Green River, Rock Springs, and other communities served by Wyoming.com

Wyoming is one of America’s most broadband-challenged, least populated states.  With just over 560,000 residents spread across its often mountainous terrain, broadband service is nothing to take for granted.  Larger communities have limited access to Qwest DSL and cable broadband, but large sections of the state rely on independent wireless providers as their only choice, or they find no broadband service at all.

In this spartan digital world, many residents are surprised Wyoming is criss-crossed by national fiber-optic lines moving traffic across the country.  It’s just that in most instances, individuals are not allowed to access it.

Wyoming.com, a privately-owned Wireless ISP, wants to expand service to Farson and South Pass City — two communities further north that have no hope of getting anything beyond dial-up or satellite fraudband service.  The commercial provider, working with the administrators of the fiber network, has access to federal grant money to expand service to unserved communities, and improve it in underserved areas like Rock Springs.  But that cannot happen if the venture is refused access to a 48-strand “middle-mile” fiber-optic line financed by public dollars and managed by the Joint Powers Telecommunications Board — a partnership between the Green River City Council and Rock Springs local government.

The notion Wyoming.com could get access to a taxpayer-financed network ruffles Tom McCullough, the city’s liaison to the Joint Powers board.  He’s opposed to allowing any government resource to benefit the public at the expense of the local cable monopoly — Sweetwater Cable TV, which doesn’t even serve most of the areas that would benefit from enhanced Internet access.  McCullough argues it violates a 2007 Wyoming law that prohibits public broadband projects when private providers provide access to similar services anywhere within the boundaries of a city or town.  The law came in response to a public broadband project undertaken in Powell that upset the state’s cable and phone companies.

If residents want access to the fiber network they paid for, they have to visit Western Wyoming Community College or the Sweetwater County Library System and use public terminals there.

McCullough so dislikes the fiber project, he has tried to disband the Joint Powers Board that manages it twice, suggesting he has enough support to sell off the entire network to anyone interested (presumably at a substantial discount.)

Shea

Local residents who remain stuck with dial-up or who live outside of Sweetwater Cable’s service area are furious.

“There are some types around here who can’t see past Rush Limbaugh — anything the government does is automatically bad and must be taken down, even if taxpayers paid to build it in the first place,” complains Stop the Cap! reader Sue who lives in Farson.  “Farson has nothing to do with Sweetwater Cable, but because a handful of politicians are looking out for the cable company, worried Wyoming.com is going to get one-up on them, that means we can’t have broadband.”

Steve Shea, chairman of the telecommunications board, is unimpressed with McCullough’s arguments as well, and accused him of allowing his personal friendship with Sweetwater Cable TV’s owner — Al Carollo — to cloud his judgment.

Shea says Wyoming’s local governments are often fiercely protective of locally-owned businesses, and told the Green River Star the Board has historically faced the attitude that “local business deserves a monopoly, no matter what.”  Sweetwater Cable TV is locally owned and operated.

In fact, Shea says original designs for the fiber network were to provide fiber-to-the-home service in the area.  Since a national fiber optic cable was already running adjacent to the community, getting a connection to it was relatively simple.  Extending service to individual homeowners was another matter.  Political opposition to “government broadband” and demagoguery about its cost and implications from private providers ultimately killed the project.

Shea documented his experience as commercial providers and their dollar-a-holler industry-connected supporters fought the fiber project:

• Opposition comes from everyone in the Telecom business;
• Opposition will be in your face constantly;
• Opposition will never run out of lies;
• Opposition is ready to strike at any time and at any place;
• Opposition will engage in back-room politics against you;
• Opposition will try to get Power Brokers and Influentials on their side;
• Opposition will spend as much money as needed to defeat you.

Local cable and wireless providers engage in a tangle in southwestern Wyoming

As Wyoming’s broadband rankings slip further and further behind much of the rest of the country, Shea hopes attitudes about the fiber network have changed, especially when residents learn Sweetwater Cable was offered access to the network as well, and they declined.

Shea shared that the long history of opposition to the project started with suggestions wireless broadband was better than fiber, or that broadband over power lines could do the same or better than fiber networks.  He even battled contentions that existing broadband networks provided “fast enough” service for Wyoming.  Today, it has extended to allowing a private company to engage in a public-private partnership.  The other providers are still opposed.

“You have to refute these arguments over, and over, and over again. Your opposition will oppose you at every corner, and will call in all of their political favors to derail your fiber project,” Shea writes.

“It’s Wyoming’s version of North Carolina,” Sue writes from her Hughes Satellite address.  “Sweetwater Cable doesn’t want access to the fiber themselves, and they want to make sure you don’t access it either, even though the family I have down there tells me their cable Internet service sucks because the cable company can’t handle the traffic.”

Sweetwater Cable gets their access from Qwest.

What bothers Sue and some other local residents about the squabble is that it is inherently political and allows an existing, underutilized fiber line to sit mostly unused when expanded broadband is desperately needed in Wyoming.  In fact, some consider it a scandal among special interests.

“They don’t care about better broadband — they only care about their political and industry friends,” Sue complains.  “When will people wake up and realize that whether it is North Carolina or Wyoming, these policies and laws don’t give anyone broadband — they keep us from getting it.”

Shea’s observation that opponents’ use of backroom politics seems to have been right on point.  On Tuesday, as the Board met to discuss Wyoming.com’s proposal, Shea was effectively forced out and announced his resignation after the owner of Sweetwater Cable TV said he contacted an attorney to look at whether Shea’s tenure on the board was legal.

[Important Update — 7:53am ET 4/7 — Because of a technicality, it is important for everyone to reference H.129 when calling your state senators.  Members of the Senate Finance Committee are still evaluating the House version of the bill — H.129, so senators will more readily identify the bill we are opposing when we reference the House version (and not S.87).  You can also call it the “Level Playing Field” bill, but with disgust.  Include the fact you found the name highly ironic, since the only thing it will “level” are the state’s community broadband networks — right to the ground.  If you already called, why not just send a follow-up e-mail opposing H.129.]

Stop the Cap! has learned lobbyists for North Carolina’s cable and phone companies are growing concerned over increasing opposition to their custom-written duopoly protection bill that will ruin community broadband developments across the state and threaten ones already up and running.  Now they’re in a mad dash to push S.87 (the Senate version of H.129) through the Senate Tuesday before you have a chance to call and express outrage over this corporate protectionism.

Our sources tell us the bill has been yanked from the Senate Commerce Committee and is moving faster than North Carolina’s cable and DSL broadband to the Finance Committee, where bill sponsors hope for a quick voice vote and no public comment allowed.

The engineer of the legislative railroad in the Senate is Sen. Tom Apodaca (R) who serves the western North Carolina counties of Buncombe, Henderson, and Polk — areas with broadband challenges of their own.  Apodaca’s lead role pushing an anti-broadband bill is ironic considering his campaign website lists his priorities as:

• “Great schools for our children.” Western N.C. residents without broadband service at home are forced to resort to sitting in their cars in school parking lots or spend hours at overburdened public libraries to access Wi-Fi networks to complete homework assignments.  Great schools in a digital economy require great broadband – both in school and at home
• “Better paying jobs.” Digital economy jobs are always in demand and bring good salaries.  But those with inadequate broadband will find the kind of entrepreneurial experience and independent study required to excel in these fields hampered by satellite fraudband service or dial-up that limits possibilities and leaves North Carolina behind.
• “Let people keep more of the money they earn.” It’s a great idea, and competition for big cable and phone companies guarantees it.  In Wilson, consumers don’t face annual rate hikes for their cable service.  Can your community say that?  When their network is paid off, Wilson’s GreenLight will start paying off for local residents as well, keeping money in the community.
• “And access to quality health care.” As Google intends to prove in Kansas City, Kansas — great health care and excellent broadband go hand-in-hand to deliver better patient outcomes at a cheaper price.  Every health care provider wants faster broadband to increase efficiency and reduce costs and medical care errors.  S.87 delivers the equivalent of just another metal filing cabinet and fax machine to the back office.  Allowing communities to build fiber broadband changes everything.

What has proven so perplexing to consumers across the state is how a bill written by and for the cable and phone companies that does not deliver a single new broadband connection is getting such love and care from a legislature that is supposed to represent the interests of voters, not multi-billion dollar out of state corporations.  It confuses some of America’s high tech companies as well, including Google, Alcatel-Lucent, and Intel.  They’ve all signed a joint letter opposing H.129/S.87.

In fact, one of the reasons Google picked Kansas City, Kansas for its 1Gbps network is the friendly working relationship it has established with local utilities, which are all owned by the community of Kansas City.  It no doubt speaks volumes to Google that the North Carolina legislature would rather be at war with their towns and cities for the benefit of Time Warner Cable, AT&T and CenturyLink, than allowing communities to build their own broadband networks.  At a time when the FCC has ranked North Carolina worst in the nation, members of the Senate are being asked to guarantee that will remain so for years to come.

So What Should I Do?

Get on the phone -and- e-mail your state senator and demand a NO vote on S.87. If you are shy, you can call before or after business hours and leave a message on their voicemail. It takes less than five minutes.  Your calls make a huge difference because so few constituents ever call state legislators.  Here are your talking points:

Apodaca

1.  At a time when we need all the broadband improvements this state can muster, S.87 destroys those efforts for the benefit of a handful of out of state phone and cable companies. It’s classic protectionism — the same companies that helped write this bill are fully exempted from its onerous requirements.  The practical reality for rural North Carolina is either waiting for existing companies to deliver service they were always free to provide (and won’t), or allowing communities to do it themselves where appropriate.  Why should rural North Carolina have to depend on out of state corporations for basic broadband service many still don’t have?

2.  Not a single company has been harmed by community broadband projects in North Carolina.  In fact, it has created incentive to improve products and services while keeping prices stable, a welcome relief for consumers enduring annual rate increases far outpacing inflation.  Why is the state Senate trying to pass legislation that will guarantee higher bills and worse service?

3.  North Carolina’s fiber networks are not economic failures risking taxpayer dollars.  In fact, protections for taxpayers are already a part of the state code.  The General Assembly has already established: (1) rules governing Public Enterprises (NCGS Chapter 160A, Article 16); (2) strict rules in the Budget and Fiscal Control Act governing all municipal budgets and expenditures, including hearing and disclosure requirements (NCGS Chapter 159, Article 3); and (3) strict oversight of municipal borrowing by the Local Government Commission (NCGS Chapter 159).  S.87 attempts to micromanage public projects to the point where they simply cannot function and pay off bondholders and will, for future projects, ensure they never get off the ground.

4.  Now that the FCC ranks North Carolina dead last in broadband, isn’t it be time to allow new entrants to shake up the market and deliver some competition? Since when is legislating for less broadband better for this state?  The communities of Wilson and Salisbury now have the tools to compete with any wired city in America to attract new digital economy business and jobs.  S.87 sends exactly the wrong message — telling business the state wants to wait for the cable or phone company to eventually (if ever), deliver service other states now take for granted.  Businesses cannot wait.  We cannot wait.

5.  Provisions of this bill are unconstitutional.  By placing illegal regulatory burdens on only public providers of communications services (defined broadly) H.129/S.87 will harm municipal convention centers, public safety networks, smart grid systems, tower leasing contracts, and even make seemingly free public Wi-Fi networks vulnerable to lawsuits if the large incumbents want in on those services.

6.  The only real level playing field in broadband is the one that already exists without S.87.  Tell your senator you are tired of seeing these cable company-written bills come up in the Legislature year after year when the state has more important matters to worry about.  Time Warner Cable will do just fine without S.87, just as they do well in every other state where these kinds of bills would never get passed into law (or even proposed).

Senate Representation By County

2011-2012 Session

(click on your member’s name for contact information)

Each tiny light represents a single strand of optical fiber.

Verizon has achieved speeds of more than 1.5Tbps as part of a joint field trial with NEC Corporation of America.

The two companies conducted the trial across 2,212 miles of fiber in the Dallas area, successfully demonstrating three separate channels of data streams co-existing on just on a single strand of fiber.

“As we look to a future when data rates go beyond 100G, it’s important to begin examining how these technologies perform,” said Glenn Wellbrock, director of optical transport network architecture and design at Verizon. “This trial gives us a good first step toward analyzing the capabilities of future technologies.”

Verizon’s test placed three different high bit-rate data streams on a single strand of fiber.  Each respective “superchannel” ran at different speeds — 100Gbps, 450Gbps, and 1000Gbps — at the same time, with no significant degradation.

To put that in context, Google’s Fiber to the Home project in Kansas City, Kansas will operate at 1Gbps.  It would take more than 1,500 users fully saturating their Google Fiber connection to utilize the same amount of bandwidth Verizon demonstrated on just one fiber strand.  With most fiber projects bundling many strands of fiber into a single cable, near limitless capacity can bring a broadband experience untroubled by high traffic, high bandwidth multimedia applications.

Previously, Verizon had proven its fiber technology for high bit rate applications in a lab environment.  This was the first “in the field” trial over a functioning fiber network concurrently serving customers in Dallas.

Such technology demonstrates that as broadband traffic grows, so does the technology to support it.

Party time in Kansas City, Kansas

Kansas City, Kansas is creating some jealousy across the river in the much larger Kansas City, Missouri in reaction to Google’s announcement yesterday that it was bringing its 1 gigabit per second fiber to the home network to KCK.

Local bloggers called Google’s announcement “a game changer” for the city’s software developers and health care providers, who represent a large part of the city’s high tech economy. The announcement also thrilled local schools and universities, who will be able to deliver broadband service that rivals world leader South Korea in as little as one year from today.

Speculation about why Google chose the Kansas-based suburb of Kansas City has been rampant.  Among the biggest theories is that the local utilities, with whom Google must negotiate for space to accommodate its fiber cables, are owned by the local municipality, not private corporations.  With local government officials eager to cut red tape and avoid political or economic minefields which could delay the project, having public utilities as a partner may have made a decisive difference in the final decision.

The 'Kansas City' in the smaller type represents the Kansas suburb of the much larger Kansas City, Mo.

Demographics experts suggest Google might have chosen KCK because it represents classic middle-America with a growing digital economy — a perfect laboratory to watch what comes from ultra high speed Internet access.

The presentation by Google rivaled a glowing Hollywood production, one TV news team remarked.  Live-streamed on the web to a global audience, company officials vaguely promised the choice of KCK was the beginning of a potentially broader fiber network not just limited to a single Kansas city, although company officials seemed to restrain themselves out in the parking after the event, suggesting the network could be expanded regionally, saying nothing about other cities further afield.

Local newscasts told the Google story to Kansas City viewers in varying degrees of intensity, often relegated to pointless outdoor live stand up shots scattered around the city.  There isn’t much to show for a network that exists only in the form of a website.

A Silicon Valley expert echoed the sentiment that faster broadband can bring dramatic development to the communities that have it, sometimes in surprising ways.  It’s less about what one can do with 1Gbps service today and more about the possibilities for tomorrow.  But CNBC’s Jon Fortt added some applications may have only limited national appeal if the rest of the country lives with slower broadband service than cannot support the latest online innovations.

Still, excitement is easy to find among the journalists, local politicians, and other community members across the range of local news coverage.

It brings to mind just how ironic it is that a city like KCK will soon have some of the fastest broadband connections in the country while states like North Carolina are on the cusp of enacting legislation that will guarantee they will never be a part of the transformative broadband revolution — at least those who don’t live in Wilson or Salisbury.  Every member of the legislature in that state should watch and learn.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSHB Kansas City Google to KCK 3-30-11.flv[/flv]

KSHB-TV Kansas City’s NBC station devoted the most time to Google’s arrival, including a special interview by satellite with CNBC reporter Jon Fortt, discussing the implications of 1Gbps broadband for KCK.  (11 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Google to KCK 3-30-11.flv[/flv]

KCTV-TV Kansas City’s CBS affiliate spent more than five minutes in their newscast covering Google’s gigabit network, including interviews with a local blogger and health care expert.  (7 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDAF Kansas City Google to KCK 3-30-11.flv[/flv]

WDAF-TV, the Fox station for Kansas City, emphasized what Google will do for area students in bringing faster, more reliable broadband to the region.  (7 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KMBC Kansas City Google to KCK 3-30-11.flv[/flv]

KMBC-TV, Kansas City’s ABC station, tries to explain what 1Gbps broadband represents with a water faucet.  The station’s coverage continues with the impact fiber broadband will have on local health care.  (4 minutes)

Bill Shock

Time Warner Cable has redefined bill shock for two of their customers this week as an Ohio man found the cable company trying to bill his credit card $16 million dollars and the Madison County, Ky., Board of Education found their broadband rate going up as much as 1,568 percent.

One of these was a mistake, the other represents a potential nightmare.

Lt. Daniel DeVirgilio received notification from Time Warner Cable his credit card didn’t have a big enough credit limit to sustain the $16,409,107 in charges the cable company tried to get authorized.  The Beavercreek, Ohio resident was taking the billing foul-up in stride, joking with the Dayton Daily News that he probably should have gotten Showtime thrown in at those prices.

Time Warner Cable Southwest Ohio officials on Thursday attributed the $16.4 million figure to human error, according to the newspaper. An employee typed in the wrong number for the amount owed, which caused the company’s automated system to generate the letter.

Unfortunately for DeVirgilio, Time Warner left him on hold for nearly 40 minutes trying to straighten out the billing mess.  No harm was ultimately done to his credit card, but the 26 year old remains concerned Time Warner could have reported the “delinquent” charge to credit reporting agencies.

Madison County, Ky.

The relatively painless resolution DeVirgilio got in Ohio is unlikely to repeated for school officials in Kentucky, reeling from news Time Warner Cable is demanding an enormous rate increase for Madison County Schools’ fiber optic-based broadband network.

The Richmond Register reports local officials were stunned when the cable operator refused to renew their existing contract, which provides service at a cost of $32,000 a year to county residents.  The cable operator instead announced it wanted the school system to pay at least 500 percent more to continue the same level of service in 2011 and beyond: $168,000 a year for county taxpayers with a five year term commitment.

School officials discovered Time Warner Cable was the only provider in the region capable of delivering the type of service the school system requires, and that has given the cable company a safe position to raise prices — dramatically.

Even worse, the Kentucky Department of Education informed the district it could not agree to a five year term even if it wanted to.  Year-by-year service was the only way forward, according to county officials.

In response, Time Warner jacked up the price again — this time by 1,568 percent, potentially costing Madison County taxpayers a whopping $504,000 annually.  Telephone ratepayers will also deliver a piece of their monthly phone bill to the cable operator from Universal Service Funds that will be diverted to cover at least another $750,000 in fees sought for an annual contract.

“It’s been a very frustrating situation from the beginning,” Superintendent Tommy Floyd told the newspaper. “This makes it very difficult for us to continue our ongoing commitment to serve children. I’m going to continue on behalf of Madison County Schools to find the lowest cost provider of services.”

Time Warner also knows time is running out for the school district.  The county must sign a new contract by June 30th or lose its fiber network.  That could be a disaster for the school district.

“We use [the network] all day long in each of our buildings,” Floyd said.

State officials wrote a letter to Time Warner Cable demanding an explanation for the rate increase and stating it was unacceptable.

The state and school officials are still waiting for a response from the cable company, which so far has yet to respond.

[Updated 11:30am ET:  Stop the Cap! received a response yesterday afternoon from Cynthia Godby, Communications Manager for Time Warner Cable in Cincinnati.  In the cause of fairness, and with her permission, we are including her response in full, below:]