In addition to our ongoing concerns about Internet Overcharging schemes like usage allowances and caps, Stop the Cap! is a strong advocate for Net Neutrality protection.  As part of yesterday’s unveiling of the Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski spent 30 minutes answering questions from CitizenTube participants about broadband policy.

Among the 18 questions asked was one from yours truly, taking on broadband industry lobbyists who make evidence-free claims that Net Neutrality will somehow kill investment in broadband expansion.

Pointedly, I pressed Chairman Genachowski about whether we had to sacrifice the Internet’s openness in order to bring broadband service to the presently unserved.  We sure don’t think so.

Based on the answer, which appears about 24 minutes into the video, he doesn’t think so either.

The false argument providers make to scare legislators is little more than hollow rhetoric, especially when you accept their claim they are not engaged in the kinds of activities today that Net Neutrality would ban tomorrow.  How exactly does prohibiting what providers claim they are not doing anyway harm investment?

Answer: it doesn’t.

What it harms are further efforts to monetize broadband from every angle in an effort to further fatten already engorged profits.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

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.

The long awaited National Broadband Plan (NBP) for the United States is here.  Unveiled yesterday by the Federal Communications Commission, the 376-page plan calls itself a mandate for improved broadband service for 200 million Americans, bringing access to those who don’t have it, and better speeds and lower prices for those that do.

The report’s authors consider the broadband revolution a transformational change for the country, just as railroads opened the door to coast-to-coast transportation, electricity changed the American household, and phone service opened the door to a new era of Americans reaching out to communicate with one another.

Today, high-speed Internet is transforming the landscape of America more rapidly and more pervasively than earlier infrastructure networks. Like railroads and highways, broadband accelerates the velocity of commerce, reducing the costs of distance. Like electricity, it creates a platform for America’s creativity to lead in developing better ways to solve old problems. Like telephony and broadcasting, it expands our ability to communicate, inform and entertain.

Broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of the early 21st century.

To meet the challenge, the FCC was commissioned to develop a national blueprint for improving broadband service in the United States.  A sense of urgency over statistics showing the United States ranking in the bottom half of nations — losing ground on speed, affordability, and access to both Europe and Asia meant the NBP must deliver concrete answers to improve the country’s competitive broadband standing.

This is a broad mandate. It calls for broadband networks that reach higher and farther, filling the troubling gaps we face in the deployment of broadband networks, in the adoption of broadband by people and businesses and in the use of broadband to further our national priorities.

Nearly 100 million Americans do not have broadband today. Fourteen million Americans do not have access to broadband infrastructure that can support today’s and tomorrow’s applications. More than 10 million school-age children do not have home access to this primary research tool used by most students for homework. Jobs increasingly require Internet skills; the share of Americans using high-speed Internet at work grew by 50% between 2003 and 2007, and the number of jobs in information and communications technology is growing 50% faster than in other sectors. Yet millions of Americans lack the skills necessary to use the Internet.

The NBP goes out of its way to recognize private enterprise’s influence on broadband development in the country, acknowledging America’s for-profit, largely unregulated broadband industry has successfully cherry-picked the most profitable customers for often excellent broadband service.  For others deemed less profitable, a lesser amount of service, or no service at all is available.  The distinction between America’s free market approach and government-run universal service is noted in the report.  For America, the private approach has created a “digital divide” — the broadband have’s and have-not’s.  The reasons for bypassing certain areas varies from the expenses to reach rural homes to affordability issues in the inner city.  Sometimes, it’s a matter of being lucky enough to have a decent provider who is aggressive about deploying service.

The NBP seeks to build upon the private free market approach to broadband and fill in the gaps in service for those left behind.

The FCC’s plan envisions broadband evolution, not a broadband revolution.  The report recommends maintaining a limited government role for broadband, and limited regulations along with it.

Instead of choosing a specific path for broadband in America, this plan describes actions government should take to encourage more private innovation and investment. The policies and actions recommended in this plan fall into three categories: fostering innovation and competition in networks, devices and applications; redirecting assets that government controls or influences in order to spur investment and inclusion; and optimizing the use of broadband to help achieve national priorities.

The NBP sets minimum actual broadband speeds Americans should expect to receive at 4/1Mbps. ADSL providers like Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyLink are already in trouble if this standard gets enforced. They routinely fail to meet these speeds in many areas today.

Among the core goals of the NBP:

• Connect 100 million households to affordable, 100Mbps service within 10 years, permitting high end video streaming and medical diagnostics;
• Define broadband as at least 4/1Mbps service, which automatically disqualifies a number of rural DSL providers and satellite fraudband;
• Pole attachment reform, which would remove obstacles providers encounter when trying to hang wiring on poles, bury it underground, or access rights-of-way;
• Improve rural broadband service and low-income access through Universal Service Fund reform, shifting up to $15.5 billion towards broadband construction and subsidies;
• Target a 90 percent broadband adoption rate among American households;
• Rely on mobile broadband to be an important competitor in the broadband industry by doubling available spectrum for wireless data and expand reach beyond today’s 60 percent coverage;
• Provide $16 billion in funding for a federal interoperable mobile broadband network exclusively for public safety agencies.

The plan is a marked departure from the FCC under former president George W. Bush.  Just two years ago, the Commission suggested there were few problems with the broadband industry as-is.  Michael Powell, who served under Bush’s first term as Chairman of the FCC, advocated free market deregulation, and dismissed concerns about the digital divide, calling it a “Mercedes divide,” suggesting broadband was like an expensive car he’d like to own but can’t afford.

Perhaps Powell can afford that car today, as honorary co-chair of industry front group Broadband for America, which has made its presence known through Powell on several national cable news channels in interviews about the broadband plan.  The BfA’s role as an industry-backed player is not disclosed in interviews.

Opposition to parts of the NBP is likely to come from:

• Broadcasters, concerned about the further loss of the UHF TV dial for wireless broadband service expansion;
• Utility pole owners who will likely oppose changes in compensation formulas for pole attachment fees;
• Incumbent broadband providers who fear the NBP may lead to government-backed competition in their service areas;
• Consumers who may balk if Universal Service Fund reform adds an additional five or more dollars a month in fees to broadband bills without price reductions from real competition.

Some of the greatest concerns about the plan come from consumer groups, who recognize the plan has many good points, but relies too much on working with the same companies that got the United States into this position in the first place.

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, March 23 at 2:30 p.m. to review the plan. The House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet will hold its own hearing on the plan next Thursday, March 25.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg National Broadband Plan Released – Controversies 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg Business News carried extensive coverage about the National Broadband Plan, its winners and losers, and other implications of a coordinated plan to improve service across America. (14 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC National Broadband Plan Implications 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC aired more skeptical coverage about the National Broadband Plan.  Clueless Michelle Caruso-Cabrera is also back still insisting 99 percent of America already has access to broadband, but she speaks in terms of zip codes, not actual broadband coverage, and it’s unclear if she includes satellite “fraudband,” which promises broadband speeds but doesn’t deliver.  Caruso-Cabrera also bashes Net Neutrality along the way. (13 minutes)

[flv width=”448″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NBC News Channel FCC Seeks to Expand Access 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

From a less “business news” standpoint, the NBC News Channel explained the National Broadband Plan to ordinary consumers yesterday in terms of how the plan would affect them. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington High-Speed Broadband Access for All 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

Local Washington, DC Fox affiliate WTTG-TV also explains the National Broadband Plan, suggesting it will bring “high speed access for all.” (3 minutes)

[flv width=”641″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Newshour National Broadband Plan from FCC 3-15-10.flv[/flv]

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski sits down for an interview as part of this expansive report on America’s broadband issues aired this week on PBS Newshour (11 minutes)

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.