qwest DSL at his eastside Great Falls home. It’s available to his neighbors across the street and at his office a block away.

He’s called Qwest about the situation, but typically can’t get through to a real person. The whole thing is frustrating, he said.

Lanham used to use Sofast. After its service went down, he switched to a Verizon Wireless card, but that can only be used on one computer at time. Now he has broadband Internet through Bresnan. Still, he wishes he had more options.

“I’d like the different options,” Lanham said. “Essentially they leave us with very few choices.”

At the heart of the debate is how to address the “digital divide” between those with Internet access and those without, and improving connectivity for those stuck with outdated, expensive, and slow “broadband.”

The state’s utility commission believes Montana’s primary problem exists in “the last mile,” namely getting broadband service to rural residents who currently are forced to use dial-up or satellite fraudband service that offers slow speed, tiny usage allowances, and a high price tag.  In most cases, telephone companies have deemed these rural residents too few in number and too far apart to make investments in DSL service worthwhile.  Using broadband stimulus money to subsidize the costs of providing service to rural America provides a direct path to broadband for those who may not obtain access any other way short of moving.

Larger providers have been urging that less money be spent on “last mile” projects and that funding be redirected into “middle mile” projects, which could dramatically reduce the costs companies have to pay to maintain and upgrade their own backbone infrastructure.  Examples of these kinds of projects include installing fiber optic cables between telephone company central offices or extended service “remotes” which reduce the distances between customers and telephone company facilities, extending the distance DSL can cover in rural areas.

For now, Montana will have to wait for both.

Bresnan officials will meet with tribal and state commerce officials before deciding what to do next.

Walter White Tail Feather, director of economic development for the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in northeastern Montana, told the Gazette he hopes Bresnan reapplies for the funding.

“We think we can make a better proposal this second round,” he said. “This first one was a learning experience. … What we really are doing is working with the state to empower ourselves as a tribal government to create a business, to create opportunities that we don’t have.”

The state’s small phone companies may have won the battle, but are now concerned they could ultimately lose the war over obtaining broadband stimulus money themselves, at least from the NTIA.

Jay Preston, chief executive officer of Ronan Telephone Co., told the Gazette two federal agencies now will be deciding who gets broadband stimulus money: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Rural Utilities Service.

The NTIA “seems to be really, really focusing on the middle-mile idea,” Preston said, while RUS probably will approve funds for rural telephone companies that already are the federal agency’s customers. The RUS loans money to rural co-ops for a variety of projects.

Regardless of where the money comes from, frustrated Montana residents just want better service.  The state ranks dead last, tied with Alaska, in broadband speed, according to a study from the Communications Workers of America.  Residents enjoy an average broadband speed of just 2.3Mbps.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KFBB Great Falls Montana ISP Flounders 11-10 – 11-13-2009.flv[/flv]

Already-broadband-challenged Montana residents faced a major headache when one of the state’s large Internet Service Providers, SoFast, suddenly shut down last November.  KFBB-TV in Great Falls followed the story over three days in these three reports from November 10-13th, 2009.  (5 minutes)

The Billings Gazette mapped out Montana's fiber landscape

Denver residents are discovering that when Comcast says they’re getting a “free speed upgrade,” what they really mean is that upgrade is going to cost you an additional $2 more per month.

Comcast recently increased broadband speeds in Denver “for free,” but now Mile-High City residents are discovering free comes at a price with Comcast.

The price of renting your cable modem is increasing by $2 a month, which means the majority of Comcast customers locally will now spend $5 per month just for the modem.

Denver, Colorado (Courtesy: Yassie)

Comcast blamed the increase on costs associated with upgrading their network facilities to support DOCSIS 3, the latest cable modem standard which supports vastly faster Internet speeds.

Comcast spokeswoman Cindy Parsons said in a statement that the company continually invests in providing customers with next-generation equipment and technology that delivers advanced Internet services with enhanced capabilities.

“Our costs for this new equipment will increase by 167 percent over the next two years,” Parsons said.

Comcast has been increasing the modem rental price on a city-by-city basis across the country, often after speed upgrades like that completed in Denver which doubled speeds from 6 to 12Mbps late last year.

If just two-thirds of Comcast customers nationwide continue to simply pay the monthly rental fee, the company will earn more than $250 million in annual revenue just on the two dollar rate hike.  Is that enough to pay for service upgrades so we can dispense with talk about Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing?

Stop the Cap! reminds readers Comcast subscribers can purchase their own cable modem from electronics retailers, often for $100 or less, and never pay a rental fee again.

At $60 a year, customers will more than pay for their modem purchase after less than two years.

While the United States argues over broadband speeds, pricing, and usage limits, a broadband speed war is breaking out in Mexico which could deliver millions of Mexicans better broadband service at lower prices than what providers in the United States and Canada offer many of their customers.

The first shot came from Telmex, owned by media tycoon Carlos Slim.  They announced a more than doubling of their company’s DSL speed from the current 2-4Mbps to more than 10Mbps.

Telmex is Mexico’s leading Internet Service Provider, and typically bundles its broadband service with a calling package.  Telmex currently sells up to 5Mbps service, bundled with a phone line with unlimited local and long distance calling, plus 200 minutes of free calling to the United States, other calling features, free wi-fi access in more than 120,000 locations, and a free wireless modem/router for approximately $78 a month.  New subscribers get a bond worth approximately $39 when they sign up for service.

Televisa’s Cablevision, a cable provider, announced over the weekend it would match Telmex.

“Cablevision will offer this year more than 10Mbps service across Mexico City and surrounding areas at very affordable prices,” Televisa Executive Vice President Alfonso de Angoitia tweeted.

Televisa has been playing catch-up to Telmex, but the cable company’s “triple-play” phone, broadband, and video package has been attracting considerable attention.  The Mexican authorities currently prohibit Telmex from offering video to customers because of market domination fears.

Cablevision standalone pricing for their current 2Mbps service is about $23 a month with a term contract.  Additional discounts are provided for bundled service — $40.33 a month for both broadband and telephone service.

The price war broke out because of anemic growth in the landline telephone business, and the potential revenue expanded broadband service packages could bring Mexican providers.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Mexico Cablevision Telmex Ads.flv[/flv]

A selection of ads from Cablevision and Telmex. (3 minutes)