Copps

Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps believes that when private companies drop the broadband ball, local communities should have the right to pick it up and run their own community-owned Internet providers.

Copps delivered his remarks yesterday at the annual conference of the SouthEast Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, a group representing the communications needs and interests of local governments and the communities they serve.

Copps told the audience in Asheville, N.C., broadband is no longer simply a nice thing to have.  It’s now an essential service for many Americans whose work, education, civic involvement, and entertainment increasingly depend on a fast, reliable, and affordable broadband connection.

According to the commissioner, the fact that many communities still don’t have it comes from the mistaken notion that private providers will deliver the service in areas where return on investment requirements are unlikely to be met:

As most of you know, I have been pushing municipal broadband for a long, long time.

When incumbent providers cannot serve the broadband needs of some localities, local governments should be allowed–no, encouraged–to step up to the plate and ensure that their citizens are not left on the wrong side of the great divide. So it is regrettable that some states are considering, and even passing, legislation that could hinder local solutions to bring the benefits of broadband to their communities. It’s exactly the wrong way to go. In this context, too, our previous infrastructure challenges must be the guide.

The successful history of rural electrification, as one example, is due in no small part to municipal electric cooperatives that lit up corners of this country where investor-owned utilities had little incentive to go. Those coops turned on the lights for a lot of people! You know, our country would be a lot better off if we would learn from our past rather than try to defy or deny it.

Copps is now the second FCC Commissioner to defend municipal broadband.  Commissioner Mignon Clyburn has repeatedly expressed similar concerns about private companies trying to restrict public broadband development.

Among the public interest groups that have historically steered clear of the fight against usage caps and usage based billing is Public Knowledge.

Stop the Cap! took them to task more than a year ago for defending the implementation of these unjustified hidden rate hikes and usage limits.  Since then, we welcome the fact the group has increasingly been trending towards the pro-consumer, anti-cap position, but they still have some road to travel.

Public Knowledge, joined by New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern over AT&T’s implementation of usage caps and asking for an investigation:

[…] Public Knowledge and New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative urge the Bureau to exercise its statutory authority to fully investigate the nature, purpose, impact of those caps upon consumers. The need to fully understand the nature of broadband caps is made all the more urgent by the recent decision by AT&T to break with past industry practice and convert its data cap into a revenue source.

[…] Caps on broadband usage imposed by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can undermine the very goals that the Commission has committed itself to championing. While broadband caps are not inherently problematic, they carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive and monopolistic ways. Unless they are clearly and transparently justified to address legitimate network capacity concerns, caps can work directly against the promise of broadband access.

The groups call out AT&T for its usage cap and overlimit fee model, and ponder whether these are more about revenue enhancement than network management.  The answer to that question has been clear for more than two years now: it’s all about the money.

The two groups are to be commended for raising the issue with the FCC, but they are dead wrong about caps not being inherently problematic.  Usage caps have no place in the North American wired broadband market.  Even in Canada, providers like Bell have failed to make a case justifying their implementation.  What began as an argument about congestion has evolved into one about charging heavy users more to invest in upgrades that are simply not happening on a widespread basis.  The specific argument used is tailored to the audience: complaints about congestion to government officials, denials of congestion issues to shareholders coupled with promotion of usage pricing as a revenue enhancer.

If Bell can’t sell the Canadian government on its arguments for usage caps in a country that has a far lower population density and a much larger rural expanse to wire, AT&T certainly isn’t going to have a case in the United States, and they don’t.

The history of these schemes is clear:

1. Providers historically conflate their wireless broadband platforms with wired broadband when arguing for Internet Overcharging schemes.  When regulators agree to arguments that wireless capacity problems justify usage limits, extending those limits to wired broadband gets carried along for the ride.  Dollar-a-holler groups supporting the industry love to use charts showing wireless data growth, and claim a similar problem afflicts wired broadband, even though the costs to cope with congestion are very different on the two platforms.
2. Providers argue one thing while implementing another.  Most make the claim pricing changes allow them to introduce discounted “light user” plans.  But few save because true “pay only for what you use” usage-based billing is not on offer.  Instead, worry-free flat use plans are taken off the menu, replaced with tiered plans that force subscribers to guess their usage.  If they guess too little, a stiff overlimit fee applies.  If they guess too much, they overpay.  Heads AT&T wins, tails you lose.  That’s a clear warning providers are addressing revenue enhancement, not network enhancement.
3. Claims of network congestion backed up with raw data, average usage per user, and the costs to address it are all labeled proprietary business information and are not available for independent inspection.

There are a few other issues:

In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by AT&T are particularly aggressive. Unlike competitors whose caps appear to be at least nominally linked to congestions during peak-use periods, AT&T seeks to convert caps into a profit center by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap. In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands.

In North America, only a handful of providers use peak-usage pricing for wired broadband.  Cable One, America’s 10th largest cable operator is among the largest, and they serve fewer than one million customers.  Virtually all providers with usage caps count both upstream and downstream data traffic 24 hours a day against a fixed usage allowance.  The largest — Comcast — does not charge an excessive usage fee.  AT&T does.

Furthermore, it remains unclear why AT&T’s recently announced caps are, at best, equal to those imposed by Comcast over two years ago.  The caps for residential DSL customers are a full 100GB lower than those Comcast saw fit to offer in mid-2008. The lower caps for DSL customers is especially worrying because one of the traditional selling points of DSL networks is that their dedicated circuit design helps to mitigate the impacts of heavy users on the rest of the network. Together, these caps suggest either that AT&T’s current network compares poorly to that of a major competitor circa 2008 or that there are non-network management motivations behind their creation.

AT&T has managed to create the first Internet version of the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, combining Comcast's 'tolerated' 250GB cap with AT&T's style of slapping overlimit fees on data plans from their wireless business.

As Stop the Cap! has always argued, usage caps are highly arbitrary.  Providers always believe their usage caps are the best and most fair around, whether it was Frontier’s 5GB usage limit or Comcast’s 250GB limit.

AT&T experimented with usage limits in Reno, Nevada and Beaumont, Texas and found customers loathed them.  Comcast’s customers tolerate the cable company’s 250GB usage cap because it is not strictly enforced — only the top few violators are issued warning letters.  AT&T has established America’s first Internet pricing version of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup: getting Comcast’s tolerated usage cap into AT&T’s wireless-side overlimit fee.  The bitter aftertaste arrives in the mail at the end of the month.

Why establish different usage caps for DSL and U-verse?  Marketing, of course.  This is about money, remember?

AT&T DSL delivers far less average revenue per customer than its triple-play U-verse service.  To give U-verse a higher value proposition, AT&T supplies a more generous usage allowance.  Message: upgrade from DSL for a better broadband experience.

Technically, there is no reason to enforce either usage allowance, as AT&T DSL offers a dedicated connection to the central office or D-SLAM, from where fiber traditionally carries the signal to AT&T’s enormous backbone connection.  U-verse delivers fiber to the neighborhood and a much fatter dedicated pipeline into individual subscriber homes to deliver its phone, Internet, and video services.

A usage cap on U-verse makes as much sense as putting a coin meter on the television or charging for every phone call, something AT&T abandoned with their flat rate local and long distance plans.

Before partly granting AT&T’s premise that usage limits are a prophylactic for congestion and then advocate they be administered with oversight, why not demand proof that such pricing and usage schemes are necessary in the first place.  With independent verification of the raw data, providers like AT&T will find that an insurmountable challenge, especially if they have to open their books.

[flv width=”640″ height=”368″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell’s Arguments for UBB 2-2011.flv[/flv]

Canada’s experience with Usage-Based Billing has all of the hallmarks of the kind of consumer ripoff AT&T wants Americans to endure:

• A provider (Bell), whose spokesman argues for these pricing schemes to address congestion and “fairness,” even as that same spokesman admits there is no congestion problem;
• Would-be competitors being priced out of the marketplace because they lack the infrastructure, access, or fair pricing to compete;
• Big bankers and investors who applaud price gouging and are appalled at government checks and balances.

Watch Mirko Bibic try to rationalize why Bell’s Fibe TV (equivalent to AT&T U-verse) needs Internet Overcharging schemes for broadband, but suffers no capacity issues delivering video and phone calls over the exact same line.  Then watch the company try and spin this pricing as an issue of fairness, even as an investor applauds the company: “I love this policy because I am a shareholder.  That’s all I care about.  If you can suck every last cent out of users, I’m happy for you.”  Finally, watch a company buying wholesale access from Bell let the cat out of the bag — broadband usage costs pennies per gigabyte, not the several dollars many providers want to charge.  (11 minutes)

Verizon Wireless provides evidence AT&T already has more spectrum than any other carrier -- spectrum they are not using.

AT&T’s alternate reality of the wireless universe is on full display as the company makes statements promoting its proposed merger with T-Mobile that, in some cases, retreat from the facts or otherwise distort them.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson has been visiting with journalists, often from the business press, to talk up the merger’s potential.  The company has supplemented those PR tours with a 400-page filing with the Federal Communications Commission that has won converts among some non-profit groups, many of which receive direct funding from AT&T.

Stop the Cap! felt a fact check was in order, so we reviewed Stephenson’s recent claims made in an interview with USA Today:

Claim:  In the last four years, the volume of (traffic on) these (wireless broadband) networks is up 8,000%. We believe that we’re going to go up, in five years, eight to 10 times from where we are today. We don’t have the spectrum position to accomplish that.  T-Mobile’s spectrum is very compatible with ours. In cities like New York, we put the two companies together, and we get a very quick lift in capacity of about 30%. That means fewer dropped calls, better service quality, and it gives us a path to do something that neither one of us could do independently, and that is deploy fourth-generation mobile broadband to 95% of the U.S.

Fact: Although wireless broadband traffic is up, AT&T holds more wireless spectrum than any other carrier, a good deal of it unused.  In fact, some of AT&T’s competitors and critics suggest the company is hoarding spectrum, and its insatiable appetite for more could get fulfilled if the company can sell Congress on its “shortage theory.”  Although some of that spectrum is being reserved for the company’s future LTE network, critics contend AT&T spent a lower percentage of its revenue on network expansion (despite being the exclusive holder of the Apple iPhone during the period) than its competitors.

Between 2008 and 2010, AT&T’s FCC filing said it spent $21.1 billion in capital expenditures to upgrade its wireless network.　That’s less than the $22.1 billion spent by Verizon Wireless over the same period. As a percentage of revenue, AT&T’s total was a little higher, at 13%, to Verizon’s 12.8%. Even so, given its congestion problems, AT&T should have spent significantly more. Complaints about congestion were apparent at least two years ago, yet in 2009 AT&T increased wireless capital expenditures by only 1% to Verizon’s 10%.

AT&T has admitted it has faced congestion issues in several large cities — an especially serious problem for a company using GSM technology, which combines voice and data traffic onto a single wireless pipe.  When the network gets overcongested, data sessions fail and voice calls drop.  CDMA networks like Verizon and Sprint have two virtual pipes, one for data and one for calls.  If one gets congested, it doesn’t necessarily harm the other.

Additionally, although T-Mobile will provide some additional capacity in selected urban markets, some of their towers are remarkably close to AT&T’s own towers, effectively making them redundant.  Because T-Mobile uses different spectrum, in some cases AT&T customers will see no benefit from the combination of the two networks, unless they buy new equipment capable of accessing both.

AT&T using T-Mobile as the key to deploying fourth-generation mobile broadband is more than a little hard to believe, considering the German-owned carrier is dwarfed by AT&T.

Claim: Anybody who opens the newspaper or watches TV sees this as a fiercely competitive industry — maybe the most competitive in the United States.  The large majority of Americans, when they go to buy cellphone service, have a choice of at least five providers. In 18 of the top 20 markets, the customer has a choice of five different competitors. It’s a fiercely competitive market today. It will be a fiercely competitive market after this deal is done. We don’t see that changing.

Free Press characterizes AT&T's claims of more competition by absorbing a competitor to be the equivalent of chucking your smartphone down the rabbit hole.

Fact: If ad purchases were evidence of a robust, competitive market, we could say phone and cable companies were hot competitors.  Both advertise heavily, but charge similar prices for similar service — a classic case of duopoly market pricing power. In the cell phone business, the overwhelming majority of Americans subscribe to either AT&T or Verizon Wireless.  Sprint is a distant third at around 12%.  After T-Mobile, all other carriers represent just 1-2% of the remaining market share.  Many cities don’t have access to smaller providers like Cricket, US Cellular, or MetroPCS, either.  In those areas, the choices are usually AT&T, Verizon, and perhaps Sprint.

How does this marketplace concentration impact customers?  Loss of innovation.  Typically, smaller carriers have to innovate to attract attention and compete successfully with larger providers.  AT&T and Verizon have long track records of locking up access to the most innovative phones, so smaller providers have to create unique service plans, offer lower prices, or provide attractive bundles.  Sprint sells unlimited access in a marketplace full of restrictive data caps or calling minute allowances.  T-Mobile provided some of the least expensive plans around, especially for families.  Cricket offers pay-per-day prepaid calling plans that can make a wireless phone affordable for anyone.  US Cellular has stellar customer service.

All competitors are not equal.  Anyone who lives or visits rural areas understands the implications of relying on Cricket, MetroPCS, or even Sprint for cell phone service well off the main highway.  With coverage being a major factor, many quickly decide there are only two realistic choices for robust service — AT&T and Verizon.

AT&T’s myopia aside, eliminating T-Mobile, one of the market’s most fiercely innovative providers, will do nothing to benefit consumers.

Q&A Claims:

Q: There are small companies in the market, but one commentator said that they’re like grocery stores trying to compete with Walmart.

A: Everybody has their analysis. We can evaluate the numbers nine ways to Sunday. At the end of the day, the Justice Department will do the fact gathering and data gathering and will evaluate it market by market, then make those determinations. Based on our analyses, this is a deal that should be approved.

Q: If the market is so competitive, why might two companies have 70% of the business?

A: We all make technology decisions. We all put marketing plans into place. We all make decisions that drive how effective we are in the marketplace. I think we’ve done pretty well. I think Sprint has done a remarkable job over the last couple of years and will do very well tomorrow.

Q: Consumers only have two places where they can get an iPhone.

A: But there are RIM (BlackBerry) devices. There are Windows (Phone) 7 devices. Android devices tend to be doing very well throughout the market — in fact, we are having a lot of success with Android. Metro PCSand a lot of our competitors are having a lot of success there. So there are plenty of options for the customer.

Q&A Facts:

1. AT&T’s in-house analysis decides what is best for AT&T, not for individual American consumers.  The Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission are subject to political pressure and are not independent arbiters of competitive fairness.
2. Sprint has lost customers for years and is only now attracting some of them back.  While charitable to Sprint, Stephenson’s remarks are not welcomed by them.  They consider this deal anti-consumer and anti-competitive.
3. Perhaps with the exception of the Evo, available first from Sprint, almost every other cutting-edge phone launches exclusively with AT&T and/or Verizon.  Other carriers get to sell these popular phones much later, or sell stripped down models that don’t deliver the same features.  Just review the phones available to Cricket and MetroPCS customers and compare them with what is on offer from Verizon and AT&T.

Claim:  History tells you that prices in this industry have come down for 10 years. In the last 10 years, there’s been a significant number of business combinations in this industry, and prices have come down by 50%. And prices continue to come down. We have a history, when we acquire one of these companies, we map their rate plans into AT&T. So if somebody chooses to stay on that rate plan, those rate plans are available. I don’t see why we would change it for this case. It’s just a customer-friendly thing to do.

Fact: More and more customers are no longer simply buying voice plans, on which Stephenson’s claims are based.  Instead, they are upgrading to smartphones, where they discover carriers’ mandatory add-on fees for data services.  Although prices for voice plans have not increased, rates for text messaging, data, and other add-ons have.  That can add $25 a month or more per phone.  Many carriers are reducing their discounts on new phones while adding new “junk fees” to their bills to cover “regulatory costs” as well.

AT&T also doesn’t specifically promise to retain T-Mobile’s innovative rate plans.  Instead, they propose to grandfather existing customers on those plans until they purchase new phones or switch carriers.  That does not mean existing AT&T customers can jump to a T-Mobile plan.  It also doesn’t mean those plans will still be available for new customers.

AT&T has a track record of not being particularly customer-friendly, either.

Claim: T-Mobile will continue to operate their business exactly like they have. They’ve demonstrated that they’ve had a lot of success. They market directly against AT&T. I envision them to continue marketing against AT&T in the marketplace.

Fact: T-Mobile is so successful, they have been shopping around for a buyer for some time to allow them to exit the business.  A success story that is not.

Claim: Q. If the deal goes through, would you offer all of the AT&T handsets to T-Mobile? A: Of course. If you’re a T-Mobile customer, that’s one of the great advantages. The handset selection that AT&T offers would become available to T-Mobile customers.

Fact: This proves our point T-Mobile customers do not have access to the latest and greatest equipment available to AT&T customers.

AT&T has also claimed the deal will create new jobs and stimulate economic growth.  Tell that to the T-Mobile employees who will be collecting unemployment shortly after being deemed redundant by AT&T.  Virtually all of T-Mobile’s current service areas overlap AT&T.

Free Press’ Tim Karr compares the consolidation of the cellular industry to the railroad mergers of the 19th century.  By locking up competition, carriers can raise prices and call the shots in the marketplace.  While a handful of competitors could eke out their 1-2% market share in such a duopoly, all will be starved for capital and considered a risky bet in light of the domination by AT&T and Verizon.

Karr is asking Americans to put their elected officials on notice they don’t want this anti-consumer merger:

So should it be left to Washington and one exceedingly powerful company to decide the fate of our communications? (If you’re thinking “no,” you can help stop this merger by contacting the members of the Antitrust Subcommittee and urging them to grill AT&T next Wednesday.)

If Congress, the FCC and Department of Justice hear from enough people like you and me, they can muster the courage to ask the right questions of AT&T.

Next Wednesday’s hearing on the Hill is our first chance to expose this merger for the nightmare that it is, and save our smartphones from following AT&T down the rabbit hole.

Signal boosters use an outdoor antenna to reach distant cell tower sites, while using an indoor antenna your mobile device can lock onto for improved reception.

If the Federal Communications Commission has its way, Americans annoyed with lousy cell phone reception will soon be able to purchase a new generation of signal boosters capable of delivering service to fringe reception areas ignored or bypassed by providers.  And unlike home cell-phone extenders, they won’t use your home broadband connection while also eating up your voice and data allowance.

A signal booster, not to be confused with a “femtocell” some wireless carriers sell or give to customers, acts like an amplified super-antenna — giving a boost to phones and mobile broadband signals in difficult reception areas.

This devices have been around and legal to use for a several years in North America, much to the consternation of cell phone companies and some public safety officials who deal with occasional interference problems created by misused or malfunctioning equipment.  The FCC is trying to find ways to mitigate interference problems while still allowing customers to benefit from signal boosters.  There are documented cases of rescuers relying on the equipment in remote disaster areas, and rural residents have managed 911 calls that would have been impossible without signal boosting technology.

Despite the agency’s efforts, several cell phone companies — particularly AT&T, object to the Commission’s plans to allow the independent use of signal-boosting equipment on “their” frequencies and networks.  Because cell phone boosters agnostically enhance every company’s signal within its frequency range and does not require users to pre-register phones to get access, AT&T stands to lose revenue if they are not the exclusive authority on selling, approving, and registering the use of miniature relay stations that boost their network’s coverage area.

AT&T currently sells customers femtocells which reduce dependence on the carrier’s overburdened 3G network — offloading traffic onto home and workplace wired broadband connections, which includes both voice calls and data.  But only a small percentage of customers get the equipment for free, often extending their contracts in the process.

Some providers and emergency responders have documented instances where these devices have created interference problems for cell tower sites and for emergency radio traffic that co-exists on the same frequency bands signal boosters occupy.  In some cases, inappropriate use of signal boosters has blocked emergency traffic, shut down cell sites, or reduced their coverage.  That is why the FCC wants the next generation of signal boosters to be able to intelligently interact with cell sites and other traffic users and reduce their power or discontinue service if they begin to create interference problems.

AT&T’s suggested safeguards go well beyond what most other carriers want from the FCC:

First, AT&T proposes that wireless licensees have “ultimate control” over any signal boosters operating on their networks under a presumptive authorization.  Specifically, signal booster operators must activate their devices with the licensee prior to initial use. In addition, the booster must possess technology to permit the licensee’s network to identify the device as a booster and identify its location at all times. Further, the licensee must have “dynamic control over the boosters’ transmit power” and have the authority and ability to turn off the booster for any reason at any time. Alternatively, AT&T proposes that the booster have “automatic gain control functionality that adjusts the power provided to the booster based on distance to the relevant base station.”

Second, AT&T proposes that signal boosters may only be operated on a channelized basis on the frequencies authorized for use by the wireless licensee whose signal is being boosted. AT&T suggests that manufacturers could meet this requirement by selling carrier-specific narrowband boosters or by designing “intelligent” boosters that limit transmissions to the spectrum licensed to the carrier whose signal is being boosted.

Third, AT&T proposes that signal boosters be designed with oscillation detection and will terminate transmission when oscillation occurs.

Fourth, AT&T proposes an expanded certification process for signal boosters that are to be used pursuant to a presumptive authorization. Specifically, the booster would be subject to (1) the Commission’s equipment certification process; (2) an industry-driven certification process;105 and (3) individual licensee approval to ensure compliance with the licensee’s proprietary confidential network protocols.

Fifth, AT&T proposes that any presumptive authorization standards be applied prospectively and that the Commission bring enforcement action against parties that sell, market, or use devices that do not meet the presumptive standard.

Wilson Electronics is a major manufacturer of cell signal boosters.

Equipment manufacturers are not impressed with AT&T’s ideas.  One tells Stop the Cap! if adopted, signal boosting equipment would cost more than double today’s average price of $200-400.

“AT&T has built so many requirements into their proposal, they know the result will be a product too expensive to sell to consumers,” the source tells us.  “And the part where AT&T wants the right to authorize and register the equipment gives them the option of charging a fee for doing so, turning the product into yet another way for AT&T to make money.”

Equipment manufacturers agree that there have been instances of interference problems, and they are willing to work with the Commission to find solutions, but not at the risk of adopting proposals some suspect are designed to destroy the signal booster business.

“AT&T is a control freak, plain and simple,” the source says.  “If they don’t own it or control it, it’s offensive to them.  It must be eliminated.”

More than one equipment manufacturer has noted, not for attribution, they find AT&T’s complaints a bit ironic.

“This is the same company that is already notorious for dropping calls,” said the source.  “You would think they would look favorably on anything that could deliver ‘more bars in more places,’ because AT&T sure isn’t doing it these days.  Just ask their customers.”

A new report has found the home of America’s worst broadband service can be found in the state of North Carolina.

The Tar Heel State ranks dead last in the number of homes able to access the Internet at speeds the Federal Communications Commission defines as “broadband” — 4/1Mbps.  The report quotes from FCC figures that show only 10 percent of North Carolina households are receiving broadband service at speeds that equal or exceed 3Mbps downstream and 768 kbps upstream.  States traditionally thought to be bottom-ranked, including Mississippi and Idaho, are now doing better than the home of Research Triangle Park.

The report comes courtesy of the SouthEast Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (SEATOA), which is attempting to fight off efforts to stop individual communities from delivering the service big cable and phone companies refuse to provide in large parts of the state.

Where Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink do deliver service, customers pay dearly for it.  Broadband.com found most of America’s worst broadband values in North Carolina.  In fact, outside of prohibitively expensive Anchorage, Alaska, seven of the ten most expensive cities were in North Carolina, when measuring cost per megabit (see below for a better understanding of how this figure was computed):

America's Worst Broadband is in North Carolina (source: Broadband.com)

Comparatively, states in the northeast were meccas.  Sixty percent or more of residents in Delaware, Massachusetts and New Jersey have broadband at speeds the FCC now considers bare minimum.  In larger states: New York, 43 percent and Pennsylvania, 44 percent, broadband speed still scored higher despite the large rural sections of both states.  Verizon’s fiber-to-the-home network has compelled upgrades among cable company competitors to keep up with the benefits fiber optics bring.

But in North Carolina, only community-owned networks are delivering service comparable to that found in the increasingly-fiber-wired northeast.  Instead of committing to upgrades, large cable and phone companies are spending plenty lobbying to restrict and banish the improved service these networks provide in communities like Wilson and Salisbury.

SEATOA’s conclusion?  The current inadequate level of service coming from North Carolina’s cable and phone companies allows the state to fall further behind in America’s economic recovery.

More about how Broadband.com calculated the results can be found below the jump.

… Continue Reading