Phillip Dampier on USF Reform: It might have been great, it could have been a lot worse, but ultimately it turned out to be not very good.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission unveiled their grand plan to reform the Universal Service Fund, a program originally designed to subsidize voice telephone service in rural areas deemed to be unprofitable or ridiculously expensive to serve.  Every American with a phone line pays into the fund through a surcharge found on phone bills. Urban Americans effectively subsidize their rural cousins, but the resulting access to telecommunications services have helped rural economies, important industries, and the jobs they bring in agriculture, cattle, resource extraction, and manufacturing.

The era of the voice landline is increasingly over, however, and the original goals of the USF have “evolved” to fund some not-so-rural projects including cell phone service for schools, wireless broadband in Hollywood, and a whole mess of projects critics call waste, fraud, and abuse.  For the last several years, USF critics have accused the program of straying far from its core mission, especially considering the costs passed on to ratepayers.  What originally began as a 5% USF surcharge is today higher than 15%, funding new projects even as Americans increasingly disconnect their landline service.

For at least a decade, proposals to reform the USF program to bridge the next urban-rural divide, namely broadband, have been available for consideration.  Most have been lobbied right off the table by independent rural phone companies who are at risk of failure without the security of the existing subsidy system.  Proposals that survived that challenge next faced larger phone company lobbyists seeking to protect their share of USF money, or by would-be competitors like the wireless industry or cable operators who have generally been barred from the USF Money Party.

This year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski finally achieved a unanimous vote to shift USF funding towards the construction and operation of rural broadband networks.  The need for broadband funding in rural areas is acute.  Most commercial providers will candidly admit they have already wired the areas deemed sufficiently profitable to earn a return on the initial investment required to provide the service.  The areas remaining without service are unlikely to get it anytime soon because they are especially rural, have expensive and difficult climate or terrain challenges to overcome, or endure a high rate of poverty among would-be customers, unable to afford the monthly cost for the service.  Some smaller independent phone companies are attempting to provide the service anyway, but too often the result is exceptionally slow speed service at a very high cost.

The new Connect America Fund will shift $4.5 billion annually towards rural broadband construction projects.  Nearly a billion dollars of that will be reserved in a “mobility fund” designated for mobile broadband networks.

The goal is to bring broadband to seven million additional households out the 18 million currently ignored by phone and cable operators.

The FCC believes AT&T will take a new interest in upgrading its rural landline networks, even as the company continues to lobby for the right to abandon them.

Unfortunately, the FCC has set the bar pretty low in its requirements for USF funding.  The FCC defines the minimum level of “broadband” they expect to result from the program — 4/1Mbps.  That’s DSL speed territory and that is no accident.  The phone companies have advocated a “less is more” strategy in broadband speed for years, arguing they can reach more rural customers if speed requirements are kept as low as possible.  DSL networks are distance sensitive.  The faster the minimum speed, the more investment phone companies need to make to reduce the length of copper wiring between their office and the customer.  Arguing 4Mbps is better than nothing has gotten them a long way in Washington, but it also foreshadows the next digital divide — urban/rural broadband speed disparity.  While large cities enjoy speeds of 50Mbps or more, rural towns will still be coping with speeds “up to” 4Mbps.

The FCC does not seem too worried, relying heavily on a mild incentive program to prod providers to upgrade their DSL service to speeds of 6/1.5Mbps.

The irony of asking AT&T to invest in an aging landline network they are lobbying to win the right to abandon is lost on Washington, and future speed upgrades for rural America from companies like Verizon are in serious doubt when they sell off their rural areas to companies like FairPoint and Frontier and leave town.

Critics of USF reform suggest the program is still stacked in favor of the phone companies, and considering the state of their copper wire networks, would-be competitors are scratching their heads.

The cable industry, in particular, is still peeved by reforms they feel leave them at a disadvantage.  Of course, Washington may simply be recognizing the fact cable companies are the least likely to wire rural America, but when they do, the service that results is often faster than what the phone company offers.  The nation’s biggest cable lobbyist — ironically also the former chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell — still feels a little abused after reading the final proposal.

“While we are disappointed in the Commission’s apparent decision to ignore its longstanding principle of competitive neutrality and provide incumbent telephone companies an unwarranted advantage for broadband support,” said National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Michael Powell, “we remain hopeful that the order otherwise reflects the pro-consumer principles of fiscal discipline and technological neutrality that will bring needed accountability and greater efficiency to the existing subsidy system.  We are particularly heartened by the Commission’s efforts to ensure that carriers are fairly compensated for completing VoIP calls.”

Wireless operators are not happy either, because the arcane requirements that come with the USF bureaucracy were written with the phone companies in mind, not them.  Small, family-owned providers find it particularly difficult to do business with the USF, if only because they don’t have the staff or time to navigate through endless documents and forms.  Phone companies do.

Your phone bill is going up.

Many consumer groups are relieved because it could have been much worse.   The FCC could have simply capitulated and adopted the phone companies’ wish-list — the ABC Plan.  Thankfully, they didn’t, but the FCC has naively left the door open to substantial rate increases for consumers by not capping the maximum annual outlay of the fund.  That follows the same recipe that invited higher phone bills and questionable subsidies awarded in an effort to justify the original USF program even after it accomplished most of its goals. Consumers may face initial rate increases of $0.50 almost immediately, and up to $2.50 a month five years from now.

The FCC, unjustifiably optimistic, suspects phone companies and other telecommunications interests won’t gouge customers with higher prices.  They predict rate increases of no more than 10-15 cents a month.  I wouldn’t take that bet and neither will consumer groups.

“We’re going to press the FCC to ensure that these are temporary increases, because history has shown that these types of costs tend to stick around and go on and on and on,” said Parul Desai, policy counsel for Consumers Union.

An even bigger question left unanswered is just how far the FCC will get into the broadband arena when it refuses to take the steps necessary to ensure it has an admission ticket.  The agency has avoided classifying broadband as a telecommunications service, an important distinction that would bolster its authority to oversee the industry.  Without it, some members of Congress, and more importantly the courts, have questioned whether the FCC has any business in the broadband business.  Just one of the many high-powered players in the discussion could test that theory in the courts, and should a judge throw the FCC’s plan out, we’ll be back at square one.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/C-SPAN Tom Tauke from Verizon on Changes to the Universal Service Fund 10-29-11.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s chief lobbyist Tom Tauke spent a half hour last weekend on C-SPAN taking questions about USF reform and the side issues of IP Interconnection and Net Neutrality policies. Tauke supports consolidation of small phone companies into fewer, larger companies.  He also expands on his company’s lawsuit against Net Neutrality, which fortuitously (for Verizon) will he heard by the same D.C. Court of Appeals that threw out the FCC’s fines against Comcast for throttling broadband connections.  Politico’s Kim Hart participates in the questioning, which also covered wireless spectrum issues impacting Verizon Wireless, AT&T’s stumbling merger deal with T-Mobile, and Verizon’s latest lawsuit against the FCC for data roaming notification rules.  (28 minutes)

Time Warner Cable experienced another challenging quarter, continuing to lose cable TV customers who either drop or pare back their television service, often in favor of broadband.

The company reported losses of an additional 128,000 video subscribers during the third quarter, but is partly winning that revenue back with new broadband customers — 89,000 of them in the last three months.

“Broadband is a powerful service for which there appears to be unquestionable consumer thirst,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said on the investor call. “Over time, we will contribute more of our plant’s capacity to broadband.”

The company is also poised to expand its marketing to win new broadband customers away from their primary competition — telephone company DSL service.  Company officials remain confounded by customers who subscribe to Time Warner’s cable TV service and take broadband from “inferior” phone company-delivered DSL.  Time Warner will continue to target these customers with win-over promotions offering a year of Road Runner Standard Service at the $29.95 promotional price point.

For the company as a whole, this is the tenth consecutive quarter of year-over-year residential broadband revenue improvement, coming from a combination of higher-priced, faster speed tiers, price increases, and subscriber additions.  The company’s DOCSIS 3 upgrade has proven itself a winner for customers and the company, with 18 percent of Time Warner subscribers now choosing 30 or 50Mbps broadband services.

Wall Street expressed some concern about statements from CEO Glenn Britt that the company was going to expand capital spending on broadband to handle increasing demand, especially from online video.  That concern comes despite the fact the company’s “capital intensity” (spending) from January-September was the lowest in the history of the company.  The full year’s capital spending is on track to reach up to $3 billion, which is consistent with what the company spent last year.

Glenn Britt

So despite the plans to spend more on broadband, that spending is actually in line with previous years.

In response to an opening question from Deutsche Bank’s Doug Mitchelson, Britt delivered an extended explanation downplaying the company’s spending plans:

In a way, there’s nothing really new here. I think you’ve seen this trend for a while. Our broadband product is very strong.

As most people know, the usage of broadband is skyrocketing, as it has been for some time. And that means that we will need to spend more money on it. We have been already, both in capital and operating expenses.

The great thing about the Internet is lots of third parties dream up lots of new applications that require more speed and more bandwidth. And we anticipate that we’re going to have to devote more capacity to that over time. We will do that by gradually removing our analog signals from our — analog TV signals from our plan. We’ve been doing that over the last several years by migrating to digital using Switched Digital technology. And over the next several years, we’ll be going all digital in the TV space.

I don’t see this driving a dramatic change in our cap spending, I think, to the core of your questions. The spending has been going on for a while, and I think you’re seeing a change in mix. The video spending is going down over time. The business services is going to go up, although it didn’t this quarter. And you’re going to see the spending on broadband going up. But I don’t think the overall trajectory is mutually different.

This quarter, the company’s conference call seemed to embrace greater broadband usage, and pondering Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps or usage-based billing never came up.  But Richard Greenfield from BTIG alluded to usage in his questions to Rob Marcus, president and chief operating officer at Time Warner Cable.

“I think we’re somewhere in the 7GB a month [range] of downstream bandwidth on a median basis,” Marcus said. “The average is much higher given the disproportionate usage by our high-end users.”

There were plenty of other facts to be gleaned from this morning’s conference call:

TV

• Whole Home DVR service has been introduced nationwide.  In the coming year, Time Warner will begin deploying “home gateways,” which reduce equipment costs;
• Time Warner is testing improved cloud-based set top boxes with home networking capabilities in parts of Syracuse, Los Angeles and Dallas.  These boxes will expand across the country in 2012.  They offer better search capability and deliver an improved user experience;
• 60% of customers reject “triple-play” offers from Time Warner and choose either “single” or “double-play” service instead;
• Much of Time Warner’s revenue growth is coming from rate increases on programming, services, and equipment;
• TV Essentials, the smaller, less expensive video package, is now available in New York City and Northeast Ohio, as well as upstate New York. It will launch nationwide by year end.  Unsurprisingly, company officials admit the less-than-attractive channel lineup has resulted in the vast majority of customers calling about the offering taking the traditional video package instead;
• Customers continue to drop ancillary services to cut their cable bill.  The increasingly expensive DVR box is a new target for cutting, and premium movie channels, adult pay-per-view, and mini-pay services all continue to suffer significant declines in business;
• The Google-Motorola deal will likely have little impact on Time Warner’s set top boxes, which primarily come from Cisco and Samsung.

Broadband

• By the end of the year, Time Warner plans to offer an Android-based TV Everywhere application similar to the existing iPad application, which will also continue to be upgraded to include on-demand offerings;
• Time Warner will make their TV Everywhere service available on game consoles, smart TVs and PCs in the near future;
• New York City customers will soon be able to select from a range of local broadcast stations on the company’s iPad app.  Other markets will start to see local channels added to this app in 2012;
• Major parts of Time Warner’s capital investments this year are: building data centers in Charlotte and Denver, conversion to all-digital in Maine to make room for enhanced broadband, and the continued rollout of DOCSIS 3.0. The company is also continuing to spend significantly on wiring commercial buildings to sell services to business customers;
• TV Essentials customers will soon be offered a “lite user” slower speed discount broadband plan to accompany their video package;
• In Los Angeles, Wideband 50Mbps customers also get 2 gigabytes of 4G/3G mobile broadband for no additional monthly charge on the company-branded Clearwire service. For Turbo Plus and Wideband 30Mbps customers, they can get the same 4G/3G capability for an additional $10 a month. Standard and Turbo customers can get it for an extra $20.  The company’s mobile broadband add-on product has not enjoyed much success with paying customers, however.  Time Warner hopes the value-added bundling of mobile broadband will attract more interest.

Phone

• Cord-cutting is now impacting Time Warner “digital phone” service, too.  Customers are increasingly reluctant to purchase phone service from any landline provider.  Now Time Warner’s regular pricing is starting to cost them business.  Executives revealed Time Warner’s “digital phone” service costs the company $9.06 to provide.  They charge consumers $30.  With that kind of profit margin, the company admits it will have to get more aggressive in pricing to attract new customers (and potentially keep existing ones);
• Time Warner lost 8,000 residential voice line customers last quarter, cushioned by net additions of 13,000 business line customers;
• The company continues to show little interest in selling cell phone products or services, either owned by themselves or others.  Mobile data remains an exception.

Fiber optic cable spool

For the most populated provinces in Canada, questions about when fiber-to-the-home service will become a reality are easy to answer:  Never, indefinitely.

Some of Canada’s largest telecommunications providers have their minds made up — fiber isn’t for consumers, it’s for their backbone and business networks.  For citizens of Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver coping with bandwidth shortages, providers have a much better answer: pay more, use less Internet.

Fiber broadband projects in Canada are hard to find, because providers refuse to invest in broadband upgrades to deliver the kinds of speeds and capacity Canadians increasingly demand.  Instead, companies like Bell, Shaw, and Rogers continue to hand out pithy upload speeds, throttled downloads, and often stingy usage caps.  Much of the country still relies on basic DSL service from Bell or Telus, and the most-promoted broadband expansion project in the country — Bell’s Fibe, is phoney baloney because it relies on existing copper telephone wires to deliver the last mile of service to customers.

Much like in the United States, the move to replace outdated copper phone lines and coaxial cable in favor of near-limitless capacity fiber remains stalled in most areas.  The reasons are simple: lack of competition to drive providers to invest in upgrades and the unwillingness to spend $1000 per home to install fiber when a 100GB usage cap and slower speeds will suffice.

The Toronto Globe & Mail reports that while 30-50 percent of homes in South Korea and Japan have fiber broadband, only 18 percent of Americans and less than 2 percent of Canadians have access to the networks that routinely deliver 100Mbps affordable broadband without rationed broadband usage plans.

In fact, the biggest fiber projects underway in Canada are being built in unexpected places that run contrary to the conventional wisdom that suggest fiber installs only make sense in large, population-dense, urban areas.

Manitoba’s MTS plans to spend $125-million over the next five years to launch its fiber to the home service, FiON.  By the end of 2015, MTS expects to deploy fiber to about 120,000 homes in close to 20 Manitoba communities.  In Saskatchewan, SaskTel is investing $199 million in its network in 2011 and approximately $670 million in a seven-year Next Generation Broadband Access Program (2011 – 2017). This program will deploy Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) and upgrade the broadband network in the nine largest urban centers in the province – Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Estevan, Swift Current, Yorkton, North Battleford and Prince Albert.

“Saskatchewan continues to be a growing and dynamic place,” Minister responsible for SaskTel Bill Boyd said. “The deployment of FTTP will create the bandwidth capacity to allow SaskTel to deploy exciting new next generation technologies to better serve the people of Saskatchewan.”

But the largest fiber project of all will serve the unlikely provinces of Atlantic Canada, among the most economically challenged in the country.  Bell Aliant is targeting its FibreOP fiber to the home network to over 600,000 homes by the end of next year.  On that network, Bell Aliant plans to sell speeds up to 170/30Mbps to start.

In comparison, residents in larger provinces are making due with 3-10Mbps DSL service from Bell or Telus, or expensive usage-limited, speed-throttled cable broadband service from companies like Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron.

Bell Canada is trying to convince its customers it has the fiber optic network they want.  Its Fibe Internet service sure sounds like fiber, but the product fails truth-in-advertising because it isn’t an all-fiber-network at all. It’s similar to AT&T’s U-verse — relying on fiber to the neighborhood, using existing copper phone wires to finish the job.  Technically, that isn’t much different from today’s cable systems, which also use fiber to reach into individual neighborhoods.  Traditional coaxial cable handles the signal for the rest of the journey into subscriber homes.

A half-fiber network can do better than none at all.  In Ontario, Bell sells Fibe Internet packages at speeds up to 25Mbps, but even those speeds cannot compare to what true fiber networks can deliver.

Globe & Mail readers seemed to understand today’s broadband realities in the barely competitive broadband market. One reader’s take:

“The problem in Canada (and elsewhere) preventing wide scale deployment of FTTH isn’t the technology, nor the cost. It’s a lack of political vision and will, coupled with incumbent service providers doing whatever they can to hold on to a dysfunctional model that serves their interests at the expense of consumers.”

Another:

“The problem with incumbents is they only think in 2-3 year terms. If they can’t make their money back in that period of time, they’re not interested. Thinking 20, heck even 10 years ahead is not in their vocabulary.”

A Comcast customer in San Carlos, Calif., wanted to change her Comcast account so she need not be reminded of the recent passing of her husband, under whose name the account was listed.  A simple call to Comcast to request a change met with resistance from a representative, who told her to get in her car, drive to Redwood City, and go stand in line with an original copy of his death certificate.

Judy did as she was told, and Comcast didn’t.  The following month, another bill in his name arrived.  Judy ended up telling the whole story to the San Jose Mercury News:

I again called customer service and was told, “Don’t worry, the change is in the system and will show on your next bill.”

Well, I received the bill dated Aug. 28, and it is still in his name.

On Sept. 1, I mailed a letter to the customer service manager at the Redwood City service center and to this date have had no response.

On Sept. 6, I emailed to the “We Want to Hear from You” address telling them about this, and I received an automatic response: “Thank you for your comments,” but nothing since.

In my letter I told them I will not pay that bill until I receive the bill in my name accompanied by a written apology for this gross insensitivity and complete lack of “customer service.”

A Comcast representative eventually called her back and told her the company doesn’t do written apologies, but did apologize over the phone.

After the newspaper intervened, attitudes changed dramatically.

“On Monday morning Debbie called me and after much apologizing on her part, we agreed on a month of our service deducted from my current bill,” Judy reports.

Cable companies who have earned the scorn of their customers could go a long way towards correcting their dismal record of customer service by using some common sense and sensitivity.  A family tragedy should never force someone to hike down to the local cable office with an original death certificate just to change a name on an account.  It also should not take media intervention to get someone to do the right thing.  Stop the Cap! has covered at least a dozen cases of customers running into brick walls with front line service representatives who are not authorized to do what needs to be done.  When that changes, consumers will be grateful.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has issued new guidelines for consumers with complaints about their Internet Service Providers’ throttling practices that puts the burden of proof on the consumer to demonstrate an ISP is engaged in wrongful behavior before the CRTC will act.

The revised guidelines appear to come in response to complaints from consumers who have been subjected to dramatically reduced speeds when using Rogers Cable Internet service to play online games while also running file sharing software in the background. Rogers’ speed throttling technology appears to be unable to discriminate between game traffic, which is not subject to speed reductions, and file swapping traffic, which is.

The Canadian Gamers Organization filed a formal complaint with the CRTC this summer accusing Rogers of engaging in Network Neutrality violations.

The CRTC gave Rogers until today to fix the errant speed throttle or respond to the agency with an explanation for the delay.  As of this hour, Rogers appears not to have responded.

Last week, the CRTC began a crackdown of its own — against consumers bringing Internet complaints.  The CRTC modified the complaint procedure to instruct consumers to first work with their ISP and application developers to resolve any outstanding issues before filing complaints.  From the updated CRTC Guidelines:

How to make an Internet performance complaint

Before you complain to the CRTC about an Internet traffic management practice, you should first contact your Internet service provider to see if it can resolve the issue.

If your service provider doesn’t address your complaint to your satisfaction, and you believe that your service provider’s traffic management practices are not compliant with the CRTC’s policies, you can complain to the CRTC. Before doing this, make sure that you know your rights.

Rogers chokes the speed of undesireable peer to peer file traffic, but other applications like online gaming are also impacted. Consumers are complaining about the collateral damage.

What to include in your complaint

In your complaint, explain why you think your service provider’s traffic management practice doesn’t meet the requirements set out in their traffic management policy.  It is not necessary to provide technical details about the problem, but the CRTC needs enough information to understand the problem.  Please, clearly describe:

• What part of the traffic management policy you believe the provider has not followed
• When the problem occurred, and whether it is a recurring problem
• Which software program, or application, has been affected
• How the application has been affected
• The steps you’ve taken to try to resolve the issue with your service provider, including your provider’s response to your complaint

Consumer groups are not pleased the CRTC won’t engage directly in independent oversight of ISP speed throttling practices regardless of consumer complaints.

“We are not a consumer-protection agency,” the CRTC’s Denis Carmel was quoted as saying back in July.

“The CRTC must start enforcing its own policies,” says Canadian Gamers Organization co-founder Jason Koblovsky. “The CRTC needs to put a plan forth to ensure that regular audits are done on Internet Providers rather than relying solely on consumer complaints. We are asking the public to tell the CRTC that enough is enough: the Commission needs to take a much more proactive role in ensuring that Internet providers play by the rules. We are ready to act politically and force a solution here if need be.”

Koblovsky expanded his views on the subject in a blog entry:

We find this policy update to be more of an insult to consumers, and puts the responsibility of monitoring ISP’s use of [speed throttles] directly on the back of consumers. This is not acceptable by any means, and none of the policy recommendations we made that were thrown out by the CRTC in our initial complaint were taken into consideration, or for that matter seriously by the CRTC. This is a slap in the face to what we have been fighting for, and that is the CRTC has the responsibility to follow through, monitor and enforce its policies.

[…] Not one ISP has been found by the CRTC to be acting against net neutrality policy since they acted on this in 2009 with several complaints sent to the CRTC by consumers being dismissed due to lack of evidence over years of enforcement failure by the commission. There is no indication here that the CRTC is going to be dealing with a very high evidentiary thresh hold put on the consumer to launch a CRTC investigation in this policy update. All this update does is provide information on CRTC complaints procedures that are already in place, and consumers are already abiding by.

[…] Maybe it’s time we start acting politically on this issue instead, drop the CRTC from the picture to force the CRTC through legislation to listen to consumers, and start putting forth a much better effort on their responsibility to the public to enforce their policies. Or better yet, start billing the CRTC for our efforts on each complaint we become a part of.

Read this excellent analysis of game throttling and how Canadian ISPs master the art of Internet Overcharging.