One of the rural groups fighting to keep funding for rural broadband networks.

The Republican platform on telecommunications and its criticism of the Obama Administration’s handling of broadband inspired a blogger at the Washington Post to ponder the question, “Whatever happened to Obama’s goal of universal broadband access?”

Brad Plumer sees the Republican criticism as valid, at least on the surface:

Does anyone remember when the Obama administration promised to bring “true broadband [to] every community in America”? The Republican Party definitely does, and its 2012 platform criticizes the president for not making any progress on this pledge:

“The current Administration has been frozen in the past…. It inherited from the previous Republican Administration 95 percent coverage of the nation with broadband. It will leave office with no progress toward the goal of universal coverage—after spending $7.2 billion more. That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers.

So whatever happened to the Obama administration’s plan to expand broadband access, anyway? In one sense, the Republican critics are right. Universal broadband is still far from a reality. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s annual broadband report, released in August, there are still 19 million Americans who lack access to wired broadband. Only about 94 percent of households have broadband access. Obama hasn’t achieved his goal.

Stop the Cap! has been watching the rural broadband debate since the summer of 2008, and believes the failure to do better isn’t primarily the fault of Republicans or Democrats — it lies with the nation’s phone companies — particularly AT&T and Verizon. But both political parties, to different degrees, have helped and hindered along the way.

Plumer slightly misstates the commitment of the Obama Administration at the outset. The Obama-Biden Plan never promised to successfully complete universal broadband access in the United States. Here is their actual pledge (emphasis ours):

Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Work towards true broadband in every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives. America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access.

Big Phone Companies Struggle to Abandon Landlines in Rural America

The Obama-Biden Plan for broadband never promised you a rose garden. It simply promised the administration would get to work planting one.

By far, AT&T and Verizon Communications are the most culpable for leaving rural Americans without broadband service. Over the last four years, both companies have diverted investment away from their landline networks into wireless. AT&T has also spent millions lobbying state governments to free itself from the requirement of serving as “the carrier of last resort,” a critical matter for rural landline customers, particularly because rural wireless coverage remains lacking.

In most states, the dominant phone company is still mandated to provide basic telephone service to every customer who wants it. Universal electric and telephone service goes all the way back to the Roosevelt Administration, who saw both as essential to the rural economy.

The Communications Act of 1934 that the Republicans today dismiss as outdated established the concept of universal telephone service: “making available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”

The concept of universal service was reaffirmed, with the blessing of the telephone companies, under the sweeping deregulation of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996. Republicans call that law outdated as well.

Rural America Can’t Win Better Broadband If Their Providers Don’t Play

Decided not to participate in rural broadband funding programs.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) with $7.2 billion to expand access to broadband services in the United States. Of those funds, the Act provided $4.7 billion to NTIA to support the deployment of broadband infrastructure, enhance and expand public computer centers, encourage sustainable adoption of broadband service, and develop and maintain a nationwide public map of broadband service capability and availability.

This first round of serious broadband stimulus was designed to help defray the costs of bringing broadband to rural areas where “return on investment” formulas used by large phone companies deemed them insufficiently profitable to service.

Remarkably, America’s largest phone companies declined to participate. In March 2009, AT&T and Verizon delivered their response to the Obama Administration through Bloomberg News:

Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. may have this response to the U.S. government’s offer of $7.2 billion for high-speed Internet projects: Keep it.

Unlike the businesses that welcomed the $787 billion stimulus package approved by Congress last month, the two biggest U.S. phone companies have reservations. They’re urging the government not to help other companies compete with them through broadband grants or to set new conditions on how Internet access should be provided.

The companies have remained noncommittal as they lobby to shape rules for the grants.

“We do not have our hand out seeking government funds,” James Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president, told reporters March 11. While the company is “open to considering things that might help the economy and might help our customers at the same time,” he said AT&T’s primary focus for broadband is its own investment program.

Also declined to participate.

AT&T’s own financial reports illustrate its “investment program” was largely focused on its wireless services division, not rural broadband. Many other phone companies filed objections to projects they deemed invasive to their service areas, whether they actually provided broadband in those places or not.

When the final NTIA grant recipients were announced, the overwhelming majority were middle-mile or institutional broadband networks that would not provide broadband to any home or business.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service managed the rest of the broadband grants and loans, and the majority went to exceptionally rural telephone companies, co-ops, and tribal telecommunications. AT&T did participate in one aspect of broadband stimulus — its legal team and lobbyists appealed to grant administrators to change the rules to be more flexible about how and where grant money was spent.

In the past year, both AT&T and Verizon have signaled their true intentions for rural landline service:

Verizon’s McAdam: Ready to pull the plug on rural landlines.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam: “In […] areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got [a wireless 4G] LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there,” McAdam said. “We are going to do it over wireless. So I am going to be really shrinking the amount of copper we have out there and then I can focus the investment on that to improve the performance of it.”

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson: “We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America?,” Stephenson told investors earlier this year. “And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid.”

More recently, Verizon has nearly disinherited its DSL service, making it more difficult to purchase (impossible in FiOS fiber to the home service areas). In states like West Virginia, it effectively slashed expansion and infrastructure investment as it prepared to exit the state, selling its network to Frontier Communications. AT&T has shown almost no interest expanding the coverage of its DSL service either. If you don’t have access to it today, you likely won’t tomorrow.

A good portion of the broadband stimulus funding provided by the government is actually in the form of low-interest, repayable loans. Despite rhetoric in the Republican platform about supporting public-private partnerships to expand rural broadband, the Republicans in Congress launched coordinated attacks on the Broadband Access Loan Program offered by the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service in the spring of 2011. Various right-wing pundits and pressure groups joined forces with several Republican members of Congress attempting to permanently de-fund the program, starting with $700 million in federally-backed loans in April, 2011. The loans were targeted to public and private rural telecommunications companies attempting to expand or introduce broadband service.

Attacks on the effectiveness of President Obama’s broadband campaign pledges in the Republican platform ring a little hollow when Republican lawmakers actively blocked the administration’s efforts to keep those promises.

Killing Community Broadband: Priority #1 for Providers With the Help of Corporate-Backed ALEC and State Politicians

AT&T’s Stephenson: Doesn’t have a solution for the rural broadband problem, so why try?

Stop the Cap! has repeatedly reported on the challenges of community broadband in the United States. Launched by towns and villages to provide quality broadband service in areas where larger companies have either underserved or delivered no service at all, publicly-owned broadband is often the only chance a community has to stay competitive in the digital age.

That goal is shared by the GOP’s platform, which states how important it is to connect “rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

Unfortunately, unless your local phone or cable company is providing the service, all too often they would prefer communities continue to receive no service at all.

AT&T is among the most aggressive phone companies lobbying state officials, often through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to pass state laws hindering or banning community broadband development. ALEC supporters, overwhelmingly Republican, accept company-drafted legislation as their own and introduce it in state legislatures, hoping it will become law. Generous campaign contributions often follow.

In the past few years, AT&T and Time Warner Cable have been especially active in broadband backwater states like North and South Carolina and Georgia, where rural counties often receive nothing more than DSL service at speeds that no longer qualify as “broadband” under the Obama Administration’s National Broadband Plan. In North Carolina, Democratic state politicians well funded by Time Warner Cable helped push bills forward, but it took a Republican takeover of the North Carolina legislature to finally get those laws enacted. South Carolina presented fewer challenges for state lawmakers, despite protests from communities across the state bypassed by AT&T and other phone companies.

The efforts to de-fund broadband stimulus and tie the hands of communities seeking their own broadband solutions have done considerable damage to the rural broadband expansion effort.

Universal Service Fund Reform: Not Much Help If America’s Largest Phone Companies Remain Uninterested

The Obama Administration has also kept its pledge to reform the Universal Service Fund, recreating it as the Connect America Fund (CAF) to help wire rural America.

Hopes for rural broadband drowned in the cement pond.

In its first phase of broadband funding, $300 million dollars became available to help subsidize the cost of rural broadband construction. Deemed a “mild stimulus” effort that would test the CAF’s grant mechanisms, only $115 million of the available funding was accepted by the nation’s phone companies — all independent providers like Frontier, FairPoint, CenturyLink, Windstream, and smaller players. Once again, both AT&T and Verizon refused to participate. There is no word yet on whether the two largest phone companies in the country will also effectively boycott the second round of funding, estimated to allocate over $1.8 billion to expand rural broadband.

“Getting to 100 percent is going to be a very difficult long-term goal, given the size of the U.S. landmass and the huge expense to reach those final couple of percentage points,” John Horrigan of the Joint Center Media and Technology Institute told Brad Plumer.

Politics and provider intransigence seem to be getting in the way just as much as America’s vast expanse. Many conservative and provider-backed groups have called America’s claimed 94% broadband availability rate a success story, and don’t see a need to fuss over the remaining six percent that cannot buy the service (and pointing to a larger number that don’t want the service at today’s prices).

Beyond the partisan obstructionism and middle mile/institutional network “successes” that ordinary consumers cannot access, the real issue remains the providers themselves. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

It seems as long as AT&T and Verizon treat their rural landline customers as hayseed relatives they (and Wall Street) could do without, the rural broadband picture for customers of AT&T and Verizon will remain bleak at current stimulus levels regardless of which party promises what in their respective platforms.

The Republican party platform on technology gives little credit to the Obama Administration’s handling of all-things-high-tech and demands a wholesale deregulation effort to free the hands of service providers, get rid of Net Neutrality, and sell off wireless spectrum to boost wireless communications.

The platform authors are particularly incensed about Net Neutrality, a policy that requires providers to treat Internet content equally on their networks. Some Republicans have previously called that “a government takeover of the Internet,” telling providers what they can and cannot provide customers. Vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) fiercely opposes Net Neutrality. In 2011, he supported a resolution disapproving of the policy and in 2006 he voted against an amendment to a bill that would have codified it into federal law.

“The most vibrant sector of the American economy, indeed, one-sixth of it, is regulated by the federal government on precedents from the Nineteenth Century. Today’s technology and telecommunications industries are overseen by the FCC, established in 1934 and given the jurisdiction over telecommunications formerly assigned to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which had been created in 1887 to regulate the railroads. This is not a good fit,” the Republican platform states. “Indeed, the development of telecommunications advances so rapidly that even the Telecom Act of 1996 is woefully out of date.”

Mitt Romney is an ardent deregulator. Under a plan favored by the Republican presidential candidate, agencies like the Federal Communications Commission would be required to offset the cost of any new regulations by eliminating existing regulations. Additionally, Romney plans to issue an executive order as president telling all agencies they must notify Congress about any forthcoming regulations and wait for the House and Senate to approve them before they could take effect. With the current level of Congressional gridlock, a consensus to approve any new regulatory policy is unlikely. The end effect would likely be a near-moratorium on government regulation.

The Republican platform also attacked the Obama Administration for failing to expand broadband to rural areas, but offered nothing beyond generalities about “public-private partnerships” on how to expand broadband to the unserved.

Romney

“That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers,” the platform said. “We encourage public-private partnerships to provide predictable support for connecting rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

One can infer from the language in the document Republicans are opposed to public broadband initiatives.

The Republicans also promise to accelerate public spectrum sell-offs to private companies through auctions to expand the number of frequencies available for wireless communications.

The Obama Administration defends its telecommunications policies, noting the FCC’s National Broadband Plan and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s broadband stimulus program have identified unserved areas, despite provider obfuscation, and targeted funding to open up new broadband opportunities. The administration also says it has effectively reformed the Universal Service Fund into a new Connect America Fund that will underwrite prohibitively expensive rural broadband expansion projects.

The White House also defends its spectrum policies noting existing spectrum still has licensed users that face lengthy and often costly transitions to other frequencies to clear space for cell phone companies. Still, President Obama ordered the FCC to find 500MHz of spectrum to reallocate to wireless communications and the FCC plans the first ever incentive auction that will let TV stations voluntarily surrender their frequencies in return for financial incentives.

Both the Obama and Romney campaigns oppose efforts to internationalize Internet regulatory policy through organizations like the United Nations or the International Telecommunications Union. Some governments have stepped up their efforts to lobby for a transition away from Internet policies they see dominated by the United States.

Democrats are also considering Internet language in their party platform for the party’s upcoming convention next month.

Outside of a handful of consumer groups, just about everyone — including one “anti-tax” Republican on the Federal Communications Commission — favors the imposition of a new broadband tax on your Internet connection.

It is all a part of the Federal Communications Commission’s effort to transform a badly-outdated Universal Service Fund (USF) into the Connect America Fund (CAF) — an ongoing project to help defray the costs of wiring rural America for broadband service.

Phone and cable companies are on board. So are several state regulators. Even search engine giant Google favors applying a surcharge to consumer bills to retire a funding formula currently dependent on declining landline phone revenue.

In April, the FCC began accepting comments on its proposal to expand the number of telecommunications services subject to the surcharge, currently found on telephone bills. The FCC has proposed a number of possible taxes including the new broadband fee, a tax on text messages, or moving to a flat fee for each phone line instead of a variable tax rate (currently around 18%).

Virtually every major telecommunications company provisionally supports the new tax, for at least three reasons:

1. Most can benefit from future CAF funding opportunities, dipping into the fund to help subsidize expanding broadband into areas where current “return on private investment”-standards make deployment unprofitable;
2. Consumers will pay the tax, not providers;
3. The companies are confident their fierce lobbying will get the FCC to drop a proposed requirement the fee be included in the advertised price of broadband service. They want the fee broken out separately on customer bills, in part because they fear higher-advertised-prices for broadband will discourage customers from buying.

Google also supports the new tax because they profit from a larger broadband audience accessing their web pages and services. If the FCC were to tax online services, as Google fears, it would be bad news.

“Saddling these offerings with new, direct USF contribution obligations is likely to restrict innovative options for all communications consumers and cause immediate and lasting harm to the users, pioneers, and innovators of Internet-based services,” Google argued.

The Fiber to the Home Council, another industry group, was disturbed by one FCC proposal that would levy an increasingly higher percentage of the new tax on customers with progressively faster high speed connections. Although the Council agreed with many consumer groups that any new broadband tax would discourage broadband adoption, it was alarmed with the proposition of taxing consumers the most for selecting the highest speed broadband tiers.

“The Commission should not impose a fee that increases with greater performance capabilities (capacity/speed) because that would discourage plant and service upgrades and hinder the expansion of critically important high-speed broadband services,” the Council wrote in its comments to the FCC.

The Fiber to the Home Council is concerned about one proposal that would levy increasingly higher taxes the higher your connection speed.

With 19 million Americans currently unable to obtain broadband service, adding a new tax on existing broadband customers’ bills would bring in millions that the CAF will ultimately award to rural landline providers and cable operators to encourage them to expand their broadband networks.

But consumer groups including Free Press worry the new tax would rob Peter to pay Paul, and further discourage poor Americans who can’t afford current broadband prices from ever signing up for service.

“In other words, as the Commission reforms the overall USF system in the name of greater broadband adoption, particularly among rural, poor and elderly consumers, assessing [a broadband tax] could lead to an overall lower level of broadband adoption, despite the availability of new broadband subsidies,” writes Free Press research director S. Derek Turner in an official filing with the FCC.

Free Press called the current comments from industry players largely as expected.

“Industry commenters simply offered self-serving proposals that will ensure that their (but not necessarily their customers’) contribution burdens are as low as possible,” Turner wrote. “We instead are strongly encouraging the Commission to conduct actual cost-benefit analysis prior to adopting rule changes that could have massive unintended consequences for consumers.”

Thinks a broadband tax will reduce broadband adoption.

Outside of a small handful of remarks from end users, the overwhelming majority of comments received by the FCC are from providers, industry groups, and telecommunications regulators. Almost none come from actual consumers, who will ultimately pay the proposed tax.

Some conservative anti-tax groups have been alarmed by the tax expansion and Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell’s apparent support of it. McDowell issued a statement in April declaring his support for reform of the USF system to broaden the tax to additional telecommunications users:

[…] “To put the importance of contribution reform into perspective, the contribution factor, a type of tax paid by telephone consumers, has risen each year from approximately 5.5 percent in 1998 to almost 18 percent in the first quarter of this year. This trend is unacceptable because it is unsustainable. Furthermore, the cryptic language on consumers’ phone bills, combined with the skyrocketing “tax” rate, has produced a new form of “bill shock.” We must tame this wild automatic tax increase as soon as possible.

[…] “Controversy, however, should not deter us from lowering the tax rate while broadening the base according to the authority granted to us by Congress. The current pool of contributors is shrinking. It must be expanded, but we must do so only within our statutory authority while keeping in mind the international implications of our actions.”

Phillip “At Least They Are Transparent About Robbing You” Dampier

The unassailable truth is that if there is a right way for a company to treat its customers and a wrong way, AT&T will always choose the wrong way. It’s the primary reason I refuse to do business with them.

The company’s recent decision to block Apple FaceTime for customers who refuse to be herded to one of AT&T’s new Mobile Share plans is another shot across the bow of Net Neutrality, which declares customers should be able to use the applications and services of their choosing — particularly on networks where they pay for those choices.

Principal #1 of Net Neutrality: Companies should not be playing favorites with applications or services by blocking or restricting those a provider does not favor.

AT&T’s response: ‘Whatever.’

The predictable outrage of customers should have come as no surprise to AT&T, but somehow it did.

The company picked testy senior vice president for regulatory affairs Bob Quinn to mount a rapid defense against the pitchfork-and-torch-yielding throngs on AT&T’s Public Policy Blog. That was their second mistake.

Quinn, who spent last December valiantly defending AT&T against its too-precious CupcakeGate mini-scandal, conjured up this pretzel-twisted logic tap dance to explain away its latest boorish behavior:

Providers of mobile broadband Internet access service are subject to two net neutrality requirements: (1) a transparency requirement pursuant to which they must disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services; and (2) a no-blocking requirement under which they are prohibited, subject to reasonable network management, from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.

AT&T’s plans for FaceTime will not violate either requirement.  Our policies regarding FaceTime will be fully transparent to all consumers, and no one has argued to the contrary.  There is no transparency issue here.

Nor is there a blocking issue.  The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones.  Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps.  Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services.   AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps.  But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”)  Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

A company lecturing its customers for daring to question its decisions is always a good way to enhance those warm and fuzzy feelings people have about America’s least-liked wireless phone company. Quinn first scolds customers and consumer groups about their “knee jerk reaction,” for being upset about the issue. Then he declares they have “rushed to judgment,” using a turn of phrase not heard since O.J. Simpson’s defense team pounded it to death, and look where that ultimately got us.

The crux of AT&T’s argument is they get a free pass to “block and herd” because Apple FaceTime was pre-installed on customer phones. Therefore, since AT&T didn’t block you from downloading an app you already had, it cannot possibly be a Net Neutrality violation. Because as we all know, Net Neutrality is only about download blocking.

At least AT&T is keeping their promise to be transparent. They have, indeed, fully informed you they are mugging you while in the process of mugging you. Full disclosure… matters.

Somehow, I missed the “preinstalled does not count” section in the Federal Communications Commission’s December 2010 order to providers telling them to preserve the free and open Internet. So I spent last night with this legalese page-turner (194 pages to be exact) to refresh my memory.

Nope, it isn’t in there. You can read it for yourself from the link above.

So it isn’t me. It is them, making up the rules as they go, again.

Quinn graciously offers customers one concession: AT&T will allow you to use Apple FaceTime over your own home Wi-Fi network. Gosh thanks!

For customers addicted to FaceTime, AT&T’s solution is an expensive plan change. An average customer currently paying $70 for 450-barely used voice minutes and 3GB of data will find FaceTime off-limits on AT&T’s network unless they “upgrade” to AT&T’s $95 Mobile Share plan, which gets you only 1GB of data, but endless voice minutes you don’t want and unlimited texting you don’t need.

Result: Pay $25 more a month and get your data allowance slashed by 2/3rds. That’s a deal — AT&T-style.

But it is one some customers are through taking. Nalin Kuachusri:

The new FaceTime restrictions will usher in the end of my 12+ year relationship with AT&T. I’m tired of the consistent manipulation of plans and features to extract more and more money for services I don’t need. For example: there used to be several text-message options (200, 1000, 1500, unlimited) so I could choose and pay for the one that fit my usage best. Then there was the option to move from unlimited data to 2GB/month to save $5. That was great for me and fit my usage. Then I was forced to move back to $30/month if I wanted to add tethering where I’ll get an extra GB that I’ll never use. Finally, after 12 years as a customer with an account in good standing, I was not allowed to unlock my phone for my 10-day trip to Europe so I could get a local SIM. I couldn’t be happier to give you one final $200 payment as an early-termination fee so I can move to Verizon.

Unfortunately for Kuachusri, the bosses at Verizon Wireless are likely slapping themselves silly because they did not come up with the idea first.

Insiders at the Federal Communications Commission have leaked word all five commissioners have cast their votes in favor of a controversial partnership deal between Verizon Wireless and the nation’s largest cable operators to cross-market products and services to customers.

Three Democrats and two Republicans have approved both the marketing agreement and a spectrum transfer deal from cable operators to Verizon Wireless.  Republicans did not approve of an order mandating a data roaming obligation or the recognition the FCC has the authority to oversee the marketing agreement, but both will remain part of the final order.

The Justice Department earlier approved the modified deal that includes a time limit on the marketing partnership and restricts certain cross-marketing in FiOS-wired areas.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said the spectrum transfer was urgently needed to address wireless spectrum shortages. But consumer groups opposed the deal, calling it anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Some unions also say the deal comes close to collusion and will lead to Verizon further pulling back from its fiber upgrade FiOS in favor of selling cable subscriptions.