Frontier Communications has agreed to bring ADSL broadband service to more of its rural customers, in return for collecting $775 per impacted household from the FCC’s new Connect America Fund, designed to help defray expenses associated with expanding broadband access.

Frontier appears to be the first major phone company in the country to sign on to the new broadband subsidy program funded by telephone ratepayers through a surcharge on their monthly bills.

“Today’s announcement by Frontier Communications represents the beginning of that new deployment: approximately 200,000 unserved rural Americans will get broadband for the first time,” said FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. “I applaud Frontier Communications for stepping up to the plate with its commitment to accelerate broadband build-out by increasing private investment in rural communities, in partnership with the Connect America Fund.”

The FCC will hand Frontier nearly $72 million in subsidies to help the company deploy DSL broadband in areas currently deemed not profitable enough to serve. Frontier says it expects to bring service to 92,876 new households across their national service area that never had broadband service before. The company specifically mentions expansions in Michigan, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia, but says customers in at least half of the states where it provides service will benefit from the broadband expansion funding.

Frontier claims it currently offers 80 percent of its customers broadband service, in part thanks to an investment of more than $1.5 billion by the company over the last two years, according to Kathleen Quinn Abernathy, executive vice president of external affairs.

Genachowski

Frontier is a major provider of traditional ADSL broadband service in its rural service areas, typically offering customers 1-3Mbps service. Customers in larger communities can purchase DSL service at speeds closer to 10Mbps, and the company also sells fiber to the home broadband over its acquired FiOS network in parts of the Pacific Northwest and Fort Wayne, Ind.

Under the terms of the Connect America Fund, participating providers must offer customers at least 4/1Mbps service, which means Frontier will need to make some upgrades in its rural network — most likely reducing the length of copper wiring between its central offices and customers.

Frontier has faced challenges maintaining broadband service in some areas, especially in states where the company acquired aging infrastructure from Verizon Communications. West Virginia, where Frontier is the dominant telephone company after Verizon left the state, is still suffering the after-effects of a derecho windstorm nearly two weeks ago. Frontier has brought in repair crews from as far away as New York to assist in clearing thousands of outage reports.

The company has also gotten some justice after Boone County authorities arrested two men for generator thefts. Frontier has been using generators to keep phone service up and running in areas without electricity, but has been victimized by generator thefts across the state. At least six other generators were stolen in New Martinsville in Wetzel County yesterday.

Frontier has a tip line for anyone with information about stolen equipment or copper theft: 1-800-590-6605.

Other telephone companies expecting to apply for broadband funding from the Connect America Fund include: Alaska Communications Systems, AT&T, CenturyLink, Consolidated Communications, FairPoint Communications, Hawaiian Telcom, Virgin Islands Telephone, Verizon Communications and Windstream.

Copps

Former FCC commissioner Michael Copps thinks usage caps are all about raking in additional profits while cutting back on upgrades while claiming there is a broadband “shortage.” In remarks published on the Benton Foundation website entitled “Hoodwinked,” Copps lets loose on his frustration with the nation’s Internet Service Providers and government regulators who allow them to dictate America’s broadband development:

“Sorry,” the big companies tell us. “You consumers are such data hogs gobbling up the spectrum that we’ve got to ration what you get and charge you more for it.”

While price differentials between those who consume a little data and others who consume a lot may be part of the conversation eventually, we shouldn’t even be considering that at this stage of the game. There is just too much evidence that the big broadband providers operate a scarcity-based plan that works really well for their quarterly reports, but one that would be up-ended if they went out and invested in the increased broadband capacity consumers will need.

Broadband strategist Blair Levin put it well in a recent speech: “When it comes to the wireline access network, instead of talking about upgrades, we are talking about caps and tiers. Instead of talking about investment for growth, we are talking about harvesting for dividends.”

Make no mistake: America is not going to have the telecommunications infrastructure its future so urgently needs without a national commitment, public as well as private, to increase our broadband performance by orders of magnitude. We cannot harvest our future without planting the seeds for our future. It’s something we need to talk about—before the land goes barren.

Phillip Dampier

The Federal Communications Commission has announced the composition of its new Open Internet Advisory Committee to help track and evaluate the effects of the agency’s Net Neutrality policies, but has no member directly representing the interests of consumers.

The OIAC will focus on important Net Neutrality policies like transparency, reasonable network management practices, the differences governing policies for wired and wireless broadband, and issues like usage caps and speed throttling. But there are no voices on the committee that speak directly on behalf of end users — individual customers who use the Internet in their daily lives.

The FCC instead packed the panel with business, social policy and educational interests, many with direct financial ties to large telecommunications companies.

Selected members include:

• Harvey Anderson, Vice President of Business Affairs & General Counsel, Mozilla
• Brad Burnham, Founding Partner, Union Square Ventures
• Alissa Cooper, Chief Computer Scientist, Center for Democracy & Technology
• Leslie Daigle, Chief Internet Technology Officer, Internet Society
• Jessica Gonzalez, Executive Board, Media and Democracy Coalition; Vice President for Policy & Legal Affairs, National Hispanic Media Coalition (representing NHMC)
• Shane Greenstein, Professor and Kellogg Chair of Information Technology, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
• Russell Housley, Chair, Internet Engineering Task Force; Founder of Vigil Security, LLC (representing Vigil Security, LLC)
• Neil Hunt, Chief Product Officer, Netflix
• Charles Kalmanek, Vice President of Research, AT&T
• Matthew Larsen, CEO, Vistabeam
• Kevin McElearney, Senior Vice President for Network Engineering, Comcast
• Marc Morial, President & CEO, National Urban League
• Elaine Paul, Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning, The Walt Disney Company
• Jennifer Rexford, Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University
• Dennis Roberson, Vice Provost & Research Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology (representing T-Mobile)
• Chip Sharp, Director, Technology Policy and Internet Governance, Cisco Systems
• Charles Slocum, Assistant Executive Director, Writers Guild of America, West
• Marcus Weldon, Chief Technology Officer, Alcatel-Lucent
• Michelle Zatlyn, Co-Founder & Head of User Experience, CloudFlare

Missing are the voices of consumers who want an open Internet and do not believe in Comcast and AT&T’s definitions of “reasonable network management” that include Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and overlimit fees.

Consumers will instead have to depend on Internet businesses and institutions that coincidentally share an active dislike of traffic control measures, primarily for their own business reasons.

By excluding the consumer’s voice in policy debates, it is no wonder FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski increasingly seems amenable to the companies he is supposed to independently oversee — spending a considerable amount of time opening industry conventions with keynote speeches, reviewing lobbyist briefs about various communications issues, and talking directly with the corporate leadership of the companies involved. It is disturbingly clear he is listening less and less to consumers. A clear sign of that was his vocal support for the kinds of usage-based Internet pricing schemes that consumers generally loathe.

Genachowski and his staff need to spend more time listening to individual Internet users and the customers of providers and less time attending industry-sponsored events.

The OIAC is a good place to start. Consumers deserve a seat at the table in a debate that will impact every American Internet user.

Northern Minnesota's Paul Bunyan Communications is threatened by FCC reforms that they claim favor larger phone companies.

Northern Minnesotans will have to wait longer for broadband after a telephone co-op announced it was suspending its $19 million broadband expansion project because funding is being diverted to more powerful phone companies like AT&T and Verizon — neither of which have any concrete plans to improve rural wired broadband.

Bemidji-based Paul Bunyan Communications, which serves 28,000 hearty Minnesota customers, has been working on broadband expansion for several years, bringing broadband to customers who have known nothing except dial-up since the Internet age began. Only now the project is threatened because of well-intentioned plans by the Federal Communications Commission to expand rural broadband, but in ways that cater primarily to larger phone companies that lobbied heavily for the changes.

At issue is Universal Service Fund reform, which plans to divert an increasing share of the surcharge all telephone customers pay away from rural basic phone service and towards broadband expansion in rural America.

Paul Bunyan used their share of USF funding to scrap the company’s existing, antiquated copper-wire network in favor of fiber optics. Other phone companies have traditionally used the money to keep their existing networks running. Now the independent phone company says large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have successfully changed the rules in their favor, and will now benefit from a larger share of those funds, ostensibly to expand broadband to their rural customers.

Bissonette (Courtesy: MPR)

But neither AT&T or Verizon have shown much interest in rural broadband upgrades. AT&T, which recently announced it concluded its U-verse rollout in larger cities, has also thrown up its hands about how to deal with the “rural broadband problem” and plans no substantial expansion of the company’s DSL service.

Verizon also announced it had largely completed the expansion of FiOS, a fiber to the home service. Verizon has also been discouraging customers from considering its DSL service by limiting it only to customers who also subscribe to landline phone service.

Verizon Wireless has introduced a wireless home broadband replacement that costs considerably more than traditional DSL, starting at $60 a month for up to 10GB of usage.

As a result of the funding changes, Paul Bunyan is reconsidering plans to expand its broadband, phone and television services to Kjenaas and about 4,000 other residents in rural Park Rapids and a township near Grand Rapids.

It may also have to cut workers.

“It’s kind of ironic,” Paul Bunyan’s Brian Bissonette tells Minnesota Public Radio. “The mantra of these changes is to create jobs. It’s killing jobs.”

Minnesota Public Radio explores how rural Minnesota broadband is being threatened by a telecom industry-influenced plan to divert funding to larger companies like AT&T and Verizon for rural broadband expansion those companies have no plans to deliver. (May 23, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

A green light for usage-based billing at Time Warner Cable.

Time Warner Cable announced its intention to expand its usage-based billing system for broadband beyond southern Texas, and is now considering new pricing tiers that will emphasize usage levels over broadband speeds, according to CEO Glenn Britt.

Appearing at the industry-sponsored Cable Show in Boston, Britt suggested consumers can “save money” opting out of unlimited broadband with its Internet Essentials program, which provides a $5 discount for customers who agree to keep their usage below 5GB per month.  The company is now also considering additional service tiers that will offer different usage allowances at progressively higher prices.

Britt insisted the company will retain the option of unlimited use service, but did not specify whether that would be sold at the same price customers currently pay for the cable company’s Internet service.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski yesterday told cable industry executives he supports usage-based pricing, making it unlikely the FCC will intervene if companies substantially raise broadband pricing.

In 2009, consumers and elected officials protested the cable company’s earlier experimental foray into usage pricing which would have tripled the price of unlimited broadband service to $150 a month. The company quickly relented after customers picketed the cable operator in Rochester, N.Y., and Greensboro, N.C., in a campaign coordinated by Stop the Cap! The cities of Austin and San Antonio, Tex. also made their opposition clear through public meetings and input from local officials.