In the fall of 2009, South Carolina’s Budget and Control Board approved a fire-sale deal that leased out 95 percent of the state’s public wireless broadband spectrum to two private companies in a 30-year contract valued at $143 million, with the promise South Carolina would enjoy better broadband as a result.

Two years later, South Carolina’s broadband standing has been called “a Corridor of Shame” according to one provider that is trying to expand service while Clearwire and DigitalBridge — the contract winners, sit on their respective hands.

Both companies secured access to the statewide Educational Broadband Service spectrum they get to control with near-exclusivity for less than $5 million annually — around $1 a year for every South Carolinian that could eventually be served with improved broadband.  But nobody is getting service from either provider, indefinitely.

Columbia’s Free-Times notes neither company has concrete plans to bring broadband to anyone in South Carolina.  Clearwire, now in financial trouble, provides no service in the state and DigitalBridge refused to comment for the newspaper’s story.  Free-Times reporter Corey Hutchins could not find anyone able to provide any definitive information about either company’s short or long-term plans to hold up their end of the bargain.

Khush Tata, chief information officer for the S.C. Technical College System suspects one might not even exist.  So long as these two companies maintain a lock on the spectrum, nobody else can deliver the wireless service either.

“I haven’t seen any big cohesive strategy since [the leasing] at all,” Tata told the newspaper. “I think that it’s still based on market and business viability for each provider so they’re sort of on their own. Each provider, they invest based on their return on investment, which is good for their business, but as a state there isn’t any overall planning or approach — and I think the leasing of spectrum provided the largest overall strategy opportunity, which is a pity that it hasn’t panned out yet.”

Don’t tell that to industry-connected Connected Nation, whose South Carolina chapter claims the state is doing better than most providing broadband service.  The group has published maps, based entirely on data provided by the state’s phone and cable companies, that suggest most residents not only get the service, but have a choice in providers.

“That’s just plain bull,” says Stop the Cap! reader Jeff Lodge, who lives outside of Columbia.  Not only does the local cable company pass him by, but there is no DSL either.  He relies on an unlimited wireless data plan from AT&T and does most of his web browsing during breaks at work.

No Plans

“I live in a community of 22,000 people and only those along the main streets in this community have access to broadband,” he says. “The cable company doesn’t go far off the beaten path, and the here-and-there DSL some get is dreadful.”

Even Connect South Carolina acknowledges broadband speeds in the state are often woefully behind others in the region.  Many well-populated census tracts have no wired broadband at all.

With the pervasive lack of broadband, incumbent providers have been heavily lobbying the state to keep others off their spartan turf — pushing for the same type of legislation effectively banning community broadband networks that North Carolina passed earlier this year.

“It’s Time Warner Cable and AT&T… again, that are behind most of this effort, and those two companies treat South Carolina like a forgotten bastard child now,” Lodge says. “Can you imagine the arrogance of big cable and phone companies to keep competition away even when they, themselves, won’t compete?”

No Comment

One company trying to make a difference: GlobalCo and their partner On-Time-Communications.  A review of the under-developed website of the latter suggests neither entity is well-positioned or backed to deliver broadband without significant financial assistance.  But at least they recognize the problem.

“In South Carolina there’s 10 counties that made [the FCC’s report on broadband unavailability] and the majority of them come out of what’s commonly referred to as the ‘Corridor of Shame’,” Ronnie Wyche, GlobalCo’s vice president of sales told Free-Times.

None of this comes as a surprise to Brett Bursey, director of the South Carolina Progressive Network, who opposed the spectrum sell-off.

“The bargain basement lease of the nation’s only statewide broadband system was a theft from, and insult to, the taxpayers who built and own the system,” Bursey told the paper. “The system is not being developed by the companies who won the lease and the Legislature is ideologically opposed to public ownership.”

The Federal Communications Commission today released MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA, the first nationwide performance study of residential wireline broadband service in the United States.  The study examined service offerings from 13 of the largest wireline broadband providers using automated, direct measurements of broadband performance delivered to the homes of thousands of volunteers during March 2011.

Among the key findings:

Providers are being more honest about their advertised speeds: Actual speeds are moving closer to the speeds promised by those providers.  Back in 2009, the FCC found a greater disparity between advertised and delivered speeds.  But the Commission also found that certain providers are more likely to deliver than others, and certain broadband technologies are simply more reliable and consistent.

Fiber-to-the-Home service was the runaway winner, consistently delivering even better speeds than advertised (114%).  Cable broadband delivered 93% of advertised speeds, while DSL only managed to deliver 82 percent of what providers promise.  Fiber broadband speeds are consistent, with just a 0.4 percent decline in speeds during peak usage periods.

Cable companies are still overselling their networks.  The FCC found during peak usage periods (7-11pm), 7.3 percent of cable-based services suffered from speed decreases — generally a sign a provider has piled too many customers onto an overburdened network.  One clear clue of overselling: the FCC found upload speeds largely unaffected.

DSL has capacity and speed issues.  DSL also experienced speed drops, with 5.5 percent of customers witnessing significant speed deterioration, which could come from an overshared D-SLAM, where multiple DSL customers connect with equipment that relays their traffic back to the central office, or from insufficient connectivity to the Internet backbone.

Some providers are much better than others.  The FCC found some remarkable variability in the performance of different ISPs.  Let’s break several down:

• Verizon’s FiOS was the clear winner among the major providers tested, winning top performance marks across the board.  Few providers came close;
• Comcast had the most consistently reliable speeds among cable broadband providers.  Cox beat them at times, but only during hours when few customers were using their network;
• AT&T U-verse was competitive with most cable broadband packages, but is already being outclassed by cable companies offering DOCSIS 3-based premium speed tiers;
• Cablevision has a seriously oversold broadband network.  Their results were disastrous, scoring the worst of all providers for consistent service during peak usage periods.  Their performance was simply unacceptable, incapable of delivering barely more than half of promised speeds during the 10pm-12am window.
• It was strictly middle-of-the-road performance for Time Warner Cable, Insight, and CenturyLink.  They aren’t bad, but they could be better.
• Mediacom continued its tradition of being a mediocre cable provider, delivering consistently below-average results for their customers during peak usage periods.  They are not performing necessary upgrades to keep up with user demand.
• Most major DSL providers — AT&T, Frontier, and Qwest — promise little and deliver as much.  Their ho-hum advertised speeds combined with unimpressive scores for time of day performance variability should make all of these the consumers’ last choice for broadband service if other options are available.

Some conclusions the FCC wants consumers to ponder:

1. For basic web-browsing and Voice-Over-IP, any provider should be adequate.  Shop on price. Consumers should not overspend for faster tiers of service they will simply not benefit from all that much.  Web pages loaded at similar speeds regardless of the speed tier chosen.
2. Video streaming benefits from consistent speeds and network reliability.  Fiber and cable broadband usually deliver faster speeds that can ensure reliable high quality video streaming.  DSL may or may not be able to keep up with our HD video future.
3. Temporary speed-boost technology provided by some cable operators is a useful gimmick.  It can help render web pages and complete small file downloads faster.  It can’t beat fiber’s consistently faster speeds, but can deliver a noticeable improvement over DSL.

More than 78,000 consumers volunteered to participate in the study and a total of approximately 9,000 consumers were selected as potential participants and were supplied with specially configured routers. The data in the report is based on a statistically selected subset of those consumers—approximately 6,800 individuals—and the measurements taken in their homes during March 2011. The participants in the volunteer consumer panel were recruited with the goal of covering ISPs within the U.S. across all broadband technologies, although only results from three major technologies—DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home—are reflected in the report.

Frontier Communications claims its expansive broadband deployment efforts in West Virginia will take the Mountain State from the bottom of the broadband barrel to the very top within a few years.

Dana Waldo, Frontier’s senior vice president and general manager, said the company has completely turned around landline and broadband service in West Virginia just over a year after Verizon Communications left the state.

In a wide-ranging radio interview with MetroNews, Waldo claims complaints are way down while DSL broadband deployment is way up.  In just about a year, Frontier has expanded broadband to 76 percent of its West Virginia service area, adding 85,000 additional homes and businesses that previously had no access to wired broadband.

“We made a commitment to spend about $310 million, from the time of the transaction through 2013, to improve the network, to expand broadband across the state and for other capital improvements,” Waldo told MetroNews Talkline.

Frontier Communications’ Dana Waldo talks with MetroNews Talkline about phone and broadband service in West Virginia. July 19, 2011. (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Currently, West Virginia ranks 47th in the United States for broadband access, mostly because large sections of the rural, mountainous state simply don’t have access to any provider.  What access most do have, outside of major cities like Charleston, Huntington, Wheeling, and Parkersburg comes from telephone company-provided DSL.  Verizon used to be the dominant provider in West Virginia, with Frontier providing service in limited areas.  But after Verizon sold its operations in the state to Frontier, the independent telephone company is now the only telecommunications provider for many rural communities.  For the majority of customers outside of the largest cities, Frontier markets DSL at speeds up to 3Mbps, hardly cutting-edge.

Frontier’s backbone network is deemed the worst in the nation for a wired provider, according to statistics collected and analyzed by Netflix.

“When comparing broadband in states like New York or New Jersey with West Virginia… there is no comparison,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Steve who lives in Hempstead, N.Y., but owns a cabin outside of Beckley, W.V.  “You can get Cablevision’s cable broadband at rocket ship speeds or Verizon FiOS fiber-to-the-home, which is even faster, in New York.  For my neighbors and me in West Virginia, there is one choice – Frontier Communications’ DSL, which can manage 800kbps on a good day.”

“I almost drove off the road laughing as I listened to the sheer nonsense of Mr. Waldo’s empty promises,” Steve shares. “This company’s idea of broadband access is up to 3Mbps DSL while nearby states like Virginia and Pennsylvania are getting fiber or cable broadband speeds ten times faster.  How he expects to make West Virginia a top-5 broadband state with their obsolete DSL is a question the gushing host never bothered to ask.”

Steve doesn’t think too many of his Mountain State neighbors are as excited as Mr. Waldo by Frontier.

“God help you if your line goes out, because they can take days to get around to fix it,” Steve says. “Waldo tries to sell you his possum pie with claims the company takes longer to effect repairs so they are ‘done right the first time,’ which is a real hoot considering all of the repeated outages customers experience.”

Steve doesn’t lay the blame entirely at Frontier, however, claiming Verizon fled the state after mangling their outdated landline network and keeping it running with electrical tape.

“Frontier bought into a real mess, and I’m sure they will eventually fix a lot of the problems Verizon didn’t ever care to fix, but that doesn’t make West Virginia a broadband nirvana — certainly not with Frontier’s DSL.”

Rest in Peace, AT&T DSL

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson doesn’t think much of the company’s largest-reaching broadband product – DSL service, telling an audience at the the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners summer seminar in Los Angeles that AT&T developed DSL mostly to compete with Comcast, but “now that’s obsolete.”

That’s a remarkable admission for AT&T, which continues to provide the bulk of its Internet access to consumers over DSL on its copper-wire telephone network.  Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice, in attendance, promptly tweeted the news to her followers: “AT&T CEO — to chase comcast we built dsl, it is obsolete now”

The story from GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham only got stranger when an AT&T spokesperson tried to explain away Stephenson’s careless remarks:

Stephenson was answering a question from an audience member about how state regulators should think about new technology cycles when they are considering things like USF. He said that new technology used to be amortized over a 10-15 year period, but that has shrunk to about 5 years now. He said that DSL was introduced in the 1990s, it has been surpassed in speed by U-verse and Comcast’s DOCSIS 3.0. He also gave the example of deploying 3G in 2006 … and now 5 years later we are rolling out 4G. His point was — new technology is being surpassed by the next generation much quicker than ever before. We have millions of customers using DSL and remain fully committed to the technology — even as we constantly look to bring innovation to the marketplace.

That innovation comes mostly from the company’s more advanced DSL platform U-verse, which is only slowly working its way across urban AT&T service areas.  Unfortunately, that service will not likely be forthcoming for AT&T’s rural landline customers, who will be left with “obsolete” DSL service, if available at all, indefinitely.

With an increasing amount of AT&T’s revenue coming from its wireless division, there is little incentive for AT&T to expand DSL service into areas where it is not already sold.  In fact, most of the company’s landline-oriented lobbying has been directed at allowing the company to abandon its “universal service” obligations to provide decent, basic telephone service in rural areas.  The company has already won that deregulation in several of the states it serves, but has given no indication if and/or when it plans to shut off its landline service.

Landline providers hope American consumers will lead the way, as an increasing number disconnect their home phone lines permanently.

More than half of adults between the ages of 25 and 29 reside in wireless-only homes, according to the Federal Communications Commission.

“The number of Americans who rely exclusively on mobile wireless for voice service has increased significantly in recent years,” the FCC said, citing a January-June 2010 National Health Interview Survey.

Unfortunately, rural Americans overwhelmingly receive broadband over that landline network in the form of basic DSL, usually at speeds of 1-3Mbps.  If that network is discontinued, their opportunity for broadband service goes with it.

AT&T warns DSL customers they can watch 10 High Definition movies per month... and use their Internet connection for absolutely nothing else, unless they want to incur an overlimit fee of $10.

AT&T has released a phoney baloney video for their customers purporting to “explain” broadband usage and the company’s completely arbitrary usage limits on DSL and U-verse customers: “A single high-traffic user can utilize the same amount of data capacity as 19 typical households. Lopsided usage patterns can cause congestion at certain points in the network, which can slow Internet speeds and interfere with other customers’ access to and use of the network.”

Too bad these claims are not verified with actual facts.

Meaningless statistics

AT&T’s claim that less than two percent of their customers use 20 percent of available bandwidth is frankly meaningless to the company’s DSL and U-verse hybrid fiber-copper networks.  For years, phone companies made a marketing point that unlike cable broadband’s shared network, their DSL service was never shared with anyone else in a neighborhood.  Therefore, running it at a trickle or full speed ahead should have no impact on any other customer.  The only exception to this rule comes from phone companies that under-invest in their middle mile and backbone networks.  For AT&T, that means trying to serve too many customers on inadequate equipment ranging from a poorly planned network of D-SLAMs, which connect individual customers with a fatter pipeline back to the central office, or an inadequate network between the central office and AT&T’s regional backbones.  Fiber, such as that used by AT&T’s more modern U-verse system, completely solves any capacity issues.  Broadband traffic is only a tiny percentage of the bandwidth consumed by AT&T’s IPTV video service — the one that delivers U-verse TV to your home.  AT&T imposes no viewing limits on customers, of course.

Any actual capacity crunch would only show up during peak usage periods — when AT&T customers of all kinds pile on their broadband connection at the same time. AT&T’s usage cap regime does next to nothing to mitigate that kind of congestion.  Here’s why:

Since AT&T and other broadband companies routinely claim the average use per customer is well under 20GB per month, and only 2 percent of customers are currently deemed “heavy users” by AT&T, that tiny percentage of customers cannot create sufficient drag on AT&T’s DSL network even if they opened up their connections to full speed traffic.  In reality, the 98 percent of “average” users piling on the network during prime time would be the only thing capable of the kind of critical mass needed to create visible congestion.  What uses more capacity?  Two customers using their 7Mbps DSL lines to stream online videos concurrently or 98 customers all using their 7Mbps DSL lines at the same time for virtually any online activity?

The math simply doesn’t add up.

The Congestion Myth

AT&T targets their broadband customers with an unwarranted, arbitrary Internet Overcharging scheme they cannot effectively explain to customers.

As two week’s of hearings this month have demonstrated, Bell Canada’s similar arguments for its usage caps simply come without any evidence of actual congestion.  In fact, company officials modified their position to talk more about peak usage congestion, a problem that cannot be controlled with a usage cap well in excess of the average consumer’s usage.  In fact, only a speed throttle could control network congestion at the times it actually occurred.  AT&T also ignores when its customers are using its network.  Is a heavy user downloading files at 3 in the morning creating a problem for other users?  No.  Are the majority of their average-usage customers all jumping online after school or work creating a problem?  Perhaps, if you believed AT&T even had a congestion problem.

Industry maven Dave Burstein does not, and Burstein talked to two chief technology officers at AT&T who told him wired broadband congestion is a “minimal” problem for the phone company.

Upgrades and Cord-Cutting, Delayed

Two things usage caps can do is help your company delay necessary upgrades to meet customers’ broadband needs, whether they are “heavy users” or not.  AT&T has shown itself historically to be slow to invest, and cheap when it does.  AT&T’s wireless network is bottom-rated by consumers thanks to inadequate network capacity.  The company elected to upgrade on-the-cheap to an IPTV platform that still relies on copper phone lines to deliver service that simply cannot compete in quality and capacity with Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network.  But investors love the fact the company counts every penny, even if it means inconveniencing and overcharging customers for their services, usually offered in duopoly or monopoly markets.

AT&T’s usage caps on U-verse are even less credible than those imposed on their DSL service.  U-verse is a fiber to the neighborhood network with near limitless capacity for broadband and video.  In fact, the only “congestion” comes from the copper phone lines that limit how much bandwidth can be supplied to your individual home.  But no matter how much you use, you will not affect your neighbors because your copper phone line is shared with nobody else.  In fact, the biggest chunk of U-verse’s bandwidth is reserved for their video services, which makes arguments about excessive Internet usage on that pipeline un-credible.

What AT&T’s usage cap does assure is that you will not drop that video package from your U-verse service anytime soon.  That lucrative revenue from expensive video packages cannot be forfeit without a fight, and a nice deterrent in the form of an arbitrary usage cap does wonders to keep that cord cutting to a minimum.

Meters That Don’t Measure

One of the worst ongoing problems with Internet Overcharging schemes like AT&T’s is the broken usage meter.  Stop the Cap! has received hundreds of e-mails from AT&T DSL and U-verse customers who report AT&T’s usage meter is either unavailable, broken, or is wildly inaccurate.  With absolutely no independent oversight, and no consistently accurate usage measurement, charging anyone overlimit fees with a broken meter doing the counting is unconscionable.  Yet AT&T may well try.  The company has already been sued by one law firm for what it alleges is an unfair usage meter on the company’s wireless service — a meter that consistently overcounts usage in AT&T’s favor.

AT&T admits they cannot even accurately measure their own customers' usage.

Once getting over the broken meter, customers are directed to a pointless usage-estimator — the ones that tell you about how many tens of thousands of e-mails you can send and receive under AT&T’s cap regime.  In fact, these statistics are irrelevant for the vast majority of customers who never think of sending 10,000 e-mails or exchanging 2,000 pictures or songs.  That’s because customers do not use the Internet to exclusively do those things.  Even with the guestimator, they are left checking a broken usage meter to ponder whether or not they can watch one more show or download another file without incurring a $10 overlimit penalty (or more).  That “generous” limit AT&T touts suddenly doesn’t look so ample when the company gets to the wildly popular activity of streamed video.  AT&T’s own video warns you can only watch 10HD movies a month over your broadband connection — and absolutely nothing else.  No web browsing, e-mail, or photos or music.  Ten movies a month.  Still thinking of dropping your U-verse video subscription now?

Yet AT&T has the nerve to claim, “Our goal is to provide you with the best Internet service possible.”  Really?

Thankfully, not every member of the investor class is thrilled with nickle-and-diming broadband consumers for usage that costs the providing company next to nothing.

The Economist excoriated AT&T for its unwarranted usage limits on its blog earlier this year:

The use of caps allows providers to dish out bandwidth with one hand and take it away with the other. The companies have vastly increased the capacity of various copper, coaxial and fibre lines, but artificially separate out a portion—at least half and often much more—for video which a set-top box or a broadband modem spits out as an apparently distinct service. Cable firms simultaneously push out hundreds of digital channels, while telecoms firms rely on multiple digital streams from live broadcast or cable TV or on-demand pay-per-view. It is as though the water main were divided as it entered the home and a steady, modest stream was made available for showers and at the tap, while most of it was always at the ready for a coin-operated washing machine.

Increasing speed on the internet portion, which would allow consumers to give up on TV subscriptions, is balanced by capping volume. If a consumer does not monitor usage, his internet access can be withdrawn or, in AT&T’s case, overage fees of $10 charged for every additional 50 GB of usage. […] [That] $10 charge applies whether the limit was breached by 1 MB or a smidgen under 50 GB.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Usage.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s new video on broadband usage is based on facts not in evidence and only adds to consumer confusion about arbitrary Internet Overcharging schemes.  (4 minutes)