LUS Fiber is a municipally-owned provider competing in Lafayette, Louisiana

Lafayette Utility Systems’ LUS Fiber has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission accusing the cable industry co-op of blocking the company from getting the favorable discounts and access to cable networks its competitor Cox Cable receives.

LUS Fiber Director Terry Huval said the blockade against LUS Fiber could ultimately cost the city millions and deny subscribers access to popular cable networks.  Huval accused its rival, Cox Cable, of being behind the repeated denials of membership for the Louisiana municipal cable system.

The municipal provider issued a news release stating that its complaint to the FCC originally was joined by municipal providers in Wilson, N.C., and Chattanooga, Tenn., but the National Cable Television Cooperative has since admitted those systems, while keeping LUS Fiber out.

“The NCTC opened membership to two other municipally-owned telecommunications companies that are very similar to our own Lafayette operation and in the same week refused to admit us on the same terms and conditions,” Huval said. “The only difference among the three systems is that our major cable competitor is NCTC’s largest member as well as a member of NCTC’s board of directors.”

LUS Fiber's primary competitor is Cox Cable

The NCTC is critically important to many medium and small sized cable companies who together collectively bargain access and the best possible volume discounts for hundreds of cable networks and broadcasters.  Those discounts are substantial, considering only Comcast gets larger discounts than the NCTC’s group membership.  NCTC membership also frees members from the tedious one on one negotiations cable systems would otherwise be required to conduct to obtain and maintain agreements with cable programmers.

Keeping LUS Fiber out means the municipal provider could be left charging higher prices than Cox charges for cable-TV in Lafayette.

Federal law appears to be on the side of LUS Fiber as part of the 1992 Cable Act that consumer groups fought for:

It shall be unlawful for a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any multichannel video programming distributor from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers.

The NCTC operates a spartan website at nctconline.org

As someone who personally was involved in the passage of that legislation, the ironic part is we were fighting -for- the NCTC back then.  Of course, those days the cooperative was made up of wireless cable providers, utility co-ops, municipal co-ops, and other independent cable systems that were constantly facing outright refusals for access to cable programming or discriminatory pricing.  Satellite dish-owners were also regularly targeted.  NCTC was a friendly group in the early 1990s but has since become dominated with larger corporate cable operators, especially Cox Cable and Charter Communications.

LUS builds a compelling case:

NCTC and its dominant members have not only grown significantly in size and power, but they have become increasingly anti-competitive themselves. They are now undermining Congress’s pro-competitive intent by using denial of membership in NCTC as an anticompetitive device to insulate NCTC’s existing members from competition by new entrants.

Specifically, in 2007 and 2008, NCTC imposed a “moratorium” on new members, claiming that it needed time to review its membership policies. In late 2008, NCTC supposedly lifted the moratorium, posting new application procedures on its website. These procedures, NCTC stated, would ordinarily result in admissions within 60-120 days. LUS promptly applied for membership, furnishing all of the information that NCTC required. In reality, NCTC only lifted the moratorium for private-sector cable operators, including Cox and Charter. For LUS and other municipal cable operators, NCTC’s claim to be open to new memberships turned out to be little more than a deceptive sham.

In short, as of April 2010, despite publishing procedures suggesting that new members would be admitted within 120 days, NCTC had not admitted a single new public communications provider during the year and a half since it supposedly lifted its moratorium.

Without access to programming at competitive prices, no one would consider switching to a municipal provider that charged higher prices than the incumbent.  The NCTC’s increasingly secretive and erratic admission of new municipal members provides ample ammunition for those on the outside looking in to accuse the group of unfair practices.

A pro-consumer group has released a new report that refutes claims from the telecommunications industry that broadband reform represents an investment killer and takeover of the Internet by the Obama Administration.

Free Press this week challenging 10 of the wildest claims in its report, “The Truth About the Third Way: Separating Fact from Fiction in the FCC Reclassification Debate.” Aparna Sridhar, Free Press’ Policy Counsel used publicly available evidence to effectively debunk the multi-million dollar lobbying campaign to stop broadband reform.

Unfortunately, more than a handful in Congress have accepted those discredited claims as fact.  Free Press hopes truth will prevail over the enormous money-fueled opposition effort, especially as the FCC begins proceedings next week on its proposed “Third Way” approach to broadband oversight. The agency is expected to issue a Notice of Inquiry and to seek public comment on the issues of broadband reform and reclassification.

A sampling from the report, which we encourage you to read:

Fiction #3: Placing broadband services back under the Commission’s explicit authority will stifle investment in broadband networks.

Fact: The FCC’s proposed policy merely preserves the status quo prior to the recent uncertainty created by the federal appeals court ruling. As a result, it should have little to no effect on company investment decisions.

Many industry representatives and investment analysts have dismissed the notion that the FCC’s Third Way will deter investment. Furthermore, history contradicts the claim that applying some of the rules contained in Title II of the Communications Act to broadband service providers (as the Commission has proposed) will adversely affect investment in the networks. Telecommunications industry investments soared during the period when carriers were subject to the full panoply of rules contained in Title II. Investments only began decreasing once the FCC began dismantling many of the pro-competition rules stemming from this part of the Communications Act.

As we've said at Stop the Cap! for two years now, providers' investments in upgrading and expanding their networks are declining, even as demand (and prices) for those services are increasing.

Fiction #4: Placing broadband services back under the FCC’s explicit authority will lead to job losses in the telecom sector.

Fact: The telecommunications sector accelerated its job-shedding following industry consolidation and FCC deregulation, a trend that continues unabated even as company revenues reach historic highs.

The notion that the FCC’s move to re-establish its authority over broadband networks will harm employment is also nothing more than unsupported rhetoric. The simple reality is this sector accelerated its job-shedding following industry consolidation and FCC deregulation. And this trend continued even as overall revenues in the sector continued to expand. Unfortunately, the underlying market economics and company statements suggest this trend will continue regardless of how the FCC acts on the regulatory authority question.

So much for the argument that regulation will cause job losses. As this plainly illustrates, even as profits fatten at AT&T, Qwest and Verizon, employment numbers are on a steep decline in today's deregulated marketplace.

Fiction # 7: The FCC’s Third Way proposal is an unprecedented power-grab which departs from Congress’s intent to leave the Internet unregulated.

Fact: The FCC’s proposal will bring the Commission’s approach to broadband networks in harmony with longstanding principles in communications policy. The law always has recognized a distinction between communications infrastructure (like broadband networks) and the content that travels over that infrastructure (such as websites on the Internet). In fact, it was the Powell FCC’s decision to abandon oversight over broadband networks that represented a radical and irresponsible shift — by treating basic connectivity services just like content, the Powell FCC undermined the Commission ability to make pro-competitive, pro-consumer policies in the broadband space. This FCC’s proposal would return to the first principles of communications policy that fostered innovation, competition and investment in the first place.

Fiction #8: The FCC’s proposal would amount to a “government takeover of the Internet.”

Fact: The FCC’s proposal would draw a line between basic two-way communications — which have always been regulated by the FCC — and Internet applications and websites, which would remain unregulated by the FCC. None of the parties in the debate before the FCC have suggested that the FCC impose any kind of content regulation on the Internet. Nor has anyone suggested that the government take over the physical infrastructure that forms the Internet. Rather, the FCC is proposing to apply some basic, light-touch rules of the road to the owners of broadband networks.

These rules will attempt to encourage private investment, promote competition, and foster innovation, economic growth, and job creation. Further, restoring its regulatory framework back in harmony with the law will insure the FCC has basic consumer protection authority.

Stop the Cap! reader Bones sends word the FCC needs volunteers to help keep America’s broadband providers honest about their speed claims.  But the agency warns heavily usage capped consumers they probably shouldn’t apply, and anyone consuming over 30 GB per month is disqualified.

The FCC SamKnows Broadband Community aims to gather and report statistical data on the performance of America’s broadband providers.  Thus far, most of the earlier speed results being studied by public officials come from data aggregated from voluntary visits to speed test websites.  But the data is subject to considerable variation depending on the speed test site chosen, traffic and capacity issues that only impact the route to the test site, and what else a consumer may doing with their connection during the test.  Many also conduct speed tests when a technical problem is apparent, using the speed test site to verify their suspicions.

The FCC will send 10,000 volunteers a free router that will hook up to one’s broadband connection and quietly test it several times daily.  Comprehensive measurements to be taken include latency, packet loss, DNS query times and failures, web page loading times, as well as the obligatory suite of speed tests.  The testing is done in the background and the results are uploaded to SamKnows for review.  The FCC can use the data from all of the volunteers to identify the true performance of national and regional Internet Service Providers.  Do their speed claims actually match reality?  Do they suffer from congestion problems and at what times of day?

One group of ISPs the agency will have trouble measuring are those that heavily limit their customers’ use.  In fact, the Test My ISP website warns off customers with low data caps because the project is expected to send and receive about 4 gigabytes of data in full over the course of each month. While the program designers felt that much data was so insignificant it would not create a problem, some greedy ISPs out there beg to differ.  With some providers offering usage allowances at 5 or fewer gigabytes per month, the FCC quickly learned it doesn’t want to be responsible for spiking consumer broadband bills with any overlimit fees.

As a result, they’ve asked those usage capped consumers to think twice about applying for the traditional testing program:

Our units download approximately 2GB per month and upload around 2GB. If you’re on a product with a low usage cap then we’d advise against signing up, or at least informing us beforehand so that we can apply a different testing profile.

The FCC also isn’t interested in sending test units to customers they designate as “heavy downloaders”:

We’d classify anything above 30GB per month as being too heavy for us to gather useful results.

With the increasing use of multimedia content and other high bandwidth applications being released to the Internet masses, we beg to differ with the arbitrary definition that 30 GB constitutes “heavy downloading.”  We understand the agency doesn’t want other online usage to create an issue for the accuracy of its speed tests, but they should take better care with their language.  One could use a file backup service and easily consume more then 30 GB uploading and never download more than a gigabyte.

A screenshot of the types of data SamKnows will be collecting and measuring (click to enlarge)

Other restrictions:

• You have a fixed line broadband Internet connection to your residence.  This is not for WISPs, mobile broadband, or other wireless broadband services.
• You use a standalone device to connect to your broadband service – i.e not a USB ADSL modem.
• You have a stable broadband connection (i.e. it doesn’t disconnect frequently). Note that this is just referring to the connection – not the speed.
• You have a spare power socket near your existing router (or wherever you plan to connect the unit. Keep in mind that a network cable must run between the unit and your router though! We supply a 1m cable).
• You need to be on one of the ISPs that we’re measuring.
• You are not an employee or a family member of an employee of one of the ISPs being monitored.

Also, you must agree to the following:

• Not to unplug the unit or your ISP’s router unless I’m away for an extended period of time.
• Not attempt to reverse engineer or alter the unit.
• To notify Samknows if and when I choose to change ISPs.
• To return the unit to Samknows should I no longer wish to be involved (Samknows to pay reasonable postage costs).
• To connect the unit in the way described in the documentation.
• To keep Samknows updated with valid contact details (i.e. email and postal address).

SamKnows is a British company hired by the FCC to conduct the speed test project.  SamKnows is already familiar to British broadband consumers for its comprehensive broadband availability checker showing all of the broadband choices available based on the address where service is to be installed.

The company also reports on broadband news, mostly impacting Europe.

And before the paranoid start suggesting this is Obama’s Internet Spy Box, SamKnows offers this:

However, the unit simply acts as a standard switch or standard router and does not look at any of the packets flowing across your network. It only monitors traffic volumes for the purposes of deciding when to run (or not to run!) the tests and to measure consumption.

Testing information uploaded from the unit to our servers contains no information about you whatsoever. Furthermore, all such communications are encrypted, ensuring that results cannot be tampered with en-route.

Your individual unit’s test results will be available to you alone. Your unit’s results will also be aggregated with others from the same ISP to form a larger average set of results that can be viewed publicly.

We have absolutely no intention of doing anything that may adversely affect your privacy or security.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ITN News Ofcom report says broadband is not up to speed 7-28-09.flv[/flv]

The implications for the FCC’s national speed test program could mimic Great Britain’s, where providers were held to account for wide variations between speeds promised and those actually delivered.  Meaningful broadband reform in the States could include a requirement that providers’ marketing claims be provable, compelling at least some to perform competitive upgrades instead of delivering broken promises.  This ITN News report from last summer illustrates what happened when UK provider speed claims were put to the test.  (3 minutes)

Walt Mossberg (left) discusses the current state of American broadband with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (right)

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowki told attendees at the D: All Things Digital conference America scores dead last in a study measuring the rate of change in broadband innovation.  American broadband is stuck in neutral while every other ranked nation is moving forward faster in understanding the importance of deploying fast, reliable, and universal broadband.  Genachowski directly ties broadband to improving local economies, propelling growth in jobs, and improving education and health care.

Unfortunately the American duopoly most Americans cope with maintains a stranglehold on efforts to bring America literally up to speed with competing nations.  Worse, there is no end in sight as long as America relies entirely on incumbent providers to get the job done.

Americans pay some of the highest prices in the world for mediocre broadband, and it’s only getting worse with the introduction of usage limiting schemes like data caps and so-called consumption billing.

Genachowski is attempting to facilitate improved broadband across the United States, but is hampered by private industry undermining the FCC’s authority to help push improvements forward.  Recent industry-driven court challenges to the FCC’s authority have led to the agency seeking a different path to regain its regulatory footing.

The FCC chairman sees the biggest challenges coming in wireless broadband, where a spectrum shortage is limiting potential capacity and available bandwidth.  Genachowski seeks an accommodation with the nation’s television stations to relinquish UHF spectrum where possible to bolster wireless networks.

Conference host Walt Mossberg challenged Genachowski on why more isn’t getting done and why accepting the current state of the marketplace is acceptable.  He also criticized providers for charging high prices for slow service and attacked Comcast for its set top box, claiming if there was an open market for these things, no one would buy it, that it would be the worst thing on the shelf.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/All Things Digital Genachowski 6-2-10.flv[/flv]

Excerpts from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s visit with Walt Mossberg at the June 2nd D: All Things Digital conference.  (6 minutes)

The CTIA is the wireless industry's lobbying group

While the phone and cable companies attempt to fight off broadband reclassification at the FCC, the wireless industry has been pulling its own weight in an effort to convince legislators everything is wonderful in wireless, and no consumer protection regulations are necessary.

The CTIA, the wireless lobbying group, has been blogging on overdrive lately, trying to sell the idea Americans are already soaking in broadband options and competition that keeps prices low and innovation high.  Why regulate an industry that isn’t broken?

If only it were true.

While Americans in larger communities do have choices for broadband, for most it’s a matter of picking the phone or cable company for service.  That’s called a duopoly.  In the wireless marketplace, it’s hardly much better.  The nation’s largest wireless phone companies, AT&T and Verizon, have essentially colluded with near-identical pricing and service plan requirements that demand customers add mandatory “options” like data plan add-ons that raise wireless bills higher than ever.

The smaller providers eke out an existence mildly competing over pricing, but with their inherent coverage limitations or history of providing poor customer service, many consumers won’t consider doing business with them.  Relying on most wireless providers for broadband threatens the kind of huge bills you see on TV news reports, as carriers limit consumption to 5GB per month, and most charge enormous overlimit fees to customers exceeding the limit.

The Federal Communications Commission recently found one in every six Americans suffer “bill shock” syndrome — that all-too-familiar panicky feeling when you open a cell phone bill and discover an extra zero on the end of the dollar amount due.  More than a third of people who experienced bill shock said their bills jumped by at least $50 — around 23 percent said the increase was $100 or more.

Settles

That amounts to more than 30 million Americans, but the CTIA’s “see no evil, hear no evil” blog carries on claiming life is good for wireless consumers.  Besides, writes Steve Largent, president of the CTIA, consumers who took their complaints to the Better Business Bureau had them resolved 97.4 percent of the time.

Of course, that begs the question why consumers had to approach the BBB about their poor service experience in the first place.

I’m not the only one asking questions.  Craig Settles, an industry analyst, co-administrator of Communities United for Broadband and author of the report “Fighting the Next Good Fight: Bringing True Broadband to Your Community,” is also pondering the industry campaign to block broadband reform.

Settles penned a piece in today’s Roll Call exposing the fallacies from the industry’s PR machine:

The state of broadband — for consumers, businesses and nonprofits — isn’t the rosy picture the industry powerhouses attempt to paint. Ignoring this reality can lead to bad policy decisions and bad legislation.

[…]

Most states may technically have 60 to 80 Internet access providers. However, in practically every state, the combined statewide market share of all but the top five or six providers might total 5 percent, if you’re lucky. In at least half of the states, data show the combined market share of the top two providers ranges from 70 percent up to 95 percent. That represents near or actual duopolies, most often with one wireless and one cable provider as the undynamic duo.

Life at the local level, which is where your true subscriber options exist, further challenges the industry’s claim that people have choices. If you count “having choices” as living in an area where several companies advertise broadband service, or consider dial-up speed as broadband, OK.

But go door to door in rural counties and small towns. The reality you often find is one major carrier providing fair to poor service to some and no service to the rest, plus some small local providers with 2 percent or 3 percent market share struggling to provide decent service in the face of endless efforts to smite them from the planet. If you’re in one of the few states with four or five providers that each have statewide market share of 8 percent to 15 percent, it’s likely each provider is concentrated in a portion of the state, creating a local reality that’s worse than state statistics.

Settles notes that claims of “billions invested” only invites more questions about what carriers are doing with all that money.  Settles questions whether its wise to brag about spending $20 billion on infrastructure costs when municipal broadband projects in states like North Carolina, with IT staffs of fewer than 12, have built superior networks delivering 10 times the speed of its competitors.

The CTIA loves to tout the innovation wireless providers bring to customers, but in many cases they are claiming credit (and often getting a cut in the action) for someone else’s innovation, especially from the third-party apps market.

Too often the real innovations in wireless broadband have often come in spite of carriers that have sought to block, control, or “manage” someone else’s vision.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Freedom CTIA Ad Spot 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Watch as the CTIA wireless lobby tries to sell Americans on wireless innovation, much of which didn’t come from wireless companies at all.  (1 minute)