The Communications Workers of America released their 2009 Report on Internet Speeds in All 50 States, and the results show the United States continuing to lag well behind other nations in providing citizens with advanced, fast, and affordable connections to the Internet.  Little improvement has been made in the past year, when CWA released its 2008 findings. (Stop the Cap! reader Dave passed along word the report was in.)

The average download speed for the nation was 5.1 megabits per second (mbps) and the average upload speed was 1.1 mbps. This was only a nine-tenths of a megabit per second increase (from 4.2 mbps to 5.1 mbps) since last year. At this rate, it will take the United States 15 years to catch up with current Internet speeds in South Korea. And when compared to the rest of the world, the United States ranks 28th in average Internet connection speeds.

The CWA does have an interest in this fight.  It’s a labor union whose members work for many of the nation’s telecommunications providers.  CWA seeks a national broadband strategy that just happens to fall in line with the interests of consumers — increased speeds, more rural broadband expansion, more affordable access, and Net Neutrality protections.  CWA doesn’t take a formal position on Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, at least not yet.

The report measured broadband speed based on more than 400,000 Americans who voluntarily participated in a speed test offered on the Speed Matters website.  The results were collected and covered a significant part of the country, illustrating real world results of ordinary consumers, not simply the speeds touted by broadband providers in marketing materials.

The CWA report calls out the inadequacy of the deregulated free market approach to deliver broadband service consistently to all Americans.  In fact, the disparity of access and the tiny incremental upgrades in speed suggest it will take at least 15 years for the United States to match the speeds enjoyed today in South Korea, which can rightly be called a world leader in broadband even while this country cannot.

South Koreans enjoy an average connection speed of 20.4Mbps (four times faster than the United States).  Japan provides residents with 15.8Mbps, Sweden offers 12.8Mbps, the Netherlands 11Mbps, and 24 others who do a better job at delivering speedy broadband than their American counterparts.

Broadband remains too expensive for the slow service we enjoy today.  That promotes a digital divide between those affluent enough to afford broadband service and those who are struggling to make ends meet (88% of those earning more than $100,000 a year have service in their homes, while just 35% of those earning under $20,000 subscribe).

Another problem highlighted in the report is the ongoing problem of rural broadband access.  While 67% of urban and suburban residents subscribe to broadband, only 46% of rural households do, assuming they can even obtain service.

Rural areas are by far the most likely to encounter slow service, typically 1-3Mbps provided by DSL from the local phone company.

Until 2009, the United States was the only industrialized country in the world without a national broadband plan.  The Federal Communications Commission is expected to release one shortly, but only time will tell whether the plan will primarily benefit consumers or the special interests, including providers seeking to protect their monopoly or duopoly market position, and get taxpayer dollars to finance broadband projects that provide slow and expensive service to consumers.

The CWA has some recommendations:

Governmental action — in partnership with the private sector — is essential to stimulate broadband investment and adoption. Other countries are far ahead of us. It is time for the United States to take action.

• Universality.  Just as government policies helped bring affordable telephone service to everyone, our policies should ensure that every individual, family, business, and community has access to and can use high speed Internet at a price they can afford — regardless of their income or geographic location.
• High Speed.  Speed matters on the Internet. U.S. policies should promote higher Internet speeds and higher capacity networks. The United States should adopt policies to get us to 10 megabits per second upstream and 1 megabit per second downstream by 2010. New benchmarks in succeeding years should expand the number of households capable of sending and receiving multiple channel high-definition video and reach the global standard of 100 mbps.
• Open Internet.  We must protect free speech on the Internet so that people are able to go to the websites they want and download or upload what they want when they want on the Internet. There should be no degradation of service or censoring any lawful content on the Internet. At the same time, reasonable network management is necessary to preserve an effective and open Internet. Most important, building high-capacity networks will ensure that all Americans have fast, open access to all content on the Internet.
• Consumer Protections and Good Jobs.  Public policies should include consumer and worker protections, should support the growth of good, career jobs, and require the public reporting of deployment, actual speed, price, and service.

Below the jump, we’ve assembled a selection of maps and graphics showing where broadband is today in three of states with our largest reader base — New York, Texas, and North Carolina.

… Continue Reading

Om Malik managed a quick interview with the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski. In a wide-ranging interview about the competitive landscape of mobile broadband, which is to say there isn’t a whole lot at present, Malik managed a direct question about Internet Overcharging schemes:

Om: Phone companies and cable companies are trying to impose bandwidth caps on Internet access. By doing so, I feel (and many agree) that they’re actually limiting the scope of innovation. Maybe in that that case, we should think about the need to separate services (TV, video, etc.) from the pipe. What are your views on metered broadband?

Genachowski: It ties into an important policy decision the FCC will be confronting with how we drive a ubiquitous broadband infrastructure that’s open and robust and delivers on the promise of the Internet for all Americans. To tackle these questions we will be focusing on the real facts around what’s going on and what policies will best promote ubiquitous broadband and innovation. It’ll be an ongoing topic. It’s something that consumers of Internet services pay a lot of attention to and we’ve seen that in reactions to some of the events over the last year.

That’s about as non-committal an answer as ever out of the FCC.  The usual formula is there:

1. Express concern.
2. Define the issue in terms of the Commission’s general policy direction and goals.
3. Promise sober assessment of the issue.
4. Under no circumstances commit to anything specific that might get the attention of the press and/or Congress.

Consumers cannot enjoy open and robust broadband that delivers on innovation from providers that are rationing access and charging top dollar for it.  Internet Overcharging schemes represent the best way to run a bypass around Net Neutrality by simply limiting and/or overcharging for access, killing enthusiasm for high bandwidth services like video that challenge current cable television business models.

At least he notes consumers have been pounding the issue with elected officials and the Commission sufficient to warrant mention of it.

Blair Levin, broadband czar

Blair Levin is a broadband czar with a lot on his mind, and he unloaded a lot of it at a public conference this week.  He’s been spending his summer wading into more than 8,500 pages of comments the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received on the question of how to formulate a national broadband plan.  Individual consumers using the submission form like a blog’s comment section was the least of his concerns.  Levin has grown far less optimistic about the value of the comments as he digs deep into the pile before him.  His conclusion: at least some of the companies and groups that can afford the most expensive lawyers and professional presentations essentially pulled off an all-nighter let’s-wing-it-effort.

Levin particularly called out a “large telco” that submitted an extensive paper promoting its position loaded with intellectual sloppiness, right down to including a slide that contradicted the phone company’s own arguments.

Levin also claimed a lot of the submissions were loaded with platitudes and consensus about a model broadband society everyone would like to see, with no road map to actually achieve that goal.

The broadband czar reserved special criticism for the locust-like lobbyists who have descended on the comment process with self-serving proposals that are crafted with a “mine first” mentality that cuts out other players.  Levin claimed providers are much more interested in protecting their existing market and business plans before they consider how changes in the marketplace can increase the number of customers available to them.  That’s a mentality consumers are familiar with as broadband providers attempt to protect their video business models with attempts to limit or overcharge for broadband access.

He was upset that plans to open up new spectrum for next generation broadband services were met with resistance from other providers.  Wireless spectrum expansion for broadband projects was promoted as “essential” in one proposal, and attacked as a dangerous threat in another.  Levin characterized the turf war as, “get [the spectrum] from somebody else.”

Many of the major providers are treating the national broadband plan as a giant piggy bank, waiting to shower them with cash for vague projects or goals.  “Look I’ve got to say this — we are not going to be Santa Claus,” Levin said. “There’s actually very little in the 8,500-something pages that moves the ball forward,” Levin said.

Consumer advocacy group Free Press, which submitted an extensive pro-consumer broadband plan of its own, which Stop the Cap! supports, agreed with much of what Levin complained about in a new filing today, in response to Levin’s remarks.

Derek Turner, Free Press

Derek Turner, research director at Free Press, said “the FCC should not be duped by the incumbents’ self-serving claims. The national broadband plan must be built on a record of meaningful data and analysis — not on flimsy evidence and discredited arguments.”

Turner was pointing to telecommunications lobbying policies which reach not only the FCC, but elected officials.

Indeed, they are repeats of the same mantra over and over — “deregulation.”

“Incumbents have the largest pool of resources and broadband data at their fingertips, but their comments offer nothing more than the same old tired pro-deregulation arguments. It is clear from their recommendations that the phone and cable companies want the national broadband plan to simply be a ‘do-nothing’ plan — a strategy that has already proven to be an epic failure for consumers,” Turner added.

Incumbent carriers keep that pool of resources and data close to their vests, refusing to make it widely available for detailed independent analysis.  Instead, their “government affairs” lobbyists engage in astroturfing efforts to hoodwink consumers and policymakers with biased data and maps that help sell their agenda of deregulation and public financing of needed broadband projects, with little or no oversight or conditions.  Most important, they universally characterize today’s broadband offerings as excellent and evidence that the “marketplace is working,” even as the United States falls further behind other nations in access, speed, and low pricing.

While Levin is right to be exasperated at the special interest folderol, the FCC’s previous hands-off attitude during the Clinton and Bush Administrations set the stage for the ballet being performed today.  A deregulatory framework, started by the Clinton Administration and embraced on entirely new levels by the Bush Administration, combined with an agency timid to get involved in oversight potentially raising the ire of Congress, made it possible for 8,500 pages of generic happy talk and thinly disguised grant applications to weigh heavily on his desk.

Caught in the middle, as usual, are consumers.  Most of them were the ones typing their comments into the FCC comments submission page in “the big box,” instead of uploading a professionally prepared multi-hundred page PDF document.  Their needs are simple: affordable, fast, widespread broadband, with Net Neutrality embraced and Internet Overcharging schemes banned.  For those who already have the service, they want the FCC to make sure providers don’t leverage their monopoly or duopoly into a Money Party.  For those who don’t, they simply wonder how the most powerful country on earth cannot “get it done” without 8,500 pages and hundreds of millions of dollars potentially flushed away to feed special interest coffers while their needs are ignored or met with “this is good enough service for you” condescension.

Of course, no matter what Levin thinks, a lot of those providers with mixed up slides and Red Bull fueling their all-nighters know the FCC doesn’t have the last word on anything.  They’ll take the dog and pony show straight to Congress, with checks in hand to lubricate the conversation. Making sure Congress ultimately listens to their constituents will be up to voters like you and I.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

In a dramatic departure from the former Federal Communications Commission’s largely “hear no evil, see no evil” oversight, Julius Genachowski, the new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is a downright activist.

Genachowski, over the course of several interviews given this week, has made it clear that he sees major problems in the American broadband industry — it’s too expensive, it’s not competitive enough, and its widespread availability is absolutely critical to the economic success of the United States in coming years.  He’s made it clear broadband will be the most important issue before the agency for the immediate future.

“It’s tremendously important. I’m convinced that broadband is our generation’s major infrastructure challenge, akin to what railroads were, what the highway system was and universal electricity. This is the platform that will determine whether the country can compete in the 21st century. If we get this right, our broadband infrastructure will be an enduring engine for job creation, economic growth, investment, innovation, so it’s essential,” Genachowski said in an interview published today in The Wall Street Journal.

Although short on specifics in most of the interviews given to date, Genachowski has signaled his interest in preserving the concepts of Net Neutrality — providing open and equal treatment of Internet traffic without favoring or throttling traffic.

“The openness of the Internet has been a big driver of that. And it is important that we preserve that openness in order to drive investment, innovation, job creation and economic growth,” he said.

With the departure of the former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin earlier this year, Genachowski will mirror much of the Obama Administration policies and their telecommunications agenda.

Martin’s FCC, with a Republican majority, exercised a deregulatory approach to oversight, and was frequently criticized for not protecting consumer interests.  But Martin did routinely clash with the nation’s cable television operators, in his unsuccessful effort to force them to provide a-la-carte cable television programming tiers.  Martin’s leadership also brought about heightened oversight of “decency” policies impacting broadcasters, and resulted in substantial fines for radio and television stations that violated language or decency standards.  Most agency watchers summarize the last eight years of telecommunications policy as generally industry friendly, particularly to telephone companies, and mildly hostile to cable.  The Commission also sought to permit an increase in ownership concentration of the nation’s radio and television services, and approved mergers routinely, including one between former competing satellite radio providers XM and Sirius.

Genachowski’s FCC is expected to substantially change its regulatory approach, but only over time.

Although it will maintain an activist approach to broadband issues, Genachowski believes a top-down ‘agency makeover’ is required to prepare the FCC to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

“There are real challenges given the state of the infrastructure at the agency. As an example, there are literally millions of pages of documents that should be available to the public, and technically are because people can come in and look them up, that aren’t in digital form at all. They’re in paper. Some of these are historical documents, but there’s a huge resource downstairs in the pubic reading room that has something like 7,000 linear feet of paper that we really do need to digitize and put online. There’s a lot of paper that is online but not in machine-readable format, it’s not searchable,” he said.

Most FCC watchers believe the agency will move forward on several issues in the next 12-24 months:

1. A review of the Universal Service Fund (USF), which collects several dollars from every telephone customer in the United States to help underwrite and defray expenses of the nation’s most rural and disadvantaged telephone subscribers.  The USF has been roundly criticized for collecting an enormous amount of money, and squandering it on projects that go well beyond the Fund’s original intent, resulting in considerable waste, fraud, and abuse.  Genachowski’s FCC will be asked to consider using USF money to deploy and/or underwrite broadband service in areas not economically viable enough for private companies to provide service.
2. A review of the state of the competitiveness in the broadband, telephone, and wireless telephone industries, with particular emphasis on the latter.  Wireless phone companies like Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility are already under scrutiny for their exclusivity agreements with telephone equipment manufacturers, and their attempts to hold consumers’ hostage by refusing to permit them to reactivate their phones on other company’s networks.
3. A review of applications and filings by broadcasters relating to low power radio and television, improving reception for digital over the air television signals, indecency complaints, and mergers and acquisitions in the industry.

Stop the Cap! reader Lance wrote this afternoon letting us know Google has a project running for the next few weeks to ask ordinary Americans, you know, the ones who don’t have their own astroturf groups, slick lobbyists, and Re-Education literature, what you and I want from broadband stimulus funding and a national broadband plan.

Submit your ideas for a National Broadband Plan
Google and the New America Foundation have teamed up to launch this Google Moderator page, where you can submit and vote on ideas for what you think the Federal Communications Commission should include in its National Broadband Plan. Two weeks from now we’ll take the most popular and most innovative ideas and submit them to the official record at the FCC on your behalf.

So do you have any good ideas? Submit them today — and you just might help change the face of broadband in the United States.

The operative word there is “might.” Without a massive deluge from angry consumers, the killer bee swarm of lobbyists and other special interests will surround and fly away with the honey pot of federal broadband stimulus funding. But you can’t win if you don’t play, so let’s get busy.

Here was my submission, which you can choose to give a thumbs-up to if you support it:

“A clear prohibition on Internet overcharging schemes! No usage caps, speed throttles, and consumption-based tiered pricing. Net neutrality enshrined into law, open competition, even if it comes from municipalities, and the more fiber, the better!”

Finding submitted ideas is best achieved by using the Search box at the top of the Google Moderator page. You can find mine with a search for “net neutrality.”

Some of the ideas from ordinary consumers that are already getting plenty of support are excellent, common sense winners in our humble opinion, so be sure to vote “thumbs-up” for these as well:

• “Install broadband fiber as part of every federally-funded infrastructure project. Most of the cost of deployment is due to tearing up/repaving roads. Laying fiber during public works projects already underway would dramatically reduce costs.”
• “Force real competition in any given market for broadband services from the same types of provider to eliminate monopolies (i.e. multiple cable providers competing in the same market).”
• “Charging per-data-rate (EG: per gb) is a bad idea. You don’t get charged per hour you watch cable on top of your monthly subscription and additional channels, why should you pay per hour or per gb for access to the Internet?”
• “Stop the ability of private companies to block local governments from trying to deploy their own broadband solutions. There have been numerous examples of this, and it really stifles broadband expansion.”
• “Place residential broadband under the same regulations as other utilities. Require companies to publish their tariffs, and forbid hard caps. Require a portion of the proceeds to be invested into improving the infrastructure.”
• “Recognize that high-speed, reliable and unfiltered Internet access in the 21st century is a civil right on par with free speech and a right to an education and not a simple luxury for those who can afford it. More federal funding, fewer monopolies.”
• “Get ConnectedNation out of the loop. Funded by telecos and cablecos and are lobbying congress using false and misleading data.”

How to participate:

1. You need to have a registered Google account. You have one already if you use Gmail or other Google services.
2. Visit this page to find the question.
3. You will find a login link at the bottom. Click it and you can login or get a new Google account.
4. You will be shown a list of ideas submitted by others. They often appear randomly.
5. On the right side of your screen, you will see a place to approve (checkbox) or disapprove (an “x” in a box) of various ideas.
6. Vote for as many or as few as you like.

You can also submit your own idea.

The most popular ideas will be part of Google’s submission to the FCC.

Let us know what idea you are voting for and if you submitted any of your own in the Comments section.

Click on the "Comments" link shown circled to go directly to reader comments, and share your own views!

For new readers, you can get involved in the conversation by clicking the comments link found as part of the heading of every article here, or just click the headline and scroll down the bottom of your screen where you can find a place to share your thoughts!