The National Telecommunications and Information Administration unveiled America’s broadband map early this morning, showing broadband availability, speeds, and coverage areas across all 50 states.

“A state-of-the-art communications infrastructure is essential to America’s competitiveness in the global digital economy,” said Acting Commerce Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank. “But as Congress recognized, we need better data on America’s broadband Internet capabilities in order to improve them. The National Broadband Map, along with today’s broadband Internet usage study, will inform efforts to enhance broadband Internet access and adoption — spurring greater innovation, economic opportunities, and advancements in health care, education, and public safety.”

The map, searchable by street address or zip code, delivers data largely volunteered by service providers themselves.  Some of the data, particularly for broadband speeds, represent best-case scenarios, not actual results.  Regardless, looking at the nation as a whole, there are some dramatic gaps in coverage.  Large areas west of the Mississippi are without broadband, which can be understandable in the sparsely populated region.  To the east, the biggest problem by far as in the Appalachians, especially in West Virginia, western Virginia, and the western Carolinas.  West Virginia in particular stands out as the state with the least amount of coverage in the east, perhaps only rivaled by Maine.  In the southern U.S., Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and northern Florida are problem areas.  East Texas outside of major cities is as well.  In rural areas, the coverage map fills in the most when rural wireless mobile providers are introduced, but their broadband plans are hardly suitable as a replacement for wired, unlimited access service.

“The National Broadband Map shows there are still too many people and community institutions lacking the level of broadband service needed to fully participate in the Internet economy. We are pleased to see the increase in broadband adoption last year, particularly in light of the difficult economic environment, but a digital divide remains,” said Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling. “Through NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, digital literacy activities, and other initiatives, including the tools we are releasing today, the Obama Administration is working to address these challenges.”

Reviewing the map for Stop the Cap!‘s headquarters — Rochester, N.Y., shows a correct list of providers, but the data about their products is more fantasy than reality:

• Time Warner Cable does not deliver 25/1.5Mbps service to residential customers in Rochester at this time, but its PowerBoost temporary speed gimmick might, for around 30 seconds.  Currently, Time Warner Cable maxes out at 15/1Mbps in the Rochester area;
• Frontier’s claim of 10Mbps is a theoretical maximum.  Most DSL customers don’t come close.  In our area (Brighton, N.Y.) Frontier couldn’t deliver more than 3.1Mbps.
• Wireless carrier data is simply wrong.  Sprint-Nextel is beaten down to a maximum 1.5Mbps, despite the arrival of its 4G network, which can manage better than that.  Verizon’s 3-6Mbps service is in their dreams, considering this data came from last June — before the introduction of LTE service in Rochester.  Clearwire is also guilty of boasting speeds they will never deliver on their increasingly throttled network.

The NTIA touts their map will be verifiable using “crowdsourcing,” but we found visitors are only able to confirm if a provider serves an area, but not how well and at what speeds.

Price data is also missing.  Strickling blames that on fast-changing industry practices.  We blame it on the fact providers refused to disclose that information, along with more specific details about their broadband networks.  Large providers claimed releasing proprietary, confidential business information could harm them competitively.

Another glaring example of questionable accuracy is the compelled-to-report top and bottom 10 cities in the country for service.  According to the NTIA, America’s number one city for broadband availability at speeds greater than 3Mbps is… Cleveland, Ohio.

Cleveland?

The worst?  Terre Haute, Indiana.

Really?

Inouye

Three senior Democrats on the Senate Commerce Committee have characterized the Federal Communication Commission’s national broadband expansion plans as inadequate — firmly rooting America as second class citizens in a global broadband market.

In three separate letters to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the senators criticized the chairman’s plan for broadband targets set too low, both in vision and in speed.

Genachowski’s plan calls for Americans to have universal access to at least 4/1Mbps service no later than 2020, a goal Genachowski described as “an aggressive target.”

But in a letter obtained by CQ, Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) noted that such speed goals were set low in comparison to other countries, many of which are on target to achieve 100Mbps broadband well before 2020.

“What is the FCC’s rationale for a vision that appears to be firmly rooted in the second tier of countries?” Inouye wrote.

Begich

Senator Mark Begich (D-Alaska) wanted to know how Genachowski settled for 4Mbps download speed, noting that seemed to him to be too modest.

In fact, speed goals in the National Broadband Plan were a major point of contention in the National Broadband Plan, with lobbyists from AT&T and Verizon pushing hard for the lowest possible speed goals.  That is because they are the largest traditional landline providers saddled with aging copper wire networks which provide broadband to most rural Americans through DSL.  Most Americans living outside of major population centers rely on phone company-delivered DSL service typically speed rated at 768kbps-3Mbps.  Because DSL service is distance sensitive, a speed target of just 4Mbps requires a considerably lower investment than a target of 20Mbps or higher.  It is likely 100Mbps service, outlined as a goal for at least 100 million Americans, will first be achieved through fiber and cable networks in large cities, and not from phone company DSL service.

The difficulty for rural Americans to achieve a fair shake in broadband was highlighted by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota).  He cited his state’s poor ranking — 42nd in broadband speed, as evidence Americans in rural states suffer with considerably lower quality broadband service.  The FCC’s National Broadband Plan, Dorgan fears, may only recreate the digital divide, only with different levels of speeds.

Dorgan

If 100 million Americans can access broadband services at 100Mbps, a rural speed target of 4Mbps will make new, high bandwidth-dependent Internet services just as off-limits to rural America as basic broadband is today in many areas.

Genachowski promised to review broadband speed targets every four years, making adjustments when necessary to be certain rural Americans receive broadband service comparable to urban areas.

But with the wide disparity in speed goals for urban and rural America, that may be impossible in the short term, especially as telecom industry lobbyists continue to pressure Congress for less regulation and no government mandates.

Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T)

The digital divide in broadband has never been just a rural issue.  Some of America’s largest cities are filled with families who cannot afford the prices some broadband providers charge for access.  So it came as quite a surprise that at least eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) decided to oppose the Obama Administration’s efforts to move forward on its telecom agenda of better broadband and Net Neutrality.

It also disturbed James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org, whose 600,000 members are part of America’s largest African-American online political organization.

Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas/AT&T) circulated a letter opposing regulatory intervention in broadband around Capitol Hill looking for additional signatures from members of Congress.  Green’s letter, directed to Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, is the public policy equivalent of a biggie-sized series of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations.  Green is so proud of his efforts, constituents can’t find word one about it on his website. Instead, Green claims he is working “to expand Internet access and improve Internet competition, in order to reduce access prices and close the ‘Digital Divide’ between those online and those who are not.'”

Sure he is.

ColorOfChange urged members of Congress not to co-sign Green’s letter:

This letter is not the first time we’ve seen deceptive language or outright misinformation used to advocate against protecting network neutrality. In fact, the telecom industry has for years been engaged in a well-coordinated and massively funded campaign to intentionally misinform the public, Congress, and public interest groups about net neutrality, successfully confusing the issue to their advantage. The industry has spent millions of dollars on advertising, public relations, and lobbying efforts — using industry front groups, ads in Capitol Hill newspapers, and lobbyists. Sadly, the industry in recent years has also managed to enlist members of Congress and advocacy organizations rooted in communities of color to echo misleading and false arguments about net neutrality. This too has been a concern for many ColorOfChange members and has been the subject of our campaign work. While it has a right to engage in the public discourse about this issue, the telecommunications industry has demonstrated a disinterest in honest debate, spreading misinformation that plays on ignorance about the issue, and the somewhat confusing, technical language that surrounds it.

Several of the advocacy groups involved take substantial contributions from telecom companies — notably AT&T and Verizon, or have telecom interests serving on their board of directors.  When a minority advocacy group suddenly starts parroting AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast talking points, just follow the money.

Unfortunately, 74 Democrats, including eight members of the CBC aren’t listening to ColorOfChange or their constituents, and co-signed Green’s letter.  James Rucker notes:

Last week, I urged black members of Congress not to sign this letter. But we quickly learned that Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Lacy Clay (D-MO), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Greg Meeks (D-NY), Bobby Rush (D-IL), and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) didn’t get the message.

Those wondering why these eight members were in such a hurry to disconnect their constituents’ interests need only consider the enormous campaign contributions sent to them by the phone and cable industry:

Source: Opensecrets.org

That’s only for this year — and we’re only five months into 2010.  Co-signing Green’s letter could add an extra zero to the amount on the next check.

Rep. Green himself is no stranger to campaign contributions from telecom companies.  So far in 2010, he’s accepted money from both AT&T, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.  Since 2000, every time a major public policy debate fires up over telecommunications issues, AT&T (and its predecessor SBC) increased the amount on Green’s check.  During the 2004-2006 cycle, when SBC sought a merger with AT&T, SBC contributed $11,500 to Rep. Green.  During the first round of the battle to secure Net Neutrality in 2006-2007, AT&T was Green’s top donor with a $15,000 contribution.

ColorOfChange.org today announced a new campaign directed towards the eight CBC members who co-signed Green’s letter.

“Our members are deeply concerned that by signing Green’s letter, black members of Congress are taking a stance that fails to secure our digital rights,” said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. “Some CBC members have perhaps signed Rep. Green’s letter without fully understanding what is at stake while others seem to know, but are serving other interests. There is a significant correlation between those leading the charge and those accepting significant contributions from the industry which stands to benefit from the FCC being rendered impotent. In either case, our members are eager to make clear how important this issue is to our community and to Americans in general, and to explain why they see this as a 21st century civil rights issue.”

The group is calling on members to place more than 1,750 phone calls to all eight representatives, urging they stop representing the interests of phone and cable companies and start representing the interests of their constituents.  ColorOfChange is asking everyone to ask these members to promptly remove their names from Rep. Green’s letter, which represents little more than propaganda talking points from big telecom.

Last month, a federal court removed the FCC’s authority to enact the most basic consumer protections over broadband given its current classification, which was decided upon by a previous set of commissioners. The court ruled that the agency did not have the authority to institute the desired protections while broadband was designated an information (or Title I) service, over which the FCC has limited jurisdiction. The ruling prevented the FCC from implementing proposed rules on network neutrality and cast a cloud of uncertainty over its authority to implement portions of the National Broadband Plan intended to close the digital divide.

Earlier this month, the FCC announced it would reassert its authority to enact limited regulation of broadband by reclassifying it as a communication (or Title II) service. In response, telecommunications industry lobbyists have stepped up their efforts to influence lawmakers. Rep. Green’s letter parrots long-debunked arguments that serve the interests of major industry players and threaten the FCC’s ability to make rulings that would expand broadband access.

(The Liberal Party is sponsoring an online town hall meeting this afternoon at 3:30PM EDT on the issue of expanding broadband in rural Canada.  Why not join in and demand that Michael Ignatieff commit to reforming the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which has landed Canada in a real broadband mess filled with Net Neutrality violations and Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing.  The CRTC has been so submissive to Canadian telecom, they might as well be their trade association.

Tell him rural broadband expansion doesn’t do much good if the existing providers, which got Canada into this mess, are still in charge of running it.  Real broadband reform requires a government committed to universal broadband that works for Canadians and doesn’t simply profit from them.  Demand Net Neutrality commitments from the Liberal Party and an end to overcharging schemes.  Universal broadband doesn’t mean much to Canada if Canadians can’t use it without fear of overlimit fees and enormous bills at the end of the month. — Phillip Dampier)

Ignatieff announces the Liberals' rural broadband plan at Contact North in Thunder Bay, Ont.

The Liberal Party of Canada has promised rural Canadians they will not be left behind the digital online revolution, unveiling a promise Tuesday to deliver universal broadband access to all Canadians within three years of taking office.

Michael Ignatieff, Liberal leader made the commitment as part of a series of planks the party introduced under its “Rural Canada Matters” platform to attract support from rural Canadians, who tend to vote Conservative.

“Too many rural communities can’t get access to essential services, because we don’t have the digital infrastructure to deliver them,” said Ignatieff. “That’s why I’m committing a future Liberal government to 100 percent high-speed Internet for every rural, remote and Northern community in our country.”

According to Ignatieff, using proceeds from a 2011 wireless spectrum auction, a Liberal government would invest to achieve an interim target of 100 percent high-speed Internet connectivity of at least 1.5 Mbps. A Liberal government would also seek to set a more ambitious goal for 2017, Canada’s 150th anniversary as a country.

The Liberals blasted the incumbent Conservatives for breaking their promise to deliver rural broadband to Canadians.

In 2006, Canada’s Telecommunications Review Panel recommended the federal government achieve 100% high-speed Internet connectivity by 2010. This goal was not achieved under the Conservative government.  According to the CRTC, in 2009 close to 800,000 Canadian households still did could not access high-speed Internet – or 20% of all rural Canadians. At the turn of the century, Canada ranked second in the world in Internet connectivity, but has now fallen to tenth place.

Ignatieff announced the plan in Thunder Bay, Ontario at an Internet access center run by Contact North.  He characterized the current state of broadband in Canada as threatening the country’s economic competitiveness and quality of life for rural residents.

“While railways and highways were the essential infrastructure of the 20th century, fiber optic lines, satellites and wireless towers, are the digital infrastructure needed to connect our communities and strengthen our economy in the 21st century,” said Liberal Rural Caucus Chair Mark Eyking, “In all regions of Canada, families and businesses depend on access to the Internet and mobile phone coverage.”

New Democratic Party (NDP) MP Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North) praised the Liberal plan.

The Liberal Party is trying to capture an increased share of traditional Conservative Party supporters with a rural-focused agenda

“Obviously, country-wide broadband is a good idea,” Hyer told The Chronicle-Journal newspaper in Thunder Bay. “And there should be virtually no community of any size in Canada, and nowhere along the Trans-Canada, for sure, that we don‘t have high-quality mobile phone access and service. The United States has those things, and we should have them, too.”

But NDP MP John Rafferty (Thunder Bay-Rainy River) told the newspaper he’s heard it all before.

“Liberals have been talking about rural broadband access for a decade now,” he said. “The interesting thing is that he says rural Canada matters. But clearly it hasn’t mattered to Liberals for a long time, or else we would’ve had broadband.  They had a chance to do this. What they’re doing is regurgitating old promises.”

Rafferty said the Liberals first brought it up in 2001, and said then it would cost $4 billion.

“I’m not sure where he comes up with ($500 million).”

Another concern for the Liberal Party plan is the fact it relies entirely on private providers to deliver the service, something they have refused to provide many rural Canadians thus far.  In effect, the government would transfer $500 million dollars earned from large telecommunications companies buying additional spectrum and then hand it all back to those same companies to construct slow speed broadband services they can then profit from.

While many Canadian officials blame Canada’s large rural expanse for the digital divide, others blame Canada’s broadband providers who have engaged in usage-limiting schemes, increased prices, and throttled the speeds of certain broadband services.

Get out your tiny violins.  Telephone and cable companies that have ignored your neighborhood for years are decrying attempts by the federal government to fund projects that would finally extend broadband service to rural America.  Companies ranging from tiny Eagle Communications in Kansas, to major regional telephone companies like FairPoint Communications and Windstream, are upset that new providers are on the way to deliver broadband service to bypassed homes or communities stuck in their broadband slow lane.

The Associated Press reports coast-to-coast complaints from incumbents who have refused to deliver service or force customers to accept 1-3Mbps speeds indefinitely.

From the Blue Ridge Mountains to the Great Plains, some local phone and cable companies fear they will have to compete with government-subsidized broadband systems, paid for largely with stimulus dollars. If these taxpayer-funded networks siphon off customers with lower prices, private companies warn that they could be less likely to upgrade their own lines, endangering jobs and undermining the goals of the stimulus plan.

That’s rich coming from some providers who threaten to refuse to upgrade lines they’ve never upgraded, endanger employees they’ve long since cut, and threaten their quest for monopoly profits serving rural Americans larger carriers are rapidly abandoning.

Anemic Broadband Is Not in Kansas Anymore

Rural Telephone's Exchange Map (click to enlarge)

Kansas-based Eagle Communications provides cable and wireless broadband service to more than a dozen small towns in the state.  For more populated areas, it’s cable broadband service.  For the rural parts of its service areas, Eagle relegates everyone to a slower speed, more expensive wireless network.

The company is upset to learn about additional expansion forthcoming from Rural Telephone Company, a cooperative which recently won a $101 million stimulus grant to construct a fiber optic system to expand service.  With the grant, the co-op phone company will move beyond its currently constrained DSL broadband network into areas even Eagle’s rural wireless signal won’t reach.

Rural Telephone Company says their broadband grant will provide service “in an area 99.5 percent unserved/underserved and provide a rural infrastructure required for economic stability, education and health care.”

Eagle says it’s unfair competition.

“It is extremely unfair that the government comes in and uses big government money to harm existing private businesses,” Gary Shorman, president of Eagle Communications, told the AP.  “This hurts our company.”

“It’s a little disappointing that companies that aren’t adequately serving these areas are trying to undercut those of us who are trying to step in and get the service where it’s needed,” says Lawrence Strickling, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the arm of the Commerce Department handing out much of the stimulus money.

The $101 million Kansas project, for instance, will bring connection speeds of up to 1 gigabit to businesses and up to 100 megabits to as many as 23,000 homes. While the network will cover the population center of Hays, where both Rural Telephone and Eagle Communications already offer broadband, that accounts for just eight of the 4,600 square miles to be reached. Much of the area has no broadband at all, says Larry Sevier, Rural Telephone’s chief executive.

The goal is to “close the digital divide between Hays and the outlying areas,” says Jonathan Adelstein, head of the Rural Utilities Service, which awarded the money.

Eagle Communications' Wireless Service Area - Central Region (click to enlarge)

For rural Kansans choosing between Eagle’s wireless service or Rural Telephone’s current maximum 1.5Mbps DSL service for those outside of the Hays city limits, the definition of “high speed service” maxes out at an anemic 3Mbps:

Eagle Communications Wireless Network Pricing – Hays, Kansas

• Eagle 256/256 $34.95 /per month
• Eagle 768/512 $37.95 /per month
• Eagle 1.0/384 $44.95 /per month
• Eagle 2/512 $54.95 /per month
• Eagle 3/512 $59.95 /per month

Rural Telephone Company Pricing for Outside the City Limits – Hays, Kansas

• Rural Telephone’s 1.5Mbps DSL — $29.95 per month
• Rural Telephone’s 512kbps DSL — $19.95 per month

Gone With the Windstream: Phone Company Says Broadband Stimulus Doesn’t Give a Damn About Their Georgia Business Model

Many of the projects seeking funding don’t actually want to get into the Internet Service Provider business, preferring to construct fiber-based networks available equally to all-comers at wholesale pricing.  Sure they’ll wire government buildings, schools, and libraries as a public service, but their real goal is to make available super high speed networks that incumbent providers haven’t, under the theory a rising tide lifts all boats.  They even invite existing ISP’s to hop on board, buying access to deliver improved service to their existing customers.

But because some providers don’t own or control the infrastructure outright, they’re not interested.

One such project is the North Georgia Network Cooperative, created from a consortium of private business advocates, a state university, and two power company co-ops.

North Georgia sees broadband as a major economic stimulant… if they actually had it.  Large parts of the region don’t, so the Cooperative applied for and won a $33.5 million NTIA grant to construct a 260-mile fiber ring running through 12 counties in the state.  The network will easily deliver connections upwards of 10Gbps for institutions and broadband speeds far faster than incumbent DSL provider Windstream currently provides across the region.

Windstream's biggest promotional push is for its 6Mbps DSL service

Windstream’s DSL packages look better than many other independent phone companies, at least based on their website.  Windstream offers 3, 6, and 12 Mbps DSL packages across northwestern Georgia,  but that doesn’t mean you can actually obtain service at those speeds.  Stop the Cap! reader Frederick, who tipped us off to this story, notes that he can’t obtain more than 1.5Mbps DSL service from his home in Dalton, Georgia because the phone lines in his area won’t support faster speeds.

“I’m actually less than a mile from my area’s central office, but because the phone lines in my area are deteriorated, they had to lock my speed in at 1.5Mbps — anything faster causes the modem to reset,” Frederick writes.  “Windstream does the same thing to my cousin in Lafayette, who was offered 6Mbps service but can only get 3Mbps in reality.”

Frederick says most people in the community don’t really care where the faster broadband comes from — just that it comes.

“If Windstream, who incidentally also applied for government money, could do it there would have never been a need to go around them in the first place,” he says. “Hell, the ironic part is the Cooperative will sell wholesale access to Windstream to use as it sees fit, but because Windstream doesn’t own it they’re pouting, refusing to participate.”

Windstream says it has already invested $5 million in network upgrades covering northern Georgia over the last three years and the Cooperative’s stimulus grant undermines the economics of that investment.  Michael Rhoda, Windstream’s vice president of government affairs told AP Windstream now has to share rural customers with a government-funded competitor.  Windstream wants that funding limited strictly to those areas where broadband service is uneconomic to provide.  To underline that point, the company has applied for $238 million in stimulus funding to reach the “last 11 percent” who don’t have broadband in Windstream’s service areas.

Maine’s Three Ring Binder Project Snaps Shut on FairPoint’s Monopoly Fingers

Maine's Three Ring Binder Project plans to serve most of Maine (click image for additional information)

More often than not, independent efforts to launch improved broadband service in a region come after years of dealing with an intransigent provider comfortable moving at a snail’s pace to improve service.  Financially-troubled FairPoint Communications has been struggling to meet Maine’s broadband needs since the company took over service from Verizon two years ago.  The state government, university, and smaller telecommunications companies decided they could do better — applying for, and winning a $25.4 million dollar grant to construct three fiber rings across the state.

FairPoint insists the project duplicates the company’s own efforts to improve connectivity in Maine and has appealed to lawmakers to stop the project.  But FairPoint recently called a truce when it reached a deal to charge users of the new network a usage fee, with FairPoint getting a large share of the proceeds to expand its own broadband efforts.

[FairPoint’s financial problems have left the company] unable to bring broadband to wide swaths of rural Maine, says Dwight Allison, chief executive of Maine Fiber Co., which was created to build and operate the stimulus-funded network. The project, he says, represents a serious competitive threat to a company that “feels its monopoly is being attacked.”

Of course nothing precludes FairPoint from getting access to the new fiber network at the same wholesale pricing other providers will pay, but the company so far doesn’t seem interested.

Various talking points designed to derail the project are debunked by the Maine Fiber Company:

• Fiction: It’s government-run broadband.
• Fact: Three Ring Binder will be owned and operated by Maine Fiber Company, a private company based in Maine. MRC is unaffiliated with any telecom carrier to ensure fair and equal access to the system for all competitors.

• Fiction: This project will create unfair competition for private providers.
• Fact: MFC will be a wholesale provider of dark fiber, and its customers will be Internet Service providers, wireless carriers, and telephone companies. MFC will not provide “lit” service in competition with private broadband carriers. MFC is required to provide service on an open access and non-discriminatory basis. All carriers in Maine will be able to use the network to serve their customers in Maine, resulting in robust competition for the benefit of Maine consumers.

• Fiction: This project duplicates service FairPoint already provides.
• Fact: Prior to receiving a federal stimulus grant, the project was carefully reviewed by the National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA) of the US Department of Commerce to determine whether there was overlap with existing carriers. NTIA determined that TRB would substantially improve access to high-speed Internet access in rural Maine. If material duplication had been discovered, TRB would not have been funded. TRB will offer a mid-mile, dark fiber service that is fundamentally different from what currently exists in rural Maine. In fact, carriers seeking to obtain dark fiber service along the TRB route have routinely been denied access by incumbent fiber providers.