A new report proves what Stop the Cap! has advocated for more than two years now — communities seeking the fastest, most-modern, and most aggressively priced broadband can get all of that and more… if they do it themselves.

The concept of community self-reliance for broadband has been dismissed and derided for years among small government conservatives and corporately-backed dollar-a-holler groups who claim government can’t manage anything, but when it comes to broadband in the state of North Carolina, the evidence is in and it is irrefutable — Tar Heel state residents are getting the most bang for their broadband buck from well-managed and smartly-run community-owned broadband networks.

Christopher Mitchell from the New Rules Project — part of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, gathered evidence from North Carolina’s different broadband providers and found the best broadband services come from local communities who decided to build their own fiber networks. instead of relying on a handful of cable and phone companies who have kept the state lower in broadband rankings than it deserves.

North Carolina is undergoing a transition from a manufacturing and agricultural-based economy that used to employ hundreds of thousands of workers in textile, tobacco, and furniture manufacturing businesses.  In the last quarter-century, the state has lost one in five jobs to Asian outsourcing and America kicking the tobacco habit.  Its future depends on meeting the challenges of transitioning to a new digital economy, and major cities like Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro have risen as well-recognized leaders in engineering, biotech, and finance.

But for rural and suburban North Carolina, success has been hindered by a lack of necessary infrastructure — particularly broadband for small businesses and entrepreneurs.  It becomes impossible to attract high tech jobs to areas that are forced to rely entirely on low speed DSL service, if that is even available.

In communities like Wilson and Salisbury, long frustrated by area providers not delivering needed services, a decision was reached to build their own broadband infrastructure — modern fiber to the home networks worthy of the 21st century.

Mitchell’s report charts the benefits available to every resident, as communities with state-of-the-art fiber networks consistently deliver the most robust service at the lowest prices, all without risk to local taxpayers.  Better still, when the network construction costs are paid back to bondholders, future profits generated by the community-owned systems will be plowed back into local communities to reduce tax burdens and keep service state-of-the-art.

“Comparing the tiers of residential service from Wilson or Salisbury against the providers in the Raleigh area shows that the communities have invested in a network that offers far faster speeds for less money than any of the private providers,” Mitchell concludes.  “Whether communities in North Carolina are competing against other states or internationally for jobs and quality of life, they are smart to consider investing in a community fiber network.”

Mitchell’s report arrives just a few weeks after voters handed North Carolina’s General Assembly to GOP control for the first time in more than a century.  Both cable and phone companies in the state modestly suggest that is good news for their legislative agenda, which is an understatement equal in proportion to the historic handover of control of both the House (67-52) and the Senate (31-19).  The top items on the agenda of incoming members is a checklist of conservative activist favorites, including a war on unions, mandatory ID cards for voting, opting the state out of recently enacted health care reform, an eminent domain constitutional amendment, sweeping deregulation reform to favor business interests, and redistricting to “restore fairness” in future elections.

The state’s big cable and phone companies are convinced with a list like that, they can come along for the legislative ride and get their agenda passed as “pro-business reform.”  That means a much larger fight in 2011 for the inevitable return of corporate protection legislation banning exactly the kinds of municipal networks that are delivering North Carolina better, faster, and cheaper broadband.

Fibrant ruins Time Warner Cable's Speed Party by delivering faster service at a lower price, without the cable company's rate increase notice sitting in Charlotte-area mailboxes.

Residents of Salisbury, N.C. are going to get some of the state’s fastest broadband speeds as the community-owned broadband provider prepares to introduce 200/200Mbps service, leaving Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service behind in the dust.

Time Warner Cable enjoyed a few moments in the spotlight last week announcing free speed upgrades for the Charlotte region, which includes Salisbury.  But Fibrant’s fiber to the home network is well-equipped to turn Time Warner’s temporary speed advantage on its head.

Last week, the cable operator promoted the introduction of its new maximum speed 50/5Mbps Road Runner Wideband service, which carries a monthly price of $99.95.

But Salisbury city officials were unimpressed, claiming Fibrant already offers 50/50Mbps service — they just haven’t advertised it.

Assistant City Manager Doug Paris said Fibrant’s top available speed is 10 times faster than the cable giant’s when uploading.

“We’re cheaper, and we’re faster,” Paris told the Salisbury Post.  Fibrant sells the 50Mbps service for $85 a month, about 15 dollars less than Time Warner Cable’s slower Wideband service.

City officials also weren’t surprised that Time Warner announced faster Internet speeds the day after Fibrant launched.

“We’ve seen this in every other city that has invested in fiber optics,” he said. “They are trying to match our speeds, but they can’t.”

The Salisbury Post needs a few cans for its message boards, filled with anonymous lunacy.

Time Warner Cable claimed its new speeds were not in response to Fibrant but were part of a service upgrade for the entire Charlotte area, a claim every cable company makes in response to new competition on their doorstep.

Fibrant’s upstream streams are dramatically better than those offered by Time Warner Cable, which uses an inferior network architecture not currently capable of delivering the same upstream and downstream speeds to consumers.  Cable broadband networks are constructed with the assumption most users will download far more than they upload, so the networks emphasize downstream speeds.  Time Warner Cable has dramatically increased those download speeds, but has been forced so far to limit uploads to just 5Mbps.

Fiber to the home networks like Fibrant do not suffer those limitations, and the city plans to exploit that in their marketing.

Fibrant has the capacity to provide up to 1 gigabit per second upload and download, Paris said. Forthcoming are plans offering 100/100 and 200/200Mbps service, with prices yet to be determined.

Fibrant continues to have a waiting list of several hundred area residents waiting for service, but you wouldn’t know it from the raucous anonymous postings on the Post’s website.  Virtually all of the anonymous comments about Fibrant have been negative and wildly uninformed, to the point of hilarity.  From a Korean War veteran talking about eating blueberries and living life in the Windstream DSL slow lane (and loving it) to comments proclaiming fiber optics as woefully slower than WiMax, the Internet trolls have managed to prove why an increasing number of newspapers have learned to adopt “real names-only” posting policies or have just turned the comment section off altogether.

For those fans of  Time Warner Cable, the price of that love is about to go up.

Time Warner is mailing notices to Charlotte area customers announcing broadband rate hikes for some customers this December.  Time Warner customers who bundle their services or are on price protection promotions will be exempted from the rate increases… for now.

Charlotte, N.C. Time Warner Cable customers can thank city officials in nearby Salisbury for finally provoking Time Warner Cable into boosting speeds for residents across the region.  Just as community-owned Fibrant was opening its doors for business promoting its new fiber to the home service, the area’s dominant cable company managed to steal some of their thunder.

Time Warner Cable this week announced the entire Charlotte service region, which encompasses Salisbury, is getting a free broadband speed upgrade this week.

“We substantially increased our download speeds and essentially doubled upload speeds for all of our Turbo and Standard Internet service customers,” said Mike Smith, area vice president for Time Warner Cable’s Charlotte operation.

The announcement allows Time Warner Cable to maintain its position as the fastest downstream Internet provider in the Charlotte region because Fibrant’s marketing department decided that 25Mbps service was fast enough.  No, it’s not, and Time Warner Cable showed them up.

Salisbury is located northeast of the city of Charlotte, N.C.

“This service upgrade demonstrates our commitment to deliver enhanced value to our customers. We are satisfying their thirst for more throttle,” said Smith. To access the new speeds, customers need to reboot their cable modem which is easily accomplished by leaving it unplugged for about one minute.

The company is also introducing two speed tiers in Charlotte this week. Customers will have the option of purchasing or upgrading to DOCSIS 3 Wideband Internet or Road Runner Extreme service. Wideband Internet–the fastest residential Internet experience in Charlotte–provides customers with speeds up to 50 Mbps downstream and 5 Mbps upstream for $99.95 per month.

Road Runner Extreme delivers speeds up to 30 Mbps downstream and 5 Mbps upstream for as low as $64.95 per month when bundled with any other Time Warner Cable Service.

As Stop the Cap! has strongly advised all municipal providers — there is not much point in providing fiber to the home service if you are not willing to capitalize on its benefits.  Offering a maximum speed of 25Mbps just is not going to cut it, as Time Warner Cable demonstrates.

Fibrant’s pricing models are also endangered by this week’s developments.  Road Runner Extreme delivers 30Mbps downstream for $65 a month (admittedly a bundled price) while Fibrant offers 25Mbps service for the same price (standalone service).  Fibrant still kills Time Warner on upload speed, but that’s a distinction that could be lost among many potential customers, and is easily solved by boosting download speeds as well.

Fibrant must immediately consider speed upgrades for their existing tiers to assure its value proposition and launch a new super-premium speed tier that can show off fiber to the home’s true capacity to deliver the best possible Internet speeds in the region.

Phillip "Darn, they didn't pick my essay" Dampier

Time Warner Cable paid $20,000 for a report that concludes, “policymakers not only need to focus on the oft-stated long-term goal of encouraging Fiber-To-The-Home but also on the more immediate need to bring fiber significantly closer to the customer.”

That declaration was included in one of five essays released this week by Time Warner Cable’s Research Program.  When we first wrote about this program in February, we were convinced that the resulting essays would parrot the cable company’s public policy agenda.  We were largely right, especially in those that delved into public policy matters.  They stayed safely inside the company’s policy boundaries.  Even those who focused on technical matters avoided directly challenging the company writing the check.

The cable company earlier announced it would pay $20,000 stipends to essayists that wrote research reports on these questions:

• How are broadband operators coping with the explosive growth in Internet traffic? Will proposed limits on network management practices impede innovation and threaten to undermine consumers’ enjoyment of the Internet?
• How can policymakers harmonize the objectives of preventing anticompetitive tactics and preserving flexibility to engage in beneficial forms of network management?
• Regarding these issues, describe a vision for the architecture of cable broadband networks that promotes and advances innovation for the future of digital communications.
• How might Internet regulations have an impact on underserved or disadvantaged populations?

The winners:

• Dale N. Hatfield, executive director, Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology and Entrepeneurship, University of Colorado, “The Challenge of Increasing Broadband Capacity.”
• John G. Palfrey, Jr., Henry N., Ess III professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “The Challenge of Developing Effective Public Policy on the Use of Social Media by Youth.”
• Nicole Turner-Lee, vice president and director, Media and Technology Institute, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, “The Challenge of Increasing Civic Engagement in the Digital Age.”
• Scott J. Wallsten, vice president for Research and Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Institute, “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.”
• Christopher S. Yoo, professor of Law & Communciations, University of Pennsylvania Law School, “The Challenge of New Patterns in Internet Usage.”

Among the reports were a few that echoed the cable industry’s public policy agenda, particularly Scott Wallsten’s policy essay, “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.” Wallsten is an industry favorite.  He works for the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten's essay parrots the cable industry's agenda

Wallsten argues worrying about residential broadband service is far less important than delivering broadband improvements to businesses to spur economic growth.  Part of the money to do that might come from raising residential broadband prices.  Wallsten points out consumers are willing to pay far more than they do today for their broadband accounts — up to $80 a month for today’s typical access speeds.  That’s music to an Internet Overcharger’s ears.

Wallsten’s essay hints that broadband expansion to the unserved, and Washington’s focus on broadband competition, might be misplaced if they are looking for the biggest economic bang for the buck.  His overall conclusion?  Worry about business broadband, not home residential use.

This is hardly new territory for Mr. Wallsten, who in 2007 wrote a piece warning of the perils of flat rate, unlimited use broadband pricing for the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute, both great friends of large industry players. Only this time, he got a nice chuck of change from Time Warner Cable ratepayers.

More remarkable was Dale Hatfield’s essay, “The Challenge of Increasing Broadband Capacity.” Unlike Mr. Wallsten’s cable industry public policy echo chamber, Hatfield tries to keep things technical, but also safely made sure he didn’t stray too far off Time Warner’s broadband plantation.

Hatfield discusses the challenges of different broadband technologies ranging from twisted-pair copper wiring that delivers DSL to cable’s hybrid coaxial-fiber networks and the latest generation wireless and fiber optic technologies.  Hatfield largely calls them as he sees them, noting DSL’s inherent distance limitations and maximum supportable speeds, cable’s potential for last-mile/neighborhood congestion, wireless spectrum inadequacy, and the promises fiber optics can bring to the broadband revolution if costs can be reduced.

Hatfield avoids embarrassing his benefactor too much by spending the least amount of time and space on the benefits fiber brings to the broadband expansion question:

The fourth technology, fiber optic cable, is generally regarded as the “gold standard” in terms of increasing broadband digital access capacity because of its enormous analog bandwidth and its immunity to natural and man-made forms of electrical noise and interference. The actual digital transmission rate delivered to or from a customer depends upon the details of the architecture employed, but the ultimate capacity is limited more by economic factors rather than by the inherent technical constraints on the underlying technology imposed by Shannon’s Law. In this regard, fiber optic cable is often referred to as being “future-proof” because the maximum digital transmission rates are governed more by the electronic equipment attached to the cable rather than by the actual fiber itself. It is future-proof in the sense that the capacity can be increased by upgrading the associated electronic equipment rather than by taking the more expensive step of replacing the fiber itself.

Hatfield

While Time Warner Cable does market itself as having an “Advanced Fiber Network,” it is, in reality using the same technology the cable industry has used for a decade — fiber distribution into individual towns and large neighborhoods, coaxial cable the rest of the way.  Hatfield believes that simply isn’t good enough:

[…]Both DSL and cable modem technology benefit from the shorter distances that are associated with a more dense deployment of their access nodes. This suggests the growing need to extend fiber optic cable capacity closer to the customer—either fixed or mobile—to minimize the distance between the customer and the access nodes.

Hatfield’s subtle conclusion is that broadband expansion is ultimately best served by delivering fiber-optic connections straight to the home, something Time Warner Cable has argued against and refused to provide for years, but has now paid $20,000 to put on their website:

[…]Policymakers not only need to focus on the oft-stated long-term goal of encouraging FTTH but also on the more immediate need to bring fiber significantly closer to the customer to support a vastly increased number of access nodes. This is particularly important in the wireless case, where the capacity added through frequency reuse is critical to facilitating wireless competition with the two major suppliers of fixed broadband capacity—the incumbent telephone and cable television companies.

Frontier's Ann Burr sat down for an interview with a Rochester television station to discuss the future of landlines.

Frontier Communications told customers in western New York not to expect FiOS fiber-to-the-home technology from them anytime soon, claiming residents in upstate New York do not need broadband speeds that fast.  That prompted regular Stop the Cap! reader Bob in Rochester to drop us a note.

Ann Burr, general manager of Frontier’s Rochester division, told WHAM-TV reporter Rachel Barnhart the company believes its current DSL service is more than adequate for residents in the company’s largest service area.  This, despite the fact Frontier recently adopted a handful of FiOS markets purchased from Verizon Communications.  While Frontier has promised to continue delivering the fiber-to-the-home service in areas already offered the service started by Verizon, they have no plans to expand FiOS.

“We’re constantly upgrading our local networks to make sure they can get higher and higher speeds,” Burr told Barnhart. “Fiber lines are installed in newer developments, and neighborhoods that report problems with DSL lines get attention from technicians.”

With Frontier’s DSL service already available in 95 percent of Frontier’s Rochester-area division, Burr added, there is no need to offer FiOS in Rochester.

Burr, who was formerly president of Time Warner Cable’s Rochester division from 1995-1999, has made similar remarks in the past.  In February, she told readers of the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle they didn’t need ultra-fast broadband speeds from Frontier either.

from 'The Bridge'

Yet Verizon, one of the nation’s largest phone companies, thinks otherwise.  In upstate New York, the company is still completing its fiber optic network in cities like Albany, Buffalo, and Syracuse.  Verizon FiOS remains a top-rated favorite among readers of Consumer Reports.  Frontier’s DSL managed a less impressive 12th place.

Barnhart learned about Frontier’s broadband plans as part of a larger story about how the phone company will survive the age of the cell phone, as local customers continue to disconnect their Frontier landlines in favor of wireless service from providers like Verizon and AT&T.

Burr warned customers to think twice before disconnecting service.

“Don’t do it. Because I’ve personally been in a situation where my home was without power for a couple of days and you have to recharge cell phone batteries, which you can’t do if you don’t have power,” Burr said.

Burr can’t see a day when no one has a landline phone any longer.

“I don’t see that for a long time. I think that wired phone, copper infrastructure that’s been here for many years provides [the] security [and] reliability that people want,” she said.

Burr’s beliefs are contrary to industry statistics that show Americans continue to drop landline service.  Among those under 30, it’s sometimes hard to find anyone who has a landline at all.

The Bridge reports in the second quarter of 2010 alone, just three phone companies — AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest lost nearly 1.5 million landline customers, mostly to cell phone service and competing “digital phone” products offered by the cable industry.

Consumer Reports says its readers gave top marks to Verizon FiOS for its speed, selection, and service. Frontier didn't make this list at all.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHAM Rochester Will Frontier Communications Survive in Cell Phone Age 9-15-10.flv[/flv]

WHAM-TV’s Rachel Barnhart talked with local residents who have disconnected their Frontier landlines and spoke with Frontier’s Ann Burr about the long term prospects for a company primarily delivering that service.  (2 minutes)