AT&T’s ongoing efforts to win deregulation and an end to universal landline service have now reached Colorado, where state lawmakers are reacting favorably to an AT&T-sponsored bill that would strip away rural landline subsidies and deregulate basic phone rates, much to the consternation of incumbent provider CenturyLink.

The long-winded bill,  SB 157 – Concerning the Regulation of Telecommunications Service and, in Connection Therewith, Enacting the “Telecommunications Modernization Act of 2012,” is just the latest in a series of deregulation measures co-authored by AT&T that would let phone companies off the hook for guaranteeing affordable, universal landline service to every American.  Instead, AT&T is happy to sell rural consumers pricey mobile phone service.

Ironically, AT&T’s bill would deliver the worst blows to fellow landline provider CenturyLink, the largest phone company in the state. Consumers pay 2.9 percent of their phone bill toward a rural landline subsidy fund, or 87 cents for a $30 bill. It is no surprise CenturyLink is adamantly opposed to the measure, declaring the loss of rural phone service subsidies a guarantee of future rate hikes and discriminatory pricing, if not the end of basic telephone service in rural Colorado.  The company also receives more than 90 percent of the annual proceeds collected from Colorado ratepayers.

“The bill continues to legislate discrimination of one very large group of consumers. It allows a consumer living on one side of the street in rural Colorado to continue to receive High Cost Fund support while his neighbor on the other side of the street will not, simply because of the logo at the top of their telephone bills” said Jim Campbell, CenturyLink regional vice president for regulatory and legislative affairs. “We continue to be baffled that lawmakers voting in favor of this bill feel it is good public policy to write consumer discrimination into Colorado law.”

As with other AT&T-written deregulation bills, the “sufficient competition” test to prove consumers have plenty of choices for phone service is notoriously easy to meet.  SB 157 defines a market competitive when 90 percent of customers in a geographic area have a choice of at least five providers.  While that sounds like competition, in fact the bill defines just about anything resembling a phone company as “competition.”  That includes traditional landline service, mobile phones, satellite telephony, Voice Over IP providers like Skype, and cable company phone service.

Back for More....

A provider declaring service to any particular geographic area on a coverage map is sufficient evidence that competition exists, even if that provider does not deliver a consistently suitable signal, charges extraordinarily high prices, or only markets service in selected areas or in a package that includes other services.  In rural Colorado, wireless companies maintaining roaming agreements with other providers would count as multiple competitors, even though they rely on the same infrastructure to handle calls.  Poor reception? That’s your problem.

The bill also allows phone companies to charge whatever they like for traditional phone service, and only requires one day’s notice of pricing changes.  The bill would also strip away the right of regulators to demand justification for the inevitable rate increases and takes away their right to reject, modify or suspend rate hikes they deem unacceptably unfair.

That could force CenturyLink prices way up in rural Colorado, perhaps to a level that makes AT&T cell phone pricing not that bad after all.

CenturyLink: Victim of Friendly Fire from AT&T?

That suits AT&T’s Colorado president William Soards just fine, as AT&T is willing to sell rural Colorado lots of wireless phones.

“There’s plenty of competition out there that will be very excited to take their business, and AT&T will be one of them,” Soards told the Denver Post.

Colorado’s Rural Broadband Fund: The Fix Is In

One of the boldest provisions of SB 157 is the establishment of a rural broadband fund that delivers up to $25 million of ratepayer money to a select group of telecommunications companies to underwrite the costs of building  non-competitive broadband networks in the most distant, unwired corners of the state.  They wrote the rules, so it comes as no surprise they are, by definition, the intended recipients — often the very same companies that have refused to provide service in rural communities in the past.  Among those they’ve made certain are prohibited from accessing the broadband fund:

• Broadcasters experimenting with sub-channel broadband data service;
• Government agencies;
• Local municipalities;
• Public-private partnerships;
• Any organization, including non-profits, controlled in whole or part by a public entity;
• Electric utilities;
• Electric co-ops;
• Non-profit electric companies or associations;
• Every other supplier of electrical energy.

Who can access the broadband fund?  Why, the backers of the bill of course, especially AT&T:

• Wireless companies like AT&T;
• Telephone companies;
• Cable operators;
• Wireless ISPs (meeting certain conditions).

Padgett: Let local communities solve their broadband challenges themselves.

The bill is written to require a minimum level of 4/1Mbps service, which may lock out many rural telephone companies unable to deliver those speeds over traditional DSL as well as congestion and distance-sensitive wireless ISPs.  Cable operators are unlikely to provide any service in the most rural areas qualified to receive broadband funding. CenturyLink’s ongoing opposition to the bill suggests they don’t see much broadband funding in their immediate future either. That leaves just one technology most suitable to receive ratepayer funding: heavily capped and expensive wireless 4G broadband from companies like AT&T.

That may leave rural (but potentially not rural enough) Ouray County up the broadband creek without a paddle.

CenturyLink has shown minimal interest in providing ubiquitous broadband across the area dubbed the “Switzerland of America” for its rugged mountainous topography.  With just 4,450 residents, Ouray County is not the phone company’s highest priority.  But the company serves just enough of the county that it might fail the “unserved area” test — a ludicrous notion for broadband-starved Colona, Eldredge, Dallas, Ridgway, Ouray, Thistledown and Camp Bird.

Long-term residents have been through something like this before.  Some remember having to fight for basic electric service as well.  The San Miguel Power Association, a non-profit, member-owned rural electric cooperative established back in 1938, finally brought electric service to the San Miguel Basin area after residents were denied service for years by Western Colorado Power.  The region ultimately had to fend for itself, and did so successfully.

That same electric co-op may just have the best broadband solution for Ouray County — fiber infrastructure already in place, but prohibited from being funded to completion by AT&T’s corporate welfare bill.

Many rural legislators understand the rural broadband problem and see community-owned co-ops as their best chance of getting broadband service in rural Colorado.  They want to amend the bill to strip out the anti-competitive, anti-public broadband language.

Ouray County Commissioner Lynn Padgett is convinced her county’s broadband problems will never be solved by the Colorado Legislature or AT&T.

“Fundamentally, I believe that we need to let those closest to the areas with the rural broadband challenges, and those most accountable, help their communities,” Padgett said.

Comcast has changed its explanation why the company’s XFINITY TV service, streamed over Xbox 360 has been made exempt from the company’s 250GB usage cap.

Last week, the company claimed the service traveled over the company’s “private IP” network, exempting it from usage restrictions.  That created a small furor among public interest groups and Net Neutrality supporters because of the apparent discrimination against streamed video content not partnered with the country’s biggest cable operator.

Stop the Cap! argued what we’ve always argued — usage caps and speed throttles are simply an end run around Net Neutrality — getting one-up on your competition without appearing to openly discriminate.

Now Comcast hopes to make its own end run around the topic by changing the language in its FAQ:

Before:

After:

Although the words have changed, the story stays the same.

The key principle to remember:

Data = Data

Comcast suggests its Xbox XFINITY TV service turns your game console into a set top box, receiving the same type of video stream its conventional cable boxes receive.  The cable company is attempting to conflate traditional video one would watch from an on-demand movie channel as equivalent to XFINITY TV over the Xbox.  Since the video is stored on Comcast’s own IP network, the company originally argued, it creates less of a strain on Comcast’s cable system.

AT&T's U-verse is an example of an IP-based distribution network.

But the cable industry’s inevitable march to IP-based delivery of all of their content may also bring a convenient excuse to proclaim that data does not always equal data.  They have the phone companies to thank for it.

Take AT&T’s U-verse or Bell’s Fibe.  Both use a more advanced form of DSL to deliver a single digital data pipeline to their respective customers.  Although both companies try to make these “advanced networks” sound sexy, in fact they are both just dumb data pipes, divided into segments to support different services.  The largest segment of that pipe is reserved for video cable TV channels, which take up the most bandwidth. A smaller slice is reserved for broadband, and a much smaller segment is set aside for telephone service.

AT&T and Bell’s pipes don’t know the difference between video, audio, or web content because they are all digital data delivered to customers on an IP-based network.  Yet both AT&T and Bell only slap usage caps on their broadband service, claiming it somehow eases congestion, even though video content always uses the most bandwidth. (They have not yet figured out a way to limit your television viewing to “maintain a good experience for all of their customers,” but we wouldn’t put it past them to try one day.)

What last mile congestion problem?

Comcast’s argument for usage limiting one type of data while exempting other data falls into the same logical black hole.  Comcast’s basic argument for usage caps has always been it protects a shared network experience for customers.  Since cable broadband resources are shared within a neighborhood, the company argues, it must impose limits on “heavy users” who might slow down service for others.

We've heard this all before. Former AT&T CEO Dan Somers: "AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of (its) veins."

But in a world where DOCSIS 3 technology and a march to digital video distribution is well underway or near completion at many of the nation’s cable operators, the “last mile” bandwidth shortage problem of the early 2000s has largely disappeared.  In fact, Comcast itself recognized that, throwing the usage door wide open distributing bandwidth heavy XFINITY TV over the Xbox console cap-free.

As broadband advocates and industry insiders continue the debate about whether this constitutes a Net Neutrality violation or not, a greater truth should be considered.  Stop the Cap! believes providers have more than one way to exercise their control over broadband.

Naked discrimination against web content from the competition is a messy, ham-handed way to deal with pesky competitors.  Putting up a content wall around Netflix or Amazon is a concept easy to grasp (and get upset about), even by those who may not understand all of the issues.

Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles can win providers the same level of control without the political backlash.  Careful modification of consumer behavior can draw customers to company-owned or partnered content without using a heavy hammer.

Simply slap a usage limit on customers, but exempt partnered content from the limit.  Now customers have a choice: use up their precious usage allowance with Netflix or watch some of the same content on the cable company’s own unlimited-use service.

Nobody is “blocking” Netflix, but the end result will likely be the same:

• Comcast wins all the advantages for itself and its “preferred partners”;
• Customers find themselves avoiding the competition to save their usage allowance;
• Competitors struggle selling to consumers squeezed by inflexible usage caps.

It is all a matter of control, and that is nothing new for large telecom companies.

Back in 1999, AT&T Broadband owned a substantial amount of what is today Comcast Cable.  Then-CEO Dan Somers made it clear AT&T’s investment would be protected.

“AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of [its] veins,” Somers said, referring to streamed video.

Obviously Comcast agrees.

If you want better Canadian broadband with fewer tricks and traps and live in Ontario or Quebec: put the house up for sale, pack up your things, and head west.

Canada’s heavily metered and capped broadband is ubiquitous in the country’s two most-populated provinces where a convenient duopoly of Bell and Rogers in Ontario and Bell and Videotron in Quebec control the vast majority of the broadband market.  But cross west into Saskatchewan and things start to look a lot better.

Canadians telecommunications consultancy The Seaboard Group praised SaskTel, the provincial phone company, for refusing to slap usage caps on its customers.  SaskTel does not deliver the cheapest Internet access by any means, but the company is investing heavily in fiber optic upgrades to turn the page on aging copper wire infrastructure.  Stringing fiber through Regina, Saskatoon and beyond may seem counterintuitive to other providers.  Saskatchewan, one of Canada’s “prairie provinces,” is hardly packed with people.  With more than 20 million Canadians living in Ontario and Quebec, Saskatchewan gives its 1 million residents a lot of open space.  Sparser populations usually translate into higher costs per customer for upgrades, but SaskTel persists.

SaskTel has historically relied on traditional DSL and has competition in larger communities from Shaw Cable, western Canada’s largest cable operator.  Although SaskTel’s DSL delivers lower speeds than Shaw can provide, it does so with no usage limits.

Shaw’s decision to provide considerably more generous usage allowances has kept the pressure on SaskTel to upgrade its infrastructure to compete.

SaskTel CEO Ron Styles told the Leader-Post its fiber optic network will give cable a run for its money, and until then, it is satisfied undercutting cable pricing for broadband, delivering a far better experience than either Rogers or Bell provides eastern Canadians, Styles says.

Seaboard president Iain Grant found that what customers are willing to pay for service can also influence what prices providers charge.

“The price is more based on what you’re prepared to pay,” Grant said.

People in western Canada evidently are not willing to hand over as much money as their friends in Ontario and Quebec.

West of Saskatchewan lies Alberta and British Columbia — Telus territory.  Telus is western Canada’s largest phone company and also principally competes with Shaw Cable.

Shaw has forced Telus to back down on fueling enhanced revenue with usage caps of its own, and has been aggressively upgrading its network with additional fiber optics and DOCSIS 3 technology, forcing Telus to embark on its own upgrade effort.

Macleans reports western Canada’s more-competitive broadband market has been good for consumers, but has also exposed a difference in priorities for providers.

With Shaw breathing down its neck, Telus has committed to a $3 billion fiber optic network expansion in B.C., improved wireless coverage, and more IPTV service.  Macleans notes Telus is the only major telecom or cable company in Canada that hasn’t purchased a television asset, focusing instead on its core businesses of connecting customers.

In eastern Canada, Bell faces Rogers and Videotron.  Critics contend Bell sees no imminent threats there, and the phone giant is spending its money elsewhere, announcing a $3.4 billion acquisition of Astral Media — an entertainment company owning 24 specialty cable channels and pay-TV networks, including the Movie Network and HBO Canada.

Bell’s latest “investment” follows its 2010 $1.3 billion buyout of CTV and last year’s $1.32 billion co-purchase of Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment (the other buyer was their ‘arch-competitor’ Rogers Communications).

While Telus spends money on upgrading its broadband and video services to customers, Bell is positioning itself to control 34% of Canada’s TV universe.  Bell is also the same company that advocated slapping nationwide usage-based pricing on Canadian broadband consumers to pay for the “network upgrades” it contends were needed to handle increasing demand.

Cuomo

New York’s telecommunications providers are up in arms over Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s decision to yank permanent deregulation for the “digital phone” industry (otherwise known as “Voice Over IP/VoIP”) from his budget, even though the phone service is already deregulated in New York.

Now Verizon Communications and Time Warner Cable are claiming that without the deregulation they already enjoy, innovation, investment, and competition will be stifled.

“Verizon is very disappointed that New York’s lawmakers, who want the public to believe that New York is open for business, will not be acting on this important measure to modernize the state’s outdated telecommunications laws in this year’s budget,” Verizon spokesman John Bonomo told the Albany Times-Union.

“It’s about new technologies, it’s about new services,” echoed Rory Whelan, regional vice president of government relations for Time Warner Cable. “We want New York to be at the forefront of where we roll out our new products and services.”

That notion has left consumer groups and telecommunications unions scratching their heads.

“They are saying that this is going to open the flood gates to more investment,” said Bob Master, political director for one chapter of the Communications Workers of America, which represents Verizon workers. “It’s ridiculous.”

Master says Verizon has been abandoning and ignoring their landline network for years, preferring to invest in Verizon Wireless and its limited FiOS fiber-to-the-home service which is available in only selected areas of the state.

New York’s Public Service Commission has largely not regulated competing phone service since Time Warner Cable first introduced the service as an experiment in Rochester.  As part of then-Rochester Telephone Corporation’s (now Frontier Communications) “Open Market” Plan, competing telephone companies could offer landline service in the company’s service area, so long as Rochester Telephone received the same deregulation benefits.  Only the cable company showed serious interest in providing home phone service, which it first delivered using traditional digital phone switches phone companies like Verizon and Rochester Telephone use.  Time Warner later abandoned that service for a VoIP alternative it branded as “digital phone.”

Time Warner’s “digital phone,” as well as Verizon’s own VoIP service sold with FiOS, have co-existed regulation-free.  Consumer advocates suspect the push to deregulate could eventually benefit Verizon more than cable operators, because it gives the phone company the right to question why any of its telephone services are regulated.  Verizon’s FiOS fiber-based phone lines do not operate on the same network its still-regulated landlines do.  Verizon, along with all traditional phone companies in New York, are subject to “universal service” guidelines which assure even the most rural New Yorkers have access to reliable telephone service.

But Verizon, like most traditional phone companies, sees substantial investment in “modernizing” legacy copper-based networks as an anachronism, especially as they continue to lose customers switching to cheaper cable providers or wireless phones.  The company recently declared its fiber optic replacement network, FiOS, at the end of its expansion phase.  That leaves the majority of New Yorkers with a copper-based telephone network companies only invest enough in to keep functioning.

Diaz

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., joined many New York Assembly Democrats in strong opposition to the bill, which Diaz thinks undercuts New York consumers:

If this proposal were to become law, all consumers would lose out. For starters, customers would not be able to bring service complaints to the Public Service Commission, as they currently can with traditional service. Additionally, there would be no way for the state to set standards for quality or for service in underserved regions — meaning that customers could get stuck with exorbitantly high rates or be unable to obtain service at all in some areas of the state.

Verizon FiOS, one of the main options for VoIP coverage, has now been installed in many regions of the state, including most of downstate. However, Verizon has chosen not offer the service in upstate cities like Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Utica. The result is both a virtual monopoly for the cable companies in those areas and another blow to lower-income working families who live in cities. That’s precisely why the state should be able to guarantee common sense regulations for VoIP service.

The problems with deregulating VoIP service are multifold. While traditional phone companies pay into a fund that supports “lifeline” phone access for elderly and disadvantaged New Yorkers, VoIP providers would not have to. We do not have to guess at how things would look if the state gives up its right to regulate internet phone service — we can just look at the states where traditional land line service has been deregulated. According to a recent survey of 20 states that have seen land line deregulation, 17 of those states have seen rate increases. We simply cannot afford that, particularly when our fragile national recovery is just beginning to take hold.

Verizon appears undeterred by the governor’s decision to pull the deregulation measure from consideration in his budget measure.  Bills to deregulate continue to float through the Republican-controlled Senate and Democratic-controlled Assembly, but New York’s legislature is notoriously indecisive and slow to act.  Time Warner’s Whelan believes the best chances for the deregulatory measure will be in the GOP-controlled Senate where a similar bill passed last year.  Verizon says it will continue to push for the bill in both chambers.

“We intend to continue pushing for this important measure, and for other measures that will benefit the state’s consumers and businesses to keep up with technological change and help the state thrive and succeed,” Bonomo said.

Cities left out of Verizon Communications’ fiber to the home upgrade FiOS are telling the Federal Communications Commission to reject any wireless spectrum swap between the phone company and the nation’s largest cable operators unless Verizon commits to getting the fiber upgrade done in their cities.

Coordinated by the Communications Workers of America, which represents many Verizon workers, elected officials and community groups in Boston, Baltimore, and the upstate New York cities of Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo collectively blasted the proposed swap as bad news for consumers.  On a city-by-city basis, they each filed comments with the FCC opposing the deal unless the Commission mandates Verizon complete fiber upgrades as a condition for the approval of the spectrum swap.

Buffalo’s argument:

For the past few years, we have watched as Verizon Communications has built its all fiber FiOS network in 10 suburban communities that ring our city. In those communities, we have seen what happens when Time Warner Cable, our local cable monopoly, competes head-on with Verizon’s FiOS to provide video and broadband services. Consumers benefit from competitive choice; small businesses benefit from truly high-speed connections to suppliers and customers; schools and hospitals benefit from education and health-related applications; communications workers benefit from the jobs building, maintaining, and servicing networks; and families and communities benefit from the 21st century jobs and expanded tax base.

But the residents and small business owners in Buffalo have not been able to reap these benefits. To date, Verizon has chosen not to deploy its all-fiber FiOS network to the more densely-populated city of Buffalo. The proposed Verizon Wireless/cable company partnership would cement this digital divide and foreclose the possibility of effective high-speed broadband and video competition in our city. Verizon Wireless is a subsidiary of Verizon Communications. We are deeply concerned that as a result of the new joint marketing agreement, Verizon will no longer have the incentive to invest in an all-fiber network that competes with Verizon Wireless’ new partner, the cable company. Therefore, to promote high-speed broadband investment and video competition, especially in heavily minority and lower-income areas like the city of Buffalo, the FCC should include as a condition for approval of this Transaction a requirement that Verizon continue to invest in and build-out its FiOS network to currently unserved areas that are inside its traditional telephone service area footprint, including the city of Buffalo and the surrounding areas.

Cole

In response, Verizon confirmed it never had any intention of wiring any of those cities for fiber service.  Multichannel News reports:

But a Verizon exec points out that those cities are all areas that were not scheduled to get FiOS, whether or not the cable spectrum deal goes through. As Verizon has pointed out, the company decided back in 2010 that it was going to build out the franchises it had already secured and target those 18 million customers in and around New York City, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia, rather than spend any more of its shareholders money in a wider buildout. The above cities were not in those franchise areas.

Baltimore City Council member William H. Cole accused Verizon of leaving the city of Baltimore behind in a letter he addressed to the Commission this week:

High-speed, fiber-optic networks are vital for economic competitiveness. Currently, Verizon’s FiOS is the only all fiber-optic commercially-available network for businesses and households. Other advanced industrialized nations have already deployed fiber-optic networks on a large-scale; they recognize that high-speed fiber is the competitive infrastructure of the 21 st century. Much of the suburban areas outside of Baltimore already have FiOS. The City of Baltimore will never get a fiber-optic network if this deal is approved, which concerns me greatly. I am not willing to see Baltimore permanently relegated to the wrong side of the digital divide.