Google today launched a new website which could become a major advocacy center to promote fiber broadband service across America.

Google Fiber for Communities opened with a thank you message for the enormous number of submissions it received for its experimental 1Gbps fiber broadband network.  Google expects to announce the winning application(s) for its experimental  network sometime this year.

But in the meantime, Google also acknowledges what big telecom companies keep trying to downplay and dismiss — “people across the country are hungry for better and faster broadband access.”  That is… better and faster service than their current provider is willing to supply.

The new website provides hints as to its greater purpose:

1. The name itself.  Notice “communities” is plural.
2. The site intends to mobilize for fiber networks across the country, starting with lobbying for pending federal legislation that would require installation of fiber conduit as part of federal transportation projects.
3. The site’s links heavily promotes municipal broadband advocates and organizations, including the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the Fiber to the Home Council, the Baller Herbst Community Broadband Page, the Broadband Properties Municipal Fiber Portal, and Muni Networks.  Outside of the Fiber to the Home Council, which has some big telecom company members and isn’t above advocating for their interests, the rest of the list suggests Google advocates that communities do for themselves what their local phone and cable companies won’t do — deliver world class broadband service at non-duopoly prices.

Stop the Cap! shares many of these goals with Google, as we are strong advocates for community fiber-based broadband, and believe additional competition is highly needed in America’s broadband marketplace to break up an anti-consumer duopoly that delivers slow broadband service (or none at all) at the highest prices companies can get away with.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Jerry here in Rochester for sending word.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

For more than a year, Stop the Cap! has been covering the issue of broadband mapping, warning against allowing incumbent telecommunications companies from being able to control or influence statewide maps that show who has broadband, and who does not.  A perfect example of why we repeatedly call out telecom-connected groups like Connected Nation being granted a piece of the mapping action can be found this weekend in a guest editorial published in the Fort Worth Star–Telegram written by Todd Baxter, vice president of government affairs and general counsel for the Austin-based Texas Cable Association — the Texas cable lobby:

Newly released maps show that broadband — high-speed Internet — is widely available in Texas. They also underscore that the broadband stimulus program has been ill-conceived and poorly executed by the federal government.

That’s because the federal government put the cart before the horse.

It gave out more than $270 million of your money to a dozen projects in Texas before actually determining where current broadband operators provide service. Common sense would say to find out where broadband is, or isn’t, available before spending the money.

The feds also should better define “underserved,” since the money is intended to help both unserved and underserved areas. It sounds like a riddle — how many broadband providers have to serve a household before it isn’t considered “underserved”? So far that riddle has no answer, and it is costing you, the taxpayer, a lot of money.

Without the data or the definition, how can the federal government make sure it is spending taxpayer money wisely and where it is really needed?

Now that we have the maps, we can see that more than 99 percent of all Texans can access some form of broadband, whether wired, wireless or mobile, from more than 123 providers. Yet — without this information — the federal government awarded hundreds of millions in grants and loans to the Texas projects, with possibly more to come before the broadband stimulus program wraps up in September.

The Texas Cable Association formally objected to seven of the dozen Texas projects when in the application stage, because the areas addressed are already covered by existing broadband providers. We don’t believe the areas are unserved or underserved.

Just a few weeks ago, the Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, with great fanfare, unveiled the current state of broadband in Texas.  Connected Texas, a subsidiary of Connected Nation joined forces with the state government to perform a broadband census across the state, based on voluntary information provided confidentially by existing service providers.  The result was the stunning “achievement” that 97 percent of Texas already had broadband access, quite a revelation to the scores of consumers who aren’t served by cable companies and cannot get DSL service from the phone company, even if the Broadband Map of Texas says they can.

Texas Broadband Map (click to enlarge)

Kelly from Childress, located in the Texas panhandle, is a perfect example.  She writes Stop the Cap! to tell us how thrilled she was to see the phone company had finally brought DSL service to her street just on the outskirts of town.  She had nagged everyone she could for more than three years about her lack of broadband.  The cable company offered service, if she paid $9,300 for installation of an extended cable line to reach her.  The phone company, despite serving her neighbors less than 1/2 mile away, said she was not “qualified” to receive DSL service.  Today, her husband and two kids do access broadband service, albeit from the equivalent of the broadband black market.  Her nearest neighbor has rigged a souped up Wi-Fi system that allows her family to share the neighbor’s DSL account.  A directional antenna mounted on the roof of each home provides line-of-sight access.  They split the cost of the account and Kelly, an accomplished baker, keeps her neighbors well-supplied with some great pies in gratitude.

Connected Texas collected the information about where broadband service was supposedly available in Texas

Texas has a well-deserved reputation for neighbors helping neighbors to solve problems they’ve long since decided the government can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t solve for them.  Now that neighborly spirit has taken a high-tech approach to share broadband.

With the release of the new broadband map, Kelly thought the days of sharing accounts was over, and she called the phone company to sign up for service.  But, in no surprise to us, broadband availability to her home changed only on paper, not in reality.  No, she was told, she could not sign up for DSL service today or tomorrow for that matter — the company had no plans to extend service her way… indefinitely.

For others, the map is inaccurate because it shows service from dominant cable and phone companies, but ignores the competition.  Regular Stop the Cap! reader Michael Chaney noted, “I know for a fact this map is inaccurate. They show no fiber to the home coverage in Cedar Park, Williamson County, even though I’ve had residential fiber service for almost two years.”

In 2009, Public Knowledge released a report highly critical of Connected Nation, the group responsible for broadband mapping across many states.  Among the findings:

In order to be effective, a national broadband data-collection and mapping exercise should be conducted by a government agency, on behalf of the public, with as granular a degree of information as possible and be totally transparent so that underlying information can be evaluated.

Connected Nation is none of those and represents none of those characteristics. It is an organization sponsored by the telephone and cable companies and represents their interests in deciding what data to collect and how information should be displayed. They are quite up front about their company sponsorship and, in fact, believe it is an asset, if in a way counter to solid public policy.

It would be a setback for our broadband policy if Connected Nation were to take a prominent role in broadband mapping and data collection if it continues on its present policy course because the organization does not represent wise public policy and because it distorts its results.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) was correct in April, 2008, when he vetoed a $2.4 million appropriation for Connect Kentucky, which until then had received almost $7 million from the commonwealth. Beshear said that the program was being rejected for state financing because it had asked for funds “without specifically identifying any services to be rendered to the state or providing for any oversight, control or performance measures relative to the services being rendered.”

The group’s close association to incumbent cable and telephone company interests were easily apparent just from the national organization’s board which has 12 outside directors, eight of whom are well known cable and phone company lobbyists or those with direct interests in the industry:

• James W. Cicconi – AT&T senior executive vice president-external and legislative affairs
• Steve Largent – CTIA – The Wireless Association president and CEO
• Joseph W. Waz – Comcast senior vice president, external affairs and public policy counsel
• Larry Cohen – Communications Workers of America president. CWA is in frequent agreement with telecom companies on policy issues.
• Thomas J. Tauke – Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communication
• Walter B. McCormick – United States Telecom Association president
• Kyle E. McSlarrow – National Cable and Telecommunications Association president
• Grant Seiffert – Telecommunications Industry Association president. (The members are the equipment makers who sell their gear to the telecom industry.)

These individuals, and others, are listed as “national advisors” on the Connected Nation Web site. They are listed as “directors” in their filing with the Kentucky Secretary of State.

The implications of allowing incumbent service providers to influence broadband mapping can be seen in Baxter’s editorial.  If Texas cable and phone companies can declare broadband service available even in areas where it is not, they can then argue against broadband stimulus projects to expand availability as an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money.  The answer to Baxter’s riddle is, unfortunately, too often “none.”  Areas that declare access to wireless broadband, cable and DSL often have access to none of these options.  The cable company doesn’t wire that Texas ranch located too far away from the phone company for DSL and is in an area that just can’t get a good wireless signal.

In smaller communities in rural Texas, efforts by local entrepreneurs to launch needed local broadband services often meet fierce opposition from incumbent interests who declare communities already served, backed up with a map that shows coverage, and therefore should not be allowed to receive stimulus funding.  Often, objections from existing providers effectively disqualifies stimulus applicants and the result is a continued blockade for rural broadband.

The dividend Connected Nation hands to the Texas Cable Association is the political argument that there is no broadband problem in Texas — nearly 100 percent of homes can already access it.  That means broadband stimulus is, in the eyes of the cable lobby, just another federal government giveaway — wasteful spending of tax dollars.  Just look at the Texas Broadband Map and see for yourself.

The Texas Department of Agriculture failed the people of Texas by relying on a group with a vested interest in not finding a broadband availability problem.  And even worse — taxpayers nationwide effectively picked up the $3 million dollars in grant money given to Connected Nation for its map.  That’s a waste of tax dollars that Baxter didn’t bother to bring up.  Somehow I knew he wouldn’t.

The bill is pending in the House Ways and Means Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Bill Faison, sees the moratorium as an attempt to protect the powerful cable monopoly. Faison, a Democrat who represents Orange and Caswell counties, is meeting Wednesday with representatives of the telecommunications industry and local government leaders to discuss options.

Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston) couldn’t get his Senate bill the time of day in the North Carolina House, so he attached it to a popular House bill to extend the e-NC Authority — North Carolina’s initiative to promote better broadband.  Now a good bill is infected, like a virus, by Hoyle’s tireless work on behalf of Time Warner Cable.

Hoyle, who has cashed checks from the cable and phone lobbies for years, is proud of sticking it to consumers in his state.

“I want my bill passed. They want their bill passed. So, if they want theirs, they’re going to have to take up mine,” Hoyle told WRAL-TV.

Hoyle, who plans to retire at the end of his term, faces no consequences from Gaston County voters, so he doesn’t care if his bill effectively protects incumbent cable companies who have raised their rates far above the rate of inflation for years.  Hoyle wants a one year moratorium to stop local communities from building their own broadband networks to improve service to residents and deliver lower pricing.

One community that escaped Time Warner’s relentless rate hiking is Wilson, where a municipal broadband project called Greenlight effectively forced a red light on Time Warner’s plans to increase rates in the community earlier this year.  Wilson was the only city we could find in the state where rates remained the same, and residents have Greenlight and city officials to thank for that.

Hoyle and his friends at the cable company are outraged at the thought of North Carolina communities stopping the rate hike gravy train.  After all, less money for Time Warner equals less money for campaign contributions to friendly politicians.

“Do we, as government, want to get in competition with private enterprise and my answer to that is no, and I am passionate about that,” Hoyle said.

If only his constituents could afford to pay him enough to be passionate about their interests.

Rep. Bill Faison, (D-Orange), is among the lawmakers sponsoring the broadband stimulus bill, which was a sure thing until Hoyle got his hands on it.  Faison called Hoyle’s amendments anti-competitive and pro-rate increase, both bad for North Carolina consumers.

“I decide what gets put on the agenda,” Faison told the Charlotte Observer. “It’s unlikely that any bill with a moratorium in it has a chance of getting through the House.”

Hoyle’s strenuous efforts to perform legislative gymnastics on behalf of cable and phone companies have not gone unnoticed by Faison.  He suggested Hoyle’s latest move represented an “interesting political maneuver,” but he doesn’t intend to sit still for it.  Faison and other pro-consumer legislators are meeting this week to consider how to strip Hoyle’s nonsense out of HB1840 and shove it in the nearest trash can.  For comparison purposes, here is the original bill.

Consumers show no love for Time Warner.  Charlotte residents had choice words for their cable company when they learned it was behind the push to stop municipal competition:

◊ Time Warner is about to pay for being jerks to their customers, and it’s high time.

◊ Time Warner cable: I hope they rot. It’s about dang time that municipal governments started providing free broadband to their citizens. The fact that multiple households need their own wireless routers, broadcast on different channels, is a totally inefficient use of technology. Companies like TW Cable want to keep citizens constrained, which runs totally opposite to the promise of the Internet. Find out which boneheads in the Senate are pushing for this and vote them out. They’re clearly more interested in money from the cable companies than in serving their constituents.

◊ For cable to argue unfair competition is laughable when they operate a virtual monopoly.

◊ Instead of fighting this legislation, why doesn’t Time-Warner Cable focus on making its service so reliable and reasonably priced that no city or county will seriously consider managing this themselves? I find it hard to believe any local government could actually run this type of technology more efficiently than a company with TWC’s resources can, but the threat of competition helps keep TWC on their toes. P.S. I lost my TWC signal for 90 minutes this past Sunday right in the middle of the US Open and Brazil-Ivory Coast World Cup game. Nice.

A vote on the House measure is imminent, so North Carolina consumers should be contacting the House Committee members listed below and urge them not to allow any part of Hoyle’s language to remain in HB1840.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WRAL Raleigh NC Broadband Bill Debate 6-28-10.flv[/flv]

WRAL-TV in Raleigh discusses Hoyle’s language and how it ended up in a broadband stimulus request bill.  (2 minutes)

House Ways and Means/Broadband Connectivity Committee

This article contains the following correction since original publication: Our original article did not fully explain the bill to which Sen. Hoyle attached his municipal broadband moratorium. For clarification purposes, that bill is HB1840, legislation to extend the authority of the e-NC Authority. Our original article carried WRAL-TV’s language that said the bill provided for “$5 million in federal stimulus to help provide high-speed Internet access in parts of the state.” While that would be nice, it wasn’t an accurate characterization the bill’s intent.  Our apologies for the error.

Unitel is one of five Maine telephone companies facing competition from Time Warner Cable's "digital phone" service

The Maine Public Utilities Commission has denied a request by Time Warner Cable to launch “digital phone” competition in rural Maine unless and until the cable operator agrees to completely wire every home that wants service in the affected communities.  The decision may carry national implications because it signals utility commissions have the power to stop unfair competition from companies that don’t agree to provide their service on a universal basis.

Five rural phone companies faced the prospect of trying to compete with Time Warner Cable’s “digital phone” service under requirements they provide universal service to every customer in their service area while the cable operator could cherry-pick where to provide service.

Unitel, Lincolnville Networks, Tidewater Telecom, Oxford Telephone Company and Oxford West Telephone Company told the PUC Time Warner Cable’s competitive threat was not fair because the cable company only provided service in choice neighborhoods, typically those with multiple residences adjacent to one another.  Only wiring significant population areas reduces costs for the cable operator while the rural landline providers are required to extend service to every resident in their communities, regardless of where they live.

A review by the PUC found Time Warner Cable’s request would create an undue economic burden on the rural telephone companies, reducing their value and increasing the risk of their long term survival, which would discourage investment and increase risk to creditors.

Reishus

PUC Chair Sharon Reishus: “Our decision…is taking place in a changing landscape for telephone regulation at the federal level with pending congressional and FCC actions, in the marketplace and in wireless technology. Our decision came down to an analysis of the current financial ability of the rural companies to withstand market competition if the exemption were lifted.”

“Customers in these rural areas must be assured a telephone service provider of last resort and access to lifeline services. Although the commission has a long history of recognizing the value of competition in the telecommunications market, in this instance, where Time Warner is not proposing to expand the availability of its service throughout the entire service territory of the rural companies, selective competition would undercut the ability of the rural companies to fulfill their ‘provider of last resort’ obligations.”

For years large telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon have argued that cable’s entry into the telephone business was unfair because cable companies never were required to serve every potential customer.  But instead of maintaining demands that cable match their universal service obligations, large phone companies have instead tried to free themselves from having to provide service to every possible customer.  AT&T, for example, has heavily lobbied for repeal of universal service requirements that mandate they provide telephone service to residents who live in the most rural service areas.

The Maine PUC has adopted a different standard — demanding that would-be cable competitors get busy wiring their entire communities for cable if they want permission to compete with area phone companies.  If they are not willing to do so, they cannot provide phone service to anyone in those communities.

Time Warner Cable had been seeking permission to provide phone service in rural Maine since 2008.

[flv width=”560″ height=”340″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Oxford Networks.mp4[/flv]

A promotional video from Oxford Networks (d/b/a Oxford/Oxford West Telephone Company) explaining the company’s history and their investment in fiber optics.  (3 minutes)

Take the money and run

The Federal Communications Commission’s approval of Frontier’s takeover of 4.8 million Verizon landline customers in 14 states comes a year after the company announced the deal.  Frontier joins three other independent phone companies — FairPoint Communications, Windstream Communications, and CenturyLink zealously trying to grow their companies with additional mergers and acquisitions to avoid being swallowed up themselves.

What is common among all four companies is they rely heavily on dividend payouts to keep their stock price as high as possible.  That was a formula for disaster for FairPoint, the first of the four to end up in bankruptcy after a similar deal with Verizon in northern New England caused the company to falter.  Service and billing deteriorated, customers fled, and promises for better broadband were broken.  Now Frontier is following in FairPoint’s footsteps with more than 4.8 million new customers Frontier hopes they can swallow.

The FCC’s statement approving the merger reads like a press release for all involved, and delighted FCC Chairman Genachowski, who called these meager requirements “robust”:

Coming one week after the final state approval for the transaction, the FCC’s Order holds the applicants, Verizon and Frontier, to enforceable voluntary commitments, including:

• Extend faster broadband to more Americans: Frontier will significantly increase broadband deployment for the lines involved in this transaction, only 62 percent of which are broadband-capable today. Specifically, Frontier will deploy broadband with actual speeds of at least 3 Mbps downstream to at least 85 percent of transferred lines by the end of 2013, and actual speeds of at least 4 Mbps downstream to at least 85 percent of the transferred lines by the end of 2015, with all new broadband deployment offering actual speeds of at least 1 Mbps upstream.

Frontier's Fast One: 3 Mbps DSL Service with a 5GB Monthly Usage Allowance

Frontier’s broadband commitment gives the company a full five years to meet the bare minimum speed considered to constitute broadband in the National Broadband Plan.  One hopes Frontier doesn’t break into a sweat offering a piddly 3 Mbps service to homes using yesterday’s DSL service until then.  While Verizon’s rural castoffs get stuck eventually with 4 Mbps DSL, many of the company’s remaining customers are enjoying 50Mbps service over an all fiber network.  The FCC is accepting an urban-rural divide for broadband which will benefit the phone companies while leaving rural customers in the dirt.

Deploy fiber to libraries, hospitals, and other anchor institutions: Frontier will launch an anchor institution initiative to deploy fiber to libraries, hospitals, and government buildings, particularly in unserved and underserved communities.

Fiber for these locations sure, but no fiber for you or I.  Frontier, like most other telecom companies, loves to promote the benefits of fiber without actually deploying it to homes.

Promote competition: Frontier and Verizon have made a series of commitments to protect wholesale customers, including honoring all obligations under Verizon’s current wholesale arrangements that are in effect at closing.

Since wholesale customers often depend on the same network other customers do, if a company doesn’t deliver robust broadband into a state like West Virginia, there isn’t a robust service to sell to those wholesalers.

Improve data quality and collection: Frontier will make available to the Commission data on its broadband deployment progress at an unprecedented level of detail to enable effective monitoring of Frontier’s compliance with its commitments.

The Commission concluded that the commitments that applicants have offered, coupled with monitoring and enforcement by the Commission, will minimize the risks of harm and ensure that this transaction is in the public interest.

Phillip "Living on the Frontier" Dampier

Considering how weakly the FCC is committing itself to protecting rural customers from being dumped into the broadband backwater Frontier has on offer (complete with the 5GB monthly usage allowance), does collecting statistics help when things go sour?  Regulators collected statistics in New England when FairPoint failed, but that didn’t get service levels back until Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont threatened to toss FairPoint out.  Now the company is in bankruptcy and regulators are negotiating which of the promises FairPoint made can be let go ‘for the sake of the company.’

That’s why it’s so ironic to read editorials that proclaim the FCC is on some sort of power grab when they seek to restore what meager authority they exercised over broadband before a DC Court effectively excluded broadband oversight from their portfolio.

It will be a good day when federal agencies like the FCC start worrying first and foremost about consumers instead of how to make a parade of overpriced mergers and acquisitions succeed for the companies involved.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne Verizon hanging up on local landlines 5-24-10.flv[/flv]

WANE-TV in Fort Wayne warns viewers their landline company is about to change asVerizon vacates the area by July 1st.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Verizon Dont Take the Money and Run in WV.flv[/flv]

Too late.  The Communications Workers of America ran this ad spot asking the West Virginia governor to intervene and stop the sale.  (1 minute)