Dampier

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission formally introduced its omnibus National Broadband Plan to America, Congress, and the telecommunications industry.  The FCC seeks nothing less that a transformation of broadband to better meet the needs of Americans for years to come.

The 376-page plan recognizes broadband is no longer a novelty.  It’s now becoming one of the essential utilities of life — joining power, telephone and water service as something virtually every American will eventually have in their home.  But while the Commission lays the general groundwork for future regulatory policy to help achieve that goal, it ignores the historical reality that made universal service for utilities possible.

I am a strong believer in reviewing past mistakes to avoid repeating them in the future.  That is why Stop the Cap! occasionally turns back the clock and reviews history.  Railroad robber barons, telephone company monopolies, and electric service providers all abused their positions and consumers paid through the nose for service until the government finally broke up the anti-competitive trusts that limited competition.

Just like today’s broadband players, in the early 20th century, electric companies asked for and received favorable treatment by Congress.  The industry argued such treatment was required to make investors comfortable with the enormous amount of investment required to construct power generation facilities, run wiring to homes, and obtaining easy access to American streets and backyards.  Regulations must be kept to a bare minimum, providers demanded.  Anything else, they claimed, would discourage critical private investment, would create job losses, and slow deployment of service to millions of Americans.  Sound familiar?

By the time the American public realized electric companies were abusing their monopoly positions to charge outrageously high prices, the half-measures legislators proposed to control rates and improve service were often ineffective.

Just as with electric service, any broadband plan that seeks to tinker around the edges of the problem will not solve the problem.  Providers will find loopholes, lobbyists to help water down the provisions they dislike, and lawyers to mount endless legal challenges to stall reform.

The warning signs are already apparent in the FCC plan.  The agency seeks to cooperate with some of the biggest players in the industry that are responsible for what the FCC calls “the critical problems that slow the progress of availability, adoption and utilization of broadband.”

That ultimately means working with existing providers instead of creating the right conditions to welcome new players into the market.

America's broadband duopoly - just four percent of Americans have more than two providers to choose from

The anti-competitive, de facto duopoly pricing power available to cable and telephone companies has created an enormous digital divide for rural Americans who cannot pass “Return on Investment” means tests, prices broadband service out of reach for many, and seeks even higher pricing while proposing to limit service with Internet Overcharging schemes like “usage-based billing” and “usage limits.”

Where one lives is often the most important factor when considering broadband speed and service quality.  It’s the luck of the draw.  A customer on one side of the street may have the option of Verizon FiOS, a true fiber-to-the-home service providing equal upstream and downstream speeds far higher than the national average.  Across the street, a customer may only be served by another telephone company offering 1Mbps DSL with no alternatives.

Other Americans live within viewing distance of a utility pole where cable or telephone broadband service stops, giving them the choice of paying $10,000 to extend service, or living with dial-up or satellite fraudband.

Few phone or cable companies will ever consider invading another’s turf, even if customers begged.

But it gets worse.

The service customers can obtain from a provider varies even within its service area.  Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse is available in some neighborhoods, but not others.  What stops or slows service expansion?  Anything from a management decision on a whim to concerns by private investors, market conditions, cost controls, or changing revenue expectations that inhibit uniform service across the community.  Local governments used to manage this problem with franchise agreements that made approval conditional on supplying service across an entire community, but companies like AT&T lobbied their way to statewide franchising reforms that can eliminate local oversight.

The cable television industry has a better track record of providing uniform broadband service to customers in their respective service areas, but at what cost?  Time Warner Cable COO Landel Hobbs recently told a group of investors pricing for its Road Runner service can be increased at the company’s whim.  Comcast has already increased prices on its broadband service. Both companies have either tested or implemented usage limits and restrictions on their customers.

What makes these things possible?  Limited competition and insufficient oversight.

The FCC’s solution to limited competition includes vastly expanding wireless frequencies available to mobile broadband providers.  But here’s the problem.  The government will auction those frequencies off to the highest bidders, which are most assuredly the dominant industry players AT&T and Verizon.  For millions of Americans, that means no extra competition at all because their phone, broadband, video, and wireless service all come from these two companies.  The only way smaller players can compete in a bidding war is through consolidating mergers, which reduce the number of competitive choices in many cities.  If the government wants competition, it should provide incentives to spur its development.

Wall Street certainly won’t help much.  They loathe heavily competitive markets now, because inevitable price wars limit their returns.  Getting initial investment to construct new networks is problematic because investors don’t want excessive competition.  Providers howl it’s unfair for government to help their competitors, but their incumbency provides them with built-in benefits unavailable to new entrants.

The FCC recognizes the importance of broadband service as America’s next utility, but is afraid to regulate them as such.  They may have good reason not to try.  Comcast is presently suing the Commission in federal court, claiming they don’t have jurisdiction over broadband policy.  Should Comcast prove its case, the National Broadband Plan could be just another thesis for improved broadband, with no backing authority to implement its recommendations and regulatory changes.

That brings us to Congress.  While the FCC may bring its best intentions to the table with the National Broadband Plan, it’s very likely lobbying will force changes to what finally gets implemented, if anything.

The telecommunications industry never has a problem finding financial resources to hire lobbyists and spread lavish campaign contributions all over Washington.

They’ve already bought and paid for an enormous astroturf group called Broadband for America with 200 member organizations, virtually every single one backed by AT&T or Verizon money or personnel, or equipment providers who stand to earn substantially from broadband improvement.  They are running TV ads telling viewers private providers should be left alone to get the job done, something they’ve had a decade to accomplish with insufficient progress in key areas.

Many in Congress, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, will agree with BfA’s “hands-off” advocacy.  Early reaction from Republicans regarding the Broadband Plan is not favorable.  Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce communications, technology and the Internet subcommittee, told the Washington Post he wants the agency to stay focused on bringing access to people who don’t have it.

“I am concerned, however, that the plan may contain stalking horses for investment-killing ideas, such as so-called net neutrality mandates or a return to outdated, monopoly-era regulation,” he said.

Many Democrats with large telecommunications companies headquartered in or near their districts are likely also to advocate caution.

Regardless of what the FCC recommends, Congress will ultimately control the outcome.

Here are our recommendations you should consider sharing with your elected officials:

Congress and the FCC must be willing to stand up to the telecommunications industry which is not delivering world-class broadband service.  The United States is falling behind in access, pricing, and speed.  Simply accepting the provider argument that they should be left alone in an unregulated, duopoly marketplace is not an option;

Congress must deliver to the FCC clear authority to regulate broadband service and enforce Net Neutrality.  Recent court cases argue the Commission presently lacks that authority.  Congress should take every possible step to ensure the courts this isn’t the case.

Increased oversight of the broadband industry is essential.  Why does an industry making billions in profits need to consider usage limits and usage-based billing designed to deter residential use of broadband service?  Such limits are designed to protect cable-TV revenue that could disappear if Americans dump their television channel packages in favor of watching everything online on their existing broadband account.

Congress should not stand for an unregulated duopoly controlling a service that is becoming as essential as water, energy, and the telephone.  As broadband becomes an essential utility, why is the government not stepping in when the COO of the nation’s second largest cable company — Time Warner Cable, tells investors he can raise broadband prices on a whim?  Is this the 21st century version of the Robber Baron Era?  Robust competition guarantees no executive can make such a statement.  Congress must act to bolster competition, including financial and tax savings incentives for new providers willing to enter markets of all sizes;

Wireless mobile broadband spectrum auctions do not promote competition because the biggest incumbent players are sure to win the bulk of the frequencies, guaranteeing more of the same anemic competition.  Some of the newly available blocks of frequencies should be reserved for bidders who do not currently serve the market where those frequencies are available.  Only that guarantees new competition in wireless;

Free or deeply discounted access to basic Internet service at broadband speeds should be a part of any National Broadband Plan, to ensure access to every American who wants it.

The long awaited National Broadband Plan (NBP) for the United States is here.  Unveiled yesterday by the Federal Communications Commission, the 376-page plan calls itself a mandate for improved broadband service for 200 million Americans, bringing access to those who don’t have it, and better speeds and lower prices for those that do.

The report’s authors consider the broadband revolution a transformational change for the country, just as railroads opened the door to coast-to-coast transportation, electricity changed the American household, and phone service opened the door to a new era of Americans reaching out to communicate with one another.

Today, high-speed Internet is transforming the landscape of America more rapidly and more pervasively than earlier infrastructure networks. Like railroads and highways, broadband accelerates the velocity of commerce, reducing the costs of distance. Like electricity, it creates a platform for America’s creativity to lead in developing better ways to solve old problems. Like telephony and broadcasting, it expands our ability to communicate, inform and entertain.

Broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of the early 21st century.

To meet the challenge, the FCC was commissioned to develop a national blueprint for improving broadband service in the United States.  A sense of urgency over statistics showing the United States ranking in the bottom half of nations — losing ground on speed, affordability, and access to both Europe and Asia meant the NBP must deliver concrete answers to improve the country’s competitive broadband standing.

This is a broad mandate. It calls for broadband networks that reach higher and farther, filling the troubling gaps we face in the deployment of broadband networks, in the adoption of broadband by people and businesses and in the use of broadband to further our national priorities.

Nearly 100 million Americans do not have broadband today. Fourteen million Americans do not have access to broadband infrastructure that can support today’s and tomorrow’s applications. More than 10 million school-age children do not have home access to this primary research tool used by most students for homework. Jobs increasingly require Internet skills; the share of Americans using high-speed Internet at work grew by 50% between 2003 and 2007, and the number of jobs in information and communications technology is growing 50% faster than in other sectors. Yet millions of Americans lack the skills necessary to use the Internet.

The NBP goes out of its way to recognize private enterprise’s influence on broadband development in the country, acknowledging America’s for-profit, largely unregulated broadband industry has successfully cherry-picked the most profitable customers for often excellent broadband service.  For others deemed less profitable, a lesser amount of service, or no service at all is available.  The distinction between America’s free market approach and government-run universal service is noted in the report.  For America, the private approach has created a “digital divide” — the broadband have’s and have-not’s.  The reasons for bypassing certain areas varies from the expenses to reach rural homes to affordability issues in the inner city.  Sometimes, it’s a matter of being lucky enough to have a decent provider who is aggressive about deploying service.

The NBP seeks to build upon the private free market approach to broadband and fill in the gaps in service for those left behind.

The FCC’s plan envisions broadband evolution, not a broadband revolution.  The report recommends maintaining a limited government role for broadband, and limited regulations along with it.

Instead of choosing a specific path for broadband in America, this plan describes actions government should take to encourage more private innovation and investment. The policies and actions recommended in this plan fall into three categories: fostering innovation and competition in networks, devices and applications; redirecting assets that government controls or influences in order to spur investment and inclusion; and optimizing the use of broadband to help achieve national priorities.

The NBP sets minimum actual broadband speeds Americans should expect to receive at 4/1Mbps. ADSL providers like Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyLink are already in trouble if this standard gets enforced. They routinely fail to meet these speeds in many areas today.

Among the core goals of the NBP:

• Connect 100 million households to affordable, 100Mbps service within 10 years, permitting high end video streaming and medical diagnostics;
• Define broadband as at least 4/1Mbps service, which automatically disqualifies a number of rural DSL providers and satellite fraudband;
• Pole attachment reform, which would remove obstacles providers encounter when trying to hang wiring on poles, bury it underground, or access rights-of-way;
• Improve rural broadband service and low-income access through Universal Service Fund reform, shifting up to $15.5 billion towards broadband construction and subsidies;
• Target a 90 percent broadband adoption rate among American households;
• Rely on mobile broadband to be an important competitor in the broadband industry by doubling available spectrum for wireless data and expand reach beyond today’s 60 percent coverage;
• Provide $16 billion in funding for a federal interoperable mobile broadband network exclusively for public safety agencies.

The plan is a marked departure from the FCC under former president George W. Bush.  Just two years ago, the Commission suggested there were few problems with the broadband industry as-is.  Michael Powell, who served under Bush’s first term as Chairman of the FCC, advocated free market deregulation, and dismissed concerns about the digital divide, calling it a “Mercedes divide,” suggesting broadband was like an expensive car he’d like to own but can’t afford.

Perhaps Powell can afford that car today, as honorary co-chair of industry front group Broadband for America, which has made its presence known through Powell on several national cable news channels in interviews about the broadband plan.  The BfA’s role as an industry-backed player is not disclosed in interviews.

Opposition to parts of the NBP is likely to come from:

• Broadcasters, concerned about the further loss of the UHF TV dial for wireless broadband service expansion;
• Utility pole owners who will likely oppose changes in compensation formulas for pole attachment fees;
• Incumbent broadband providers who fear the NBP may lead to government-backed competition in their service areas;
• Consumers who may balk if Universal Service Fund reform adds an additional five or more dollars a month in fees to broadband bills without price reductions from real competition.

Some of the greatest concerns about the plan come from consumer groups, who recognize the plan has many good points, but relies too much on working with the same companies that got the United States into this position in the first place.

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, March 23 at 2:30 p.m. to review the plan. The House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet will hold its own hearing on the plan next Thursday, March 25.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg National Broadband Plan Released – Controversies 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg Business News carried extensive coverage about the National Broadband Plan, its winners and losers, and other implications of a coordinated plan to improve service across America. (14 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC National Broadband Plan Implications 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC aired more skeptical coverage about the National Broadband Plan.  Clueless Michelle Caruso-Cabrera is also back still insisting 99 percent of America already has access to broadband, but she speaks in terms of zip codes, not actual broadband coverage, and it’s unclear if she includes satellite “fraudband,” which promises broadband speeds but doesn’t deliver.  Caruso-Cabrera also bashes Net Neutrality along the way. (13 minutes)

[flv width=”448″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NBC News Channel FCC Seeks to Expand Access 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

From a less “business news” standpoint, the NBC News Channel explained the National Broadband Plan to ordinary consumers yesterday in terms of how the plan would affect them. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington High-Speed Broadband Access for All 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

Local Washington, DC Fox affiliate WTTG-TV also explains the National Broadband Plan, suggesting it will bring “high speed access for all.” (3 minutes)

For months now, several groups purporting to represent the interests of minorities have busily been attacking Net Neutrality as beside the point for the poor and unserved consumer who has been left out of the broadband revolution.  To varying degrees, several of these groups have been spouting broadband industry talking points to the Federal Communications Commission, members of Congress, and the public at large.

For them, and the profitable broadband industry they indirectly represent, providing access at affordable prices is much more important than making sure providers don’t lord over the network they provide to customers.

Access vs. Openness

Consumers are perplexed by this either/or proposition.  For us, both issues are vitally important.  In urban, income-challenged areas, affordability is a crucial issue.  In rural areas, access to anything resembling broadband comes before worrying about the price.  For all concerned, making sure the Internet is not subject to corporate content control, either through direct censorship or through the far-more-common practice of pricing and policy controls, is just as important.

Providers have their self-interest on display when they promote broadband expansion — they want to receive the public dollars available from the broadband stimulus package to pay for that expansion.  Of course, every step of the way they have their fingers all over the process, from broadband mapping that protects incumbents from potential competition, defining what constitutes broadband to be as slow and as cheap to provide as possible, to implement usage rationing through Overcharging schemes like usage limits and usage-based billing, and to advocate for public policy that keeps the Money Party of fat profits running as long as possible without oversight.

The entry of minority interest groups into the debate is nothing new.  Groups of all kinds, including many who one would think wouldn’t have an opinion on Net Neutrality, are all part of the discussion.  Debates ensue, statements are fact-checked, back and forth discussion ensues.  What disturbs me is the small handful of groups who are willing to deal the race card when their own views and statements are challenged and they are threatened with losing the argument. Ill-equipped to argue the merits of their case in detail and withstand the scrutiny of fact-checking, some have introduced race into the debate to obfuscate the issues.

While I don’t doubt their sincerity and passion advocating for increased access and affordability, too many of these groups hurt their own case by accepting generous contributions (or advisory board members) from the telecommunications industry.  Consumers who witness the near total alignment of views between these groups their corporate benefactors are right to be concerned.  Many are asking if those views represent true conviction or “a dollar a holler” advocacy.

The Black Agenda Report, which created this graphic, ponders the same questions many consumers are asking

As Stop the Cap! documented just a few months ago, Broadband for America is a great example of industry-funded astroturf in action.  Large numbers of groups with no apparent connection to the broadband policy debate have found their way onto the roster of members.  From a cattle association to a Native American group that also has a burning interest in sharing their views about corporate jet landing rights, the one thing in common with virtually every last one of them was a financial contribution and/or board member working for big cable or telephone companies.  Thus far, debating a cattle association has not brought charges of being anti-cow, although I suspect consumers are anti-bull.  Debating the merits of Net Neutrality with Native American groups has not brought charges of anti-Native American bias.

Stop the Cap! itself has been on the receiving end of racial rhetoric offered by one of the anti-Net Neutrality advocates out there, Navarrow Wright.  Wright is a former corporate executive at Black Entertainment Television, and spends his days now as a self-proclaimed social media and branding expert. Last year, after exiting as CEO of Global Grind, a hip hop social network, Wright launched Maximum Leverage Solutions, which claims to be a full service consulting firm specializing in social media strategy and Internet Consulting.

Just a few months later, Wright suddenly discovered a big interest in the concept of Net Neutrality.  While he doesn’t disclose his client list, would it surprise anyone if a telecommunications company hired his services for their own “social media strategy?”

Since last fall, Wright has been generating a mix of provider talking points, Google bashing, and attacking groups that support Net Neutrality.  He’s called supporters of an open Internet “digital elites,” the FCC a player of “dangerous games” by ignoring the anti-Net Neutrality public, Free Press a group that wallows “in crazy claims and race-dividing rhetoric,” and tries to connect support for Net Neutrality as somehow representing opposition to increased broadband adoption.

Challenging and debunking his talking points isn’t difficult — they are precisely the same ones the broadband industry has used for several years now.  We invited Wright to a full, in-depth discussion about the merits of Net Neutrality and broadband adoption.  We even got the discussion started, but that’s exactly where it ended.

Wright is also incredibly defensive about the issue of industry-backed mouthpieces and astroturf efforts in general.  Suggesting Wright’s views are inaccurate brings his resume in response, which I suppose was designed to impress readers with suggestions of his built-in expertise, belied by his silence on these issues prior to last year.  In Wright’s original comment, he took our comments about economically disadvantaged Americans and made it an issue of color:

Our piece:

The letter represents the groups’ concerns that broadband for many in America is simply not available, especially for the economically disadvantaged.  They’ve been swayed by industry propaganda to characterize Net Neutrality as a threat to addressing the digital divide by making service ultimately even more expensive.

His response:

Phil, I know (at least I hope) your intent wasn’t to suggest that people of color have been “swayed by industry propaganda” and aren’t capable of thinking for ourselves on technology issues.

James Rucker, executive director of Color of Change added to the debate in late January, wondering why some civil rights groups are only too willing to support discredited industry talking points and advocate against Net Neutrality.

Rucker discovered the same thing we did.  Challenging these groups to explain their positions brings forth repetitious inch-deep talking points and total silence when a rebuttal is offered.  If pushed, they obfuscate with claims their views are being disrespected, when in reality they are only being fact checked.  Perhaps inconvenient, and even slightly embarrassing, but it’s completely appropriate for consumers to ask whether a conflict of interest exists when a group advocates for the positions of the same industry that is sending them big contributions.

The risk, of course, is to tie an organization’s good name to demonstrably false provider propaganda that some groups are willing to repeat, nearly word for word.

Take for instance Wright’s claim that Net Neutrality will force providers to spend money they would otherwise invest for the benefit of the rural, the downtrodden, and the unserved:

That brings me to the other corporate interests: the Internet service providers. It is the ISPs who must invest in, upgrade, maintain and build out the networks that allow us to receive these cool applications. While I don’t find the network side as sexy as the content side, I do know that we have to have it and ISPs need capital to build and maintain it. So the question remains who is going to pay for maintenance and upgrades to the network if Google gets a free ride? Basic economics tells us that if government requires ISPs to give Google a free ride, there’s only one other place to look for the money: consumers like you and me. What’s more, there are those who want to make it even more unfair by insisting that your big-bandwidth-using neighbor should not have to pay more than you, even if all you want to do is check email and watch some YouTube. Who will all of this hurt the most? Low-income consumers.

The only color that really matters here is green

Wright doesn’t know his American telecom history.  Let’s discuss this fiction:

1. Bruce Dixon, a writer for the Black Agenda Report says it better than anyone: “Phone companies invented the digital divide more than a century ago as their core business model, preferring to extend service to affluent areas where they could levy premium charges, rather than building networks out to reach everybody.”  The cable television industry “franchise” requirement came as a direct result of cable industry redlining, the practice of wiring wealthy neighborhoods for cable while bypassing urban and rural areas deemed “unprofitable.”  It’s the same story for broadband, and Net Neutrality is beside the point.  The number crunchers look for Return On Investment (ROI) when considering who gets on the right side of the digital divide.  If they can’t make a killing on you, they’re not going to provide you service.  If you can’t afford their asking price, which is increasing regardless of Net Neutrality, why serve you?  Ultimately it is consumers who overpay for these networks, priced well above cost, generating literally billions in profits.  Why ruin a good thing with altruistic broadband expansion at a fire sale price?
2. Regardless of what Google is doing, providers are seeking new ways to further monetize broadband service, enriching themselves even further.  Prices go up even as the costs to provide the service go down.  The old chestnut about the next door neighbor being a usage piggy is just more of the same “us vs. them” propaganda from providers who want consumers to fight amongst themselves while they run to the bank with the money.  Grandma doesn’t want her broadband service limited either, and she’s way too smart to believe a provider promising dramatic savings for less service from companies that jack up her rates year after year.
3. The best way to guarantee affordable access to broadband service is to develop a national broadband plan that provides the same kinds of “lifeline” services already available for economically disadvantaged phone customers, legislative policies that force markets open to additional competition, government oversight to ensure providers are required to provide service throughout their respective service areas, and stimulus or Universal Service Fund assistance for projects that assure access to those who simply will never pass ROI tests.  Or we can solve everything by not passing Net Neutrality?  Please.
4. Google doesn’t have a free ride.  First, consumers -pay- providers for connectivity.  Ultimately, they are the customers — content producers are not.  Nothing prohibits an ISP from offering hosting services to content producers at competitive prices.  If Google, Amazon, Netflix, or Hulu want to host their content on servers owned by Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, or AT&T, nothing stops them.  Google pays for its own connectivity to the Internet.  Customers pay for accessing it.  Now providers want to get paid again.  It’s like triple-charging for snail mail – you pay for a stamp to mail it, the person you wrote pays to receive it, and the airline that flew the letter cross country has to pay to transport it.

Remember, it’s the content that drives broadband adoption. ISP’s honestly don’t fret as much about traffic as they claim.  They just care whether they can own it, control it, and profit from it.  The evidence to back this up comes from cable and phone companies in a big hurry to stream video content over their TV Everywhere projects.  Nothing consumes bandwidth like online video, yet there they are enthusiastically embracing it.  They have to, because if they don’t control it, it could eventually lead to people dropping their cable TV subscriptions in favor of online viewing.

Wright’s blog promotes another industry favorite — the dreaded phony “exaflood” which threatens to bring chaos and disorder to our online world… unless we totally deregulate broadband and let them do whatever they want to “solve it.”  That’s more of the same.  We’ve seen the results of that for more than a decade now, and the very digital divide that Wright complains about comes as a direct consequence to letting broadband providers serve, or not serve customers as they please at the prices they want.

Wright and other civil rights groups can throw as many race cards as they like against consumers who see right through their corporate-backed agenda.  That’s because consumers know Net Neutrality isn’t an issue of black or white.  The only color that really matters here is green.

A controversial proposal by Montana’s largest cable operator to use public funding for construction of a fiber optic network linking the state’s seven Indian reservations has been rejected by federal officials.

Bresnan Communications sought $70 million broadband stimulus grant to construct the 1,885-mile fiber-optic network to improve broadband connectivity.  Independent and cooperative telephone providers objected, claiming the proposal would duplicate services they already provide.

The debate over broadband stimulus funding in rural Montana has been contentious, particularly after incumbent telephone providers accused Bresnan of lying on their application — implying funds would directly improve broadband service to Native American communities.  They accused the cable operator of using public funds to enhance their own “middle mile network,” infrastructure that helps Bresnan distribute broadband traffic between its central offices and data centers, but not “the last mile” connection customers actually rely on to obtain service.

Montana is not alone in the debate over how federal broadband stimulus money should be spent.  With a limited pool of funds, and an overwhelmed National Telecommunications and Information Agency tasked with processing an unexpected flood of applications, funding decisions have become increasingly political, and many incumbent providers have learned they can jam up an applicant just by flooding federal agencies with comments opposing projects that impact on their service areas.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KULR Billings Montana Broadband Workshop and Broadband Speed 1-19-2009 and 8-30-2009.flv[/flv]

KULR-TV in Billings covered the NTIA Grant Broadband Workshop held last January and also covered Montana’s woeful existing broadband speeds in these two reports. (1/19/2009 & 8/30/2009 – 2 minutes)

Because “last mile” projects are the most threatening to incumbent providers, these applications typically get the most opposition.  The NTIA, in an effort to reduce their workload, has in turn started focusing on “middle mile” projects which often benefit incumbents, pushing public tax dollars into pre-existing private networks.  That looks great on provider balance sheets — that’s money they don’t have to raise from stockholders or other investors.  Diverting those funds away, even from currently unserved areas, also protects providers’ flanks from the potential threat of competition, both now and in the future.

In Montana, chasing few potential customers spread out over vast distances in rural areas makes the potential threat from competition even scarier.  There, many small phone companies exist as co-ops, less concerned with raking in profits.  They fear the potential threat Bresnan Communications could bring to their viability if the cable operator gets a stronger foothold in their territories, especially when using tax dollars to do so.  But is the threat that large for well-run, customer-oriented companies and co-ops?

Many rural areas served by co-ops and other small independent companies actually receive better and faster broadband service than their more urban counterparts, argues Bonnie Lorang, general manager of Montana Independent Telecommunications Systems, an independent phone company trade group.  That’s because the state’s large urban phone company – Qwest, does not provide DSL into more distant suburban and rural service areas, and has only reached 75 percent of its customers with broadband service.  Smaller independent providers, particularly member-owned cooperatives, are accustomed to serving residents Qwest has been slow to reach.

While true for those forced to rely on Qwest DSL service, those with access to cable modem service can do better.  Bresnan provides up to 8Mbps service for residents in its mountain west region covering parts of Wyoming, Montana, and the western slope of Colorado.  Expanding Bresnan’s service where economically feasible remains a priority for the company, and broadband stimulus funding may make the difference between an “unprofitable” area and one that can be profitable if certain infrastructure costs are underwritten.

“Bresnan has a history of investing in communities that are not considered larger communities,” according to said Shawn Beqaj, spokesman for Bresnan. “Our philosophy is that smaller communities deserve every bit of the services that large communities have.”

Bresnan’s grant application received support from Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, the state’s Native American population, and some consumers unhappy with their current broadband choices, if any.

Montana's phone companies are running these print ads objecting to the broadband stimulus proposal from Bresnan Communications (click to enlarge and see the full ad)

On the other side, the phone companies and their trade groups: the Montana Telecommunications Association and Montana Independent Telecommunications Systems, and the state’s utility oversight agency.  They protested Bresnan was unnecessarily duplicating existing service, and potentially getting taxpayer money to do so.  They also hinted Bresnan exploited Native Americans in an application tailor-written to appeal to federal officials seeking improved service for disadvantaged and challenged minority groups.  Besides, the phone companies argued, Bresnan broke the rules from the outset by only agreeing to provide $6 million in company-provided matching funds, less than the 20 percent in matching dollars required by the stimulus program.

“If an area is unserved, prove it and spend the money on that,” Geoff Feiss, a representative of the Montana Telecommunications Association (MTA), told the Billings Gazette.  “But don’t spend $70 million on an overbuild network that’s going to deprive investment from existing networks and leave behind collateral damage that we’ll never recover from.”

Montana’s Public Service Commission ended up on the side of the MTA, calling Bresnan’s proposal “seriously flawed.”

Bresnan and their allies shot back that phone companies complaining about federal dollars being spent on broadband projects was hypocritical, considering many of those companies receive government assistance from the Universal Service Fund to stay in business themselves.

Consumers looking for broadband were left in the middle or left out entirely.  Many residents of the state are forced to rely on dial-up, satellite, or have been left indefinitely on waiting lists for future DSL expansion projects that take forever to materialize.  Choice is an option too many residents don’t have.  The Great Falls Tribune shared a story familiar to many Montanans:

Tim Lanham can’t get Qwest DSL at his eastside Great Falls home. It’s available to his neighbors across the street and at his office a block away.

He’s called Qwest about the situation, but typically can’t get through to a real person. The whole thing is frustrating, he said.

Lanham used to use Sofast. After its service went down, he switched to a Verizon Wireless card, but that can only be used on one computer at time. Now he has broadband Internet through Bresnan. Still, he wishes he had more options.

“I’d like the different options,” Lanham said. “Essentially they leave us with very few choices.”

At the heart of the debate is how to address the “digital divide” between those with Internet access and those without, and improving connectivity for those stuck with outdated, expensive, and slow “broadband.”

The state’s utility commission believes Montana’s primary problem exists in “the last mile,” namely getting broadband service to rural residents who currently are forced to use dial-up or satellite fraudband service that offers slow speed, tiny usage allowances, and a high price tag.  In most cases, telephone companies have deemed these rural residents too few in number and too far apart to make investments in DSL service worthwhile.  Using broadband stimulus money to subsidize the costs of providing service to rural America provides a direct path to broadband for those who may not obtain access any other way short of moving.

Larger providers have been urging that less money be spent on “last mile” projects and that funding be redirected into “middle mile” projects, which could dramatically reduce the costs companies have to pay to maintain and upgrade their own backbone infrastructure.  Examples of these kinds of projects include installing fiber optic cables between telephone company central offices or extended service “remotes” which reduce the distances between customers and telephone company facilities, extending the distance DSL can cover in rural areas.

For now, Montana will have to wait for both.

Bresnan officials will meet with tribal and state commerce officials before deciding what to do next.

Walter White Tail Feather, director of economic development for the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in northeastern Montana, told the Gazette he hopes Bresnan reapplies for the funding.

“We think we can make a better proposal this second round,” he said. “This first one was a learning experience. … What we really are doing is working with the state to empower ourselves as a tribal government to create a business, to create opportunities that we don’t have.”

The state’s small phone companies may have won the battle, but are now concerned they could ultimately lose the war over obtaining broadband stimulus money themselves, at least from the NTIA.

Jay Preston, chief executive officer of Ronan Telephone Co., told the Gazette two federal agencies now will be deciding who gets broadband stimulus money: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Rural Utilities Service.

The NTIA “seems to be really, really focusing on the middle-mile idea,” Preston said, while RUS probably will approve funds for rural telephone companies that already are the federal agency’s customers. The RUS loans money to rural co-ops for a variety of projects.

Regardless of where the money comes from, frustrated Montana residents just want better service.  The state ranks dead last, tied with Alaska, in broadband speed, according to a study from the Communications Workers of America.  Residents enjoy an average broadband speed of just 2.3Mbps.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KFBB Great Falls Montana ISP Flounders 11-10 – 11-13-2009.flv[/flv]

Already-broadband-challenged Montana residents faced a major headache when one of the state’s large Internet Service Providers, SoFast, suddenly shut down last November.  KFBB-TV in Great Falls followed the story over three days in these three reports from November 10-13th, 2009.  (5 minutes)

The Billings Gazette mapped out Montana's fiber landscape