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)

AT&T: 'If you don't do what we say, we're taking U-verse away!'

AT&T is threatening to pick up its toys and go home if the Federal Communications Commission tries to bring back its oversight powers over broadband.

CEO Randall Stephenson threw a major hissyfit in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, annoyed the company doesn’t have free rein to do whatever it wants.

“I’m a 3-2 vote away from the next guy coming in and [trying to regulate us], [and] I take it away,” Stephenson said, referring to it’s U-verse IPTV service.

AT&T has threatened to cut spending on U-verse deployment if AT&T faces regulations like Net Neutrality in its broadband business.

“If this Title 2 regulation looks imminent, we have to re-evaluate whether we put shovels in the ground,” Stephenson said, claiming the company planned to spend a “couple billion” dollars a year on the service… until now.

But AT&T has already cut spending on U-verse, slashing $2 billion in U-verse investments in 2009 alone — news trumpeted to shareholders.  Additionally, AT&T has laid off thousands of employees.  In short, the threats the company made this week have already come to pass… more than a year ago.

Many analysts claim AT&T is bluffing.  Like most landline providers, AT&T is losing traditional phone customers who are disconnecting their wired phone lines.  Its wireless division has been pummeled for inadequate 3G coverage, poor customer service, and lousy reception in many areas.  AT&T can’t afford -not- to upgrade their services if they wish to retain customers.

The cable television industry certainly hopes AT&T isn’t bluffing.  They are enjoying AT&T’s disconnect business as customers dump inadequate DSL service and overpriced phone lines for cable-provided alternatives.

An Associated Press report gave credit to Stop the Cap! for getting first official word that AT&T ended its Internet Overcharging experiment in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.

Stop the Cap! reader Scott Eslinger managed to get an AT&T customer service representative to read aloud a confidential memo distributed by the company terminating the experiment effective April 1st.  Because AT&T never disclosed the end of the experiment to impacted customers, the coverage by the wire service should help spread the word to residents that the rationing is over:

The phone company confirmed Tuesday that it is no longer holding DSL subscribers in Reno, Nev., and Beaumont, Texas, to data consumption limits and charging them extra if they go over.

With AT&T’s retreat, no major Internet service provider is championing the idea of charging subscribers for their data usage. Time Warner Cable Inc. was a major proponent of the idea and also conducted a trial in Beaumont, but backed away last summer after its plan to expand metered billing to other cities met fierce resistance from consumers and legislators.

AT&T’s trial started in November 2008 in Reno, and was later extended to Beaumont. It ended on April 1 this year, said AT&T spokeswoman Dawn Benton.

“We’re reviewing data from the trial, and this feedback will guide us as we evaluate our next steps,” Benton said.

AT&T should carefully review feedback from customers who despise usage limits and overlimit fees.  Studies show the overwhelming majority of customers do not like their broadband usage artificially limited with arbitrary allowances and overlimit fees, and customers will dump providers who ignore their wishes.

AT&T’s experiment never saved consumers a penny — the company simply slapped allowances as low as 20 GB per month on existing speed-based tiers.  Customers already face practical usage limits from Internet providers.  Those purchasing slower speed tiers are usage limited by those speeds.  Those who pay for higher priced, faster tiers benefit from naturally greater allowances those speeds provide.  Adding a new layer of limits only discourages customers from using the service they already pay good money to receive.  Besides, as profits explode in the broadband sector, the costs (and investment) to provide the service have declined, wiping out the justification for these schemes.

Stop the Cap! opposes all of these Internet Overcharging schemes.  While many providers seek to demagogue some broadband users as “data hogs” or “pirates,” the fact is today’s “heavy user” is tomorrow’s average consumer.  High speed broadband has the potential to revolutionize education, health care, private business, and entertainment, but not if a handful of major providers decide to end innovation by rationing the service to its customers.

AirRunner Wireless serves a small portion of central Wisconsin from its headquarters in Marathon.

A wireless Internet provider serving central Wisconsin has banned online video streaming from its wireless Internet service, telling its customers WISPs are not designed for it.  To drive home the point, the service is jumping on the bandwagon of AT&T’s mobile network 2 GB usage limit with some stringent limits of its own.

Bill Flood, owner of AirRunner Networks LLC dispatched e-mail to every one of its central Wisconsin customers informing them some are violating the company’s use policies by streaming online video on its service, which it cannot accommodate.  Flood blamed companies like Netflix for forcing him to carry the costs of transporting movies and TV shows to his customers:

Hello! Over the past month we have been seeing an increasing issue on the network during peak times. From our investigation we have determined these problems stem from customers who are streaming Netflix or other ‘instant movie or movie on demand’ type services.

These types of products should not be used on the network for these reasons:

First, a wireless network uses access points, those by design do not handle continuous connections without affecting the other customers of that access point. Because the movie stays connected for a longer period of time, eventually other customers simply get less access and as a result see a severe network degradation.

Our Acceptable Use Policy over the years has grown as a result of new technology.

Not all new technology works well on every type of Internet platform. Although some customers have told me they have been using this type of service in the past, the increased usage spurred on by recent Netflix advertising, a CD for Wii devices and now by one of the satellite TV companies has brought this issue to the forefront.

These companies see the Internet as a means to save their resources and push the load onto the Internet.

Welcome to the Internet circa 2010.  The days of a voice declaring “You’ve got mail” from your AOL account are long gone.  Customers are demanding access to a much richer multimedia experience available online today.  That demand is beginning to regularly collide with the limitations some networks have to deliver the service.

To make sure his customers understand the implications of streaming video, Flood is also introducing one of the most punitive Internet Overcharging schemes we’ve yet to encounter, starting with a monthly usage limit of 5 GB accompanied by some vicious overlimit fees:

All non-business customers will be allotted 5 GB of total aggregate usage.

If the customer exceeds 5GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $30.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

If any customer exceeds 10GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $60.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

If any customer exceeds 15GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $90.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

Although these additional charges seem excessive, we are not alone on making such changes as the rest of the ISP’s [Internet service providers as well as cellular providers] are also implementing similar programs on their networks to deal with network congestion issues caused by ‘on demand’ type products. The good news is, the typical Internet customer never exceeds 5GB of aggregate usage. Only a small percentage of our customers are involved in this ‘on demand streaming activity’. Here is what can be done by the typical customer while not exceeding the 5GB threshold: Our basic residential Internet packages will offer 5GB of usage — that’s the equivalent of 500,000 basic text e-mails, 2,500 photos, 40,000 web pages, over 300 hours of Online game time, 1,250 downloaded songs, or a mixture of the above! 1,000 megabyte (MB) = 1 gigabyte (GB) We will send out a notice to everyone again when we are ready to implement these changes.

Flood’s e-mail doesn’t tell the whole story to his customers, however.

First, his imposed overlimit fees are ludicrously high.  A customer using 16 GB for the month would face an overlimit penalty of $90.  Considering AirRunner’s pricing, that’s a potentially enormous bill:

AirRunner offers six rate plans for residential and small business:

• $15.00 256K/256K, tiered access. New accounts only

The below programs require a contract.

• $19.00 1.0 Mbps/768K, tiered access. New accounts only
• $45.00 2Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access
• $55.00 2Mbps/2Mbps, tiered access Bi-direction connection; useful for working from home.
• $65.00 3Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access
• $75.00 5Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access

Second, “the rest of the ISPs” are not in fact imposing similar programs.  AT&T just abandoned theirs for DSL customers in two cities.  Attempts to ration broadband access typically meets resistance from consumers, if not an outright revolt.  As soon as customers get a bill with a $90 overlimit penalty on it, they will revolt as well.

It is true that wireless providers do face bandwidth challenges, but that’s not always disclosed to customers until after they sign up for service.  In 2010, would you sign a two year contract for a broadband service that banned online video?  Of course, if Flood offers the only service in town, for all practical purposes he can dictate the terms of the service provided.  But many customers have long memories and when another provider does arrive, they’ll take their business elsewhere.

Therein lies a potential problem for Flood.  A considerable part of central Wisconsin has been served by Verizon North, one of the divisions Verizon has sold to Frontier Communications.  Verizon dramatically cut investment in Wisconsin broadband expansion as soon as it became apparent they were leaving.  Frontier Communications is betting its long-term survival on bringing at least 1-3 Mbps DSL service to areas just like central Wisconsin.  It’s a safe assumption at least some parts of Flood’s service area will be challenged by Frontier DSL within the next year.

At that point, perhaps Flood will adopt a less hostile attitude towards his own customers.  Some of those who departed didn’t appreciate Flood’s tone or actions and shared some of his hostile communications on the subject.  Taking an adversarial stance even with former, paying customers never works well.  Among the thoughts Flood has shared:

• If you don’t like his caps, move to the city;
• One customer was told his service was canceled because he just doesn’t get it — besides, Flood wrote, he can do whatever he wants;
• Customers who are caught streaming are gone;
• If you complain too much, watch out.

Third, Flood follows the discredited playbook of trying to convince customers a 5 GB usage limit for the Internet in 2010 is reasonable with generous-sounding e-mail and web page browsing allowances.  Flood himself exposes the real issue — customers want to watch YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu and his network can’t handle it.  Of course, his marketing materials never bother to mention any of this.  Only after customers sign up, many under a two-year contract, does the truth come out (underlined emphasis ours):

In the case of ‘streaming video/movies or on demand type products or services’ recent weeks shows exactly what happens when these types of products are used. Everyone who uses ‘on demand or streaming products or services’ also knows there is an alternative which does not have an affect on any other user. We suggest the alternative as the best solution. We would appreciate everyone’s cooperation in resolving this current issue. If you are streaming movies you are making everyone mad!! Someday you may want to use the Internet and your neighbor will be streaming, then you won’t work. Wireless Internet was not designed to watch TV or movies.

If you are a ‘on demand user’ you may want to look at other options in lieu of streaming movies over the Internet. A basic resolution movie is typically 700Mb of data. So 1000Mb is equal to 1GB. So roughly 3-6 on demand or streamed movies will draw and additional charge to your account. All paying customers have the right to access their Internet connection, however any customer cannot deny any other customer access as the result of their usage. When this occurs policy is made to correct such actions. We make every effort to provide the best service we can, sometimes new Internet based programs and products do not work well on this type of network, that is not the fault of AirRunner Networks LLC and we cannot guarantee that any type of program or product will work properly or as advertised.

At least Flood was finally honest about the implications of watching online video from a provider with a low monthly usage allowance.  Just watching 3-6 online movies blows right through it, even fewer if it’s an HD title.

Unfortunately for Flood and other WISPs with similar network constraints, the evolution of the Internet and its online resources will increasingly place pressure on many networks that were built for a 1990s-era Internet.  As advanced video game streaming technology, online movies and television, online file backup, and other high bandwidth innovations not yet envisioned become increasingly popular, companies like AirRunner will be forced to upgrade their network or add new applications to the ban list, eventually facing obsolescence if a better provider arrives in town.