AT&T unveiled it’s U-verse system Monday in the Triad region of North Carolina, hoping to poach customers from Time Warner Cable’s “triple play” package of phone, broadband, and cable service.

AT&T U-verse services, which are delivered over AT&T’s Internet Protocol (IP) hybrid fiber-copper network, offer an alternative to cable with a DVR that can record more programming than the competition, features and apps not available from the local cable company, and additional channels new to the region. AT&T U-verse can combine every AT&T service a customer subscribes to onto a single monthly bill.

The most popular Internet-only tier of service has somewhat anemic download speeds up to 6 Mbps for $43 a month — other packages range from $38 for 3 Mbps to $65 for 24 Mbps.

U-verse TV packages include “local-channel only” service for $19 a month (with a stinging $199 installation fee), to more than 390 channels for $112 a month, with a $29 activation fee.  Other packages include U-100 with 130 channels for $54 a month and U-200 with 230 channels for $67.  High definition channels, now numbering more than 130, cost $10 extra per month.  Want premium channels in HD?  That’s another $5 a month.

Like other providers, AT&T has tinkered with pricing to deliver the most savings to customers who bring all of their business to AT&T with a triple-play bundle subscription.

“Today’s expansion of AT&T U-verse reflects our commitment to make the investments necessary to bring consumers across the Piedmont Triad a new era of true video competition,” Cynthia Marshall, AT&T North Carolina president said in a statement. “Local residents have asked for more choices in television service and today we’re delivering.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT U-verse introduction.flv[/flv]

Watch this comprehensive video from AT&T explaining the many types of services U-verse offers and helpful tips to prepare for service installation.  Then view an actual installation in a customer’s home who shows off the equipment.  Stop the Cap! recommends you let AT&T do all of the required wiring for you.  That’s why you are paying that installation fee!  (22 minutes)

But despite the company’s claims that competition will deliver lower prices for consumers, the evidence suggests otherwise.

AT&T credits a statewide video franchising bill passed in the North Carolina legislature for making U-verse possible in the state.  Company officials showed their thanks by inviting the two state legislators instrumental in shepherding AT&T’s agenda through the General Assembly to be on hand to take credit for introducing cable competition in the state.  They also publicly thanked them in their press release.

Seventeen term House Rep. Harold Brubaker (R-Randolph) congratulated AT&T for its accomplishments.  Brubaker received $4,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T in the first quarter of 2010.

The representative from Asheboro co-sponsored the 2006 Video Service Competition Act which stripped local oversight of cable operators and made AT&T’s entry into North Carolina effortless.  For other would-be competitors, especially municipalities seeking to build their own fiber networks, Brubaker has been far less helpful.  Most recently, he voted against an effort to bring broadband service to Caswell County in areas incumbent provider CenturyLink has ignored for years.

“Prior to the legislation, you had geographic areas where you operated in, so it kind of like took the walls down. The legislation took the walls down to allow for more direct competition for the consumer. Competition is great.  The consumer’s the one that benefits,” said Brubaker.  “AT&T’s presence in the market will very definitely save customers money.”

Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford), another co-sponsor, said AT&T’s arrival was exactly what she hoped for when she supported the legislation.

“As policymakers, our goal was to increase investment in North Carolina and give consumers more choices and innovative new services,” said Adams. “Today’s announcement makes that goal a reality for Triad residents.”

Adams added that AT&T U-verse also provided a safety valve for consumers who want an alternative to incumbent provider Time Warner Cable.

“Even if they like a particular company, they always like to know that there’s some other opportunities out there that they can look at as well, so they can do some comparing,” she said.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Important Information about ATT U-Verse system.flv[/flv]

AT&T delivered more time and attention to North Carolina legislators at their launch event than they ever will on U-verse.  AT&T segregates Public Access, Educational, and Government channels on a single U-verse TV channel that makes for tedious viewing.  Watch this demonstration from the California Public Utilities Commission.  (4 minutes)

AT&T announced the service would initially be available in limited areas of Forsyth, Davidson, Guilford, Rockingham and Alamance counties, and we do mean “limited.”  Many Triad residents who checked to see if the service was available in their area found it was not.  In fact, AT&T refuses to disclose exactly how many customers in the region can actually sign up for the service.  We couldn’t find anyone who could order the service when it officially launched.

“There will be small pockets around most of the entire area,” Chuck Greene, AT&T’s regional director for the Piedmont Triad told the News-Record. “Once we complete the build-out, it will include parts of Davidson, Caswell and Randolph.”

AT&T lobbied hard to sweep away earlier provisions in local video franchises that committed providers to rapidly expand service to every possible customer in their respective service areas.  Under the Video Services Competition Act, AT&T can take its sweet time, perhaps for years before service becomes widely available across the region.  Some areas will never receive the service.

Time Warner Cable welcomed competition from AT&T U-verse.

“For a long time, Time Warner Cable has faced competition from satellite and dish providers,” Scott Pryzwansky, the company’s local public affairs manager, wrote to the News-Record. “We continue to invest in our network and remain committed to bring the best products and services to the Triad. We are confident we will maintain positive relationships with our customers.”

Time Warner Cable has little to fear from AT&T’s arrival.  Pryzwansky said Time Warner Cable has not lowered its pricing in any of the markets where it faces AT&T U-verse competition.  Both AT&T and Time Warner Cable have raised prices at least annually for their respective subscribers.  The only exception in North Carolina has been in Wilson, where municipal provider Greenlight has kept Time Warner Cable from increasing prices.

Stop the Cap! reader Sam in Greensboro thinks AT&T’s arrival is much ado about nothing.

“AT&T prices their U-verse service nearly the same or more as Time Warner Cable, especially after the introductory rate expires,” he says.  “Few people are going to be bothered switching back to Time Warner after the year is up, so they’ll be paying the same high prices for cable service to AT&T instead of the cable company — a distinction with no difference.”

Sam won’t bother with U-verse because he is disgusted with AT&T’s lobbying efforts to stop consumer broadband reform and Net Neutrality.

“It’s like dealing with the devil,” Sam writes.  “Why would I want to pay AT&T my money so they can turn around and spend it working against my interests as a consumer?”

The only good thing about U-verse’s arrival is that it may stall Time Warner Cable from trying another Internet Overcharging scheme in the area.

“Time Warner has to think twice about another usage cap and overlimit fee ‘experiment’ in the Triad if customers can simply flee to U-verse, although knowing AT&T they’d love to have the same rationing of the Internet they force on their wireless customers,” Sam said.

[flv width=”636″ height=”373″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TWC Fights Back U-verse.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable maintains a sometimes-bizarre web campaign to convince customers not to switch to U-verse or satellite.  We’ve put together the various videos so you can watch them all at once.  (4 minutes)

Like Time Warner Cable, AT&T does not offer a-la-carte cable programming, either.  Customers can only choose from large packages of programming, not individual channels.

Triad area cable customers told local media they were tentatively glad U-verse is competing, but many are taking a wait and see approach as to whether they’ll actually see any savings.

WFMY News 2 spoke with cable customers today. One man said he feels like a “hostage” to his cable company because they have a monopoly on TV, Internet and phone bundles. A woman said cable and satellite companies drive her “crazy,” so she gave up and now simply rents movies.

“I am happy, but it’s hard times. I have three children. We live on one income,” Jamie Rettie, a Time Warner Cable customer told News 2. Whether she switches to AT&T or not, she’s said she’s hoping for a change in her bill.

“Hopefully they’ll keep competing against each another and have better and better prices for their services,” she said. “(I’ll) wait out my contract and we’ll see what happens.”

Some residents, like Thomas, are left picking the lesser of two evils:

“I don’t know who’s worse at their game, as Time Warner Cable and AT&T are both evil corporate entities that care only about their bottom line,” he writes. “Search the Internet and understand this service limits the amount of TV’s that can be used at one time.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Greensboro Media Cover U-Verse Launch 9-13-10.flv[/flv]

Watch several news reports from Triad area TV stations about the introduction of AT&T U-verse.  In order, we include reports from WXII, WGHP, and WFMY-TV.  (7 minutes)

In many communities across America, there is more fiber optic cable on telephone poles and buried in underground conduit than you may realize.  But as a consumer, you’ll never get to benefit from it because of a broadband duopoly that works hard to keep municipal fiber networks away from your home and out of your reach.

Take Sarasota County, Florida.  The county is making preparations to build a 96-strand fiber network across the county, capable of delivering 100Gbps service over each strand, and early plans suggest they’ll use it for… controlling traffic signals and viewing traffic cameras.  Taxpayers are ultimately paying the costs to construct the $1,000-per-mile fiber network, but current plans won’t allow any of them to access it.

Why?  Because companies like Comcast and Verizon want it that way.

It’s nothing new and it’s not limited to Sarasota.  In cities across the country, enormous capacity networks are devised and constructed to deliver high speed data connections to local hospitals, schools, and public safety institutions.  Many states’ transportation departments have enormous excess fiber capacity, installed from federal and state grant money to develop intelligent traffic systems.  But almost all of these networks are strictly off-limits to the general public and small business entrepreneurs who are stuck with the far slower broadband service the phone and cable companies deliver at ridiculously high prices.

Sarasota has had ultra-fast connections for years, delivering a dedicated 10Gbps connection to one area hospital and insanely fast connections to police departments and other government buildings.  It’s managed by Comcast and was built for $3 million, paid for directly by Comcast subscribers.  Comcast built the county I-Net network with the understanding that commercial use of the network was strictly prohibited.

The result is blazing fast speeds for institutions that can’t possibly utilize all of the capacity they have, and a broadband cartel delivering less service than local residents and businesses need.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune considered the county’s fiber future so important, it dedicated a week of coverage to municipal fiber, and the providers and politics that get in the way.

The newspaper reports that the existing broadband duopoly under-delivers access to digital entrepreneurs that need those speeds the most.

The co-called creative class — bandwidth entrepreneurs on a budget — struggle to get by on mediocre connections that are largely repackaged retail offerings.

Over and over, businesses surveyed by the Herald-Tribune pointed to the tell-tale distinction between business-class service and retail.

“Businesses upload stuff, while consumers download,” said Rich Swier Jr., who works from a Central Avenue office where the only service comes from Comcast. Swier, the only entrepreneur on the Sarasota Broadband Task Force, is not happy with what he gets from Comcast. “They are repackaging a consumer grade service as a business service and charging three times more.”

Swier is paying about $200 per month for what is supposed to be 50 megabits per second download and 5 megabits up. But in reality, it operates at half those speeds, he said.

The newspaper’s conclusion: Fiber access is to modern business what train stations and interstate connections used to be.

Sarasota’s fiber project has grown considerably since its original proposition — 24 strands of fiber installed for $11 a foot. Then the county received an estimate that said they could have triple the amount of fiber for just 20 cents more per mile.  Broadband enthusiasts urged the county to upgrade the network to 96 strands and they agreed.

Commissioner Jon Thaxton told the newspaper he views the planned fiber network as an insurance policy as Internet speed becomes more and more important.

“It does, at a minimum, put us in a position of not being wholly dependent on some other service provider,” Thaxton said.

The newspaper notes the economic implications of superior broadband are enormous.

Google sparked the issue when it announced plans earlier this year to hot-wire a city or cities somewhere in the United States, creating what could be a prototype for a community with the broadband speeds to more than command its economic future.

Our political leaders clearly saw the import of this. Heck, City Commissioner Dick Clapp even jumped into a shark tank to show Google the community’s spirit (yeah, they were pretty small sharks, but I wouldn’t do it, fiber or no fiber).

Businesses of the 21st century are hungry for fast speeds, and this region has been fortunate to land some with voracious appetites.

[…]Who would have pegged Lafayette, La., as a place where Hollywood would set up a first-rate special-effects studio? (Can you say the Walt Disney Co. as a customer?) But the fiber was there, and the big dogs came.

South of us, in Naples, it is private enterprise driving high-octane broadband, the work of a technology-savvy entrepreneur and a like-minded group of millionaires who want what many of us raising families in Southwest Florida are after: an economy that would allow our kids to remain here with good jobs.

In the Information Age, connectivity is going to be critical in attracting the kind of companies we want, and the well-heeled folks in Collier County know that. (They also clearly know how to make a lot of money, so don’t read their efforts too much as altruism).

Then you have one of the new 800-pound gorillas of the fiber effort, Allied Fiber, a New York-based company in the midst of creating a trans-continental broadband push akin to what the railroad barons of the 1800s accomplished.

Southwest Florida has a good chance of tapping into their $500 million (or more) play.

The county established a Broadband Task Force, but made the same mistake so many other municipalities make when they create these panels: consumers are not represented at all and small business representation is limited to a single participant. Consumers will ultimately be a major source of revenue from municipal broadband projects and their needs and interests must be represented.  Since incumbent commercial providers will seek to impede municipal competition by organizing consumer opposition to such projects, getting trusted consumer advocates and broadband evangelists on your side at the outset can make the difference between enthusiastic support for additional broadband choice or a mind-numbing, incumbent provider-driven sideshow about a “socialist government takeover of the Internet.”

The rest of the panel is made up of public officials from the school district, county and city government and the local hospital.

The newspaper hints these are exactly the wrong people to invite onto a Broadband Task Force.  Virtually all already enjoy the generous bandwidth already provided by Comcast’s I-Net, few are likely to be well informed on broadband technology issues, and apart from the lone businessman on the panel, the group is unlikely to grasp the commercial implications of better broadband for the local digital economy.

Since these individuals all earn a paycheck protecting their own institutional interests, the larger vision of community broadband can easily get lost in turf wars and political disputes, or interference from incumbent providers.

Providers can cut the bottom out of such task forces with rewarding side deals for friends — enhanced services at fire sale prices. For institutional opponents — intransigence and crippling rate increases.

On Florida’s East Coast, Martin County’s public service institutions learned first hand what kind of pricing Comcast is capable of bringing to the table when an existing contract expired.  Comcast demanded a whopper of a rate hike.

“We decided for the kind of money these people are asking us, we would be better off doing this on our own,” Kevin Kryzda, the county’s chief information officer, told the Sarasota paper. “That is different from anybody else. And then we said we would like to do a loose association to provide broadband to the community while we are spending the money to build this network anyway. That was unique, too.”

The last straw for county officials was the loss of a lucrative deal with California-based Digital Domain to build a Florida branch campus.  The company chose St. Lucie County instead.  John Textor, Digital Domain’s co-chairman, told the Herald-Tribune that having a local all-fiber network connection and being able to set up an all-fiber direct connection to remote servers in Miami was a key advantage of the site in Port St. Lucie.

After that, Martin County commissioners voted unanimously to obtain bids for their own network.

Martin County’s fiber network will combine a publicly-constructed institutional network and a tiny rural phone company paying part of the costs to resell excess capacity to commercial users. The downside is that consumers will not be offered service.

In Florida’s Lee and Collier Counties, U.S. Metro network has proved fiber’s ability to transform entire regions economically.

“If you build it, they will come” is a common rallying cry for fiber proponents.  In both counties, they came.  The latest arrival?  Jackson Laboratory of Bar Harbor, Maine, now being showered with more than $200 million in government grants to build a genetic research campus in Collier County.  A large portion of that money will end up staying in Collier County, stimulating the local economy and creating jobs.

Why all the clamor?  Because U.S. Metro runs a network that puts incumbent phone and cable companies to shame.  When a business requests service, owner Frank Mambuca doesn’t tell them what speeds they’ll have to live with.  Instead, he asks, “how many gigabits do you want?”

Unfortunately, U.S. Metro also only sells service to businesses, but they have some wholesale customers that do serve consumers.  Marco Island Cable and a sister company, NuVu are cable overbuilders that offer access to U.S. Metro’s broadband network at speeds and prices Comcast and CenturyLink can’t touch.

Marco Cable is preparing to deliver fiber-based 75Mbps service for $99 a month, along with several other access plans that save at least $12.95 per month over Comcast’s prices, and undercuts CenturyLink’s DSL plans as well.  The company also does something Comcast won’t — it promises unlimited Internet access and email accounts.

If someone wants even faster speeds, say 100Mbps, they can call Marco Cable and request it.

The highest download speed that Verizon offers [locally] at present is 50 megabits per second for $149.99 a month, according to spokesman Bob Elek.

NuVu is currently installing competing service in condos on the mainland.  For the father and son team that run both Marco Cable and NuVu, their philosophy is radically different from most cable and phone companies — delivering as much broadband speed as customers can use at prices they can afford.

For existing providers, who have “marked up” prices for years, the competition’s lower prices threaten profits from delivering “good enough for you” speeds at the highest possible price.

For some, simply lowering prices and enhancing service to compete isn’t the answer — putting a stop to municipal competition at all costs is.

In 18 states, high priced lobbying campaigns financed by giant phone and cable operators have succeeded in restricting or banning competing providers.  AT&T has been the most aggressive, successfully impeding competition in states like Texas, Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Tennessee, and others.  Comcast helped stop competition in its home state of Pennsylvania.

Year after year, Time Warner Cable and AT&T continue efforts to try and do the same in North Carolina, a potential hotbed of locally run, community-owned providers.

For some towns and cities who have spent years begging for improved service, the clock has run out.  The Sarasota Herald-Tribune used Wilson, N.C., as an excellent example.  The city of 50,000 east of Raleigh decided it was through asking Time Warner Cable to provide a platform for a digital economic revival.

Brian Bowman, public affairs manager for the city, told the newspaper the city faced economic disaster from twin blows — the loss of the textile industry and America’s waning interest in tobacco products. Giving the keys to the local cable company to drive Wilson’s nascent digital economy into Lake Wilson was simply not an option.  The town would build its own digital highway — a municipal fiber to the home system for consumers and businesses.

For both, Wilson’s Greenlight system provides up to 100 megabits per second in both directions.  Time Warner Cable residential customers, in comparison, max out at 15/2 Mbps service.

“The way we see it, you’re going to have haves and have-nots in the next generation broadband world,” Bowman said. “The fact is we wanted to invest in our own future; that’s why we did this.”

Cable and phone giants always are going to say that current speeds are adequate and that there is no need for cities to build expensive networks themselves, Bowman said.

“I have heard that here from some of the incumbents, that you don’t need to go that fast. I’m sure the folks in Florida were doing OK without I-4,” Bowman said, noting the state never would have gotten Disney World if not for that interstate access.

People in Sarasota County are about to hear all of the usual arguments against municipal service:

• “Taxpayers will pay for it.” — Not with revenue bonds they won’t.  These bonds deliver returns to investors from revenue earned by the municipal provider, not from taxpayer dollars.
• “We want a level playing field.” — This cable industry opposed providing one when satellite and phone company IPTV showed up, as they tried to withhold programming and lobbied against both.
• “The government should stay out of the private sector.” — Christopher Mitchell, writing for the New Rules Project, tore apart that argument:

Governments “compete” with the private sector in many ways on a daily basis. Libraries compete with book stores, schools with private schools, public transit with taxis, police with security firms, even lumber yards, liquor stores, municipal golf courses and swimming pools with privately owned counterparts. Without public competition in the form of the Rural Electrification Authority, much of the country would still not be wired for electricity or phones.

The focus on whether local governments, who have a wholly different motivation than private companies, are “competing” with the private sector is a red herring to distract the public from incumbent providers’ failures to build modern networks. On matters of infrastructure, a community should always have the option to build the network it needs, just as it can build roads, bridges, water systems, and other modern necessities.

Ultimately, Sarasota County residents have two choices:

1. Obtain the best traffic control and monitoring system America has ever seen, capable of delivering crisp, clear 1080p HD feeds of traffic tieups on Route 301.
2. Deliver Sarasota County 21st century broadband that will power the digital economy and bring hundreds of millions in investment dollars, create thousands of new, high-paying jobs, and save local consumers and businesses a lot of money from broadband competition.

Imagine if you lived in a country where broadband competition actually delivered real innovation and savings, overseen by a consumer protection agency that made sure providers in a barely competitive marketplace actually delivered on their “highly competitive” rhetoric.

Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) will deliver exactly that, with a check and balance system that makes sure advertiser claims meet reality and that “robust competition” means… robust competition.

One industry-backed front group, Digital Society, doesn’t think that idea is fair to big telecom companies (like those funding its operations), and wants none of that here in the States.

Nick Brown doesn’t object too much to Australia’s plan to deliver fiber-to-the-home connections offering 100/50Mbps service to 93 percent of residents.  He just doesn’t want the Australian government overseeing how private providers use (and how much they can charge to access) the publicly-owned network:

Internet Service Providers in Australia will be forced to compete with each other via the “Competition and Consumer Commission”.  The problem with this is that a supposedly ubiquitous commission deciding what is and what isn’t competition and fair pricing stands a fair chance of not actually playing out in any other fashion than simply being a price fixing commission.

[…]Because the NBN will only act as a wholesaler and treat all ISP retailers equally, ISP’s no longer have the ability to develop their own unique contracts that would reduce costs to consumers.  All backhaul would be priced to all ISP’s at the same rate.  So realistically no company has a significant advantage over the other.  That does potentially create a good deal of choice, but that does not necessarily ensure competition.  This would be akin to going to the grocery store and on the shelf were 5 different brands of soft drink, but every single brand tasted exactly like Coca-Cola.  You would have a lot of choice in that situation, but there would be no real competition between those 5 brands, because taste is the competitive factor.  For the Australian, this means that ISP’s will likely be forced to start bundling services to gain advantages over one another.  Something that is not always considered attractive here stateside.

Brown’s bitter-tasting public-broadband philosophy is based on the inaccurate notion that incumbent private providers are just itching to deliver state-of-the-art broadband service across Australia.  If the darn federal government didn’t get in the way and steal their thunder with a nationwide fiber network, Aussies would be enjoying world class Internet access over copper phone wires and usage-limited wireless 3G networks right now.  Even worse, the Australian government that will finance the entire operation also has the temerity to set ground rules for private companies reselling access to consumers and businesses!  How dare they oversee a network bought and paid for by Australian taxpayers (he objects to the funding as well.)

Brown must also still be living in Australia if he missed the parade of American providers repricing services to push people into “triple-play bundles” whether they want them or not.  And we don’t even get the fiber to go with it.  For most Australians, they no longer care whether it’s Diet Coke, Pepsi One, Cherry Coke, or even RC Cola for that matter — as long as it arrives on a fiber network built by and for their interests (instead of Telstra’s), it’s far better than what they have now.

In reality, broadband issues hold a front-and-center position in Australian politics, and the Labor Government which supports an aggressive national broadband plan that puts America’s proposed broadband improvements to shame was -the- issue that keeps that government in power today.  Why?  Because Australia is well behind others in providing broadband access at reasonable speeds and prices.  Australian private providers maintain a nice little arrangement delivering sub-standard, near-monopoly service at some of the highest prices around, all usage-limited and speed throttled. Despite years of negotiations with big players like Telstra, the privatized phone company, broadband improvement has moved at a glacial pace (too often by their design).

The development of the National Broadband Network for Australia was driven by private provider intransigence.  Even Brown recognizes the logistics of the proposed fiber network is “very smart and very common sense” for a country like Australia, which he considers a close cousin geographically to the United States.  Brown also admits the use of fiber straight to the home “‘future proofs’ Australian networks and would allow for easier improvement in the future.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC Radio Battle of the broadband 8-11-2010.mp4[/flv]

ABC Radio National offered a comprehensive review of the competing plans from Australia’s political parties to address broadband issues as the country drops to 50th place worldwide in broadband excellence.  (9 minutes)

While Australia ponders a fiber future, today’s broadband picture across the country is less idyllic.

The minority of Australians receiving service over cable broadband, available mostly in the largest cities, continue to face usage-limited service and higher prices than American providers.

Most Australians get their service from DSL connections offered by Telstra and third party companies leasing access to Telstra facilities.  Telstra’s network is based almost entirely on aging copper wire that cannot deliver broadband to most rural populations.  Telstra’s long term broadband plan for Australia depends on milking every last cent out of those copper wires while raking in even bigger profits from usage limited and expensive wireless data plans.  Just last month, Telstra was fined $18.5 AUS million dollars for monopolistic behavior by impeding competitive access to its telephone network.  No wonder the country had enough.

Brown labeled the Australian government’s buyout of Telstra’s copper wire network a “negative,” as if they were stuck with a pig in a poke.  That suggests Brown does not understand the actual plan, which relies on reusing existing infrastructure like poles and underground conduit to install fiber at an enormous savings — both in billions of dollars in reduced costs and deployment time.  The alternative would require the government to obtain agreements with Telstra-owned facilities to share access or construct their own facilities from the ground up.  Telstra has no incentive to spend money to upgrade their networks, much less decommission them.  Logistically, the plan cuts through enormous red tape and guarantees Australians no one will be stuck waiting decades for the eventual retirement of copper phone wiring.

Call it Fiber Optic Broadband for Copper Wire Clunkers — the government has not nationalized the phone network — it wants to buy it a fair price, from a willing seller who will be able to use the new network to deliver some of its own services.

The horror show for groups like Digital Society is the thought private companies will actually be forced to deliver the competition and real savings they routinely proclaim in press releases, but never actually deliver to consumers.  The Australian people will own the fiber playground private companies will play on, so why shouldn’t they have the benefit of oversight to make sure the game is played fairly?

Australia’s Competition & Consumer Commission is equivalent to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and a state Attorney General all rolled into one.  The ACCC is an independent statutory authority that works for consumers.  It promotes and enforces real competition and fair trade.

The ACCC’s involvement in broadband regulation includes: stopping false advertising, helping intervene and resolve disputes over access and billing issues, and being an impartial observer about broadband uptake and measuring how competition actually delivers better service and savings for consumers.

What Brown dismisses as “a price fixing commission” is in reality a consumer protection agency with enforcement teeth.  The ACCC has a solid track record.  For instance, the broadband industry in 2009 itself admitted the ACCC stopped a “race to the bottom” in wild advertising claims:

In August last year, we sat down with the CEOs of the major telecommunication providers, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone Hutchison Australia. They acknowledged that there was a problem, exacerbated by a “race to the bottom” by industry participants in their advertising practices. The CEOs showed a ready willingness to resolve the issue on an industry-wide basis.

After analysing complaints, the ACCC identified the 12 most prevalent types of potential misleading conduct made in telecommunications. Some of these included:

• use of terms such as “free”, “unlimited”, “no exceptions”, “no exclusions” or “no catches” when this is not the case;
• headline price offers in the form of “price per minute” for calls made using mobile phones and phone cards when there are other fees/charges which are not clearly disclosed; or
• headline claims relating to price, data allowances, total time allowances, speeds and network coverage, where the claims cannot generally be achieved by consumers.

The three industry leaders have provided a court enforceable undertaking to review and improve advertising practices so that consumers are better informed about the telecommunications products they purchase. They have undertaken that their advertising will not make these claims in circumstances where they are likely to be misleading to consumers.

Further the majors have also agreed that they will take reasonable steps to ensure that this commitment will extend to any other players with whom they have commercial agreements which allow them to control the advertising and promotion of goods or services.

I can see why Digital Society, a group partly funded by telecommunications companies, would object to the ACCC stopping Big Telecom’s ill-gotten Money Party-gains.

ACCC also put a stop to promotions that tricked consumers into signing up for mobile data plans that included “free” netbooks, high value gas gift cards, or cash rebates.  The Commission discovered these “promo plans” weren’t giving away anything at all — they simply added the retail cost of the “free” item to the plans’ charges.

The ACCC received a court enforceable undertaking from Dodo Australia Proprietary Limited for the advertising of some of their mobile plans. Dodo had advertised that consumers would receive either an Asus Eee PC, a fuel card or a cash payment when they signed up to a ‘free offer’ plan.

However, cheaper mobile cap plans that did not include the ‘free’ offers were comparable in value and services. After raising these concerns with Dodo, they promptly ceased publishing the ‘free offer’ advertisement and undertook to ensure the affected customers would receive the goods for free, either by way of cash refund or by reducing the monthly charges for the ‘free offer’ plans.

That mean and nasty ACCC, ruining all of the fun for providers delivering tricks and traps for their customers.  Caveat emptor, right?

But the most ludicrous claim of all comes towards the end of Brown’s piece, when he claims the National Broadband Network will leave Australians with even higher priced, usage-capped access:

Australia traditionally has had low bandwidth caps.  Even just five years ago while most Americans were enjoying unlimited bandwidth with their broadband connections, I was living in Melbourne, Australia and was limited to a 1GB cap per month via my Telstra connection.  The likelihood of seeing 100Mb uncapped connections is highly suspect.  Australians may enjoy these speeds, but they will likely be extremely expensive with low bandwidth caps or limited to high priced premium tiers.

Brown can’t blame the private company that delivered his abysmal Internet service without his “free market knows best” philosophy falling apart.  It wasn’t the Australian government that provided him a 1GB monthly usage allowance — it was Telstra, and five years later the company is still usage-limiting Australian broadband consumers.  The National Broadband Network was designed to tackle that problem once and for all.  Brown apparently doesn’t realize the last argument private providers have used to justify usage caps — insufficient overseas capacity — is being addressed by new super-high-capacity undersea fiber cables stretching across the Pacific.  The issue of “usage cap” abatement is among the top bullet points for constructing the NBN.

Brown would be right when he suggests that Australians may enjoy faster speeds, but with low usage caps and high prices — if Telstra was the only company providing the service.  The new network will provide speeds faster than most Americans enjoy, with enormously expanded capacity.  Providers like Telstra have an incentive not to deliver the unlimited service that fiber network can deliver, as it will reduce their profits.  But since any company can access the network and compete, Telstra’s loss in market power will also erode their pricing power.  When a consumer protection mechanism is added, Telstra won’t just be answering to their shareholders’ demands for greater value.  They’ll also answer to the ACCC and the consumers who will pay for and maintain the network.

That may not add up to mega-profits for Big Telecom, but it certainly makes a whole lot of sense to consumers and small businesses who will finally be able to get 21st century broadband at a reasonable price.

Even worse for Digital Society’s friends — AT&T and Verizon — who fund the group through its connection with Arts+Labs, it might provide a blueprint for how America’s broadband future should be built.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC TV National Broadand Network 8-15-10.flv[/flv]

ABC-TV (Australia) debated the merits of competing broadband plans from the incumbent Labor government, which supports a National Broadband Network delivering fiber to the home, versus a cheaper plan from the coalition opposition which promoted a private industry-favored initiative delivering improved broadband only to rural areas.  The Labor government initiative won the day when two rural independent members of Parliament, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor announced they’d support Prime Minister Julia Gillard, giving her the 76 votes required to form a minority Labor government.  Windsor is an enthusiastic supporter of the NBN, telling Sky News “’you do it once, you do it right, you do it with fiber.”  Oakeshott said Labor’s plan to deliver real broadband for the 21st century was a major reason he backed the Labor government.  For the first time ever, fiber optic broadband was the key factor in determining who would govern a country.  (5 minutes)

When Alltel announced the sale of its wireless business to Verizon in 2008, few Alltel customers could have foreseen they’d technically end up changing cell phone providers not once, but twice.  That’s because the federal government ordered Verizon to sell off Alltel’s assets in communities where Verizon already had a substantial market share.  For the sake of competition, the majority of Alltel customers in 18 states affected by the federal government divestiture order will become AT&T customers shortly.

That poses a problem because Alltel’s network and phones use CDMA network technology.  AT&T uses a different standard called GSM.  The two standards are not compatible.  Since AT&T has no intention of operating a CDMA network for Alltel customers, once AT&T converts Alltel’s cell sites to operate on its own network, every Alltel customer will be left with phones and equipment that will no longer work.

To make the deal work, AT&T has agreed to provide, at no charge, comparable brand new phones and other equipment to Alltel customers being moved to AT&T’s network.  No new contract is required, and customers will not be forced to extend one to receive the new AT&T equipment.

But that deal doesn’t extend to handing out free iPhones to Alltel customers.  If you want one of those, you will have to pony up the same money every other AT&T customer pays, and sign a new two-year contract.

This week, AT&T announced it was speeding up the transition, and many customers will be choosing new free phones around the end of this year or in early 2011.  Originally, AT&T expected it would take until mid-2011 to complete network conversions.  Complete details can be found on the AT&T-Alltel Transition Website.

For residents in the north-central United States, the iPhone craze has been something other Americans have experienced.  For much of the Dakotas and Montana, the transition will bring the first opportunity to get the popular smartphone at the subsidized price AT&T offers all of its customers on contract.

The implications of AT&T’s imminent arrival in the area doesn’t seem to bother the other dominant provider – Verizon Wireless.  In South Dakota, AT&T’s entry into the market may cause some to switch to AT&T, if only for the iPhone.  But Karen Smith, spokeswoman for Verizon Wireless in the Great Plains region, says Verizon is confident with the lineup of phones it already offers and remains the nation’s largest wireless carrier even without the iPhone.

Current Verizon customers like Jill Garrigan of Rapid City told the Rapid City Journal she’d consider switching to AT&T to grab the iPhone, but she’d much prefer buying one from Verizon Wireless.

“If Verizon carried the iPhone, I’d probably consider getting it from Verizon,” Garrigan said.

Many other South Dakotans share concerns about the higher monthly wireless bills the iPhone brings, and they’re not interested in paying a lot more just to own one.

Garrigan’s friend, Jessica Simon, said she’ll keep her current Samsung phone, thank you very much.  The reason?  “It’s all the additional money and all the surcharges,” she told the newspaper.

But local cell phone dealers believe the arrival of Apple’s iPhone will cause a sensation across the region, and they’ve already fielded calls from customers anxious to acquire one.

Stop the Cap! has created a map showing the areas due for early conversion for your convenience.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Alltel ATT Transition Ahead of Schedule 9-4-10.flv[/flv]

Stop the Cap! has compiled news reports from across the region regarding the AT&T-Alltel transition and its impact on states including the Dakotas, Montana and Wyoming.  Clips courtesy of WDAY-TV Fargo, N.D., KGWN-TV Cheyenne, Wyo., KECI-TV Missoula, Mont., and KFYR-TV Bismarck, N.D. (4 minutes)

Upgrade Specifics

The following counties are on AT&T’s early upgrade list (RSA=Rural Service Area):

Alabama: Greater Dothan area and RSA 7 including Butler, Coffee, Covington, Crenshaw, Geneva and Pike Counties.

Arizona: RSA 5 including Gila and Pinal Counties.

Colorado:  RSA 4 includes Chaffee, Custer, Fremont, Lake and Park Counties. RSA 5 includes Cheyenne, Elbert, Kit Carson and Lincoln Counties. RSA 6 includes Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Montezuma, Ouray, San Juan and San Miguel Counties. RSA 7 includes Alamosa, Archuleta, Conejos, Mineral, Rio Grande and Saguache Counties. RSA 8 includes Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Otero and Prowers Counties. RSA 9 includes Baca, Costilla, Huerfano and Las Animas Counties.

Michigan: Greater Muskegon area and RSA 5 includes Benzie, Lake, Leelanau, Manistee, Mason, Missaukee, Osceola and Wexford Counties. RSA 7 includes Gratiot, Isabella, Mecosta, Montcalm and Newaygo Counties.

Montana: Greater Billings and Great Falls areas and RSA 1 includes Flathead, Glacier, Lake, Lincoln, Pondera, Sanders and Teton Counties. RSA 2 includes Blaine, Chouteau, Hill, Liberty and Toole Counties. RSA 4 includes Daniels, Dawson, McCone, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan and Wibaux Counties. RSA 5 includes Granite, Lewis and Clark, Mineral, Missoula, Powell and Ravalli Counties. RSA 6 includes Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Meagher, Silver Bow and Wheatland Counties. RSA 7 includes Fergus, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Petroleum, Stillwater and Sweet Grass Counties. RSA 8 includes Beaverhead, Gallatin, Madison and Park Counties. RSA 9 includes Big Horn, Carbon, Rosebud and Treasure Counties. RSA 10 includes Carter, Custer, Fallon, Powder River and Prairie Counties.

New Mexico: Greater Las Cruces area and RSA 1 includes Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, San Juan and Taos Counties. RSA 5 includes Grant, Hidalgo and Luna Counties. RSA 6 includes Chaves, Eddy, Lee, Lincoln and Otero Counties.

North Dakota: Greater Fargo, Grand Forks, and Bismarck areas and RSA 1 includes Burke, Divide, McLean, Mountrail, Renville, Ward and Williams Counties. RSA 2 includes Benson, Bottineau, Cavalier, McHenry, Pierce, Ramsey, Rolette and Towner Counties. RSA 3 includes Barnes, Dickey, Griggs, LaMoure, Nelson, Pembina, Ransom, Richland, Sargent, Steele, Traill and Walsh Counties. RSA 4 includes Adams, Billings, Bowman, Dunn, Golden Valley, Grant, Hettinger, McKenzie, Mercer, Oliver, Sioux, Slope and Stark Counties. RSA 5 includes Eddy, Emmons, Foster, Kidder, Logan, McIntosh, Sheridan, Stutsman and Wells Counties.

South Dakota: Greater Sioux Falls and Rapid City areas and RSA 1 includes Butte, Harding, Lawrence and Perkins Counties. RSA 2 includes Campbell, Corson, Dewey, Potter, Walworth and Ziebach Counties. RSA 3 includes Brown, Edmunds, Faulk, McPherson and Spink Counties. RSA 4 includes Clark, Codington, Day, Deuel, Grant, Hamlin, Marshall and Roberts Counties. RSA 5 includes Custer, Fall River and Shannon Counties. RSA 6 includes Bennett, Gregory, Haakon, Jackson, Jones, Lyman, Mellette, Stanley, Todd and Tripp Counties. RSA 7 includes Aurora, Brule, Buffalo, Charles Mix, Davison, Douglas, Hand, Hughes, Hyde, Jerauld and Sully Counties. RSA 8 includes Beadle, Brookings, Kingsbury, Lake, Miner, Moody and Sanborn Counties.RSA 9 includes Bon Homme, Clay, Hanson, Hutchinson, Lincoln, McCook, Turner, Union and Yankton Counties.

Virginia: Greater Danville, Norton and South Hill areas and RSA 1 includes Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, Russell, and Wise Counties and Norton City. RSA 8 includes Amelia, Brunswick, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg and Nottoway Counties.

Wyoming: Greater Casper area and RSA 1 includes Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park and Washakie Counties. RSA 2 includes Campbell, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan and Weston Counties. RSA 4 includes Albany, Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara and Platte Counties. RSA 5 includes Converse County.

When Steve Jobs throws a stone in a pond, the ripples are felt by just about everyone.  One day before the unveiling of a new, slimmed-down version of Apple TV, the rest of the Internet TV industry reacted.  From some came price cuts, for others a defense of their business model relying on higher-priced boxes.

First to Apple.  Yesterday, Apple’s Steve Jobs unveiled the latest version of Apple TV, a product Apple has ignored for years.  Jobs once dismissed the set top box as an afterthought intended for “hobbyists.”  Considering the product’s enormous number of limitations, he may have been right.

The latest version of Apple TV bears little physical resemblance to the original, except for the square shape.  What used to look a lot more like a Mac Mini now looks like an oversized A/B switch.  The unit’s mini-me size comes with a mini-me price — $99.  For that, Apple dispensed with the hard drive and turned TV watching into a streaming-only affair.  HDMI remains the preferred method to connect with your television — component video connections are gone on the new version.  Optical-digital output is included for audio.  The new version of Apple TV also loses the coffee-warming capabilities of the original, which routinely heated up to 111 degrees.

For Netflix fans, Apple includes support for Netflix video streaming, which is the most welcome change from the dreary everything-iTunes/YouTube limitation that handcuffed the original.

The new Apple TV continues to have plenty of limitations however.  There is no Gigabit Ethernet connectivity, there’s no support for 1080p, the micro-USB port is locked down preventing native support of external hard drives, and you are still stuck using iTunes for much of Apple TV’s functionality.

Apple’s control-freak mentality also remains on full display, banning you from watching Hulu or watching shows from most of Apple’s competition (Amazon, network TV websites, overseas TV streaming sites, etc.)  No audio streaming from sites like Pandora is allowed, either.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Coverage of Apple TV 9-1-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News delivered extensive coverage of Apple’s latest product announcements, with many taking a positive tone about their impact.  Several reports are included covering every angle.  (20 minutes)

Current Apple TV owners cannot benefit from the software upgrades that are a part of the new Apple TV.  The two products are not compatible.  That probably won’t bother many current Apple TV owners who long abandoned Apple’s awful software, jailbreaking their units and installing XBMC, Boxee, or atvusb-creator.  All of these remain superior even to Apple TV’s newest software because they offer owners the opportunity to stream virtually any content from any source.

In fact, Boxee’s developers were relieved after watching Steve Jobs unveil Apple TV 2.0.  Boxee will release its own set top box in November for $199.  They defended Boxee’s $100-more price point on their blog, noting that Boxee will offer a completely open viewing experience, and delivers a more compelling set of features than Apple TV will offer:

We think people want to be able to watch anything that they can watch on their computer, only on their big screen TV.  There is an overwhelming consumer expectation that the content we can consume in our cubicles, our dorm rooms, and in our laps should be available in our living rooms, in full 1080p with a gorgeous interface.  It’s a simple premise, but the challenge is to do it in a way that makes sense in that space, so you can put your feet up, grab a remote and start watching. No keyboards, mice, windows or labyrinthine menus. It should be calm and it should be beautiful. And it *must* be open.

We all watched the Apple announcement. We walked away feeling strongly confident about the space it left for Boxee to compete. We have a different view of what users want in their living rooms.  We are taking different paths to get there. The Boxee Box is going to be $100 more expensive than the Apple TV, but will give you the freedom to watch what you want.

Those investing $99 in the new Apple TV might have a shot of getting the best of both worlds.  It’s a safe bet Boxee’s creators will be working on a version of their software to replace what comes with Apple TV, potentially providing a Boxee experience at an Apple TV price.

For those counting every penny these days, the arrival of Apple TV’s budget-minded update forced some companies to start cutting prices.  Roku, which has been around since 2008, was the first player to officially support Netflix video streaming.  Today, most Roku owners use their boxes for that purpose, but because Roku is also an open platform, anyone can create “channels” for the box to open up new viewing possibilities.  As a result, Roku has come a long way from its days as the “Netflix Video Player.”

Now it’s $20-30 cheaper, too.

Coinciding with the launch of Apple TV, Roku cut prices on its three boxes:

• The standard-definition Roku SD is now $59.99 (down $20), but currently out of stock.
• The popular Roku HD is $69.99 (down $30).
• The Roku HD-XR, which adds Wireless-N capability and will support 1080p video after a firmware upgrade due later this year is now $99.99 (down $30).

Roku is running a promotion with Netflix that includes 50GB free on MP3tunes.com for a year to stream your iTunes music to your television if you buy any Roku HD player through this promotional link: www.roku.com/GetOne

Of course, still looming in the background is Google TV, due this fall on some new Sony TVs and Blu-ray players and the Dish Network satellite TV service.  Logitech is also bringing out its own standalone set-top box version — the Logitech Revue.

Although pricing for both Google TV and the Logitech Revue have not been announced, analyst Andy Hargreaves of Pacific Crest Securities thinks the Revue will cost between $250 and $300, which he believes is more than consumers would spend. “It’s a cool concept, but a tough sell,” he told USA Today.

Logitech is banking a lot on its new Revue box, as Logitech’s core business selling replacement computer mice and keyboards continues to falter — from $2.3 billion in 2007 to $1.9 billion in 2009.  As consumers replace $1,000 desktops with $400 laptops or web-ready smartphones, many aren’t interested in splurging for top of the line accessories Logitech includes in its product line, and webcams are already built-in to many laptops and phones.

Many more don’t want another box on their TV set.

James McQuivey, an analyst with Forrester Research likes the concept of Google TV, but believes it will succeed best if it’s already built-in to television sets or DVD players.

“It will change TV viewing forever,” he told the newspaper. “[But] you’d have to be a very technically oriented and TV-obsessed person to go through the pain of an additional box.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google TV and Logitech Revue.flv[/flv]

An introduction to Google TV and three amusing ads from Logitech for the Revue: TV Misses You.  (6 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KGPE Frenso KWGN Denver New Apple Products 9-1-10.flv[/flv]

Apple’s other new products, including their iPod line, was covered by KGPE-TV in Fresno and KWGN-TV in Denver.  (5 minutes)