Burlington city officials are mired in controversy over the legality of a recently revealed $17 million dollar unpaid loan given to Burlington Telecom, an apparent violation of the terms of its license issued by the Vermont Public Service board.  While the municipally-owned fiber optic network is permitted to borrow money from the city, it must be repaid within 60 days, because the city charter insists that Burlington Telecom be an independently financed venture that does not become a taxpayer liability.

Dubbed by some as TelecomGate, it has become a major media story in Vermont’s largest city.  Some taxpayers are upset by the perceived “bailout” of Burlington Telecom after the company exhausted its commercial loans of almost $34 million dollars to construct a fiber network serving homes and businesses.  The Burlington Free Press has reported the city began quietly funding Burlington Telecom as early as late 2007, for both capital expenditures and some operating costs.  As of today, Burlington Telecom has an accumulated debt of $50 million dollars, $17 million of which is owed to the city.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington Telecom Controversy 10-16-09.flv[/flv]

WCAX-TV in Burlington breaks the story about the funding controversy on October 16th. (3 minutes)

Burlington officials admit they underestimated construction costs, in part because they failed to complete a comprehensive engineering study prior to construction.  Installing underground fiber cabling has literally hit a rock ledge, part of the geological character of underground Burlington, that will require an additional $10 million to cope with.

The fact the public is just finding out about it now is a major reason for the controversy.  Jonathan Leopold, the city’s chief administrative officer, said he learned that the financing violated the company’s license terms last November.  The Free Press reports he only informed the city council responsible for overseeing the operation in May of this year, six months later.  The city council itself waited four months until late September before it notified Vermont state officials about the apparent violation, which led to the matter finally going public.

State officials publicly criticized the Burlington city government for the apparent transgression and for what some have called a cover-up, and State Auditor Thomas Salmon called on Burlington Telecom to have greater openness and transparency.  State Public Service Commissioner David O’Brien called the funding irregularity a potential violation of law and that Burlington Telecom was “in debt beyond their ability to recover,” a charge which brought a hot response from Burlington mayor Bob Kiss:

“Commissioner O’Brien’s statements as quoted in today’s Burlington Free Press are inaccurate, inflammatory and totally inappropriate given there is a present proceeding before the Vermont Public Service Board in which his Department is supposed to be representing the public interest. Commissioner O’Brien knew or should have known of the City’s use of pooled cash to fund BT’s capital expenses and start up costs for almost a year. His comments only serve to undermine the confidence of BT’s customers, the interests of whom his Department is charged by statute to protect.”

O’Brien responded that Kiss was “shooting the messenger.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington Burlington Telecom Scandal 10-20-09.flv[/flv]

WCAX-TV reports Burlington city council members had tough words for Jonathan Leopold at a meeting on October 20th, but Burlington mayor Bob Kiss is standing by Leopold. (3 minutes)

City council members have scurried for cover after the local press revealed they approved Burlington Telecom’s funding 13-1 at a city council meeting held October 5th.  That may serve to back up Leopold’s position that he never hid any details about the loan arrangements — city officials and lawyers were well aware of these transactions, he says.  Several public venting sessions were rapidly scheduled to allow constituents to express their concerns.

The Burlington Free-Press editorialized that the city can no longer keep information about city-owned Burlington Telecom’s problems and violations from residents by saying the secrets are necessary for business reasons and is calling for an independent investigation and audit.

State and local politics have also become deeply ingrained into the debate, with accusations flying between political parties that the flap has now become more about undermining the current administration than ferreting out and resolving issues with Burlington Telecom.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh – Taxpayers Give City Council Piece Of Their Mind 10-22-09.flv[/flv]

WPTZ-TV in Plattsburgh covered the public venting session on October 22 set up by the city council to allow residents to speak their minds.  (2 minutes)

Leopold, whose administration duties involve Burlington Telecom, and who has been the most visible figure in the middle of the dispute, called attacks on him by some local politicians part of a scapegoating witch hunt.

City council voted 8-6 at 1:30am this morning approving a resolution to ask for the suspension of Jonathan Leopold anyway.  So far Mayor Kiss won’t hear of it.  At a press conference he reiterated his full support for Leopold, saying his suspension is “not warranted by the facts and is not in the best interests of the city. As mayor, I will not suspend the CAO from his service to the city.”

Caught in the middle is Burlington Telecom and its 4,600 subscribers.  The provider is in apparent violation of its license for its loan arrangements, needs additional money to complete its buildout, and will likely also be cited for not completing that buildout on the schedule it committed to as part of its license to operate.

Commentary: Our Take

Too often municipal broadband projects end up as political footballs kicked all over town, especially when controversy erupts.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh State Demands Repayment 10-20-09.flv[/flv]

WPTZ-TV covers the political repercussions and damage control operations in full force after news of the controversy erupted. (10/20/2009 – 2 minutes)

Burlington Telecom made a crucial mistake when it failed to undertake a detailed engineering study to determine the true costs of wiring Burlington with fiber optics, something incumbents Comcast and FairPoint have not been willing to undertake.  A true picture of the start-up costs would have resulted in a better understanding of initial construction costs and the financing required to pay for it.

City officials also erred in how they began funding some of the costs to administer the system after initial financing ran out.  Good intentions or not, the fact there is a perceived cover-up makes things much more attractive to a media that often ignores or buries telecommunications stories on the business pages.

A frank and open discussion explaining the challenges and resolutions to them might have brought about temporary city loans with the consent of the community, without melodramatic political theater.  Residents have a unique buy-in with Burlington Telecom because it’s municipally-owned.  Many would be more than willing to see that and some additional investments pay off instead of collapsing with a complete shutdown.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington Mayor Defends Administration Over Telecom Issue 10-26-09.flv[/flv]

WCAX-TV covers Burlington mayor Bob Kiss who held a press conference yesterday to defend his administration’s role in Burlington Telecom (3 minutes)

When the story broke, the usual and very predictable campaign of finger-pointing, ducking for cover, and scapegoating began.  This time-honored political damage control method is voter approved, if you stick your finger to the wind and see where voter sentiment seems to be blowing.  That’s precisely what state Commissioner O’Brien did, only he overplayed his populist hand.  This is, after all, the same commissioner who initially made excuses on behalf of FairPoint and seemed all too willing to give that company the benefit of the doubt, right up until it became politically untenable.  You cannot be a credible torch-bearer in a populist mob if you helped build the castle you now seek to burn to the ground.

Mayor Kiss was correct in calling O’Brien out, not just for his convenient criticism, but for trying to win the Self-fulfilling Prophecy Award by predicting Burlington Telecom’s demise.  Vermont residents should ask him where his clairvoyance was when he was publicly stating FairPoint was doing “pretty well” a year ago.  O’Brien needs to be part of the solution for a change, not part of the problem.

Leopold appears to be a classic scapegoat.  As he struggled to keep Burlington Telecom afloat, it is inconceivable he was cutting loan deals without the knowledge and consent of others in the city administration.  The same city council now demanding his suspension seemed all too willing to go along just a few weeks ago when it voted almost unanimously with going forward.  That speaks volumes.  But when the media lights fire up, and angry residents start writing and calling, the complete turnaround is a site to behold.  A series of self-serving, concern trolling speeches followed, along with complaints they were never given enough information or were confused by what they heard.  If that is the kind of leadership Burlington has, perhaps residents need to consider making some changes.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington City Council Undecided About Burlington Telecom 10-26-09.flv[/flv]

Late last night, WCAX reported city council was still undecided about what to do about the Burlington Telecom controversy.  (3 minutes)

The public has a right to be upset, but are all too often satisfied with the political theater designed to quickly “resolve” the problem by expelling the designated scapegoat from their midst.  Mayor Kiss has remarkably withstood the usual pattern very well thus far.

While the politicians play “not my fault,” Burlington Telecom customers need answers to know if their provider is endangered.  An independent audit and review, free of political know-nothings would be a start.  How about bringing in those with actual expertise in deploying municipal networks.  How about excluding involved, self-interest-protecting elected officials, especially those who had any hand in the FairPoint debacle.

It’s also time to fund that engineering study for the unwired portions of Burlington to get a true cost analysis.  A review as to why Burlington Telecom is not attracting a larger segment of the market is also needed.

In broadband, at least, that’s a no-brainer.  Burlington Telecom’s speeds on the download side are too slow and too expensive.  Comcast offers faster downstream service at lower prices, so why would anyone want to switch?  Burlington Telecom is trying to market their synchronous speed network (your downstream speed and upstream speed is the same), which would normally be appealing to a segment of Internet customers frustrated with cable and DSL shortchanging them on upload speeds.  But the customers who understand and appreciate the difference will not accept a broadband service that tops out at 8Mbps for an enormous $71.80 a month.  That’s far too slow and too expensive when Comcast is offering 12Mbps/2Mbps (upload speed with PowerBoost) for $42.95 per month.  Service for 16Mbps/2Mbps is $10 more, still twenty dollars less than Burlington Telecom is charging for half the speed.  Burlington Telecom can attract a larger base of broadband customers by accelerating speeds on their network beyond what Comcast provides.

Municipal broadband projects can be successful, but should be based on a true and honest appraisal of the costs, a complete understanding of the competitive landscape, a flexibility to respond to changing markets, and a good reason why they should exist in the first place.  Fulfilling the needs residents want, but incumbent providers will not provide is always the best answer.  Customers don’t want anemic broadband at high prices.  Provide that and a municipal broadband project will fail, even without political grandstanding and finger-pointing.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh Kiss Refuses To Punish Leopold Over Telecom Flap 10-27-09.flv[/flv]

This morning Burlington residents learned Burlington mayor Bob Kiss was still standing behind Jonathan Leopold, despite their calls for Leopold to be suspended. (WPTZ) (2 minutes)

Below the jump, find a one hour video interview between The Burlington Free Press and city officials on the Burlington Telecom matter.

… Continue Reading

"This is not a rate increase, this is about fair pricing for everyone, seriously."

It’s always awful when you wake up with a bad taste in your mouth.  That’s the flavor of industry hacks and sock puppets who spent a good part of yesterday and last night on the attack against Rep. Eric Massa and your consumer interests.  Part of this battle is about engaging those who claim to represent consumers, but actually turn out to be paid by a lobbyist firm or “think tank,” usually located either in or near Washington, DC.  They are typically unwilling to disclose that involvement.  I’m not.  When called out, the typical response ranges from silence to ‘I would be saying the same things even if I didn’t get paid by them.’

Sure they would.

Consumers need to be particularly vigilant about the Say for Pay crowd of sock puppets that arrive in quotations in articles that attack common sense pro-consumer positions, or in the comments  below an online article.

Now you may be asking what in the world is a “sock puppet.”  Craig Aaron at Free Press explains:

Sock puppets, for those unfamiliar with the creatures commonly found inside the Beltway, are mouthpieces who rent out their academic or political credentials to argue pro-industry positions. These pay-to-sway professionals issue white papers, file comments with key agencies, and present themselves to the press as independent analysts. But their views have a funny way of shifting depending on who’s writing the checks. (To be clear, at Free Press we take no industry money.)

Sock puppets and astroturf groups go hand in hand.  If you remember, we’ve exposed a number of these groups that claim they are standing up for consumers, but in reality are paid to sit down and absorb their industry backer’s talking points.  The snowjob that typically follows claims that if you do the pro-consumer common sense thing, such as not allowing Internet Overcharging schemes to rip people off, you’ll destroy the Internet, America, and maybe even freedom itself.  Besides, just look at the “expert credentials” of our guy telling you that.

When you boil it all down, sock puppets are people who feel morally fine with taking money for being willing to assume any position you want them to take.  It’s vaguely familiar to another profession that’s been around for a very long time.  One just has better office space than the other, and better business cards, too.

If you want to explore a perfect example of sock puppetry at work, with a group trying to get public taxpayer money to benefit big telephone and cable companies with few strings attached, check out Craig Aaron’s article on the subject this past January.

In Stop the Cap!‘s history, we’ve debated a representative from Nemertes Research who refuses to disclose who pays for their industry research reports that conveniently say exactly what the telecommunications industry’s positions are on the broadband issues of the day.  We’ve questioned a group that claims that “openness” or “neutrality” of the Internet is irrelevant, and called out the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research (you gotta love the name — it’s a delicious consumery-sounding word salad… with special interest croutons sprinkled all over the top), who applauded Internet Overcharging as a great thing for customers, except they were packed with lobbyists to really satisfy big telecom interests.

Readers of this site should be well-qualified to engage industry propaganda and consumer misconceptions about the fairness of Internet Overcharging schemes.  You’ve gotten the information you need to effectively educate consumers and expose the sock puppetry.  The entire reason this group exists is because we realized the fight is not over, and we’d need an army prepared to combat the Re-education campaign we were promised back in April.  The battle is fully engaged now, and I’ve been happy to see many of you joining conversations on other sites where misconceptions and sock puppets prevail, and helping to educate consumers with facts, not focus group-tested propaganda.

We need many more of you to do likewise.  If your local newspaper runs an article on Rep. Massa’s bill, or our issues, take a look at the article online and look at the comments being left by readers.  Encounter misconceptions?  Help educate people.  Discover a sock puppet browbeating consumers for standing up for common sense reform of the broadband industry?  Defend the consumer’s point of view and don’t allow anyone to berate you with smug, fact-free answers.  Most are unprepared to respond with actual evidence to back their views, just a load of industry rhetoric and evidence-free claims they have expertise you don’t.

… Continue Reading

Monticello, Minnesota

A Minnesota Appeals Court panel ruled this week that Internet access is a “utility,” comparable to gas, electric, and telephone service, and not merely a convenience.  In a 2-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the city of Monticello, which proposed constructing an all-fiber broadband platform reaching every resident, financed by city-issued bonds.

The legislature has granted municipalities the express authority to own and operate telephone exchanges within their borders, as well as to operate public-cable communications systems. Minn. Stat. §§ 237.19, 238.08, subd. 3 (2008). Municipalities are not granted a similar authorization with regard to Internet service; however, the legislature has stated that it is a goal to “encourage economically efficient deployment of infrastructure for higher speed telecommunication services and greater capacity for voice, video, and data transmission.” Minn. Stat. § 237.011 (2008).

Bridgewater concedes that telephone services are utilities and that television services are a gray area, but steadfastly denies that Internet services qualify as a utility. Therefore, according to Bridgewater, the project in its entirety lacks statutory authority to be funded by revenue bonds because Monticello intends to provide Internet service. Based on the aforementioned statute, there appears to be minimal dispute that telephone and cable television are utilities. The crux of the issue is whether broadband Internet service is like a utility.

The definition of municipal public utilities appears broad enough to contemplate Internet service. Internet service could arguably be considered a utility under telecommunications related services. Bridgewater argues that related services means services related to providing cable television, such as on-demand movies.  However, cable-television companies often provide Internet services. Therefore, on-demand movies, digital video recorders, and Internet service could also be considered related services under the statute. Furthermore, Merriam Webster dictionary defines telecommunication as “communication at a distance (as by telephone).” Internet service seems to meet this definition. E-mail, instant messaging, and talking via web-cam are all ways to communicate at a distance utilizing Internet service. Based on the foregoing definition, the Fiber Project is arguably a utility.

Bridgewater argues that Internet service cannot be considered a utility because it does not have the near universal usage common to a utility. This argument is flawed. As noted by Monticello, ―[i]t would be absurd to conclude that the Minnesota Legislature [would allow revenue bonds] to be used only to fund the creation of systems that provide services that already are in universal or near-universal use. Rather, it seems that the reasoning behind allowing municipalities to issue these bonds is to provide utility-like services to people who otherwise would not be able to enjoy the benefits of the services offered. It is illogical to conclude that something is or is not a utility based on the number of people who have access to it.

Providing an entire community of people with access to telephone services, cable television, and high-speed Internet seems to qualify as a benefit to the public under the changing conditions of modern life. Thus, the Fiber Project is a public convenience that also serves a public purpose.

The Fiber Project qualifies as a public convenience, and therefore revenue bonds can be issued to finance its creation. Although Monticello cannot use the bond money to pay current expenses, the district court did not err in dismissing Bridgewater‘s complaint.

The Municipal-Owned Network

Monticello elected to construct the network after being repeatedly bypassed by private providers for state-of-the-art broadband access.  Stuck in a broadband backwater, the community of 11,000 decided to construct an advanced fiber network to reach every resident, and allow any company access to the network.  Bridgewater Telephone, the local telephone company owned by TDS, had steadfastly refused requests from city officials to move towards fiber on their own, and after 74% of local voters thought a municipal fiber network was their only hope of getting fiber into their community, the phone company sued to stop it.

TDS claimed the Internet was not a utility and, although the project does not rely on taxpayer funds, still involved a local municipality competing against a private business.

Since the lawsuit, and the threat of competition from Fibernet Monticello, the phone company announced it, too, would construct a fiber network.  Meanwhile, while it uses legal maneuvers to keep the municipal network at bay, the costs for the municipality mount.  The legal finding noted:

Monticello is losing a substantial amount of money each day that litigation delays installation of the Fiber Network. One estimate is $2,730,268 lost for an 11-month elay. Moreover, placing the bond proceeds in escrow required that the city pay the bond purchasers interest on the bonds until the escrow is released. As a result, Monticello will be required to pay the bondholders approximately $85,000 for every month the lawsuit continues.

Bridgewater’s current broadband DSL service is slow and expensive, after the promotions expire:

Up to 768kbps  $29.95
Up to 1.5Mbps $39.95
Up to 4Mbps $49.95
Up to 10Mbps $59.95

Now that the phone company is installing fiber, they are marketing a 25Mbps service for $69.95 a month, with a one year commitment.

Fibernet Monticello’s network has been stalled by the lawsuit, but the municipality suggests it will market residential broadband service at 10 to 100Mbps symmetrical speeds, as well as video and telephone service bundles, with no contract commitment at highly competitive prices.  No caps either.

TDS lamented the decision.  Drew Petersen, director of legislative affairs and corporate communications released a statement:

“TDS is a job-producing, tax-paying company with millions of dollars invested in the state of Minnesota and the community of Monticello. The Appeals Court decision sends a chilling message to the private business community operating in the state of Minnesota.  The decision will likely discourage other private enterprises from doing or expanding their business in Minnesota. Further, the decision endangers the appropriate relationship between municipalities and private enterprise; it also allows municipalities tax-free financing to enter into competition with tax-paying businesses.

“Throughout the legal debate, TDS has been honest in discussions with city leaders and the public. TDS has also invested millions of dollars and, in less than a year, placed 74 miles of fiber in protective conduit to build a complete fiber network covering the entire city. Every resident in the city can receive TDS’ Internet service, via fiber, at speeds of 25 Mbps at value-based prices. The neighboring townships also enjoy speeds above 10 Mbps.

Petersen called TDS’ broadband products in Monticello “blazing fast,” although whether those speeds would have been achieved without Monticello moving forward on its own fiber project is doubtful.

In the view of Stop the Cap!, Petersen has it entirely backwards.  Without the competitive threat the municipality represented with its own fiber network, TDS would have been content with the network they felt was good enough for the community for years.  TDS repeatedly denied local officials’ requests for fiber, something that we believe only became an option the moment competition was imminent.  In the end, with the reality of fiber looming, TDS was hardly discouraged from investing — they were encouraged, at the risk of losing customers in droves to a superior product offered at what likely would be substantially lower pricing.

Municipal broadband networks are often the only weapon communities have from being dumped into a broadband backwater, where speeds are kept slow, prices high, Cap ‘n Tier common, and infrastructure upgrades rare.  Be it in Minnesota or North Carolina, communities are told “no” to requests to deploy state-of-the-art networks.  That answer frequently changes to “yes” the moment competition threatens to arrive.  That’s why big telecommunications companies see fit to use the courts and legislative system to ban, stall, or limit the potential for municipalities to decide what’s best for their residents, limiting them to what one or two companies provide and claim is “good enough.”

(Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Greg, who notified us of the court decision.)

I’m a big cable or telephone company and I just caught the smell of broadband stimulus money… hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxpayer dollars I want for myself and my investors.  Why spend their money when I can spend yours?  Stop the Cap! warned readers that parties with a vested interest in cashing in on taxpayer funds to construct broadband networks would be sniffing around the Broadband Stimulus package looking for their piece.  Broadband Reports, Public Knowledge, and The Wall Street Journal caught a big whiff of telecom trolling for your taxpayer dollars, this time to ostensibly “map” broadband penetration in the United States.

Using a group called Connected Nation, whose board is packed to the rafters with telecom employees and those serving them (including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon), telecommunications special interests want the contract (worth $300+ million) to complete the national map.  In addition to collecting the nice tidy sum that represents, these companies have a vested interest in keeping broadband looking perky, fast, and available everywhere to forestall regulatory review, municipal broadband initiatives to serve the under served, and hide the fact broadband in the United States is not very competitive, and not very available outside of population centers.

The history of this group has demonstrated it has an interest in keeping specifics to a minimum, and inflating broadband penetration levels into the stratosphere.  As Broadband Reports wrote, a perfect example is in the state of Kentucky.  When independent mapping was completed, it exposed Kentucky had a problem — just 60% of the state had broadband available.  Those low numbers might prompt a review of why incumbent telecom companies are not spending some money to wire their less urban customers for service.  But with the magic of Connect Kentucky, a sort of regional chapter of Connected Nation, that number jumped to 95% in just five years in a study called dubious, if not outright “methodological malpractice” by Consumers Union.

Broadband Reports writes the 95% penetration rate is “hysterical” in their communications with Kentucky residents and Internet Service Providers.  But with a 95% penetration figure, why investigate if there “isn’t a problem?”  Of course, you could always pay us (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc.) to improve those networks, also out of taxpayer funds.

Public Knowledge has its own bone to pick with the organization, claiming it demands to keep data general, and often proprietary:

State governments, working months before the stimulus package was conceived, are ramping up their own programs to map deployment of broadband, and are finding they are already increasingly running into conflicts over the type of data they will receive. Some states want comprehensive, granular data. However, they are finding that the telecommunications industry, often represented by Connected Nation (CN), doesn’t want to give it to them. The result is a clash of policy objectives and politics that’s taking place across the country, in states ranging from North Carolina to Alabama, Colorado and Minnesota. Connected Nation’s board of directors is dominated by representatives of large telecom carriers, as CN positions itself as the best choice for states and the Federal government to spend millions of stimulus dollars on broadband mapping.

In North Carolina, the dispute is being played out in a most public way, as Connected Nation, at the behest of a powerful state legislator, has set up a parallel mapping operation to that of the e-NC Authority, a state agency that has been working since 2001 to bring Internet connectivity to rural areas through mapping and through public-private partnerships with telephone companies. While normally Connected Nation can charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for mapping, it is doing the North Carolina map at no cost to the state after a move by the chairman of e-NC’s board to have that organization pay for part of the industry mapping cost failed.

As with all of its mapping, e-NC depends on information from incumbent providers. Through last year and this there was a struggle more prolonged than usual, and the end result was a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that greatly restricted what the e-NC maps would be able to show.

Proprietary, non-specific data allows a group to suggest that any speed above dial-up is broadband, and as long as it passes near your neighborhood, you have broadband access (even if you don’t.)  That’s precisely the kind of access pointed to by elected officials like Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) who claim broadband is plentiful and will become more so if the government stays out of it.

To resolve broadband penetration problems, improve competition, and to prevent broadband backwaters served by companies doling out slow, heavily capped access at high prices and calling it a day, truly representative map data must be produced to allow everyone to understand what is currently available at what speeds.  Allowing a group like Connected Nation to swipe taxpayer dollars currently used by state officials for honest assessments is a travesty.  No company or organization with a vested interest in the outcome should ever be allowed to control a study of this importance.  If they do, they’ll find broadband under an anti competitive, slow, and expensive Cap ‘n Tier system is just wonderful for all of us, assuming you even have access to it.

Thanks to Thomas Hawk for the photograph of the fox and “comecloser” for the hen house photo.

Not every municipal broadband provider assures customers of a cap-free broadband experience.  Some of the smaller providers serving the municipalities that cable passed by constructed their own networks decades ago to meet the cable television needs of their citizens.  But because they lack the economy of scale, volume discounts the big boys get are simply not available to smaller independents.  Often the result is a system compelled to charge higher prices, because its wholesale costs are greater.  That’s the case in San Bruno, California — a city of 40,000 12 miles south of San Francisco.

San Bruno Municipal Cable TV has been the incumbent, municipally owned operator since its inception in 1971.  In the late 1960s, local government officials asked residents whether they preferred a private or municipal operator.  The majority wanted local government to provide the service, and so it did.  San Bruno was an early adopter of cable television, building a system at least a decade before many other communities across the country saw their first cable television truck.

San Bruno is surrounded by Comcast, which has made a conscious decision to avoid San Bruno, despite the fact it could apply for a franchise, and one would likely be granted.

The company introduced broadband service to its customers in 1999 after completing a system rebuild.  Historically, the company has always made usage limits a part of its acceptable use policy, and enforcement over the years has varied between throttling speeds once a limit was reached, to threats of overlimit fees as high as $10/GB.  But most customers report those kinds of fees were never actually charged.  The company sought to use the limits to scare people into compliance.

San Bruno, California

Today, San Bruno’s cable TV company has three tiers of broadband service defined by consumption levels – 50, 100, and 150GB per month.  The company defends these policies by indicating their wholesale costs are higher to obtain Internet connectivity.  San Bruno’s high speed provider has fewer than 5,000 broadband subscribers.  Despite those higher costs, the company’s current “overlimit” fee is $0.25/GB, which is much lower than TWC’s proposed $1-2/GB overlimit fee.

So what do customers think?  Online reviews are consistently negative about the quality of service, and we’ve received many complaints about the consumption-based tiering, particularly when nearby Comcast customers live under a simple “please don’t exceed 250GB with a residential account per month” policy.  But San Bruno residents enjoy a respectable 12Mbps/512Kbps level of service for $32.95 a month, $10 less than Comcast subscribers pay, as long as they avoid exceeding 50GB of usage per month.

What everyone agrees on is the need for additional competition.  Currently, AT&T offers 3Mbps DSL service in parts of San Bruno for around $40 a month.  That’s hardly comparable in speed or cost.  Comcast has refused to compete across San Bruno, so another cable provider is unlikely.  Ultimately, the deployment of AT&T U-verse, if it happens, would be the closest equivalent competitor, because it can match and exceed the municipal cable provider’s speeds.

Another compelling question — why does San Bruno Municipal Cable, serving fewer than 5,000 broadband customers, find that charging just a quarter per gigabyte in overlimit fees recoups their expenses, while the far larger TWC proposes charging considerably more — $1-2/GB?  Perhaps overlimit fees aren’t as much about cost recovery as they are about emotionally conditioning customers to ration their use out of fear of a shocking cable broadband bill with overlimit fees at the end of the month.