On the heels of today’s announcement from Google that it intends to make Austin, Tex. the next home for Google Fiber, AT&T issued a press release claiming it was suddenly interested in building a gigabit fiber network in Austin too.

Today, AT&T announced that in conjunction with its previously announced Project VIP expansion of broadband access, it is prepared to build an advanced fiber optic infrastructure in Austin, Texas, capable of delivering speeds up to 1 gigabit per second.  AT&T’s expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives. This expanded investment is not expected to materially alter AT&T’s anticipated 2013 capital expenditures.

Currently, AT&T’s U-verse system in Austin — a fiber to the neighborhood system — cannot exceed 25Mbps as it is now configured. GigaOm’s Stacy Higginbotham reports AT&T told her it would build its own fiber to the premises system in Austin to support faster speeds.

But AT&T’s announcement does not come without plenty of wiggle room which could make today’s announcement little more than a publicity stunt:

1. AT&T claims it will build “infrastructure” capable of delivering “up to” 1Gbps. This could mean a network that supports a maximum of 1Gbps of shared Internet traffic, not 1Gbps to each home or business;
2. AT&T does not say it intends this network for residential customers, nor did it suggest a monthly price for gigabit service. Its Project VIP expansion describes planned broadband speed upgrades for residential U-verse customers of up to 75Mbps and for U-verse IPDSLAM to speeds of up to 45Mbps, not 1Gbps;
3. AT&T’s Project VIP already specifies fiber network build outs, but they are destined for cell towers, large business complexes, and multi-dwelling units that will share a fiber connection;
4. AT&T wants the same terms and conditions Google has received, including investment incentives. But AT&T could have applied for those incentives, and potentially could have already received them, if it specified plans for a gigabit network of its own. Instead, AT&T executives have always believed residential customers do not want or need gigabit broadband speeds. In fact, AT&T still doesn’t believe fiber to the home service makes economic sense, which is why it invested in a cheaper fiber to the neighborhood system that still relies on old copper wiring. AT&T also warns that, “Our potential capital investment will depend on the extent we can reach satisfactory agreements” with local officials on those incentives;
5. Wiring a city of Austin will cost tens of millions to reach every resident with service. Such an expense might be considered materially relevant to shareholders, requiring disclosure. Building a much lesser network, like a gigabit middle mile network or only offering fiber service to institutional or commercial customers would cost far less and could escape reporting requirements.

AT&T also did not miss an opportunity to promote its deregulatory agenda, which has so far not proved to be of much help to broadband speed enthusiasts stuck with DSL or U-verse.

“Most encouraging is the recognition by government officials that policies which eliminate unnecessary regulation, lower costs and speed infrastructure deployment, can be a meaningful catalyst to additional investment in advanced networks which drives employment and economic growth,” said Randall Stephenson, AT&T chairman and CEO.

AT&T’s agenda might result in a meaningful catalyst of a different kind — the end of rural landline telephone and broadband service.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam telegraphed his plans to dump rural landline service last summer.

You should believe Verizon Communications CEO Lowell McAdam when he says he intends to end wired telephone and broadband service for areas that are simply not economically feasible for fiber upgrades. McAdam’s grand plan is now coming true for customers in parts of Florida and on Fire Island, N.Y.

Last summer, Stop the Cap! covered McAdam’s comments to Wall Street investors (that are always the first to know) at the Guggenheim Securities Symposium:

“In […] areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got [a wireless 4G] LTE build that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there,” McAdam said. “We are going to do it over wireless. So I am going to be really shrinking the amount of copper we have out there and then I can focus the investment on that to improve the performance of it.”

The writing is already on the wall:

1. Verizon has been penalized and criticized in several states by public utility commissions for the ongoing degradation of its copper network. Verizon sees further investment in copper technology as throwing good money after bad, but spending millions on additional fiber upgrades isn’t appealing either. The result is deteriorating service. From downtown Manhattan to New Jersey to Maryland, D.C. and Virginia, Verizon’s service failures have left customers frustrated and sometimes waiting weeks or months for repair crews to turn up to restore basic phone service. Even more dangerous, Verizon was to blame for significant 911 network failures near the nation’s capital. Post Sandy, there are still sections of lower Manhattan without phone service nearly five months after the storm struck. Five months.
2. Verizon sold off telephone service in northern New England several years ago to FairPoint Communications, knowing full well Verizon never had an interest in upgrading any part of Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine to fiber service. In many smaller former GTE telephone areas too small to successfully argue a case for return on investment, Verizon decided selling those territories off was the best option. Hawaiian Telcom and Frontier Communications now own many of those former-Verizon territories.
3. Verizon has decreased marketing its wired DSL service and stopped selling it altogether to customers who want broadband-only service. That seems counter-intuitive for a company that recognizes future revenue possibilities come primarily from broadband and data services.

Traditionally, customers reporting trouble on a phone line get a visit from Verizon technicians who track the problem down and repair it. But Verizon no longer wants to spend money fixing copper wire-related problems. Customers reporting chronic phone static or outages are now being asked to abandon their traditional landline service instead:

• In areas where Verizon FiOS fiber is available, the company disconnects the customer from copper service and switches them to the FiOS fiber network. This also provides future marketing opportunities, pitching broadband and television service to accompany a customer’s home phone. 
• In areas where fiber upgrades are not forthcoming, the company now proposes to disconnect the customer in favor of Voice Link, a wireless home phone replacement. This also opens marketing opportunities for Verizon Wireless to pitch cell phones and wireless Internet service.

The end of an era.

Customers who live in Florida currently have a choice. During the trial, they can switch to Voice Link or keep their current landline service. On Fire Island, just south of Long Island, customers will not have that choice. Verizon is testing the will of New York regulators asked to allow the company to gradually abandon landline and wired Internet facilities on the island. Customers previously knocked out by Hurricane Sandy have no alternative — switch to a wireless option like Voice Link or lose  telephone service. As the network degrades further on the island, it is a safe bet more Fire Island residents will find themselves confronted with a wireless future courtesy of Voice Link.

Verizon is careful to note its Voice Link service comes at no additional cost to customers — their phone bills will remain the same, at least for now. But the transition includes several important caveats:

1. Voice Link is not subject to state or federal oversight or quality of service consumer protection laws that apply to traditional landline service;
2. The customer is responsible for providing an indoor space to mount the equipment (hardly unobtrusive, the receiver is eight inches tall) and provide electric power and AA batteries for battery backup;
3. Voice Link does not work with any data services including broadband or dial-up Internet, faxing, medical monitoring, alarm systems, etc. You will be pitched an expensive Verizon Wireless data plan if you want Internet access;
4. During recent severe storms, copper landline networks often continued to work but cell phone service failed over wide areas because of call congestion and  long-term power outages. Similar failures will leave Voice Link non-operational;
5. Voice Link customers lose DSL service and may have little chance of getting it back once they switch.

Verizon’s solution for Fire Island represents the long-term vision of McAdam coming to fruition. Complaining customers have not been able to persuade the company to abandon its plan, but New York State regulators might, if the issue gets enough attention.

In states with less aggressive regulators, Verizon could implement its Fire Island strategy nearly at-will, especially in rural service areas. Verizon’s plan differs little from that of AT&T, another major service provider seeking permission from regulators to abandon rural landline networks. AT&T is betting the Federal Communications Commission will approve AT&T’s “network transition plan” for all of its rural customers. Verizon is starting smaller, gradually implementing its transition under the radar of many state and federal officials.

AT&T wants to wind down its own rural landline network.

So why adopt Voice Link — a wireless solution, when copper wire network repairs remain a viable option?

The reasons are simple:

1. Voice Link is cheaper to run and maintain as a wireless service and uses existing Verizon Wireless cell towers;
2. Verizon can further cut their unionized workforce that maintains the company’s landline network;
3. Wireless products escape regulatory oversight;
4. The company can push customers to wireless data products that cost far more than wired DSL broadband service;
5. Verizon doesn’t have to upgrade the rest of their network to fiber.

Customers in Verizon service areas should appeal to regulators and their elected officials to stop the abandonment of wired infrastructure. Verizon argues maintaining its network doesn’t make sense when customers are fleeing their landlines. But rural customers are not disconnecting broadband service that travels across the same network. Even basic DSL is coveted in rural Verizon territories where Internet access remains unavailable. Just about everyone wants the option of FiOS fiber, perhaps the most coveted network upgrade around until Google announced its gigabit fiber project in Kansas City.

Nobody wants Verizon or AT&T to keep up its copper wire facilities indefinitely. But a better solution would be a regulatory mandate that requires Verizon and AT&T to gradually replace antiquated and failing copper infrastructure with fiber wherever possible. It is more than possible to do this on Fire Island. Verizon’s service area in Florida is hardly rural either. Verizon Florida (formerly GTE Telephone) serves Tampa-St. Petersburg east to Lake Wales, a major metropolitan region in central Florida.

What is best for shareholders should not be the final determining factor for an important utility service. If customers prefer the option of Voice Link for home phone service, there is nothing wrong with that. But wireless service as the only option customers have for broadband service? Not at Verizon Wireless’ prices.

Verizon Wireless and AT&T could cooperate to allow both companies to build market power in the United States and abroad with a buyout of Vodafone, now a part-owner of Verizon Wireless.

The world’s second largest wireless service provider (behind China Mobile), Vodafone could be subject to an American takeover if the two largest phone companies in the United States structure the deal together.

Bank of America-Merrill analyst David Barden suggested AT&T could buy Vodafone’s international assets at an estimate price of $70 billion, allowing Verizon to buyout Vodafone’s 45 percent stake in Verizon Wireless.

Barden warned the deal would be time-consuming, and likely attract strict scrutiny from regulators both at home and abroad, but a deal would give Verizon its desired full control of its domestic wireless operation and allow AT&T to become a major global player in the wireless marketplace in Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East.

An analyst from RBC made news last week suggesting AT&T could be amenable to selling its non-core assets to raise cash, including the sale of its wireless broadcast and cell towers — money that could be used to help pay for such a deal.

AT&T spokesman Brad Burns declined to comment specifically on the speculation by RBC, but admitted, “if we wanted additional flexibility, that could be an option for us.”

“In all cases, our decisions are driven by what’s right for the company and for our shareowners, so in that sense, nothing’s off the table,” Burns said. “But any comments by analysts about potential sales are simply speculation.”

AT&T achieved record cash flows in 2012 and will likely end 2013 with $14 billion in free cash, which could be used in an acquisition strategy or returned to shareholders.

Fran Shammo, chief financial officer of Verizon, noted the company has been interested in taking full control over its wireless division for some time.

The estimated cost of buying out Vodafone’s U.S. share is around $115 billion.

The corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) took a hit in the Georgia legislature last week as the clock ran out on several initiatives backed by its members and supporters on behalf of the group’s corporate clients.

While H.B. 282, a municipal broadband ban introduced by Rep. Mark Hamilton (R-Cumming) was soundly defeated in an unusual, bipartisan 94-70 vote, two other measures supported by Hamilton never came up for votes, including one that would have placed restrictions on city employees speaking out against corporate-ghostwritten bills like the public broadband ban he introduced.

Hamilton is no stranger at ALEC. He received $3,527.80 in ALEC “scholarships” in 2008 alone, according to the Center for Media and Democracy. Those payments covered certain travel expenses, wining and dining, and entertainment for state lawmakers (and often their families) bought and paid for by ALEC’s corporate members which include large telecom companies. After 2008, ALEC no longer had to disclose their scholarships and neither do many politicians who receive them.

In the last cycle, Hamilton cashed checks well into the thousands of dollars from AT&T, Charter Communications, Comcast and Verizon. That doesn’t include $1,000 from the Georgia Cable TV Association.

Rep. Don Parsons, another bill supporter, happens to be an active member of the ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force. He has received $5,735.48 during his first three years in that role.

ALEC’s principle role is to get corporate-backed legislative ideas written into state laws. The group maintains a large database of pre-approved legislation ready-made for introduction in any statehouse. Simply change a few words here and there and suddenly it isn’t AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable or Comcast introducing the bills they helped draft, it is Reps. Hamilton and Parsons.

In 2013, these two representatives went over the top for their corporate friends at ALEC.

Mark Hamilton’s H.B. 228: The “Keep Your Mouth Shut Else or Else” Act

Hamilton

Among the most overreaching bills introduced in the 2013 session was Rep. Hamilton’s H.B. 228 – an untitled bill that would prohibit local government employees from using government computers, fax machines or email to promote or oppose legislation by the General Assembly. It would also prohibit employees from contacting members of the General Assembly or the governor to discuss the impact of pending legislation on local governments, unless the employee is registered as a lobbyist or information is requested directly by a member of the General Assembly.

The greatest wish-come-true of ALEC is introducing legislation supported by unshackled corporate interests while muzzling local governments from objecting to the legislation.

In the community broadband battle, large cable and phone companies have limitless budgets to spend opposing public broadband with scare mailers, push polling, newspaper, radio and even television ads. Local officials fighting to defend their interests in better broadband do not. Hamilton’s bill would have taken this imbalance even further, making it a crime for any agencies, authorities, bureaus, departments, offices, and commissions of the state or any political subdivision of the state to provide members of the General Assembly with information about their broadband problems. Communities could not correct misinformation, explain a bill’s unintended consequences, or request changes to the bill.

“HB 228 is utterly ridiculous,” said Conyers City Manager Tony Lucas. “When did a local government, contacting one of our representatives or our governor, become professional lobbying? It’s respective governments conducting business for or on behalf of our citizens.”

Don Parsons’ H.B. 176: AT&T’s “Put Your Cell Tower Wherever You Want” Act

Rep. Parsons had trouble coming up with a good name for his latest legislative gift to AT&T. Originally entitled the “Advanced Broadband Colocation Act,” that title was eventually scrapped because it was not snappy enough. In its place, the “Mobile Broadband Infrastructure Leads to Development (BILD) Act” was suddenly born.

Parsons

But after reading both it and a substitute amendment, we call it the “Put It Anywhere Act,” because the bill’s real intent is to largely strip away cell tower location authority from Georgia’s local governments.

Parsons does not host an AT&T cell tower in his backyard in Marietta, but other Georgian homeowners might had the bill passed.

H.B. 176 allowed cell towers to be placed anywhere a wireless company wanted with very limited local input. Companies were under no obligation to prove that the new towers were needed. Local governments could no longer veto their choices, much less limit additions to existing towers or suggest more suitable alternative locations.  Parsons’ bill even removed authority from local governments to insist that companies remove abandoned towers before constructing new ones.

Parsons went all-out for AT&T. Knowing that resource-strapped local governments often have bigger priorities, he set a deadline on cell tower applications at 90 days for existing towers, five months for new ones. Unless the community rejects a proposal showing good cause, it would be deemed automatically approved.

Amy Henderson, director of communications for the Georgia Municipal Association, scoffed at claims the bill was designed to streamline the cell tower application process.

“Dictatorship is just streamlined government,” she told the Rockdale Citizen. “It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in the best interest of the public.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Youtube – Rep Parsons on HB176 3-2-13.flv[/flv]

Rep. Parsons’ rambling YouTube video featuring a laundry list of AT&T talking points about the need for cell companies to throw up cell towers wherever they please because it is good for business (even if it isn’t so good for you or your neighbors). Parsons’ video then launches into a hissyfit directed at the Georgia Municipal Association, unhappy with Parsons’ sweeping transfer of authority away from local communities in favor of AT&T and others. Al Gore never sighed this much. It garnered a whopping 41 views on YouTube to date and in the spirit of open dialogue, Parsons disabled comments on the video.  (17 minutes)

Private vs. Public: A Phone-y Debate

At the heart of most of ALEC’s legislative initiatives is a sense that public institutions are somehow hampering private enterprise. Community broadband is considered an especially dangerous threat because incumbent providers claim public broadband represents unfair competition.

But as ALEC itself demonstrates, corporate welfare is alive and well in the statehouses of even the reddest states. The idea that taxpayers should not be footing the bill for things the private sector can do without costing taxpayers a nickel just doesn’t fly with reality.

As Free Press reports, phone and cable companies have been on federal welfare since their inception. A 2011 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study shows AT&T and Verizon receiving more than $26 billion in tax subsidies from 2008–2010.

The FCC’s 2012 report on Universal Service Fund subsidies shows nearly $3 billion in federal payments to AT&T, Verizon and Windstream. In 2010, Windstream — a telecommunications company with services across the South — applied for $238 million in federal stimulus grants to improve its service in 16 states. More than 16 million taxpayer dollars went to upgrade the company’s services in Georgia.

“Phone and cable companies would not be recording the soaring profit margins that they do, if there were truly a free market,’” said Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner. “They have created an unlevel playing field that gives them massive first-mover advantages. The real-dollar benefits of that can’t be quantified.”

Windstream has announced the increased broadband investments that expanded DSL service to about 75,000 more homes and businesses and brought fiber connections to cell towers are nearly complete and the company intends to dramatically cut spending on further enhancements by the end of 2013.

Jeff Gardner, Windstream’s CEO, told investors on a conference call last week the company’s highest priority in 2013 is preserving its current dividend to create value for shareholders. Not on the priority list: improving broadband infrastructure to support video streaming services, further expanding broadband in areas it now bypasses, and boosting the quality of service it delivers to current customers.

Gardner called the company’s increased investment in 2011 and 2012 a result of “finite opportunities that provide[d] attractive investment returns.”

But most of that spending will come to an end next year.

“We expect to substantially complete our capital investments related to fiber to the tower projects, reaching 4,500 towers by the end of 2013,” said Gardner. “In addition, we will finish most of our broadband stimulus initiatives […] to roughly 75,000 new households. As we exit 2013, we will see capital spending related to these projects decrease substantially.”

That could be bad news for communities in places like Wayne County, Mo., which suffers with inadequate broadband from the company. In some areas when local broadband traffic reduces DSL speeds to a crawl, area businesses are occasionally forced to shut down for the day.

Broadband and business services now account for 70% of Windstream’s revenue, but it has come with a price: increased investment, that Wall Street considers negative to the company’s value. To satisfy analysts and shareholders, Gardner made it clear improving the balance sheet is a major priority. He said he will continue to direct excess free cash flow first to preserve the company’s shareholder dividend, and then direct much of the rest to debt repayment.

That does not mean Windstream will end all investments in its business. The company now spends 12.4% on ongoing capital investments and will continue to do so, but much of the spending will cover network upkeep and supporting more profitable business services.

“Over the last four years, our acquisitions have been very targeted on businesses that are growing in the strategic growth areas that we’re focused on, and we’ve really changed the mix very significantly here, away from the consumer business toward the enterprise space, and I think that puts us in a very different position with respect to the stability of our revenue and OIBDA over time,” Gardner added.

Windstream plans to bring back its “price for life” promotion this year.

Gardner noted Windstream is well-positioned to take advantage of the fact it has few competitors, which reduces pressure to invest and improve its networks to stay competitive.

“Our residential customers remain concentrated in very rural areas where there is less competition, which has contributed to a more stable consumer business,” Gardner admitted.

He added that those rural customers will have to rely on the company’s satellite partner Dish Networks for video services. Windstream will not build a “capital-intensive facilities based technology” to support online video. In contrast, CenturyLink has invested in Prism, a fiber-to-the-neighborhood service in several of its larger markets, to offer triple play packages of broadband, phone, and cable TV. Windstream has no plans to follow.

Despite investments in 2011 and 2012 to improve broadband service and speeds, Windstream’s DSL services have not kept up with its cable competitors.

During the last quarter, Windstream lost 2,000 broadband customers and 23,000 consumer voice lines (a 4.5% decline year over year).

To stem the tide of customers moving away from the phone company, Windstream is trying to sell value-added Internet support services, online backup, and faster speeds to maximize profitability. It will also add new customers made possible from federally funded broadband stimulus projects.

Windstream customers can expect to see increased promotional activity this year to win or keep their business:

• Covering the costs of switching from another provider to Windstream;
• A return to the “price for life” promotion, which promises stable rates as long as a customer stays with the company;
• A substantial introductory discount on satellite TV when bundled with Windstream’s own services.