Although not too far from Winston-Salem and Greensboro, Caswell County has a population of just over 23,000 people

In a painful display of callous disregard for the broadband needs of rural North Carolina, where half the state’s population lives, nine Republicans and two Democrats on the House Public Utilities committee voted down a bill to deliver service to 60 percent of Caswell County that currently goes without.

HB2067, introduced by Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange/Caswell) would have allowed the rural county to provide broadband service to unserved residents and businesses.  What Rep. Faison did manage to put in HB2067 was initiative towards 21st Century technology.  The bill would have authorized Caswell County to install better technology, both up and down, where Centurylink offers slow DSL as the only option.  In introducing the bill, Faison explained that recent broadband data showed only 40 percent of Caswell County had access to broadband.

Already suffering from the exodus of textile jobs that used to provide an economic base for the area, the failure to obtain broadband has proven disastrous to the work of the county’s 21st Century Group, trying to restore Caswell County’s economy with a higher-tech future.  Six years of work was blocked by CenturyLink — the local phone company and 11 legislators, who told residents they don’t deserve anything better than they already have (which is often nothing.)

Without HB2067, Caswell County cannot even apply for federal stimulus broadband grant funds because the state law doesn’t provide specific authority to deliver the service.  Faison’s bill would correct that oversight and encourage public/private partnerships to get busy bringing broadband to the region.

CenturyLink and its top lobbyist Steve Brewer would hear none of it — Goliath was afraid that David would install better technology and force Centurylink to upgrade or hit the road.

Brewer was given more than half the available time for discussion about the proposed bill to fill the ears of committee members with half-truths.

CenturyLink, Brewer claimed, was more than willing to work with the county to provide the kind of speed its business park needed, yet failed to mention its long history of refusing to expand service to unserved areas.  Brewer’s claim that 70 percent of Caswell County is served by CenturyLink doesn’t mean the company offers broadband to all of those customers.  His further claim that 90 percent of those areas include equipment that is “DSL capable” also doesn’t mean those areas are providing the service today, just that they could… someday.  Many factors can disqualify a potential customer from getting DSL service, especially in rural areas where line quality is not always the best.

Bartlett Yancey House Restaurant and Gallery, a famous landmark in Caswell County.

Faison sought to explore exactly what Brewer defined as “broadband” service.  Brewer claimed DSL service offered anywhere from “1.5 to 6Mbps,” admitting speeds decline with distance and is untenable more than three miles from the telephone company switch facility.

Of course, Caswell County’s large rural expanse puts many of the unserved beyond the maximum distance DSL can work without additional equipment.  Many rural areas that can get DSL are typically offered between 768kbps-3Mbps service.  Caswell County is so rural, it met the Rural Utility Service’s (RUS) classic definition of an underserved community.  That allowed the county to technically qualify for first round federal broadband grant funding.

Unfortunately, legislators are not always as informed as they need to be to recognize statements riddled with loopholes and asterisks.

For instance, Rep. Daniel McComas (R-New Hanover) asked whether he could get high speed Internet over a phone line.  Although Brewer answered yes, what qualifies as “high speed” was left unanswered, as was exactly how many Caswell County residents requested DSL service, only to be refused by CenturyLink.  Yes, you can get DSL broadband over a phone line — but that doesn’t mean you will in Caswell County.

“The only definition of high speed Internet in North Carolina is from a statute from 10 years ago,” Faison noted. “You would have to admit that what was high speed Internet 10 years ago is not high speed Internet today.”

Just as the call for a vote was made, Brewer delivered an uninvited closing argument — probably unnecessary since no consumers were invited to speak on the issue.  If you don’t have broadband in Caswell County, 11 legislators on that committee weren’t interested in hearing from you anyway.

Brewer said the bill was completely unnecessary, because “federal broadband grants were no longer available,” and besides, it was unfair competition for the county to deliver broadband service better than what CenturyLink provides.  Of course, broadband grants -are- still available from the RUS, and few on the committee probably understood the irony of a phone company demanding that Caswell County not be allowed to deliver quality broadband service CenturyLink refuses to provide.

The substitute Committee bill would have protected CenturyLink from their fears of "unfair" competition by not allowing the county to build out broadband service where CenturyLink already provides it if it was not better service, but the company remained adamantly opposed to the county providing broadband service even in areas where they refuse to deliver it themselves for fear they would have to offer real broadband to Caswell County.

CenturyLink also claimed the county would have ‘secret insider information’ about CenturyLink’s every move through the permit process.  The glacial pace of the phone company’s broadband expansion is hardly a secret to the residents who live there.  Besides, permits are not required for the phone company to work in their own right-of-way.  Unlike cities who control the rights of way in their corporate limits, the state owns and controls the rights of way going through the unincorporated parts of the County.  Brewer’s comments were intended to scare legislators, not inform them.  It was a flat out lie.

The vote illustrates the disconnect many in the state legislature have about broadband.  Most of those in favor of the of the bill were Democrats mostly from rural sections of the state.  Two of the “no” votes came from Democrats in urban Mecklenburg County, which includes the city of Charlotte.  Representatives Beverly Earle and Becky Carney already have several choices for broadband service where they live.  Shame on them for condemning their rural neighbors in the north to a broadband backwater.

Mecklenburg County legislators were sure in a big hurry a few years back to do the bidding of AT&T, opening the doors to their kind of competition with statewide video franchising.  U-verse, which is available in parts of Charlotte, was supposed to put a stop the relentless rate increases and deliver competition.  So far, they’ve managed to sign up around 13,000 residents out of a potential 4 million plus in North Carolina, and the rate hikes just keep on coming.

The Republicans on the committee voted lock-step against the bill, even those from rural regions of the state.  Most of them are grateful recipients of big telecom money or are not running for re-election.  None of them can be bothered to ponder better broadband for their constituents unless it comes from a company cutting them a campaign contribution check.

When the vote was over, AT&T’s lobbyist Herb Crenshaw warmly shook McComas’ hand and congratulated him for a job well done. AT&T’s next check to McComas’ campaign fund will likely be bigger than the $500 he collected during the first quarter of this year.

The hit job on the broadband needs of rural Caswell County was complete.

The Members of the House Public Utilities Committee Voting Against Better Broadband for Caswell County & The Reasons Why
…and these amounts are just from the 1st quarter of 2010!

Rep. Harold J. Brubaker (R-Randolph) — Big Bucks Brubaker ran to the bank with $4,000 from AT&T, $4,000 from CenturyLink, $2,000 from Time Warner Cable, and $2,000 from Verizon.

Rep. Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke) — Blackwell accepted $500 from AT&T and $250 from Time Warner Cable.

Rep. Becky Carney (D–Mecklenburg) — AT&T and Time Warner Cable both cut checks for $500 each for Ms. Carney.

Rep. Beverly Earle (D-Mecklenburg) — She’s nice at half the price, with a grateful CenturyLink cutting a check for $250.

Rep. W. Robert Grady (R-Onslow) — Zippo.  He’s not running for re-election.

Rep. Jim Gulley (R-Mecklenburg) — Nada.  He’s not running again either.

Rep. Julia Howard (R–Davie/Iredell) — She gets around.  AT&T found her $500, CenturyLink provided a cool $2,000, and Time Warner Cable did even better with $2,500.

Rep. Linda Johnson (R-Cabarrus) — A double mint.  AT&T $500, Time Warner Cable $500.

Rep. Daniel McComas (R-New Hanover) — AT&T gave him $500, Time Warner Cable doubled that with $1,000.

Rep. Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) — Walking around money — AT&T $500, Time Warner Cable $500.

Rep. Wil Neumann (R-Gaston) — AT&T $500, but thanks to this year’s hefty rate hike, Time Warner Cable could afford $1,000 for Mr. Neumann.

Representatives Who Supported Rural North Carolina’s Need for Better Broadband, Voting For HB2067

Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange, Caswell)

Rep. Kelly Alexander, Jr. (D–Mecklenburg)

Rep. Angela Bryant (D–Nash, Halifax)

Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford)

Rep. Marvin Lucas (D-Cumberland)

Rep. Nelson Cole (D-Rockingham)

Totals for 2010 (so far) for Telecom Contributions in the North Carolina General Assembly

AT&T $72,740

CenturyLink $51,750

Time Warner Cable $20,450

Verizon $10,500

(All figures are from the North Carolina State Board of Elections website, from candidates filings.)

The License Fee pays for the BBC's television, radio, and online operations, but now the British government wants a portion of it to be directed towards broadband as well.

Britain’s new coalition government announced Wednesday it was scrapping a proposed £6 a year phone tax to help expand rural broadband in the country.

“We need investment in our digital infrastructure,” said George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. “But the previous government’s landline duty is an archaic way of achieving this, hitting 30 million households who happen to have a fixed telephone line. I am happy to be able to abolish this new duty before it is even introduced.”

“Instead, we will support private broadband investment, including to rural areas, in part with funding from the digital switchover under-spend within the TV licence fee.”

Osborne is referring to the average £11.63 monthly fee British citizens pay to help fund the operations of the BBC’s radio, television and online operations.  A surplus of up to up to £300 million is anticipated to remain after the UK completes its transition to digital television in the next two years.  That money would be diverted to expanding rural broadband under the government plan.

But campaigners for better rural broadband service complain that will not raise nearly enough to provide broadband across the countryside.  The 50p monthly telephone tax proposed by the former Labour government would have raised nearly £1 billion per year.

Charles Trotman, of the Country Land and Business Association, told The Telegraph it will not be enough money to connect all rural areas. He said remote communities risk being left behind in ‘broadband deserts’ unless more is done to help villages set up connections themselves.

Other critics contend the surplus from the digital TV transition may not exist two years from now.  Thus far, mostly rural regions in England have made the transition to digital, costing the government publicity campaign less than expected.

Rather than the tax, Osborne claims the government can spur investment from the private sector by “making regulatory changes to reduce the cost of roll-out.”  He did not specify what those changes might be.

The government claims it is committed to providing up to 2Mbps broadband service across the entire country, but the lack of action in many areas have forced small towns and villages to launch their own municipal broadband services, sometimes funded by residents themselves.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BBC Municipal Broadband 4-2010.flv[/flv]

The BBC covers two British communities doing it themselves — providing enhanced broadband because private providers wouldn’t.  One in Highworth offers free Wi-Fi for up to two hours daily, while in Lyddington residents raised £37,000 to obtain enhanced DSL service.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Signal – Connectivity on the move 6-10.mp4[/flv]

Highworth (Swindon) relies on Signal, a high speed WISP/Wi-Fi network that offers up to 20/2 Mbps unlimited access with no Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps or overage fees for £5.99 per month, or up to two hours daily access for free.  (4 minutes)

Goldman Sachs has reviewed the implications of Frontier Communications assuming control of millions of Verizon landline customers, and promptly downgraded their stock to a Neutral rating, telling investors the upcoming consolidation will hasten eroding revenues at Frontier.

“Consolidation of the underperforming acquired assets causes an immediate step-up in revenue erosion for FTR (-6.3% in 2010). In addition, the combined company’s initial EBITDA margins will be significantly below those of legacy FTR (pro forma of 48.0% in 2010, 470 bp below legacy FTR).”

Analysts added, “We expect longer term EBITDA margins of 50%-plus, driven by synergy realization (we forecast $450 mn/year by 2013), and moderating revenue declines, as FTR is able to bring a more localized focus to assets that were not a primary focus inside of a much larger Verizon entity. We forecast 2011/2012 FCF of $950 mn/$921 mn, as synergies and margin expansion only partially offset continued (but moderating) revenue erosion.”

In English, that means Frontier will benefit from its larger customer base in reducing expenses on a per-customer basis, and could become a big enough player to realize some benefits from rolling out services to a larger number of customers nationwide, but those benefits will be tempered by the ongoing loss of revenue as customers dump Frontier landlines for wireless and, where available, switch to a cable modem product to get better speeds and consistent service that Frontier DSL does not provide.  Losing that 5 GB monthly usage allowance won’t hurt either.

Frontier is betting a good deal of the company on expanding broadband service in its largely rural service areas, where many Americans are still stuck relying on dial-up or satellite fraudband, the service that promises a broadband experience but doesn’t come close to actually delivering one.

As long as Frontier doesn’t face competition in its markets, it can deliver 1-3 Mbps DSL service for up to $50 a month and bank those profits as a firewall against ongoing loss of landline revenue.  But if new players arrive, such as LTE wireless, WiMax, cable, or municipal fiber, Frontier’s business plan could go awry in a hurry.

Frontier also continues to pin its hopes on its enormous payout of dividends — sometimes exceeding 12 percent.  The stock is currently the best dividend payer in the S&P 500.  With dependable dividends and the ability to throw back free cash to investors, shareholders can’t ask for anything more.  In the first quarter alone, free cash flow amounted to $152 million and the company paid a dividend to shareholders representing 52 percent of that amount.  That’s $152 million Frontier won’t be spending to upgrade their service or have on hand to pay down debt.

For independent legacy landline providers like Frontier, reducing that dividend could spell disaster for the company’s stock price. Even investors understand this, which is why these kinds of cautionary notes are often attached to coverage about the company:

A cautionary note: telecoms companies with large fixed line exposure generally yield high dividends presently because investors do not believe their revenues and income levels are sustainable as people continue to substitute mobile phones for fixed lines.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt told Wall Street the company is backing AT&T’s decision to cease unlimited access to its wireless data services.

“In most businesses when usage goes up, that’s a good thing because people pay more,” Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable’s chief executive officer, said at a Sanford C. Bernstein Wall Street investor conference Friday in New York. “It’s going to get the industry better aligned with consumer behavior.”

But Britt also said AT&T’s decision was “more sensible than when we did it,” referring to the company’s April 2009 aborted experiment to charge customers up to three times as much for broadband service with a consumption billing scheme that got a hostile response from consumers.

Britt was speaking about the network capacity constraints that wireless data networks have that do not compare with the much wider pipeline available to wired provides like Time Warner Cable.  Britt cited AT&T’s still-exclusive iPhone as being the single most significant factor in AT&T’s decision.

Britt told Business Week that “at the time” consumption “pricing was needed to maintain the expense and expansion of the network.”

But consumer advocates suggested the company targeted its overcharging experiment in cities where customers didn’t have strong competitive alternatives.  That was particularly the case in Rochester, N.Y. and Greensboro, N.C., where alternative broadband meant significantly slower telephone company DSL service.  In the case of Rochester, that service included a monthly 5GB usage allowance in Frontier Communications’ Acceptable Use Policy.

Without equivalent competing alternatives, broadband consumers would be trapped in a broadband backwater with significantly worse service than neighboring cities.

Despite Britt’s acknowledgment that his company backed off because of strong consumer opposition, he’s still willing to talk about bringing the overcharging scheme back, telling Business Week, “Exactly how it works and what the PR around it will be is something we can talk about.”

[Note: We will have some audio up soon. — Editor]

AT&T has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the company of selling DSL service at speeds it often never provided to customers.

The case, Robert Schmidt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. AT&T and SBC Internet Services, Inc., (d/b/a AT&T Internet Services), was filed in 20o9 when AT&T customers learned the company was configuring some customers’ DSL modems at maximum speed rates below those advertised by AT&T.

AT&T has agreed to settle the lawsuit for a maximum of nearly $100 million, or less depending on the total number of claims received nationwide.

The amount customers are entitled to receive will vary depending on how much of an impact AT&T’s speed limiting configuration had on a their service.  The settlement is also retroactive back to April 1, 1995 meaning longtime AT&T DSL customers could be entitled to several hundred dollars in compensation.  For those dissatisfied with the speeds they received from AT&T’s DSL service, their compensation will be limited to a one-time payment of $2.00.

For some others, the settlement will provide more generous compensation.  The law firm that brought the case, Dworken & Bernstein, will receive up to $11 million in compensation and also get to hand out $3.75 million dollars of AT&T’s money to no less than 20 charities.

Some Background

AT&T provides DSL service to the vast majority of its customers.  This technology works over traditional copper wire phone lines.  Unfortunately, that infrastructure was never designed to carry data, but after years of development engineers found a way to make Ma Bell’s wires work for broadband service.  Unfortunately, the service has never been able to provide consistent speeds to every customer.  The further away you are from the phone company’s central office (where your phone line ultimately ends up), the slower the speed your line can support.  Someone a block away from the phone company office can easily achieve the speeds AT&T promised its customers in its marketing.  But if you are a few miles away, chances are you cannot.

For those more distant, or who live in areas with bad phone lines, your DSL modem won’t be able to maintain a consistent connection at the speeds AT&T sold you.  That will cause the modem to reset itself regularly, trying to re-establish an appropriately fast connection.  That can drive customers crazy because your service will often stop working while the modem tries to renegotiate the connection.  Some phone companies stop the constant reconnection battle by configuring the modem to work at a lower, more stable speed that will work with an individual’s phone line.

For instance, here in Rochester Frontier Communications advertises 10Mbps DSL service.  But for me, more than 10,000 feet away from Frontier’s central office for my area, the line simply couldn’t support that speed.  So Frontier locked the modem to deliver just 3.1Mbps, not the 10Mbps the company markets to customers in this area.

While that practice may seem technically smart, it’s obviously not legally smart, as AT&T has discovered.  Even using the traditional weasel words of “up to” when marketing broadband speeds, AT&T felt it was exposed to charges of false advertising and defrauding customers, and decided to settle the case.  It should be noted AT&T strongly denies any allegations of wrongdoing, but has agreed to settle to avoid the burden and cost of further litigation.

AT&T now faces the prospect of paying compensation to every DSL customer it speed limited in this fashion, and has also agreed to stop the practice.

The Details

Who Gets the Settlement? — Potentially any AT&T DSL customer paying for service after March 31, 1994.  This also includes customers of companies acquired by AT&T:

• SBC Internet Services, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Internet Services
• BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
• Pacific Bell Internet Services
• Southwestern Bell Internet Services, Inc.
• Ameritech Interactive Media Services, Inc.
• SNET Diversified Group, Inc.
• Prodigy Communications Corporation
• Oklahoma Internet Online

Many AT&T customers may have already been notified about this settlement through postcards or other mailers sent by AT&T based on customer records.

What Kind of Settlement Will I Get? — For longstanding AT&T DSL customers, the amount could be substantial, so it’s worth your while to participate, even if you are no longer a customer.  For most everyone else, it’s probably worth $2.00.

There are three types of benefits that will be paid to those who submit valid claims under the settlement once it becomes final. Payments will be made by check or by credits on a customer’s bill.

• Group A Benefit. If AT&T’s Records indicate that AT&T configured the downstream speed of your DSL service, for one month or more during the Settlement Class Period, at a level lower than the Maximum DSL Speed for the plan you purchased, you may be eligible to receive $2.90 for each month your service was so configured.  This could add up to hundreds of dollars.
• Group B Benefit. If you are not eligible for the Group A Benefit and AT&T’s Records show that your DSL service may have performed, for one month or more during the Settlement Class Period, at downstream speeds below the following levels, you may be eligible to receive $2.00 for each such month:
  • 200 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 768 Kbps;
  • 384 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 1.5 Mbps before October 2008;
  • 769 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 1.5 Mbps after October 2008;
  • 1.5 Mbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 3.0 Mbps; or
  • 3.0 Mbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 6.0 Mbps.

  Because the settlement provides for monthly credits, you could also receive hundreds of dollars in refunds or service credits, making participation in the settlement worthwhile.

• Group C Benefit. If AT&T’s records do not show that either you fall within Group A or Group B but you nonetheless believe that your DSL service has not performed at satisfactory speeds based upon the plan that you purchased, you may still be eligible for a one-time payment or bill credit of $2.00. In other words, if at anytime you were underwhelmed by AT&T’s DSL speeds, you can file a claim and get two dollars back.

AT&T has also agreed to monitor customers’ DSL speeds over a period of 12 months and if service cannot achieve the speeds promised, the company will either make repairs to boost speed or adjust billing.

For AT&T customers in Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas, AT&T’s settlement would replace a similar class action case filed in St. Louis.  Ford and Dunne v. SBC Communications, Inc. and SBC Internet Services, Inc., would have only covered customers after December 31, 2000.

Customers who believe they are entitled to participate in the settlement can get additional information and file an online claim at the DSL Speed Settlement website.