Hawaii’s landline telephone company, Hawaiian Telcom (HawTel), is awaiting approval from the state’s Public Utility Commission for its $460 million, stand-alone reorganization plan. The company, launched in 2005 from assets acquired from Verizon Hawaii, Inc., by the politically connected global private equity investment firm The Carlyle Group, lasted less than four years before declaring bankruptcy.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KITV Honolulu Hawaiian Telcom Takes Over Verizon 5-3-05.flv[/flv]

KITV-TV in Honolulu introduced Hawaii to Hawaiian Telcom in this report from May 3, 2005 (1 minute)

The downfall of Hawaii’s dominant landline provider, despite decades of stable service from its progenitors — GTE/Hawaiian Telephone Company and Mutual Telephone came as no surprise to telecommunications analysts and consumer advocates who saw trouble right from the start.  The Carlyle Group and Verizon structured a deal that loaded $1.2 billion in debt onto Hawaiian Telcom’s balance sheet.  Critics of the deal weren’t impressed by the fact Carlyle had no experience running a telephone company either, and was likely to dump the company after “dressing up the pig” to inflate the company’s value and walk away with big profits from the sale, as one analyst predicted.

Long time Stop the Cap! readers know how this works only too well.  Anyone who followed the exhaustive coverage of the downfall of FairPoint Communications this past year will see plenty of familiar warning signs — piling enormous debt on the buyer, lots of promises made and broken, and plenty of billing and customer service problems that cause customers to flee to other providers.  By 2008, 21 percent of the company’s 700,000 customers did just that.  Remarkably, the only people who suffered from the failing business plan Hawaiian Telcom subjected on the islands were customers, lower-level employees, and company vendors.  The top management that made all of the bad decisions were insulated from the impact with fat bonuses, even as other employees were terminated.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KITV Honolulu 9,000 Hawaiian Telcom Customers Overbilled 6-9-06.flv[/flv]

Here come the all-too-familiar billing problems.  KITV reported 9,000 HawTel customers were overbilled in this report from June 9, 2006 (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KITV Honolulu Hawaiian Telcom Problems Continue 3-21-07.flv[/flv]

A year later, still more billing problems from HawTel, this time impacting more than 10,000 customers who can never sure what their monthly bill will look like.  (March 21, 2007 – 2 minutes)

It’s all a word to the wise as Frontier Communications journeys down the same road FairPoint and Hawaiian Telcom have already paved.

On the business side, Hawaiian Telcom’s future foreshadowed its post-mortem if only based on the players who far too often have been rewarded for failure:

The Carlyle Group: Attacked by incumbent competitors in Hawaii when it sought to purchase Verizon’s assets in the state.  Both Time Warner Telecom and Pacific LightNet warned Carlyle had little, if any experience running a telecommunications business, was going to mine the company for profits for its investors from rate increases, slash costs by reducing investment in their network and firing employees, and then try and resell the business at a profit just a few years later.

BearingPoint: Hired by Hawaiian Telcom to manage billing post-Verizon, the troubled firm managed to botch thousands of customer bills, double-charging them, crediting their accounts only to rebill them months later, and other irregularities.  In the end, BearingPoint had to pay $52 million to Hawaiian Telcom and drop an additional $30 million in outstanding invoices.  Like birds of a feather, BearingPoint itself collapsed in bankruptcy in 2009.

Michael Ruley: Hawaiian Telcom’s CEO from October 2004 through February 2008, Ruley oversaw HawTel operations during the post-transition customer service nightmares.  During his last quarter at the company, HawTel lost $29.5 million, and his prescription was a massive cost-cutting program that accelerated company layoffs that began in 2007, resulting in the dismissal of more than 100 employees, 50 of which were cut during his last full month at the company.

Stephen F. Cooper: A so-called “turnaround expert,” Cooper was hired as a ” permanent interim” CEO on February 4, 2008.  His previous “success stories” included succeeding Kenneth Lay at the infamous Enron, and a stint as CEO of Krispy Kreme, which then promptly collapsed as a success story, with store closings and bankruptcies among its franchisees.  His “permanent interim” position as CEO of HawTel ended after three months. “In my view, Hawaiian Telcom is financially stable and has ample liquidity available,” Cooper said less than a year before the company went bankrupt.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KITV Honolulu Hawaiian Telcom Filing for Bankruptcy 12-01-08.flv[/flv]

KITV has three reports telling viewers HawTel has filed for bankruptcy, the first time in Hawaii’s history a major utility has sought bankruptcy protection.  (12/1 – 12/3 – 2008 – 7 minutes)

Bankruptcy As a Business Tool

The sale of Verizon Hawaii’s assets to Carlyle and its creature HawTel likely doomed the company from the start.  Saddled with massive debt from the $1.6 billion dollar sale in May 2005, HawTel had to manage its 700,000 customers, protect its flank from increasing wireless competition from Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile, and constant customer poaching by Oceanic Cable.  The cable operator offered “digital phone” service at prices lower than HawTel charged and broadband service far faster than the “up to 7Mbps” DSL service the phone company provided.

As customers continues to leave, the company’s bond values lost 65 percent of their value by the start of 2008.

The Wall Street Journal itself began to notice (subscription required) these telecommunications deals had enormous implications for consumers, particularly for those who depend on landline service:

Because major phone companies are reducing their exposure to the shrinking landline phone business, phone services in a growing number of U.S. states are being taken over by private-equity firms like Carlyle or by tiny telecom companies.

Verizon, for instance, has agreed to spin off its landline business in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire to a small phone company, FairPoint Communications Inc. Alltel Corp., which services the Midwest, was recently taken private by private-equity firms TPG Capital and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners.

Many of these deals are raising concern among local regulators and consumer advocates, who are worried about the telecom savvy of the new buyers. “Why would a company one-10th the size and not nearly as deep of pockets as Verizon be able to make a success where Verizon hasn’t,” asks Rand Wilson, a spokesman for Verizon’s unionized workers, speaking of the Verizon-FairPoint deal, which is expected to close next week. A FairPoint spokeswoman says the company has plenty of experience taking over landlines in less dense regions of the U.S. and plans to offer new technologies and services to New England customers.

By December 2008, it was time to get HawTel’s lawyers in Delaware to walk into Bankruptcy Court.  At the time of the filing, the company said it had about $1 billion in debt, which includes $574.6 million in bank loans as well as about $500 million in bonds.

The company sought bankruptcy to reduce the debt load, and in a remarkable concession, HawTel president and CEO Eric Yeaman spoke prophetic words not heard when the original deal was on the table:

“Our lenders all recognize that this business can’t support its debt load,” Yeaman said. “But they’re still figuring out what the magic number is. Whatever it is, it will affect different parties, especially investors who won’t get their initial investment back. That’s why it’s important that we increase in value going forward.”

In the nine months ending in September 2008, Hawaiian Telcom paid $68.2 million in interest to lenders, on top of a $35.7 million operating loss. The company has lost $425 million since it began operations in 2005.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KHON Honolulu Hawaiian Telcom Bankruptcy Hearing Begins 11-9-09.flv[/flv]

KHON-TV Honolulu covers the bankruptcy proceedings in this report from November 9, 2009. (1 minute)

BonusGate

Adding insult to injury, Hawaiian Telcom may have been bankrupt, but senior management were assured of being kept whole.  KITV-TV in Honolulu reported that three days before the company filed for bankruptcy, Hawaiian Telcom’s board of directors approved a financial incentive plan for 20 of its top executives for up to $2.3 million in retention bonuses and other benefits.  The executives were eligible for amounts ranging from $57,000 to $2.3 million, if the company met certain earning and revenue targets.

Regular employees were eligible to use a secluded back door to exit the company after being notified they were being laid off to “reduce costs.”

Just three months after declaring bankruptcy, HawTel officials were back asking for approval for even bigger bonuses.

In a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Hawaiian Telcom said it was seeking authorization to pay 1,418 employees a total of $6 million, a reduction of 24 percent from their original proposal to pay $7.9 million. Understanding how bad it would look for a president and CEO overseeing a company into financial failure, Yeaman gave up his $609,000 bonus and elected not to participate in the special compensation program.  Six of the company’s senior vice presidents were less generous, agreeing only to defer half of their scheduled bonuses.

Hawaii’s governor was outraged.

“The decision by Hawaiian Telcom to ask the bankruptcy court to approve $6 million in bonuses for its employees is unconscionable, and we will oppose it in court,” Gov. Linda Lingle said on March 19th. “Hawaiian Telcom is the critical communications backbone for our state, and its action to pay millions in bonuses puts the company in a precarious position that jeopardizes its long-term viability, as well as threatens Hawaii’s economic recovery.”

Bankruptcy can be a profitable business for more than just bonus recipients.

Fees billed by companies working on the bankruptcy reorganization also angered creditors and the U.S. trustee appointed to oversee the company’s restructuring:

• Lazard Freres & Co. was being paid $2,527.38 per hour for its work in Hawaiian Telcom Communications Inc.’s bankruptcy case.  The company billed for 237.4 hours of work between April 1 and June 30 totaling an astonishing $600,000, an amount Acting U.S. Trustee Tiffany Carroll said was way out of line.  “Simply put, the amount of time Lazard is devoting to this case is not commensurate with its interim compensation,” she wrote in papers filed with the Honolulu bankruptcy court.
• The Carlyle Group, despite its losses from piling on debt from the Verizon sale did manage a legislative win when it lobbied for and got passage of a nice deregulation package in the form of SB603, a state bill providing a deregulatory advantage to Hawaiian Telcom, now able to charge higher prices for competitors that connect with HawTel’s network to complete calls to customers.  Better yet, SB603 provides for no oversight or justification for the rates HawTel chooses to charge.  Hawaii’s legislature bowed to the lobbyists to deregulate a company that lost more than $1 billion dollars in bankruptcy.
• Ernst & Young, LLP, a financial advisor hired by Hawaiian Telcom to advise on tax matters, would receive payment for services without as much scrutiny from the bankruptcy court, owing to HawTel’s lawyers seeking to have E&Y’s fees be subject to review only under the “improvident” standard, which would make it much harder to protest unreasonable fees.

The more money paid out to consultants, lawyers, secured creditors, and other advisors, the less money remains available to pay unsecured creditors — mostly suppliers and smaller companies hired as subcontractors to do the work HawTel farmed out.

What The Future Holds for HawTel & Customers

As the company works its way towards an exit to bankruptcy, it’s betting the company’s survival on Next Generation Television (NGTV), an “IPTV” service that delivers Internet, television, and phone service over a broadband network.  HawTel seeks to construct a faster broadband network using a fiber-optic based backbone network and integrate it with the ordinary phone lines that string through neighborhoods across the islands.  Similar to AT&T’s U-verse system, by reducing the length of copper wiring, HawTel can boost broadband speeds to at least 25Mbps, the bare minimum required to deliver a “triple play” package of phone, Internet, and cable-TV service to Hawaiians.  Relying on less than that can seriously degrade parts of the package if customers try to use them all at once (try making a phone call, download a file, and watch two different channels at the same time on a network with reduced bandwidth.)

HawTel realizes without being able to sell all three services to consumers, they have little hope of surviving in a state where consumers are dropping landline phone service in favor of Oceanic Cable’s own “triple play” service, or relying on one of the cell phone providers serving Hawaii.

Of course, such an undertaking will require millions of dollars of investment, something The Carlyle Group may not exactly be enthusiastic to provide.  Company observers suspect HawTel will instead come hat in hand to Washington looking for broadband stimulus funding so the company need not invest as much of its own money.

Why This Is Important To Millions of Potential New Frontier Communications Customers

Detailing the history of broken promises, bad customer service, billing problems, and the impact of more than a billion dollars of crushing debt, all hallmarks of two previous deals with Verizon — one with HawTel, the other with FairPoint Communications — illustrates just how risky the latest Verizon-Frontier deal could be to customers, suppliers, employees, and other creditors.  HawTel’s debt hampered the company’s potential and kept it from providing the kind of enhanced services it speaks of today.  What was once $1.1 billion in debt has been dramatically reduced by a Bankruptcy Court judge to just $300 million.  The better-looking balance sheet frees the company to invest in the services it will be required to provide to protect it from future obsolescence.

Why state utility commissions are willing to risk rolling the dice on another risky deal, and one that is largely tax-free thanks to loopholes in the law, is a question that must be asked.  Consumers, small businesses, and individual employees pay the price for the wrong decisions others make, all while those handful of executives who run the show have built-in insulation from the impact, earning bonuses and benefits that come regardless of their performance or lack thereof.

For north-central North Carolina, it’s often not a matter of how many choices you have for broadband service — it’s whether you can obtain any service at all.

Person County, located just south of the Virginia border, is a good example.  The county’s 36,000 residents technically reside in North Carolina’s Research Triangle, a high-tech growth area.  You wouldn’t know it from the broadband options available in many parts of the county, however.

The dominant phone company, CenturyLink (formerly EMBARQ), offers DSL service in the larger communities in Person County, but wide areas remain without any service at all.

A Roxboro-based computer store and Internet Service Provider decided that with CenturyLink unwilling to expand into low population density areas to supply service, they would, with the help of broadband stimulus funding available from the Obama Administration.

Randy King, president of Electronic Solutions, Inc. (ESI), planned to expand broadband into 26 previously unserved Person County areas, and filed a stimulus application requesting $3 million in funding to begin construction.

King believes wireless broadband is the most cost-effective way to reach parts of the 400 square mile county that are simply too rural to upgrade wired service.  Today, that’s nearly 40 percent of the county that still does not have access to broadband service. The Person County High Speed Internet Committee and the County Commissioners endorsed ESI’s proposal.

But CenturyLink would have none of it, despite the fact it was not willing to provide service to those unserved areas either.  The phone company filed an objection with the agency administering the stimulus program claiming ESI would be overbuilding a competing broadband provider in its service area:

CenturyLink can certify that its affiliates currently offer broadband service in some or all of the applicant’s proposed service areas. We attach a representative sample of areas where the application overlaps our existing broadband deployment. This data is not exhaustive; the application may include other areas also currently served with broadband by CenturyLink or other providers. We will provide additional information on request if that will further assist the agency’s review.

CenturyLink also provides data showing broadband availability in local telephone exchanges within the proposed service areas. This includes areas served by CenturyLink and/or other broadband providers. This data further shows the applicant would duplicate and overlap existing broadband services in the proposed service areas.

Because the government will judge the merit of applications based, in part, on reaching the unserved, map data purporting to illustrate who does and who does not have access to broadband service is critically important to applicants.  Some providers have used map data produced by a politically well-connected group filled with telecom industry executives that has spent millions of taxpayer dollars and produced maps that are less than illustrative of the true nature of broadband service.  When a map from Connected Nation’s North Carolina chapter can show citizens have access to broadband, even when they do not, what’s a regulator to do but consider that stimulus grant application unnecessary.

Randy King, President of ESI, has responded to the CenturyLink opposition:

“We are extremely disappointed that CenturyLink has opposed the Person County project. The project would provide high speed Internet (broadband) in areas that currently do not have service in our county. CenturyLink as recently as April 2009 met with county officials and members of the public and stated that they did not intend to expand DSL in low density areas which do not make economical sense.  We are now aware that CenturyLink is not only not going to serve these areas but is attempting to block anyone else from serving these areas.”

ESI claims its wireless system could deliver more capacity to Person County’s rural unserved than CenturyLink provides its more urban counterparts.

“It should be noted that the wireless system will have at minimum 50-100Mbps capability at each tower site which far exceeds current DSL speed of 1-10Mbps. This allows customers to have sufficient bandwidth to have services such as VOIP, IPTV and streaming capabilities whereas DSL is not capable,” King writes.

King is also concerned that CenturyLink won’t provide true detailed maps of exactly what service it provides in what areas.

Person County and area residents have been requesting street level coverage maps from CenturyLink and Charter (the city’s cable company) for years without success. King wants the ability to review these maps, preferably in color with speed capabilities identified down to the 911 address location.  That way, he says, he can work on building capacity to areas not getting service at all.

Providers have traditionally been loathe to disclose this information to the public, and even government regulators, claiming it represents proprietary, competitive information.  That leaves everyone but providers guessing about what broadband service really looks like across America.

Kevin McCarter, CenturyLink’s general manager for central North Carolina seems primarily concerned with potential government funding of his competition.  McCarter told The Courier-Times CenturyLink “interpreted that” the towers King proposed to place in order to provide wireless service “would cover 95 percent” of the entire county. King explained that his intent was not to cover the whole county with wireless access, but to place towers so that those living in areas of the county not currently served by DSL lines would have the option of wireless broadband. He said he never intended his service to replace the DSL lines CenturyLink has in place.

That ESI doesn’t seem intent on competing directly with CenturyLink may have resulted in a breakthrough this month.  The two companies met December 15th to discuss their respective broadband plans for Person County, and may have come to an agreement that could divide up the unserved and get them broadband service from one company or the other, but likely not both.

Jamie Averett Mitchell, spokesperson for CenturyLink, issued the following statement Monday:  “On Tuesday, Dec, 15, representatives from CenturyLink met with Randy King, president of Electronic Solutions, Inc., to review broadband coverage for Person County. Maps detailing both existing and planned coverage areas were presented and reviewed by both parties. Areas that were not covered on either company’s maps were discussed and both companies are aware of those sites. CenturyLink and ESI are working together to determine the most efficient way to provide 100 percent of the population in Person County with the best broadband coverage possible.”

So it seems that broadband applications that do not challenge incumbent providers are acceptable, but those that could expand the quality of service to those living with rural, slow speed DSL service are not.

Cricket has a nasty habit of selling customers an unlimited mobile broadband service… that is limited to 5GB of usage per month.  Today, the company announced it would be expanding its prepaid wireless broadband service to “big box” retail stores nationwide:

Cricket Broadband will soon be available in nearly 1,000 national retailer stores through a new all-inclusive $50 monthly service plan. The new plan will include all fees and taxes and provides unlimited Internet access without a signed contract or credit check. The Cricket A600 modem will be available as a grab-and-go offering for $69.99 with no activation fee. $50.00 top-up cards will also be available for this product.

The marketing on their website underlines the point: “With unlimited broadband access you can email, surf and download from your desktop or laptop anywhere in Cricket Broadband’s coverage areas.”

“Unlimited” in their marketing is actually “5GB” in the nitty-gritty details on their website as you sign-up:

Subscriber Management
We reserve the right to protect our network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance. We reserve the right to limit throughput speeds or amount of data transferred, and to deny, modify or terminate service, without notice, to anyone whose usage adversely impacts our network, service levels or uses more than 5 GB in a given month. We may monitor your compliance with the above but will not monitor the content of your communications except as otherwise expressly permitted or required by law.

Cricket needs to discontinue the practice of referring to a service as “unlimited” when it isn’t unlimited at all.  Cricket is also well aware of the 5GB limitation, because it is currently testing a 10GB plan priced at $60 a month.

Cricket has also applied for federal broadband stimulus funding to provide service to low income residents:

Low-income residents in San Diego County who can’t afford Internet service may get some financial help if a local wireless provider succeeds in getting more than $8 million in federal stimulus funds to expand broadband access.

San Diego-based Cricket Communications said yesterday that it has applied for federal Recovery Act funding geared to expanding high-speed Internet access not only in more remote rural areas but also to the urban poor.

Cricket is proposing a $10.7 million program to provide subsidized, low-cost Internet service to 23,000 low-income families in San Diego, Baltimore, Houston, Memphis, Tenn., and Washington, D.C.

Under the proposal, the federal government would cover 80 percent of the cost, with Cricket picking up the remainder. Cricket, a wholly owned subsidiary of Leap Wireless International, is working with One Economy, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, to help it reach out to low-income households.

In addition, it plans to substantially discount its normal monthly service of $40 so that participants would pay $5 a month the first year and $15 a month the second year. The grant would cover two years of subsidized service.

As for Cricket’s new broadband plan, I’m unsure what’s new about it.  It appears to be priced $10 higher than the old $40 Cricket plan (that comes with a $25 activation fee).  The A600 modem is available for free after rebate from the Cricket website, and the service price there remains $40 a month, although “taxes and fees” are extra, which may account for the primary difference between the two plans. Cricket appears to be moving to “all-inclusive” pricing strategies, which means the price you see is your “out the door” price. Many consumers are shocked when signing up for a mobile phone service that is advertised at one price, and turns out to be considerably higher once taxes and fees are included on the bill.

The A600 offers average download speeds of 538 kilobits per second (Kbps) and peaks at 787 Kbps. The average upload speeds offered by this modem are of the order of 502 Kbps, according to a PC Magazine review.

[Update 9/22: A response from Zocolo Group on behalf of Cricket can be found in the comment section of this article.]

The broadband stimulus package advocated by the Obama Administration may become a feeding frenzy for waste, fraud, and abuse.  That’s the attitude of several public interest groups concerned about how public tax dollars are being used to study, map, construct, and deploy broadband networks to reach the underserved, and those without any broadband service at all.

Now the story has drawn the attention of the Associated Press’ technology reporter Peter Svensson, who along with Joelle Tessler, have written a piece exploring just where American taxpayer dollars are going on broadband mapping.

The $787 billion stimulus bill championed by the Obama administration set aside up to $350 million to create a national broadband map that could guide policies aimed at expanding high-speed Internet access. That $350 million tag struck some people in the telecommunications industry as excessive, compared with existing, smaller efforts. The map won’t even be done in time to help decide where to spend much of the $7.2 billion in stimulus money earmarked for broadband programs.

Svensson and Tessler talked to a variety of industry experts, as well as companies that often find themselves at a major disadvantage when trying to bid for mapping funds and discover the lowest bid for the best work isn’t always the determining factor.

The consensus is that the government is at risk for overspending up to 90% of the money set aside for mapping, and has vastly overestimated the actual costs:

Rory Altman, director at telecommunications consulting firm Altman Vilandrie & Co., which has helped clients map broadband availability in some areas, said $350 million was a “ridiculous” amount of money to spend on a national broadband map.

Even $100 million might be high. The firm could create a national broadband map for $3.5 million, and “would gladly do it for $35 million,” Altman said.

More concerning is the fact that some of the interests that have successfully won mapping contracts are infested with self-interested telecommunications company executives who have a vested interest in steering the findings of the mapping projects, as well as defending common industry practices of withholding data for “customer privacy” and “competitive” reasons.  Allowing the telecommunications industry to provide the raw data (considerably redacted), a practice defended by telecommunications executives sitting on the boards of some mapping firms winning bids, is a recipe for the production of industry-favorable maps.

Public Knowledge, a public interest group, has been particularly critical of broadband mapping strategies, essential to measuring the current availability and very definition of what is broadband service in the United States.  Art Brodsky, communications director of the group, has reported extensively on the issue for months.

Art Brodsky, for Public Knowledge:

It would be a shame if the stimulus mapping/grant program and the broadband plan were considered in isolation, because they are, together, pieces of the same puzzle. Certainly the telephone and cable industries are considering them together, and using the leverage on one to influence the other to reach the inevitable conclusion that no new broadband policies are needed and that everything will be just fine if we leave the companies in control. Ignore our slumping world rankings for broadband. Ignore the lack of choice. Let’s try to connect the dots into a long silver thread.

The first dot is broadband mapping. If the maps show there is no problem with broadband coverage, then there should be no need for legislation, regulation or any other policies that would immediately be branded a “solution in search of a problem” by the telecom industries. Connected Nation plays a key role here, because their maps will be constructed in at least a dozen states, perhaps more, under the broadband stimulus plan.

Unfortunately, the way the stimulus mapping program is going, that piece is falling nicely into place. By agreeing to the telephone and cable industry’s request – some might say caving into the industry’s demand – that broadband speeds not be reported, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) opened the door for all kinds of mischief. In public comments, NTIA officials said such an agreement was necessary to gain the cooperation of the telephone and cable companies. That’s one way to look at it. Another way is that by requiring the carriers to report broadband speeds – even if their reports were inaccurate – at least there would be something on the record that could be corrected, criticized or cited. Without speed data, the value of the program diminishes. Even under the old rules, all the carriers had to show was “advertised” speeds, so the carriers started advertising. The speeds agreed to by NTIA as “broadband” in the first place are relatively slow anyway.

Mark Seifert, oversees the broadband grant and mapping programs at the NTIA defends the spending proposals by the federal government.  Seifert told the AP that since much of the data will come from the providers’ themselves, NTIA plans to “independently verify” the veracity of the data it receives, which he claims could include door-to-door verification with individual residents and other unspecified verification procedures.

Meanwhile, critics of some of the industry-connected broadband mapping efforts say the groundwork may be laid for future challenges by the nation’s largest broadband providers (large telephone and cable companies) who almost uniformly avoided participating in the first round of stimulus grant applications.

Michael Tattersall, founder of the mapping company Stratsoft is concerned.  He told Public Knowledge incomplete or false map data could be used by providers to have other groups’ stimulus applications thrown out.

If the maps show there is more coverage in rural areas than there actually is, then Tattersall said, the “smaller, in-state broadband providers that are applying for funds that will be directly affected by the quality and integrity of state-commissioned broadband maps.” There could be challenges by the larger carriers, which didn’t apply for stimulus funds, to broadband grants from smaller rural, municipal or neighborhood based on already existing Connected Nation maps.

Disqualified applications based on discredited map data could throw the entire stimulus program into doubt, allowing telecommunications lobbyists for the big providers to argue the stimulus program is a failure and needs to be started over, with recommendations those large providers get the bulk of the money.

Indeed, several providers are already concerned with the prospect that stimulus funds could be used to bring competition to their areas — start-ups and projects funded by government money that could eventually directly compete against their existing offerings, designated as too slow or backwards for 21st century broadband.

With providers already trying to downplay expectations for what defines fast, robust broadband, it leaves incumbent providers keeping their communities in a perpetual slow lane in a much better position not to stick out like a sore thumb.  Brodsky again:

In addition to using the maps, telecom carriers are also trying to freeze the idea of advancing broadband into what exists today.

AT&T led the charge on this, in a remarkable filing that would, in essence, freeze broadband where it is now because that’s what the stimulus law directs the FCC to do when it formulates a broadband plan. AT&T said, “In other words, the definition of broadband must comprise services that can practicably be deployed in unserved and underserved areas—and must comprise services that today’s unserved Americans can and will actually adopt.”

“It helps no one if broadband subsidies flow to ‘overbuilders’….” Matt Polka, American Cable Association CEO

“We will have government-created competition.” Cable One senior vice president and chief sales and marketing officer Jerry McKenna

America’s cable companies are having fits of anxiety over $7.2 billion dollars in broadband stimulus money that isn’t just going to fall into their laps.  “There are a lot of strings on that money,” one executive told Multichannel News this week in a piece that truly feels for the plight of the nation’s cable operators, concerned that billions of dollars could end up stimulating competition in the rural broadband marketplace.

The horror.

Granted, there are some concerns with some specific conditions which will likely represent little or no impediment to big regional telephone companies, and those like Frontier Communications, which specialize in servicing rural customers (and will likely apply for a substantial amount of broadband stimulus money), but will potentially lock out a lot of “mom and pop” operators.

Among them are requirements that a “first lien” be granted to the Rural Utilities Service, a USDA government-run administrator of the broadband program.  That has some banks, which small providers would likely use to finance some up front construction costs, up in arms.  A first lien would leave the government first in line for any asset recovery from a failed project, not the bank.

But some small providers are also upset with a requirement that any completed projects be held within that provider’s portfolio for a minimum of 10 years.  That provision, according to government officials, was added to prevent bottom feeder “flippers” from creating new companies tailor-made to fit broadband grant criteria, receive substantial amounts from the government to build projects, and then quickly sell them to the highest bidder when complete, pocketing the profits.

But the overwhelming concern expressed by 70% of cable operators surveyed by the American Cable Association at their ACA Independent Show held in late July is the fear of competition.

Are you concerned about the government funding competitors in your market?
Yes	70%
No	29%

Many small-operator executives said that they feared the broadband stimulus would create competition — one said the money would go to “charlatans who would ruin the business.”

Cable One senior vice president and chief sales and marketing officer Jerry McKenna, who after his panel session at the show said that his MSO will likely apply for two or three broadband projects, was even more direct.

“We will have government-created competition,” he said.

As a result of the realization that free government money was simply not going to fall from the sky into their hands, many of the nation’s cable operators have stomped their feet and thrown fits, finally resulting in more than half declaring they were either not likely or absolutely certain they would not apply for a penny.  It’s their hope the federal government will see a dearth of applications, assume the process is too onerous, and dramatically loosen up the rules.

“If they get an overwhelming number of applications, the administration will see this [program] as a success,” American Cable Association director of regulatory affairs Ross Lieberman said at the show. “If there are not that many applicants, if there is no incumbent interest, we can expect changes to this program.”

Changes have already been made at the behest of lobbyists, who are now given a freer reign to pursue broadband policies more amenable to their clients.  Also changed are the definitions of what constitutes an underserved or unserved area, and with the broadband mapping project at risk of being run by the providers themselves, those definitions could eventually become meaningless anyway.

But providers fearing an “overbuilder,” a competing company that strings its own cables and provides true competition, need not panic just yet.  As they nail bite about the decision to apply or not apply for broadband stimulus money, risking if they don’t a competing provider may, the government has graciously provided a 30 day window for incumbent providers to submit a formal challenge of other applicants for up to 30 days after the deadline.

Every application will be publicly posted online at BroadbandUSA.gov.