Kyle "What Broadband Problem?" McSlarrow

In Kyle McSlarrow’s world, the only broadband problem is the one invented by the Federal Communications Commission when it claims that service is not being deployed to all Americans on a “reasonable and timely” basis.  The head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the cable industry’s lobbying group, has declared today’s broadband a U.S. “success story that keeps getting better.”

Writing in the group’s “CableTechTalk” blog, McSlarrow tells his readers that 95 percent of Americans already have broadband service available to them that meets the 4Mbps minimum speed standard proposed by the FCC, so where is the big problem?

McSlarrow’s interest in the economics of rural broadband is ironic considering the cable industry routinely bypasses rural Americans.  Where cable lines do predominate, meeting the FCC’s anemic 4Mbps minimum speed standard is not the biggest problem — cost is.  Where cable lines don’t reach, speed is an issue for many wireless and DSL subscribers.  For others, broadband service is not available at any price.

McSlarrow plays cable’s advantage on speed issues to promote minimum speeds higher than those sought by phone companies like AT&T and Verizon.  Of course, cable broadband does not rely on antiquated copper wire telephone networks.  In rural areas, many of these networks are held together with minimal investment.  DSL at any speed can be a luxury when available.

McSlarrow’s recognition that most of rural America will continue to be served by telephone companies doesn’t stop the cable industry from seeking an advantage over their nearest competitors by advocating for reduced subsidies for rural areas and policies that guarantee no potential competitor can ever see a dime in government broadband money.

Because the report plainly acknowledges that there is no reasonable business case to be made for extending broadband facilities to many of the unserved homes.  So instead of viewing the report’s finding as an indictment of broadband providers, it’s  perhaps better read as a statement of principle by the Chairman and two commissioners that, in their opinion, broadband already should be universally available, and, if there is no business case for that universal deployment, the government may have to step in to achieve it. So far as that goes, we agree.  For example, we support the report’s call to action on specific items that will speed broadband deployment to unserved communities.  Immediate FCC action on Universal Service Fund (USF) reform and pole attachment policy is critical to connecting unserved areas.

As explained in comments we filed last week, our industry strongly supports the USF reforms recommended in the National Broadband Plan (NBP).  To fund the FCC’s broadband USF proposals, we recommend adopting our proposal – filed in a November 2009 rulemaking petition – to reduce subsidies in rural areas where ample phone competition exists.  The sooner the Commission reduces unnecessary funding in the existing high-cost support program, the sooner it can direct funding to broadband deployment and adoption.

McSlarrow’s comments neglect to tell the whole story about what the NCTA actually wrote in its comments filed with the FCC:

The 4Mbps/1Mbps standard reflects today’s marketplace reality that most consumers choose not to purchase the highest speed tiers that are offered by their broadband provider. By setting a standard based on the services actually purchased by consumers, the Plan strikes the appropriate balance – not so low that it deprives consumers of the ability to purchase a service that meets their needs and not so high that it will require a significant infusion of new government funding.

Second, based on this definition of broadband, the Plan found that the vast majority of Americans – 95% of households – already have access to broadband, and that 80% of those consumers live in geographic areas served by two or more providers. For these areas where broadband has already been deployed, there is no basis for any increase in support; indeed, as NCTA has demonstrated, in many of these areas there is no basis for any high-cost support at all.

Consequently, the only areas that should see an increase in the support they receive are those areas that do not have broadband and qualify for CAF support, i.e., areas where there currently is no business case for private investment in broadband facilities.

In Great Britain, speeds promised don't match speeds delivered. The FCC is studying whether the same is true in the United States.

McSlarrow is disingenuous about Americans’ interest in improved broadband.  It’s not surprising many do not choose the highest speed tiers available from telephone and cable providers when one considers the premium prices charged for that service.  Some NCTA members charge $99 for 50/5Mbps service, which in other countries like Hong Kong sells for a fraction of that price.  One need only consider Google’s plan to deliver 1Gbps service to a handful of American communities.  It’s easier to count the communities that were not interested in this super-fast service.

The cable industry can afford to relent on a 4Mbps minimum speed standard for downloading as virtually all cable broadband providers already offer “standard service” plans well above that rate.  The cable industry’s own “lite” plans, usually 1.5Mbps or less, are not exactly the industry’s most popular.  Americans will choose higher speed service at the right price.

Broadband availability figures have become an important political issue, which is why controlling broadband mapping is so important to cable and phone companies.  Being able to offer that “95 percent of Americans already have access,” a figure in dispute by the way, can make a big difference in the debate.  As Stop the Cap! readers have seen repeatedly, broadband maps that depict broadband service as widely available in many areas actually is not, especially from phone company DSL service, which depends heavily on the quality of the existing infrastructure.

Most importantly, the NCTA seeks a new, even stricter standard for broadband funding under Universal Service Fund reform that would immediately deny money to any applicant that cannot prove there is no chance for any private investment in broadband.  As we’ve seen from broadband improvement applications filed under the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program, cable and phone companies routinely object to most proposals, claiming “duplication” of existing broadband service even in areas they have chosen not to provide service.  The NCTA would have us set the bar even lower, allowing any private entity to kill funding projects based solely on their claimed interest in providing the service themselves.

One sensitive spot the FCC did manage to hit was taking providers to task for advertising broadband speeds they don’t actually provide to customers.  While DSL speeds vary based on distance from the telephone company’s central office, cable broadband speeds vary depending on how many customers are online at any particular moment.  The cable industry’s shared access platform can create major bottlenecks in high-use neighborhoods, dramatically reducing speeds for every customer.  While some cable operators are better than others at re-dividing neighborhoods to increase capacity, others won’t spend the money to upgrade an area until service becomes intolerable.  That means consumers sold 10Mbps service may actually find it running at less than half that during evening hours.

A sampling of British cable and telephone company DSL providers, all of which aren't giving their customers what they are paying for.

McSlarrow’s view is there isn’t a problem there either — the FCC is relying on old data:

The key statistics in the report are drawn from Form 477 data for December 2008, data that was out of date when it was released earlier this year and is now 18 months old.  Broadband providers have made two subsequent Form 477 filings (with another one scheduled in a few weeks), so the reliance on stale data is frustrating.

Equally troubling is the Commission’s repetition of the NBP’s claim that “actual” broadband speeds are only half of “advertised” speeds.   After the NBP was released, we submitted an expert technical report demonstrating that the comScore data used was deeply flawed.  Since then, cable and telco ISPs have been working constructively with Commission staff on a hardware-based testing regime that should produce more accurate results.  Given the hard work that has been devoted to produce accurate speed measurements, it is disheartening that the 706 Report chose to perpetuate the NBP’s flawed speed data conclusions.

Finally, some of the data relied on in the 706 Report is not publicly available.  The report relies extensively on a cost model created for the NBP, but that model hasn’t been released, making it impossible to validate its results.  The Commission also repeatedly refers to an FCC staff report on international trends, but that report also has not been released.

The frustration McSlarrow writes about is shared by cable subscribers stuck in overloaded neighborhoods where service does not come close to marketed speeds.  The FCC is conducting an independent speed analysis that goes beyond speedtest data, and the results will be forthcoming.  In other countries where similar speed claims have not met reality, providers were usually found culpable for promising service they didn’t deliver.

Just ask Ofcom, the British regulatory agency charged with addressing this dilemma.  Earlier today they released evidence that 97 percent of UK broadband customers were not actually getting the speeds they were promised, and the gap between marketed speed and actual speed was growing. Will things be any different for American providers who use fine print to disclaim their bold marketing promises about speed?  Time will tell.

Finally, McSlarrow’s concerns about withheld data is ironic enough to call it a “pot to kettle” moment.  As those challenged with broadband mapping can attest, nobody keeps raw data about broadband availability and speeds closer to the vest than cable and telephone companies.

Of course, the ultimate agenda of the NCTA is to defend its industry’s record in broadband service, which means reducing any broadband challenges into little more than whining by Americans who don’t know how good they have it.

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.

Talk about bad timing.  Just as the transition between Verizon and Frontier Communications was about to get underway, a fiber cable cut in Virginia June 29th caused a multi-state outage for Frontier DSL’s service.  In downstate New York, tens of thousands of customers lost service.

News of the outage was picked up by the Times Herald-Record, which reported nearly 30,000 customers in Orange and Rockland counties without service from 2-11am.  A Times reader named Steve observed, “I thought this outage was just the typical monthly DSL outage I suffer every month with Frontier. Think service is bad now? God help us when they get their hands on that chunk of Verizon territory. I suspect it will be overwhelming for them, from financial and technical viewpoints.”

Several thousand customers near Rhinebeck and Hopewell Junction were also impacted, according to a story in the Poughkeepsie Journal.  Reader MarienneV noted this wasn’t the first Frontier DSL outage she’s dealt with:

We noticed that there was no Internet at my house at around 5am yesterday. It was after 8pm when we were finally able to get online. This is not the first time it happened either, about a week or two ago Frontier had an outage that lasted at least five hours. Since there is no local television news up here, I felt kind of cut off from the world. I hope the Internet stays on now.

A similar service outage hit Frontier customers in the Middletown area, according to the Mid-Hudson News.

Since the transition, now even former Verizon customers are being exposed to Frontier DSL outages, especially in West Virginia where widespread problems are attracting the attention of the state Public Service Commission.

The Charleston Daily Mail today reports more than 500 customers in Martinsburg alone seem to have had problems with Internet service since Saturday:

The commission, in its May 13 order approving Frontier’s acquisition of Verizon’s landline network, required Frontier to spend millions of dollars to increase broadband deployment and subscriptions in what was Verizon’s service territory. However, the commission does not regulate Internet service.

On Tuesday Doug Stone said he and his brother-in-law, who both live outside of Martinsburg, hadn’t had Internet service since Saturday morning. Stone said a Frontier customer service representative in Texas told him the company had over 500 calls from the Martinsburg area about Internet service.

Tuesday evening Frontier spokeswoman Brigid Smith said, “The outage in Martinsburg seems to be the direct result of faulty workmanship by Verizon two weeks prior to the completion of the acquisition,” and was directly related to Verizon’s movement of a switch from Maryland to West Virginia. She added, “The cooling equipment Verizon installed was insufficient for the additional data equipment associated with this project.

“My partners at Frontier are working incredible hours to make right many things that have been too long ignored,” Smith said.

A Marmet resident who asked to not be identified said Wednesday that she and a friend, who also lives in Marmet, were without Internet service. “They tell us it will be 24 to 48 hours before they fix it,” she said. “I want you to know the problems aren’t just in Martinsburg.”

Week one of the transition for millions of ex-Verizon landline customers didn’t exactly go off without a hitch.  A few problems with support issues for certain business customers in West Virginia, a major multi-state DSL outage from a fiber cable cut in Virginia, and long hold times of 30 minutes or longer have afflicted the all-new, super-sized Frontier.  Also not inspiring confidence: a plummeting Frontier stock price as Verizon shareholders, which now own 68 percent of Frontier Communications are hurrying to dump their stock and get out.  It has gotten so bad, TradersHuddle declared Frontier Communications the worst performing stock on the S&P 500.

Not much of this comes as a surprise, particularly the fleeing of Verizon shareholders who received 0.24 shares of Frontier, worth about $1.75 on July 1st (but now dropping fast), for every Verizon share they owned on June 7.  They’ve learned from prior experience that holding onto spun-off stock from similar deals with companies like FairPoint Communications and Hawaiian Telcom ended in financial disaster — bankruptcy.  As we predicted last Halloween in our true-to-life telecom horror story, once this deal was completed, Verizon shareholders would rush for the exits, selling their Frontier stock even as the share price plummets.

Shanthi Venkataraman, a reporter for The Street, noted the selloff in progress after the 4th of July holidays.  On Tuesday the stock was down 4.5% to $7.02. More than 30 million shares have changed hands, five times its average trading volume of 6.3 million.  Analysts believe the “turbulence” in Frontier stock is likely to continue for another week as new shareholders from Verizon complete their sell-off.

Zack’s Analyst Blog notes shareholders should be concerned with the future of Frontier’s business model — focusing on a decaying landline business.  Frontier’s revenue is particularly in peril in their biggest service area, Rochester, N.Y., which represents 25 percent of the company’s total access lines.  Customers in the Flower City continue to dump Frontier’s phone and broadband services, preferring Time Warner Cable’s less expensive “digital phone” and far faster Road Runner Internet service.  Time Warner Cable has consistently reported much of their growth in new customers has come from departing landline and DSL broadband customers disconnecting service.

While shareholders have the power to cut ties with Frontier, rural telephone customers in 14 states now confronted with a shotgun wedding to Frontier are not so lucky.  For millions of rural customers, there is no other choice for telephone and broadband service.

Stop the Cap! has reviewed dozens of local news accounts regarding the transition Verizon customers are now confronting as they are introduced to Frontier Communications.  Overall, most of the rural communities are taking a “wait and see” approach, hoping Frontier’s near-universal promises of better broadband and improved customer service will come true.  Verizon effectively slashed spending at least a year or two ago in many of these communities knowing in advance they were not going to be around for much longer.  In states like West Virginia, the results have been devastating for broadband penetration statistics.  While Verizon prepared for a sale, it kept nearly the entire state waiting for better broadband that would never come from the telecom giant.  Now with news Frontier plans to spend millions to improve broadband in the state, residents are hoping that will actually bring a broadband breakthrough in West Virginia.  Time will tell.

Many communities who have long felt ignored as “too small to matter” in Verizon’s larger plans also hope Frontier will manage better customer relationships with residents. After all, Frontier is promoting itself as the phone company with the small-town feel.  But after week one, some customers are feeling Frontier is giving them the big city runaround.  We’ll explore that, and the reactions from community leaders, consumers and businesses to the promises Frontier is making in our multi-part series exploring their transition to Frontier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas Broadband Map (click to enlarge)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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