Richardson County, Nebraska

Richardson County, Nebraska is classic rural Americana.  Fixed at the very southeastern tip of Nebraska, the county’s gently rolling countryside offers a break from the relentless flat prairies in nearby Kansas. Agriculture, cattle and hog farming are important to the local economy.  Large farms grow corn, alfalfa, and wheat, but the area’s 170 growing days also support a significant apple crop as well. Towns within the county range from the tiny Barada, population 28 up to the county seat — Falls City, population 4,671.

With a climate than can deliver temperatures well under zero in the winter and into the triple digits in the summer, tourism isn’t this part of Nebraska’s strength.  But its location, culture, and cost of living are for those who live there.

Originally founded in 1857, Falls City served as a major transit point for escaping slaves caught up in the Kansas-Nebraska Act controversy, one of the many disputes that eventually led to the Civil War.  Like most small towns of the time, growth came with the arrival of the railroads.  First, the Atchison & Nebraska Railroad in 1871 and then the Missouri Pacific in 1882.

The population peaked in 1950 at 6,200, but the town has held its own thanks to the self-sufficiency of its residents and local government.

Falls City is a unique community among thousands of small communities across the heartland and beyond.

The local economic development team promote Falls City’s possibilities as a strategic transit and shipping center.  Regionally, Richardson County is just an hour or two away from Kansas City, Missouri, Topeka, Kansas, and Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska.  Centrally located, the area offers two day shipping possibilities to most points of the country.

The municipal government owns and operates the local water, gas, electric and waste treatment facilities, which charge rates lower than other communities in Nebraska.  Time Warner Cable’s Nebraska division offers service in most parts of town, and the local, family-owned Southeast Nebraska Communications (SNC) started providing phone service in Falls City, Rulo, Stella, Shubert, Verdon and Salem, as early as 1906.

SNC, which was founded by Edwin H. Towle, began with an attitude of innovation — providing the best, most modern service possible for southeastern Nebraska.  Simply providing “good enough for rural residents” service typical among larger providers was never a part of the company’s philosophy.  The company grew through its innovation, and today leverages all it can out of its copper cable network.  The spirit of innovation that began with Edwin continues today at SNC through family member Dorothy J. Towle, who serves as president of the company.

Towle and other company officials recognize the days of copper wire phone networks remaining relevant in today’s telecommunications marketplace are seriously numbered.

SNC made a decision remarkable for a phone company of its size — it was going to rewire Falls City for fiber optics, straight to the home, at no additional charge to residents and area businesses.

Last July, it stunned the community with the news southeastern Nebraska would have access at speeds cities ten times larger could only dream about.

SNC is investing between $8-10 million in the project, which will reach most city residents by its completion in 2011.  The company is constructing the network with capital improvement funds they’ve conservatively saved year after year, and believes it’s a great investment because of future revenue possibilities fiber optics can bring.  This isn’t a company that worries about pumping up stock prices, boosting dividend payouts, or lavishing executives with enormous pay and benefit packages.  SNC employees live and work in the community and want to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Operations Manager Ray Joy told the Journal Star the new system will be capable of offering 1,000Mbps to a house.  Right now, SNC offers DSL service at 3-7Mbps.

The company is still working out precisely what speeds it will offer residential and business customers, but they will be far better than what is possible from aging copper wiring.  Best of all, it’s future proof, which SNC believes will save them plenty in the long run.  Upgrading fiber networks just takes a different type of laser — no rewiring required.

SNC first considered wireless technology to serve the community, but rejected it because of insufficient bandwidth capacity.  Fiber’s expandability the choice much easier for the company.

Of the 460 cities and villages in Nebraska, only 11 currently have fiber to the home, and Falls City will be the largest in the state.

Falls City Economic Development and Growth Enterprise, the local economic development team, hopes to promote Falls City’s fiber as perfect for new digital economy businesses, creating new high-paying jobs for area residents.

Current entrepreneurs who live in Falls City are already convinced.

SNC's Management and Employees

Karissa Watson, owner of Kissa’s Kreations, a Web and graphic design service, told the newspaper she is looking forward to the conversion.

“From what I understand, it will be 20 times faster, but I also think the quality will be better because it’s a dedicated versus a shared service,” she said.

Watson wants faster service in order to increase her efficiency.  Slower broadband speeds can cause long waits for businesses moving data back and forth.

Watson and other Falls City residents are being kept informed about the progress of the project in quarterly newsletters sent by the company.  A contracting firm, RVW, Inc. of Columbus, Nebraska is doing the work.  Their technicians are personally visiting every home and business owner before digging begins in a neighborhood, and remain available to address any concerns residents have after work is complete.

SNC markets themselves as locally owned and operated, which is why personal contact with customers is critically important to the company’s success.  Newsletters allude to their nearest competitor, Time Warner Cable, as not exactly being local.  SNC touts their local customer care office, staffed by area residents, local call centers that are answered by “real people,” and a service staff that can often respond to service outages on the same day.

“Unlike some companies, we don’t play games with low teaser rates that go up later,” sums up the company’s marketing attitude.

SNC’s fiber upgrade also could eventually protect them from Time Warner Cable’s relentless drive towards product bundling, which can cost the telephone company landline business.  The cable company can also beat SNC’s broadband speeds on the copper wire network.  With an upgrade, SNC could eventually offer customers a cable-TV alternative, taking the competition back to the nation’s second largest cable operator.

Although 75 percent of the six million Americans served by fiber-to-the-home projects are Verizon FiOS customers, there is considerable growth in fiber deployment among small mom and pop and municipally-owned phone companies.  That’s remarkable because they lack the economy of scale and financial resources larger telephone companies enjoy.  But those small phone companies aren’t caught up in debt, endless mergers and acquisitions, stock price games, and ludicrous compensation for a handful of executives.  For customers of Qwest, Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyLink, fiber remains an elusive dream.

The Journal Star covered several other phone companies with fiber projects in Nebraska:

Cambridge, in southwest Nebraska, also has FTTH technology to serve a population of just more than 1,000.

“We’re very excited,” said Cambridge Economic Development Director Adela Taylor, who called it the “infrastructure of the future.”

She said the fiber optic system was the initiative of the local telephone company, which has been very pro-active over the years in bringing the newest technology to the town. She noted that Cambridge was one of the first towns to have Internet service back in 1993, as a pilot project.

Three River Telco in Lynch is in the midst of a three-year project to install FTTH technology. The company serves about 1, 250 customers in Lynch, Verdel, Springview, Johnstown and Naper in north-central Nebraska.

General Manager Neil Classen said Three River received a $19 million federal loan from the Rural Utilities Service to replace its copper wire system with fiber optics. The company wanted to provide the latest services to customers, including transmitting television signals via Internet protocols.

Classen said the fiber optic system will provide customers with a more reliable communications system and a lot more bandwidth than the existing copper wire network. He said the price tag could be less because fiber optic technology has improved and become more cost-effective.

Fiber dreams are Gone With the Windstream

Windstream serves several Nebraska communities, and for those customers, the news is less exciting.  Windstream has limited itself to installing small amounts of fiber in new subdivisions.

Brad Hedrick, Windstream vice president of operations for Nebraska and Missouri, said installing fiber optics is an extremely expensive proposition and Windstream has no plans to connect every home and business as Falls City is doing.

But he told the newspaper if the federal government wants to kick in federal funds to help small communities convert, Windstream will consider it.

Windstream cannot deliver fiber to the home to their customers, despite $2.997 billion in revenues for 2009.  But a family-owned phone company in Falls City, a telephone company in Cambridge serving 1,000 residents, and Three River Telco in Lynch all can.

Dampier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it gets worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomorrow, the Federal Communications Commission is anticipated to release its long-awaited National Broadband Plan (NBP) for the United States.

The proposed road map to better broadband is supposed to bolster availability in rural communities, improve access in urban and suburban areas, and lay the groundwork for 21st century service and speeds.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Blair Levin, executive director of the FCC Broadband Initiative, have provided plenty of clues along the way.  But one thing is certain — the true impact of the NBP will be to pass a de facto national stimulus program for corporate lobbyists, who will spend the rest of the year loving the goodies in the plan and lobbying away the parts they don’t.

Everyone but consumers have plenty of cash on hand to pay for a full assault on Capitol Hill, bending the ears of lawmakers to deliver the changes they can believe in, and outlawing the changes they don’t.  Since those words will be underlined with fat campaign contributions, more than a few lawmakers are likely to listen.

National Public Radio’s Morning Edition asked the question, will the National Broadband Plan come up short? (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The Winners

Public Institutions: To be a health care provider, a school, or library is a good thing these days.  Some of the most generous and non-controversial elements of the NBP will be directed to public institutions.  The cosmetic impact can’t be beat.  Every elected official sees great potential from ribbon-cutting a showcase project that improves health care, local schools, or a nearby public library.  To all three will come fast access fiber connectivity, tele-learning funding, and support for educating the public about broadband.  Libraries will be given special attention to address connectivity, schools will likely find free or low cost fiber in their future, and the digitization of health care records and results will also promise improvements in health care delivery.

None of these projects will create a significant competitive impact on current broadband players, and even earmark-wary politicians will pose for the cameras to launch an inner-city library’s fiber project.  Public safety will also be provided for with plans to improve connectivity and leveraging broadband for our first responders.

Wireless Companies: It can’t hurt to be a big telecommunications company with a wireless division, either.  That’s because one of the major priorities for the NBP will be finding additional wireless spectrum to improve mobile data services in hopes they can provide increased access in rural communities and increased competition in urban ones.

More airways for mobile data will be “a core goal,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in February.  That means AT&T and Verizon stand to gain the largest benefits from expanded spectrum.  Smaller carriers like T-Mobile and Sprint will also benefit to a lesser degree.  The FCC wants to double the number of frequencies available to wireless carriers — 500MHz that must be reallocated from other uses and delivered to providers in new broadband spectrum auctions.

Those with the deepest pockets will win the most spectrum, which assures in priority markets where spectrum is in demand, AT&T and Verizon will likely outbid others.

With a mobile broadband future at stake, that guarantees added pressure on smaller players to merge so they can pool resources to compete for needed airwaves.  That could ultimately reduce competition and choice among wireless providers. Pricing is unlikely to drop either, so long as providers try and recoup their auction expenses.

Levin, in particular, is a proponent of wireless competition.

“We don’t know necessarily whether wireless is going to provide perfect competition to wired. But we do know it’s a very important piece of the puzzle,” Levin believes.

Consumers know better, especially in a country replete with $60-for-five-gigabytes monthly usage plans.

Since wireless broadband is increasingly delivered by the same companies providing wired broadband, wired providers show few signs of fear from bolstered wireless competition.  AT&T U-verse and AT&T Mobility are AT&T.  Verizon FiOS, DSL, and Verizon Wireless are all Verizon.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable are both major investors in Clearwire, a wireless “competitor.”

Equipment & Infrastructure Providers: If you haven’t bought shares in Corning, manufacturer of fiber optic network components, or Cisco, which supplies broadband infrastructure, you might want to consider it.  Both companies, among dozens of others, stand to reap millions in profits from the sale of components to construct 21st century broadband.  All of the major equipment manufacturers and their respective trade associations have already submitted piles of comments to the FCC to help identify priorities and speed implementation of the NBP.  Not only do they promote the use of their products, they also speak in terms of helping to create  thousands of new jobs for those building the next generation of broadband.  What’s not to like about that?

Big Broadband Users: Major companies like Google and Amazon are expected to benefit from improved broadband, especially if it also includes increased competition and open access to privately owned networks.  Constructing larger national and regional networks assures increased capacity and reduced pricing, especially if networks face additional competition.  To underscore the point, the NBP is expected to announce a review by the FCC of the wholesale rates big carriers charge for access.

The Losers

Broadcasters: The nation’s broadcasters are clearly the biggest potential losers in the NBP.  Threatened with plans to capture large amounts of the UHF television band and selling it off to wireless providers may cripple at least some of the nation’s free over-the-air broadcasters.  For some at the FCC, the fact that less than half of all Americans watch television over-the-air must have made their frequencies a rational target.  Most Americans pay a cable, telephone or satellite company to deliver local stations.  If the FCC reallocated half of the current UHF dial and sold it to wireless carriers, the remaining channel space would mean a far more crowded, interference-prone TV dial.

Some wireless industry advocates of the reallocation plan believe stations can get by with reduced power on a network of cell-tower-like relay transmitters delivering signals to more distant suburbs in their service area.  Reduced power means reduced interference, they advocate, although it also means significantly reduced coverage areas, especially for rural Americans which depend on distant stations for free over-the-air television.

Right now, the NBP reallocation proposal will likely be “voluntary,” meaning stations can give up their channel and move to a different one, earning compensation from a federal auction fund to pay 100 percent of the expenses involved with the channel change.  The National Association of Broadcasters, the television industry’s trade association, fears what begins as “voluntary” may evolve into “compulsory.”

Open Access Proponents: Least likely to be included in the NBP is a broad-reaching requirement that broadband providers open their networks, usually a duopoly in most American cities, to would-be competitors at fair terms and prices.  The industry has been down this road before with traditional telephone service, and spent countless millions fighting proposals that would allow consumers to choose different local telephone companies.  In the end, choice for residential phone service over landlines never really got off the ground because the terms and conditions never made economic sense to would-be competitors.

Should the FCC try to mandate that cable and telephone industry broadband lines be opened to third party competitors, that will unleash a full scale lobbying assault on Washington.  In an election year, antagonizing big telecommunications companies is unlikely.  Besides, the industry can always sue, claiming any open access mandate violates their corporate constitutional rights.

The Jury Is Out

Consumers: That’s you and I.  Don’t expect the FCC to announce large, government-constructed, fiber to the home projects for every American now living with a broadband duopoly that delivers the least amount of speed for the highest possible price.  When a significant minority of Americans believes any government project to improve broadband is really a Barack Obama Socialist Wiretapping project, no national scale version of municipal fiber is forthcoming.  Not even close.

Most of the media attention will likely focus on speed goals, cosmetic projects for local institutions, and general statements about increased competition.

The immediate benefits for consumers will be nebulous at best.  We’ll likely gain more from Net Neutrality protections.  The only likely direct benefit, should it come to fruition, is the plan to create a nationwide, free wireless network to ease the digital divide.  Specific speeds, technology used, and service areas aren’t known at this point.  But private providers will work particularly hard to prevent this plan from ever seeing the light of day.

Consumer complaints about telecommunications companies have been skyrocketing.  The Better Business Bureau reports that the most complaints the group received in 2009 pertained to cell phone providers and the cable, telephone, and satellite-providers.

Consumers are screaming for competition and they get rate increases instead.

Without clear measures promoting increased competition and oversight, American broadband will evolve into an expensive, usage-limited experience for most urban customers, and “good enough for you”-slow speed DSL service delivered by a de facto telephone company monopoly in rural areas.

Relief for consumers does not come from handing additional few-strings-attached benefits and resources to the same providers that are responsible for the current state of broadband service in America.

Hollywood: Lobbyists for the music and movie studios have been peppering Washington with demands that broadband-related legislation include increased penalties and restrictions to reduce copyright theft.  They seek a mandate that repeat copyright offenders be banned from broadband service, that consumer electronics incorporate digital rights management technology to thwart unauthorized distribution or access to copyrighted content, and increased financial penalties for those who try.

Should the FCC incorporate these concepts in the NBP, it will likely create a consumer backlash because of past memories of overzealous copyright controls that hamper legitimate use of purchased content.  It will also raise opposition from consumer electronics manufacturers.

Cable and Telephone Providers: There are benefits and risks to companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, AT&T, Frontier Communications, and Windstream, among others.

Reform of the much-maligned Universal Service Fund, which currently benefits traditional telephone customers, could be a game-changer for many companies.  Currently, Verizon and AT&T pay more into the USF than they receive from it.  That is especially true for Verizon which is abandoning rural markets by selling off service areas to smaller providers.  The USF provides a subsidy for rural phone companies to deliver affordable service at comparable pricing enjoyed in larger communities.  By transitioning the USF into a Broadband Service Fund — using the money to construct and improve broadband service — many companies stand to benefit.

Frontier, CenturyLink, and Windstream are among those specializing in “rural phone service” and could use funding to defray the costs of broadband networks otherwise built with investor money.  Verizon and AT&T could earn broadband funding for projects in their service areas currently not delivering broadband, or only providing anemic DSL service.

That has cable companies worried, particularly if the funds can be used to provide service in areas where they already offer service.  Even worse, the thought of a new wireless broadband entrant in a community already served by cable and telephone company broadband.

McSlarrow

The cable industry is also worried about a proposal to let consumers ditch cable-owned cable boxes in favor of their own purchased alternatives.

Cable companies rent tens of millions of cable boxes that they control and manage. The FCC wants consumers to be able to purchase and manage their own devices capable of utilizing the services cable operators provide, without having to pay several dollars a month to borrow one from the cable company.

Kyle McSlarrow from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association sent a letter Friday to Genachowski offering the FCC a compromise.  Offering seven points the NCTA says cable is willing to voluntarily abide to, McSlarrow suggests consumers should be able to buy such devices, but that they should not be required to access every possible service on offer from his cable members.  Indeed, such devices also must incorporate security and copyright controls to limit unauthorized access and use of cable-delivered content.

That guarantees the same success rate consumers have today with CableCARD technology, which few consumers use or understand.

Regardless of what comes from tomorrow’s National Broadband Plan, look beyond the happy talk, general promises, and visionary language.  The devil is in the details, definitions, schedules, and clear path from tomorrow’s platitudes into next year’s broadband improvement reality.

'Don't worry about our new higher prices.'

AT&T is raising its rates for existing DSL customers.  Stop the Cap! reader Bill writes that his latest bill shows a $3 forthcoming rate hike on his “Elite” DSL service just three months after his one year promotional price expired.

“First, there is nothing ‘elite’ about AT&T DSL.  Their promised 6Mbps speed is really closer to 3Mbps, and worse when the weather is bad,” Bill writes. “Second, I’m going to be paying more than $45 for DSL service that my nearby neighbors pay for 10Mbps cable modem service that actually delivers 10Mbps.”

Bill doesn’t have that option unless he pays $8,000 to his local cable company to install a cable down the street to reach his home.

“I called AT&T and tried to downgrade my service,” Bill adds. “When you call and reach the cancellation department, they’ll offer you all sorts of incentives to stay.”

Bill joined many other AT&T customers who have called the company to complain about the price increase during difficult economic times, and many are getting substantial discounts.

“They gave me another year of service for $24.95, the same promotional price I had before, which saves me $20 a month,” Bill notes.

That’s more meaningful than AT&T’s explanations on customer bills.  Broadband Reports quotes from AT&T: “We’re adjusting our pricing for AT&T High Speed Internet service in an effort to better align our pricing structure across our entire service territory, and to better reflect the value of our broadband service. But don’t worry, even with this adjustment, our pricing is still competitive across the industry.”

Some of our readers are not satisfied with that explanation and have been calling customer service looking for discounts, which they’re finding.  Among the offers:

• Six months of service for $24.95 with a promise of an additional six months at that price if you call and ask at the end of the term;
• Six months of service at $22.95 with a similar six month extension when the first six months are up;
• 12 months of service at $22.95.
• 12 months of service at $19.95 (mostly found in Illinois).

Representatives may first offer to “lower your price” by switching you to a lower speed tier.  Refuse that offer and tell them you simply want a lower price.  Customers who have other competitive options (cable) will find AT&T most amenable to offering a lower price.  Those with no other options may find AT&T less willing to negotiate.  In those cases, some of our readers recommend calling back to speak to a different customer service representative.  If you do not have a standard residential phone line along with your DSL service, getting discounts becomes very difficult.

Trying to negotiate takes less than 30 minutes of your time and often brings you more than $200 in savings over the coming year.  That’s worth the effort.

Today’s quote comes courtesy of Landel Hobbs, chief operating officer of Time Warner Cable.

Speaking at an investor conference in San Francisco, Hobbs said broadband has replaced cable TV as its anchor product, meaning subscribers increasingly refuse to part with it, no matter the price.

“Consumers like it so much that we have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data,” Hobbs was noted saying by the Wall Street Journal.

Hobbs also reports the cable company continues to grow its Road Runner service at the expense of telephone companies and their lackluster DSL product lines.  Much of Time Warner’s broadband growth these days comes from disaffected DSL customers switching providers.  Broadband remains a profit center for the cable industry even as revenue from cable television flatlines in a difficult economy.

So let the Money Party begin… your broadband bill is going up, especially in areas where subscribers don’t have many alternatives.