The Federal Communications Commission wants to know how fast your broadband connection is.  The federal agency is now offering consumers and businesses a chance to test broadband speeds to raise awareness about broadband.  But the test results also help illustrate the wide variation between speeds promised by providers and those actually experienced by customers.

The FCC wants to collect this information because broadband providers have often refused to provide it themselves, citing customer privacy or an unwillingness to release potentially useful information to competitors.  By asking visitors to supply their street address and general location, the agency can at least develop anecdotal information about the range of speeds Americans experience.

However, the agency is likely to discover wide variations in the accuracy of the results based not on what service providers deliver, but instead what the speed test itself reports.

The FCC is relying on two speed test providers, randomly assigned to those taking the test.

• Measurement Lab (M-Lab), which provides researchers with Internet measurement tools on a collaborative basis, and
• Ookla, a private company that provides web-based network diagnostic applications.

Stop the Cap! used both providers to conduct three individual speed tests from Broadband.gov.  There were dramatic differences in results.  M-Lab consistently reported far slower speeds than Ookla.  Ookla’s results were closest to the advertised speeds from our broadband provider — Time Warner Cable.

This speed test result from M-Lab was the closest to the average of all three speed tests conducted with this service

Ookla's speed test came closest to achieving the marketed speeds for Rochester, New York Time Warner Cable Road Runner Turbo customers. The download speeds reported also include the effects of "PowerBoost," a temporary burst of additional downstream speed.

Both speed test providers rely on different regional servers to deliver potentially more accurate speed test results, less impacted by the additional “hops” traffic must take when traveling outside of a nearby region.  But considering the enormous disparity between the two tests, these real-world results may not actually represent reality.

Which test comes closest to the actual speeds available here?  Ookla.  But even then, your results may vary.  Ookla provides speed tests for both Time Warner Cable and Frontier Communications, our local phone company.  The downstream speeds reported were widely different, despite both test servers being located within a 50 mile radius.

Time Warner Cable's speed test application is also provided by Ookla. (This result comes from a server in nearby Syracuse -- the Rochester location was not working properly)

Ookla's speed test for Frontier Communications delivered dramatically different results for downstream speeds

The FCC seems to acknowledge the potential disparity in results on their disclaimer page:

Please note that the Consumer Broadband Test in its current software based form may not be an accurate representation of connection quality provided by your broadband provider. The results can be impacted by a range of factors — for instance, the test can vary based on the geographical distance of the user from the testing server, end-user hardware, network congestion, and time of day. However, this application can provide a helpful indicator in comparing consumers’ relative broadband connection quality and in understanding the performance metrics of broadband connections.

What results do you get from Broadband.gov’s provided speed tests?  Share your findings in our comment section.

Cablevision characterizes the dispute as a "TV tax" on its subscribers

More than three million Cablevision subscribers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are without their local ABC station as another retransmission fee dispute reached an impasse late Saturday night.

WABC-TV, the top-rated television station in New York went dark on Cablevision customer screens Sunday morning, potentially depriving cable customers access to tonight’s Academy Awards telecast.

“If Cablevision is serious about doing right by their customers and returning ABC7 and its programming to them, then they need to act now. The ball is in their court,” WABC-TV president and general manager Rebecca Campbell said in a statement.

The station says it sent Cablevision a new proposal earlier today, but Cablevision had not yet responded.

Cablevision argues it already pays $200 million dollars a year for Disney-owned cable networks like ESPN, and WABC’s request for what the company characterizes as $1 per month per subscriber is too much.

Cablevision is telling subscribers “it is wrong for ABC to demand $40 million in new fees to help pay the salaries and bonuses for top ABC executives” and characterizes the additional fees as a “TV tax.”  That argument might have some sway had Cablevision not recently agreed to some hefty pay raises and bonuses for its own management, while customers faced another rate increase.

Coming just two months after another high profile dispute between the cable operator and Scripps’-owned Food Network and HGTV, some Cablevision subscribers have had enough.

Stop the Cap! reader Jen said she ordered Verizon FiOS for her Long Island home as soon as she heard about the dispute.

“We’ve been here before and I just knew these guys would not get serious about negotiations until after the station was pulled, and I’m tired of them playing with my lineup arguing over who gets my money,” Jen writes.  “Verizon FiOS had a great sign-up offer and they don’t have these bull-headed disputes that drag customers into the middle of the ring to get repeatedly gored.”

Jen’s service was installed Friday, so she’s enjoying tonight’s Oscar telecast while her neighbors might not.

“Maybe we’ll have them over so they don’t have to play around with rabbit ears,” she adds.

Cablevision has been hounded by politicians who are also annoyed with programming disputes.  Cablevision says it would agree to binding arbitration and wants the Federal Communications Commission to intervene.  Both possibilities are highly unlikely, however.

What is likely is the high profile Academy Awards broadband will act as a de facto deadline for the two sides to hammer out a final agreement in time to allow WABC back on the lineup.  Most likely, both sides will settle around the 50-60 cent range for New York’s channel seven.

[flv width=”600″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC New York Cablevision Drops WABC 3-7-10.flv[/flv]

WABC-TV New York tells viewers Cablevision dropped channel 7 early Sunday morning after negotiations failed to resolve a dispute over fees. (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cablevision Dispute WABC 3-5-10.flv[/flv]

Cablevision is running this message for subscribers explaining the loss of WABC-TV from the cable lineup. (3 minutes)

Verizon Communications has made its intentions clear — would-be broadband customers in its service area who are off the FiOS footprint can pound salt.  The Federal Communications Commission issues regular reports on broadband services and their adoption by consumers across the United States.  In the latest report, published this month, customers in Verizon’s current or former service areas who are not being served by Verizon FiOS are behind the broadband 8-ball, waiting for the arrival of DSL service from a company that has diverted most of its time, money, and attention on deploying its fiber-to-the-home service for the big city folks.

One might think the worst DSL availability in the country would be in rural states like Alaska, or territories like Guam, or income-challenged Mississippi.  No, the bottom of the barrel can be found in northern New England and the mid-Atlantic states — largely the current or former domain of Verizon:

Percentage of Residential End-User Premises with Access to High-Speed Services by State
(Connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction)

Source: FCC High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Table 19

Some might argue that DSL penetration ignores Verizon’s fiber upgrades, but does it?

Providers of High-Speed Connections by Fiber by State as of December 31, 2008
(Connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction)

Source: FCC High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Table 20

A survey of the rest of the country calls out Verizon’s inattentiveness to DSL expansion in its remaining service areas not covered by FiOS.

For example: Alabama, Idaho, Montana, and Oklahoma all enjoy 80 percent DSL availability.  Utah and Nevada achieved 90 percent coverage.  Even mountainous Wyoming, the least populous state in the country, provides 78 percent of its state’s customers with the choice of getting DSL service.  Yet New York manages only one point higher among its telephone companies, largely because of enormous service gaps upstate.

What happened?  By 2002 Verizon began to realize their future depended on moving beyond providing landline service.  The company began to divert most of its resources to a grand plan to deliver fiber connections to residences in larger markets in its service areas.  While great news for those who live there, those that don’t discovered they’ve been left behind by Verizon.  Northern New England got flushed by Verizon altogether — sold to the revenue-challenged FairPoint Communications who assumed control of Verizon’s problems and managed to make them worse.

The argument that rural broadband is “too expensive” doesn’t fly when looking at DSL availability in the expansive mountain west or rural desert regions.  Compact states like Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland are far easier to wire than North Dakota, New Mexico or even Texas with its large rural areas (87, 87, and 81 percent coverage, respectively).  Verizon simply doesn’t realize the kind of Return on Investment it seeks from FiOS customers — a dollar amount investors want to see.

Of course, that’s the argument Frontier Communications, and FairPoint behind it, made to regulators in sweeping promises to deliver better broadband service.  FairPoint missed its targets and declared bankruptcy.  Frontier is still in the “promises, promises” stage of its deal to take over millions of rural customers currently served by Verizon.

Americans have got it all wrong.  Their ‘faster is better’ obsession over broadband speed threatens to harm jobs and hurts those looking for work.

Those are the views of Stuart N. Brotman, a senior fellow at the Digital Policy Institute, which calls itself “a vehicle for faculty research that coalesces around the arenas of law, regulation, economics, intellectual property, and technology as these relate to public policy issues of local, state and national interests.”

Brotman argues that while broadband speeds matter, regulators should not be focused on speed as much as considering how broadband can help Americans find jobs.

The Agriculture and Commerce Depts. are tasked with administering $7.2 billion in stimulus funding for broadband by Sept. 30. As they decide where to place the bulk of those funds, which remain unawarded, government officials should show preference to grant and loan applicants that can use broadband to reach displaced workers more quickly.

There also need to be more funds made available to, and a greater focus on, public institutions, such as libraries, community centers, job training facilities, and adult education sites, where broadband spending may have the largest impact on jobs.

Greater broadband competition, which the FCC recognizes is essential to promote more infrastructure development and more varied pricing, also will be helpful. So, too, will be more efficient use of our spectrum resources, particularly those that have been controlled by colleges, schools, and other educational institutions for decades. Those airwaves can be better deployed to deliver high-speed wireless broadband services or leased to private-sector companies offering them.

Large telecommunications providers couldn’t have said it any better.  They have repeatedly argued broadband speeds are besides the point.

Brotman

AT&T last fall wrote the Federal Communications Commission, suggesting residential customers would do fine with broadband speeds that let them “exchange emails, participate in instant messaging, and engage in basic web-browsing.”  For AT&T, speed was less important than setting “a baseline definition of the capabilities needed to support the applications and services Americans must access to participate in the Internet economy—to learn, train for jobs, and work online….”

Verizon echoed AT&T, asking the Commission to retain the current minimum definition of broadband speed at 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream.  That allows them the chance to participate in stimulus funding projects that set the broadband speed bar low, especially in the rural areas Verizon wants to spend less on or is trying to sell-off.

“It would be disruptive and introduce confusion if the Commission were to now create a new and different definition,” Verizon said in its letter to the FCC.

Some of the smaller telecommunications companies also believe broadband speed should be de-emphasized.

Embarq, before completing a merger with CenturyTel (now CenturyLink) told the FCC 1.5Mbps broadband service has become “the most common offering.”  Embarq called that “consistent with an emphasis on economic development and jobs as many important applications, such as video conferencing are arguably possible only with 1.5 Mbps service and above. Any higher speed threshold, however, would risk defining as unserved the large number of satisfied customers of 1.5 Mbps service, which seems implausible.”

Embarq underlines the real reason providers are concerned about broadband speed — they’re not delivering it.  Once legislators or the Commission increases minimum broadband speed levels, many of these companies may find themselves below the threshold, guilty of “just enough speed to scrape by” in non-competitive markets.  That could lead to the prospect of facing federally-funded stimulus projects from others in their service areas, now deemed “unserved” or “underserved.”

Brotman further advocates that funding be focused on those that can deliver results “quickly.”

Embarq would agree with him there as well, stating “funds through grants directly to broadband providers rather than loans or other measures as this will have the greatest and quickest impact in bringing broadband to the hardest-to-serve areas.  …there is no time to wait for complete broadband maps or block grants to states for redistribution.”

Telecommunications companies would also do well by Brotman’s suggestion that federal funding for broadband projects reaching public and community service institutions should be emphasized.  As communities often request companies provide those services at a deep discount or free in return for franchise agreements or other licensing provisions, that’s money AT&T, Verizon, and others need not spend out of their own pockets.  Getting free airwaves swiped from educational institutions to deliver wireless broadband also benefits AT&T and Verizon, who are in that business as well.

When a “policy institute,” “research group,” or other seemingly unaffiliated entity starts rehashing telecommunications industry talking points, it’s time to start digging.

Buried on page five of a PDF file describing the work of the Digital Policy Institute, one comes to a section titled, “DPI Impact and Influence.”  DPI doesn’t list their financial supporters or partnerships as such.  Instead, they call them “national, collaborative relationships.”  Who does DPI collaborate with?

• AT&T
• Embarq
• National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (rural telco lobbyists)
• Verizon
• …among others.

Imagine my surprise.

But that’s not all.  Stuart N. Brotman Communications counts (or counted) among his clients AT&T, Cox Cable, National Cable and Telecommunication Association, and the New England Cable TV Association.

Perhaps Business Week would have done a better service to readers had they also disclosed that.

For months now, several groups purporting to represent the interests of minorities have busily been attacking Net Neutrality as beside the point for the poor and unserved consumer who has been left out of the broadband revolution.  To varying degrees, several of these groups have been spouting broadband industry talking points to the Federal Communications Commission, members of Congress, and the public at large.

For them, and the profitable broadband industry they indirectly represent, providing access at affordable prices is much more important than making sure providers don’t lord over the network they provide to customers.

Access vs. Openness

Consumers are perplexed by this either/or proposition.  For us, both issues are vitally important.  In urban, income-challenged areas, affordability is a crucial issue.  In rural areas, access to anything resembling broadband comes before worrying about the price.  For all concerned, making sure the Internet is not subject to corporate content control, either through direct censorship or through the far-more-common practice of pricing and policy controls, is just as important.

Providers have their self-interest on display when they promote broadband expansion — they want to receive the public dollars available from the broadband stimulus package to pay for that expansion.  Of course, every step of the way they have their fingers all over the process, from broadband mapping that protects incumbents from potential competition, defining what constitutes broadband to be as slow and as cheap to provide as possible, to implement usage rationing through Overcharging schemes like usage limits and usage-based billing, and to advocate for public policy that keeps the Money Party of fat profits running as long as possible without oversight.

The entry of minority interest groups into the debate is nothing new.  Groups of all kinds, including many who one would think wouldn’t have an opinion on Net Neutrality, are all part of the discussion.  Debates ensue, statements are fact-checked, back and forth discussion ensues.  What disturbs me is the small handful of groups who are willing to deal the race card when their own views and statements are challenged and they are threatened with losing the argument. Ill-equipped to argue the merits of their case in detail and withstand the scrutiny of fact-checking, some have introduced race into the debate to obfuscate the issues.

While I don’t doubt their sincerity and passion advocating for increased access and affordability, too many of these groups hurt their own case by accepting generous contributions (or advisory board members) from the telecommunications industry.  Consumers who witness the near total alignment of views between these groups their corporate benefactors are right to be concerned.  Many are asking if those views represent true conviction or “a dollar a holler” advocacy.

The Black Agenda Report, which created this graphic, ponders the same questions many consumers are asking

As Stop the Cap! documented just a few months ago, Broadband for America is a great example of industry-funded astroturf in action.  Large numbers of groups with no apparent connection to the broadband policy debate have found their way onto the roster of members.  From a cattle association to a Native American group that also has a burning interest in sharing their views about corporate jet landing rights, the one thing in common with virtually every last one of them was a financial contribution and/or board member working for big cable or telephone companies.  Thus far, debating a cattle association has not brought charges of being anti-cow, although I suspect consumers are anti-bull.  Debating the merits of Net Neutrality with Native American groups has not brought charges of anti-Native American bias.

Stop the Cap! itself has been on the receiving end of racial rhetoric offered by one of the anti-Net Neutrality advocates out there, Navarrow Wright.  Wright is a former corporate executive at Black Entertainment Television, and spends his days now as a self-proclaimed social media and branding expert. Last year, after exiting as CEO of Global Grind, a hip hop social network, Wright launched Maximum Leverage Solutions, which claims to be a full service consulting firm specializing in social media strategy and Internet Consulting.

Just a few months later, Wright suddenly discovered a big interest in the concept of Net Neutrality.  While he doesn’t disclose his client list, would it surprise anyone if a telecommunications company hired his services for their own “social media strategy?”

Since last fall, Wright has been generating a mix of provider talking points, Google bashing, and attacking groups that support Net Neutrality.  He’s called supporters of an open Internet “digital elites,” the FCC a player of “dangerous games” by ignoring the anti-Net Neutrality public, Free Press a group that wallows “in crazy claims and race-dividing rhetoric,” and tries to connect support for Net Neutrality as somehow representing opposition to increased broadband adoption.

Challenging and debunking his talking points isn’t difficult — they are precisely the same ones the broadband industry has used for several years now.  We invited Wright to a full, in-depth discussion about the merits of Net Neutrality and broadband adoption.  We even got the discussion started, but that’s exactly where it ended.

Wright is also incredibly defensive about the issue of industry-backed mouthpieces and astroturf efforts in general.  Suggesting Wright’s views are inaccurate brings his resume in response, which I suppose was designed to impress readers with suggestions of his built-in expertise, belied by his silence on these issues prior to last year.  In Wright’s original comment, he took our comments about economically disadvantaged Americans and made it an issue of color:

Our piece:

The letter represents the groups’ concerns that broadband for many in America is simply not available, especially for the economically disadvantaged.  They’ve been swayed by industry propaganda to characterize Net Neutrality as a threat to addressing the digital divide by making service ultimately even more expensive.

His response:

Phil, I know (at least I hope) your intent wasn’t to suggest that people of color have been “swayed by industry propaganda” and aren’t capable of thinking for ourselves on technology issues.

James Rucker, executive director of Color of Change added to the debate in late January, wondering why some civil rights groups are only too willing to support discredited industry talking points and advocate against Net Neutrality.

Rucker discovered the same thing we did.  Challenging these groups to explain their positions brings forth repetitious inch-deep talking points and total silence when a rebuttal is offered.  If pushed, they obfuscate with claims their views are being disrespected, when in reality they are only being fact checked.  Perhaps inconvenient, and even slightly embarrassing, but it’s completely appropriate for consumers to ask whether a conflict of interest exists when a group advocates for the positions of the same industry that is sending them big contributions.

The risk, of course, is to tie an organization’s good name to demonstrably false provider propaganda that some groups are willing to repeat, nearly word for word.

Take for instance Wright’s claim that Net Neutrality will force providers to spend money they would otherwise invest for the benefit of the rural, the downtrodden, and the unserved:

That brings me to the other corporate interests: the Internet service providers. It is the ISPs who must invest in, upgrade, maintain and build out the networks that allow us to receive these cool applications. While I don’t find the network side as sexy as the content side, I do know that we have to have it and ISPs need capital to build and maintain it. So the question remains who is going to pay for maintenance and upgrades to the network if Google gets a free ride? Basic economics tells us that if government requires ISPs to give Google a free ride, there’s only one other place to look for the money: consumers like you and me. What’s more, there are those who want to make it even more unfair by insisting that your big-bandwidth-using neighbor should not have to pay more than you, even if all you want to do is check email and watch some YouTube. Who will all of this hurt the most? Low-income consumers.

The only color that really matters here is green

Wright doesn’t know his American telecom history.  Let’s discuss this fiction:

1. Bruce Dixon, a writer for the Black Agenda Report says it better than anyone: “Phone companies invented the digital divide more than a century ago as their core business model, preferring to extend service to affluent areas where they could levy premium charges, rather than building networks out to reach everybody.”  The cable television industry “franchise” requirement came as a direct result of cable industry redlining, the practice of wiring wealthy neighborhoods for cable while bypassing urban and rural areas deemed “unprofitable.”  It’s the same story for broadband, and Net Neutrality is beside the point.  The number crunchers look for Return On Investment (ROI) when considering who gets on the right side of the digital divide.  If they can’t make a killing on you, they’re not going to provide you service.  If you can’t afford their asking price, which is increasing regardless of Net Neutrality, why serve you?  Ultimately it is consumers who overpay for these networks, priced well above cost, generating literally billions in profits.  Why ruin a good thing with altruistic broadband expansion at a fire sale price?
2. Regardless of what Google is doing, providers are seeking new ways to further monetize broadband service, enriching themselves even further.  Prices go up even as the costs to provide the service go down.  The old chestnut about the next door neighbor being a usage piggy is just more of the same “us vs. them” propaganda from providers who want consumers to fight amongst themselves while they run to the bank with the money.  Grandma doesn’t want her broadband service limited either, and she’s way too smart to believe a provider promising dramatic savings for less service from companies that jack up her rates year after year.
3. The best way to guarantee affordable access to broadband service is to develop a national broadband plan that provides the same kinds of “lifeline” services already available for economically disadvantaged phone customers, legislative policies that force markets open to additional competition, government oversight to ensure providers are required to provide service throughout their respective service areas, and stimulus or Universal Service Fund assistance for projects that assure access to those who simply will never pass ROI tests.  Or we can solve everything by not passing Net Neutrality?  Please.
4. Google doesn’t have a free ride.  First, consumers -pay- providers for connectivity.  Ultimately, they are the customers — content producers are not.  Nothing prohibits an ISP from offering hosting services to content producers at competitive prices.  If Google, Amazon, Netflix, or Hulu want to host their content on servers owned by Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, or AT&T, nothing stops them.  Google pays for its own connectivity to the Internet.  Customers pay for accessing it.  Now providers want to get paid again.  It’s like triple-charging for snail mail – you pay for a stamp to mail it, the person you wrote pays to receive it, and the airline that flew the letter cross country has to pay to transport it.

Remember, it’s the content that drives broadband adoption. ISP’s honestly don’t fret as much about traffic as they claim.  They just care whether they can own it, control it, and profit from it.  The evidence to back this up comes from cable and phone companies in a big hurry to stream video content over their TV Everywhere projects.  Nothing consumes bandwidth like online video, yet there they are enthusiastically embracing it.  They have to, because if they don’t control it, it could eventually lead to people dropping their cable TV subscriptions in favor of online viewing.

Wright’s blog promotes another industry favorite — the dreaded phony “exaflood” which threatens to bring chaos and disorder to our online world… unless we totally deregulate broadband and let them do whatever they want to “solve it.”  That’s more of the same.  We’ve seen the results of that for more than a decade now, and the very digital divide that Wright complains about comes as a direct consequence to letting broadband providers serve, or not serve customers as they please at the prices they want.

Wright and other civil rights groups can throw as many race cards as they like against consumers who see right through their corporate-backed agenda.  That’s because consumers know Net Neutrality isn’t an issue of black or white.  The only color that really matters here is green.