Phillip Dampier on USF Reform: It might have been great, it could have been a lot worse, but ultimately it turned out to be not very good.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission unveiled their grand plan to reform the Universal Service Fund, a program originally designed to subsidize voice telephone service in rural areas deemed to be unprofitable or ridiculously expensive to serve.  Every American with a phone line pays into the fund through a surcharge found on phone bills. Urban Americans effectively subsidize their rural cousins, but the resulting access to telecommunications services have helped rural economies, important industries, and the jobs they bring in agriculture, cattle, resource extraction, and manufacturing.

The era of the voice landline is increasingly over, however, and the original goals of the USF have “evolved” to fund some not-so-rural projects including cell phone service for schools, wireless broadband in Hollywood, and a whole mess of projects critics call waste, fraud, and abuse.  For the last several years, USF critics have accused the program of straying far from its core mission, especially considering the costs passed on to ratepayers.  What originally began as a 5% USF surcharge is today higher than 15%, funding new projects even as Americans increasingly disconnect their landline service.

For at least a decade, proposals to reform the USF program to bridge the next urban-rural divide, namely broadband, have been available for consideration.  Most have been lobbied right off the table by independent rural phone companies who are at risk of failure without the security of the existing subsidy system.  Proposals that survived that challenge next faced larger phone company lobbyists seeking to protect their share of USF money, or by would-be competitors like the wireless industry or cable operators who have generally been barred from the USF Money Party.

This year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski finally achieved a unanimous vote to shift USF funding towards the construction and operation of rural broadband networks.  The need for broadband funding in rural areas is acute.  Most commercial providers will candidly admit they have already wired the areas deemed sufficiently profitable to earn a return on the initial investment required to provide the service.  The areas remaining without service are unlikely to get it anytime soon because they are especially rural, have expensive and difficult climate or terrain challenges to overcome, or endure a high rate of poverty among would-be customers, unable to afford the monthly cost for the service.  Some smaller independent phone companies are attempting to provide the service anyway, but too often the result is exceptionally slow speed service at a very high cost.

The new Connect America Fund will shift $4.5 billion annually towards rural broadband construction projects.  Nearly a billion dollars of that will be reserved in a “mobility fund” designated for mobile broadband networks.

The goal is to bring broadband to seven million additional households out the 18 million currently ignored by phone and cable operators.

The FCC believes AT&T will take a new interest in upgrading its rural landline networks, even as the company continues to lobby for the right to abandon them.

Unfortunately, the FCC has set the bar pretty low in its requirements for USF funding.  The FCC defines the minimum level of “broadband” they expect to result from the program — 4/1Mbps.  That’s DSL speed territory and that is no accident.  The phone companies have advocated a “less is more” strategy in broadband speed for years, arguing they can reach more rural customers if speed requirements are kept as low as possible.  DSL networks are distance sensitive.  The faster the minimum speed, the more investment phone companies need to make to reduce the length of copper wiring between their office and the customer.  Arguing 4Mbps is better than nothing has gotten them a long way in Washington, but it also foreshadows the next digital divide — urban/rural broadband speed disparity.  While large cities enjoy speeds of 50Mbps or more, rural towns will still be coping with speeds “up to” 4Mbps.

The FCC does not seem too worried, relying heavily on a mild incentive program to prod providers to upgrade their DSL service to speeds of 6/1.5Mbps.

The irony of asking AT&T to invest in an aging landline network they are lobbying to win the right to abandon is lost on Washington, and future speed upgrades for rural America from companies like Verizon are in serious doubt when they sell off their rural areas to companies like FairPoint and Frontier and leave town.

Critics of USF reform suggest the program is still stacked in favor of the phone companies, and considering the state of their copper wire networks, would-be competitors are scratching their heads.

The cable industry, in particular, is still peeved by reforms they feel leave them at a disadvantage.  Of course, Washington may simply be recognizing the fact cable companies are the least likely to wire rural America, but when they do, the service that results is often faster than what the phone company offers.  The nation’s biggest cable lobbyist — ironically also the former chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell — still feels a little abused after reading the final proposal.

“While we are disappointed in the Commission’s apparent decision to ignore its longstanding principle of competitive neutrality and provide incumbent telephone companies an unwarranted advantage for broadband support,” said National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Michael Powell, “we remain hopeful that the order otherwise reflects the pro-consumer principles of fiscal discipline and technological neutrality that will bring needed accountability and greater efficiency to the existing subsidy system.  We are particularly heartened by the Commission’s efforts to ensure that carriers are fairly compensated for completing VoIP calls.”

Wireless operators are not happy either, because the arcane requirements that come with the USF bureaucracy were written with the phone companies in mind, not them.  Small, family-owned providers find it particularly difficult to do business with the USF, if only because they don’t have the staff or time to navigate through endless documents and forms.  Phone companies do.

Your phone bill is going up.

Many consumer groups are relieved because it could have been much worse.   The FCC could have simply capitulated and adopted the phone companies’ wish-list — the ABC Plan.  Thankfully, they didn’t, but the FCC has naively left the door open to substantial rate increases for consumers by not capping the maximum annual outlay of the fund.  That follows the same recipe that invited higher phone bills and questionable subsidies awarded in an effort to justify the original USF program even after it accomplished most of its goals. Consumers may face initial rate increases of $0.50 almost immediately, and up to $2.50 a month five years from now.

The FCC, unjustifiably optimistic, suspects phone companies and other telecommunications interests won’t gouge customers with higher prices.  They predict rate increases of no more than 10-15 cents a month.  I wouldn’t take that bet and neither will consumer groups.

“We’re going to press the FCC to ensure that these are temporary increases, because history has shown that these types of costs tend to stick around and go on and on and on,” said Parul Desai, policy counsel for Consumers Union.

An even bigger question left unanswered is just how far the FCC will get into the broadband arena when it refuses to take the steps necessary to ensure it has an admission ticket.  The agency has avoided classifying broadband as a telecommunications service, an important distinction that would bolster its authority to oversee the industry.  Without it, some members of Congress, and more importantly the courts, have questioned whether the FCC has any business in the broadband business.  Just one of the many high-powered players in the discussion could test that theory in the courts, and should a judge throw the FCC’s plan out, we’ll be back at square one.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/C-SPAN Tom Tauke from Verizon on Changes to the Universal Service Fund 10-29-11.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s chief lobbyist Tom Tauke spent a half hour last weekend on C-SPAN taking questions about USF reform and the side issues of IP Interconnection and Net Neutrality policies. Tauke supports consolidation of small phone companies into fewer, larger companies.  He also expands on his company’s lawsuit against Net Neutrality, which fortuitously (for Verizon) will he heard by the same D.C. Court of Appeals that threw out the FCC’s fines against Comcast for throttling broadband connections.  Politico’s Kim Hart participates in the questioning, which also covered wireless spectrum issues impacting Verizon Wireless, AT&T’s stumbling merger deal with T-Mobile, and Verizon’s latest lawsuit against the FCC for data roaming notification rules.  (28 minutes)

A joint venture between Rogers, Videotron, Bell and Telus will bring major improvements in cell phone service in Montréal’s métro by the end of 2013.

Isabelle Tremblay, a spokesperson for the Société de transport de Montréal, which manages the métro system, told the Montréal Gazette there has been a plan in place for several years to have a cellular network in the subway tunnels, which are often cell-phone-free zones because of reception problems.

Montreal métro provides coverage in these areas of Montreal.

None of the carriers involved would confirm the report, originally published in La Presse, but subway cell phone networks are not unprecedented.  Both New York and Washington, D.C. have cell service provided by underground antennas.  Many trains now also provide Wi-Fi service, and Montréal is expected to be no different.

Tremblay said Wi-Fi would come after cell phone service is established.  In most cases, carriers use third party contractors to construct and manage the networks on their behalf.  Only existing customers get to access the respective networks.

AT&T customers in western Colorado are furious at AT&T for suggesting expensive phone upgrades were required to get back cell phone service that actually went out because of a cell tower failure.

Stop the Cap! first reported this story earlier this week, when Grand Valley customers discovered their cell phone service (and 2G data services) suddenly stopped working last weekend.  Customers lined up inside and outside the doors of AT&T stores in the Grand Junction area to get an explanation for the service disruption, only to be told their 2G data service had been discontinued and they’ll need to buy new phones to get their service restored.

An undisclosed number of customers signed new two year contracts and upgraded to smartphones — which carry a considerably upgraded price to cover the mandatory data plan that accompanies them.

But now AT&T says a cell tower failure was responsible for customers losing access to voice calling, and any disruption to 2G service will be temporary until the company completes shifting that data service to a different frequency band.

Now customers are complaining they were defrauded by AT&T store employees who emphatically told them no cell service outage existed in the area.

“Is that fraud,” AT&T customer Bill Somerville asked KJCT-TV. “Are they taking advantage of people by not giving them the information they should have gotten?”

“They categorically lied about the status of the service and [forced] people into a new contract and new equipment,” said AT&T customer Jay Anderson.

“If that is customer care, that’s not the customer care I’d like to have,” added Somerville.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJCT Grand Junction ATT Customers Without Service And Definite Answers 9-21-11.mp4[/flv]

KJCT-TV talked to more angry customers who feel AT&T mislead them into signing expensive new two year contracts for new phones when a tower outage actually was responsible for the disrupted service.  (3 minutes)

KJCT-TV caught customers lined up literally out the door of this AT&T store in Grand Junction, Colorado.

AT&T store employees in the Grand Valley of Colorado are using the company’s upgrade of former Alltel service areas to 3G service as an excuse to tell customers they need to buy new cell phones if they continue to want to use their wireless service.

Customers lined up outside AT&T stores in communities like Grand Valley, Colorado on Monday fuming over service problems than began last weekend.

“I had about an half hour wait just to find out I had to buy a new phone and they wouldn’t credit me for it or anything,” customer Josh Simpson told KJCT-TV.

AT&T employees told the television newscast the company is “getting rid of the 2G service in Grand Junction to make room for larger networks.” Employees also said customers were sent a letter informing them about the service change, but customers might have overlooked the e-mail because it looked like spam.

Local employees shrugged their shoulders as customers repeatedly complained about having to foot the bill for brand new phones, often at full price, in order to continue using their service.

“It’s a corporate decision,” one replied.

At issue is AT&T’s adopted network, acquired originally by Verizon Wireless from Alltel but spun away to AT&T as part of an agreement with federal anti-trust officials.  Alltel’s network in the Grand Valley placed more prominence on its legacy 2G EDGE network than AT&T is willing to continue.  AT&T isn’t actually discontinuing the 2G network — it is moving 2G service to less-favorable spectrum it owns in order to make room for improved 3G coverage.  That might work fine in areas less expansive and rugged than western Colorado, but in the Grand Valley, it means many customers will find they no longer have data service at all.

The ongoing tower upgrades have also disrupted cell service generally, and when customers arrive at AT&T’s stores to complain, the employees on hand attempt to upsell them more expensive phones to “fix” the problem.

Customers calling to complain are met with busy signals or general statements from AT&T telling them the changes are for their own good.  But because so many basic cell phones don’t support 3G service, upgrades to phones that do often represent a major unexpected financial hit (and another two year contract and data plan if the phone happens to be a smartphone).

“Alltel served us just fine for many years,” writes our Glade Park reader Tim. “When AT&T eventually showed up, we got everything we never wanted, and this should be a lesson for those who think AT&T will somehow ‘improve’ service at T-Mobile if they acquire them.”

AT&T customer Joan Burns told KJCT AT&T just made up her mind for her.

“I will never again sign a contract with them,” she said. “That’s bull.”

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJCT Grand Junction ATT Customers Forced To Upgrade Cell Phones 9-19-11.mp4[/flv]

KJCT in Grand Junction reports AT&T customers may be noticing a disturbance in their cell phone service, as AT&T employees use it as an opportunity to get customers to upgrade to more expensive phones.  (3 minutes)

Martha's Vineyard

President Barack Obama’s arrival on Martha’s Vineyard brings a gift any local resident can enjoy: improved cell phone reception on the island, located off the coast of Massachusetts.

The president’s advance team and entourage rely on Verizon Wireless cell phone service, so when the president travels to a vacation spot, Verizon Wireless usually follows with one or two temporary cell towers to guarantee adequate coverage.  This summer is no different, and customers that used to have to walk outside and face the mainland for adequate reception are suddenly enjoying four bars, thanks to two traveling cell towers strategically placed on the island at Chilmark and West Tisbury.

Martha’s Vineyard is notorious for lousy cell phone reception, and the island’s small population has not justified investment for improved service.  Even when carriers explore the idea, local residents usually object to the proposed cell towers, dismissed as unsightly.

But for much of August, the island’s cell phones have been ringing as Verizon customers accustomed to simply going without service while on the island are suddenly getting rock solid service.  That puts a temporary end to the usual practice of trading knowledge of “known reception spots” — specific floors in buildings, certain sidewalks with an especially clear view to the coastline, or where unknown forces converge to deliver enough signal to make a quick call or send a text message.

The cacophony of ringtones has received a mixed reception from the locals, some of whom are unimpressed with wealthy vacationers, bankers, and politicians who call Martha’s Vineyard home for two weeks during the summer.

Rachel Fox, an entertainment lawyer from Manhattan whose family has a home on the island told the New York Times, “A lot of the people who vote here, who live here year-round, couldn’t care less if the people who invade them in the summer get to talk to their Hollywood producers in the middle of the Chilmark [general] store.”

Cell Tower on Wheels

When the president leaves, Verizon’s two cell-on-wheels-trucks leave as well, leading some 15,000 locals to ponder who is paying Verizon to haul the two towers on and off of the island and the expense to run them.  The newspaper wondered the same and didn’t get a clear answer.

Laura Williams, a spokeswoman for the White House Communications Agency, said its job was to ensure “that the president has the best communications possible wherever he travels” so that he can “remain informed and connected.” But Ms. Williams would not answer specific questions about the enhanced service, including how much it costs and who pays for it, citing security concerns.

One thing is certain, the two or three week cell phone nirvana the island enjoys in the summer only benefits Verizon Wireless customers.  Those with AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint find themselves with no bars in virtually all places on the island.

That suits Linda Alley, whose home in West Tisbury is located right next door to one of Verizon’s temporary towers, just fine.

“I’m not attached to my cell phone like a lot of people are,” she told the Times. “I couldn’t care less.”