Phillip Dampier

In a remarkable statement to the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, AT&T has joined Verizon in predicting the imminent demise of Ma Bell’s classic telephone network.

AT&T writes in its 30 page comment, “That transition is underway already: with each passing day, more and more communications services migrate to broadband and Internet Protocol (IP)-based services, leaving the public switched telephone network (“PSTN”) and plain-old telephone service (“POTS”) as relics of a by-gone era.”

AT&T claims abandoning the old legacy phone network would help the company devote its full resources into staying relevant by constructing a broadband, IP-based network that would deliver voice, data, and video to consumers, presumably over its U-verse platform.  That, according to AT&T, could help the company achieve universal broadband coverage in its service areas, but only if investment-friendly regulations are supported by Washington policymakers.

The Commission has been charged by Congress with formulating a National Broadband Plan that will result in broadband availability for 100% of the United States. That auspicious goal is within reach, but […] will not be met in a timely or efficient manner if providers are forced to continue to invest in and to maintain two networks. Broadband is dramatically changing the way Americans live, work, obtain health care, and interact with the government. Congress and the Commission have rightly made universal broadband access a core national priority. But achieving this goal will take an enormous investment of capital. Private investment from network operators has brought broadband access to over 90% of Americans, and these operators will continue to play a pivotal role in bringing broadband to the remaining 8-10% of citizens who do not currently have broadband access. It is accordingly crucial that the Commission pursue forward-looking regulatory policies that remove disincentives to private investment and encourage operators to extend broadband to unserved areas.

While broadband usage – and the importance of broadband to Americans’ lives – is growing every day, the business model for legacy phone services is in a death spiral. Revenues from POTS are plummeting as customers cut their landlines in favor of the convenience and advanced features of wireless and VoIP services. At the same time, due to the high fixed costs of providing POTS, every customer who abandons this service raises the average cost-per-line to serve the remaining customers. With an outdated product, falling revenues, and rising costs, the POTS business is unsustainable for the long run.

AT&T cites a growing number of Americans cutting their wired phone line service — 22% according to the National Center for Health Statistics.  Craig Moffett from Bernstein Research pegs it closer to 25%, with an additional 700,000 phone lines being disconnected every month.  With a shrinking customer base, the viability of companies providing only wired phone service has come into question.  Verizon and AT&T, the nation’s largest phone companies, have made the judgment it’s a dying business.  Conversely, Frontier Communications and a few other independent phone companies remain believers in rural copper wire phone networks, and are willing to buy the discarded, mostly rural regions their bigger counterparts can’t wait to exit.

But AT&T’s advocacy for an end to “plain old telephone service” is just a tad self-serving when one explores their “To-Do” list for Washington regulatory agencies and lawmakers.  AT&T suggests their future plan benefits all Americans.  Critics would contend it mostly benefits AT&T and its shareholders, especially in light of AT&T’s future revenues being directly impacted by customers disconnecting their AT&T phone lines.  AT&T themselves note collective industry revenue for basic phone service fell from $178.6 billion in 2000 to $130.8 billion in 2007, a 27% decrease.

AT&T’s Action Plan to Avoid Obsolescence Explored

At the heart of AT&T’s proposal for 21st century telephone service is an end to analog telephone service, designed more than 100 years ago to carry voice calls, and the launch of broadband-based service to every home in their service area.  From this new platform, AT&T can deliver telephone, television, and Internet service over a single network.  In fact, they already do in several cities where AT&T’s U-verse has launched. Instead of getting one revenue stream from basic phone service, AT&T can now earn from any number of services a broadband platform can support.

AT&T compares their plan with the transition from analog to digital television, except you won’t have to trade in your existing phones or attach converter boxes to every telephone in the house.  Just like the switch to digital television, AT&T wants a date certain to pull the plug on Ma Bell’s old phone network, the sooner the better.

But AT&T’s plan has plenty of strings attached.

First, the company believes the only path to private investment and a successful transition is a near-complete deregulation of the telephone industry.  It wants the federal government, specifically the FCC, to take control of oversight of phone companies across America, if only to end a patchwork of state regulations and service requirements.  Remember, the Ma Bell most Americans grew up with was a regulated monopoly.  In return for guaranteed profits, phone companies agreed to meet service obligations, provide service to any home or business that wanted it, serve the disabled, and provide discounted phone service to the economically disadvantaged.  Rural customers were assured they would have access to phone service and at reasonable prices, and if something stopped working, government oversight ensured problems would be repaired to the customer’s satisfaction.

In AT&T’s view, such requirements are quaint and outdated, and it wants to bear few of those burdens going forward.  Indeed, in a too-cute-by-half aside, the company argues that since it will design the network to operate under the same protocol the unregulated Internet uses, it should be unregulated as well.

Such deregulation could impact a myriad of policies governing phone service that most Americans take for granted — minimum service standards, requirements that telephone companies complete calls between one another – even if competitors, and reasonably priced basic phone service even in the most remote locations.  But AT&T is asking for even more – a comprehensive review and possible elimination of any regulation that could be interpreted as interfering with the transition to an all-broadband telephone network.  AT&T includes everything but the kitchen sink in this category, ranging from service quality requirements, reporting, recordkeeping, data collection, accounting, and depreciation and amortization rules governing how quickly the company can write off obsolete equipment.

Ma Bell's network is due for a retirement, advocates AT&T

Ironically, AT&T wants deregulation -and- access to public taxpayer dollars to construct their new network.  The company advocates government-funded award programs to promote universal broadband access.  One would provide money for wired broadband service, perfect for companies like AT&T that want to build those networks, and another for wireless mobile projects to expand service into unserved or underserved areas, also perfect for AT&T Mobility — the same wireless carrier slammed by Verizon Wireless for largely ignoring rural America with 3G wireless data upgrades.

While there is some justification for a review of federal and state rules that may no longer realistically apply to today’s telecommunications marketplace, AT&T goes out of its way to be self-serving in its recommendations.  It dangles the bright and shiny object of a 21st century broadband-based telephone network, but only if they get to run it essentially “no questions asked,” with little oversight and an infusion of public taxpayer dollars to compliment private investment.

AT&T may be correct that the days for Ma Bell’s “plain old telephone service” are indeed numbered.  But for a company that earns billions in profits and answers to shareholders demanding maximum return, shouldn’t their long term well-being first be a question between AT&T management and shareholders?  Are they incapable of a private course correction that makes their future relevance more secure?  AT&T’s U-verse did not require public tax dollars to be successful, and the company spent generously on lobbyists and astroturf campaigns to smooth the way forward with “statewide franchising,” bypassing local government oversight.

The real question on the table is how far does the Obama Administration and the FCC want to go to achieve universal broadband?  AT&T suggests that only massive deregulation will entice private investors to step up and make the investments required to help achieve whatever definition of “universal broadband” the Commission comes up with.  But that price is way too high to pay.  AT&T answers first and always to its shareholders.  If they want public tax dollars funding, even in part, their transition to an all-broadband future, they must also answer to the other “stockholders,” namely the American people helping to foot the bill.

OnLive puts the processing power to render and play games on their end, and streams the result to you over your broadband connection (click to enlarge)

OnLive, the cloud-based videogame streaming service, was on display during a live dem0 of the service at Columbia University.  The service, which literally streams game play across fast broadband networks, could seriously challenge the videogame console marketplace.  Instead of using an expensive piece of hardware at home to play videogames such as w88, OnLive puts the hardware at their end and streams the results to any computer or television.  If it works, it means consumers won’t need the highest performance videocards or latest new CPU.  They’ll just need a fast broadband connection to let OnLive’s own servers do all of the processing.

The founder and CEO of OnLive, Steve Perlman, shows considerable enthusiasm for the concept, and several major investors including AT&T and Time Warner have backed the venture, which could help guarantee smooth passage on their broadband networks.

Still, a product that requires a minimum of a 5Mbps broadband connection for HD-quality streamed game play could consume an enormous amount of data — up to 2.25 GB per hour of gaming.  Although cable and fiber-based broadband connections will suffice, many DSL customers don’t have service fast enough to support OnLive.  Among those that do, any usage caps or allowances will significantly reduce the value of the service to potential subscribers.  Frontier Communications’ infamous 5GB “acceptable use” per month, for instance, would allow just over two hours of use per month, assuming you did nothing else with your DSL service.

Even Comcast’s 250GB usage allowance cuts game play to a little over 100 hours per month.  That’s a ludicrous amount of gaming for most of us, but not for some gaming addicts who may have tried games like 핑카지노.  Besides, it also assumes you don’t use your Comcast broadband service to watch video or other bandwidth-intensive online services.

Time Warner Cable’s proposed 40GB usage limit, shelved indefinitely in April after consumer protests, would permit less than an hour of play per day, assuming your Road Runner service was for nothing but OnLive.

In short, assuming OnLive works as promoted, its biggest threat to success will come from external factors mostly outside of its control — namely cap-happy ISPs that could quickly make streamed cloud computing untenable for all but the wealthiest among us.

What could OnLive do to reduce its risk from caps?  Partner with ISPs in a non-Net Neutral broadband world, of course.  That investment from AT&T, for example, could theoretically pave the way for AT&T to exempt OnLive from any usage limits that come from its own Internet Overcharging experiments in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.  That would be a clear violation of Net Neutrality, if enacted into law.

Scenarios like this should drive consumers to support Net Neutrality policies.  ISPs forming “preferred partnerships” with innovative services like OnLive might seem consumer-friendly at first, but not in the long-term because it spells the death of would-be “non-preferred” start-ups, and helps pave the way even faster to Internet Overcharging schemes letting broadband providers pick the winners and losers of the future.

[flv width=”484″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/OnLive Columbia University Demo.flv[/flv]

OnLive founder and CEO Steve Perlman demonstrates OnLive and talks about cloud-based, streaming game play at this gathering at Columbia University in New York. (49 minutes)
(If stream stops for buffering, pause it for a few minutes to let a significant amount of the file pre-load, which should reduce re-buffering problems.)

Several staff members working for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), the regulatory agency reviewing the proposed Frontier purchase of Verizon territories in Washington state, have reversed their opposition to the Frontier-Verizon deal because of concessions they believe will better serve consumers impacted by the deal.  But the provisions don’t come close to protecting consumer rights and do not sufficiently protect local telephone and broadband service.

The WUTC must be told that broadband expansion from a service provider that insists on a 5 gigabyte usage limit in its Acceptable Use Policy makes such expansion barely worth the effort.  The WUTC must insist on a permanent exemption from any usage limits for Washington state consumers, especially because many may find Frontier DSL to be their only broadband option for years to come.  To allow a company with such a paltry limit to be the monopoly provider of broadband puts Washington residents and small businesses at a serious economic disadvantage in the digital economy.

Would you choose to reside or locate your business in a community with one broadband provider offering a limit so low, your broadband usage will be limited to web page browsing and e-mail?

High Speed Internet Access Service

Customers may not resell High Speed Internet Access Service (“Service”) without a legal and written agency agreement with Frontier. Customers may not retransmit the Service or make the Service available to anyone outside the premises (i.e., wi-fi or other methods of networking). Customers may not use the Service to host any type of commercial server. Customers must comply with all Frontier network, bandwidth, data storage and usage limitations. Frontier may suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period. The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier will be a part of the lives of almost 500,000 state residents, including those in Wenatchee and other parts of North Central Washington.  That covers a lot of rural residents with no hope of cable competition or other broadband options.  Verizon is the second-largest local telephone service provider in Washington, serving cities such as Redmond, Kirkland, Everett, Bothell, Woodinville, Kennewick, Pullman, Chelan, Richland, Naches, Westport, Lynden, Anacortes, Mount Vernon, Newport, Oakesdale, Republic and Camas-Washougal.  Currently, Verizon has approximately 1,300 employees in Washington, who would be transferred to Frontier once the deal is complete.

Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to assuring residents they can get the kind of broadband service they need in the 21st century, especially from a company that could easily find itself swamped in debt.  Let’s look at what Frontier has offered:

• Invest $40 million to expand high-speed Internet access in Washington.
• Submit quarterly financial reports to identify merger savings.
• Branding and transition costs to be paid by stockholders, not ratepayers.
• Increase financial incentives to prevent a decline in service quality.
• Adopt Verizon’s existing rates and contracts for at least three years.

Frontier would also be required to pay residential customers $35 for missed service repairs or installation appointments. That’s $10 more than Verizon now pays. Current Verizon customers would also have 90 days after the transition to choose another provider without incurring a $5 switching fee. Low-income customers who qualify through the Washington Telephone Assistance Program will also receive a one-time $75 credit if the company fails to offer appropriate discounts or deposit waivers.

Our take:

• Investing $40 million in low speed DSL service with a 5GB usage allowance saddles residents with yesterday’s technology with a usage allowance that rations the Internet.
• Customers don’t care about merger cost reductions because they’ll never enjoy those savings, but they’ll feel their impact if they include layoffs and reduction in investment.
• Consumers will be more concerned about what happens to their phone and broadband service when the “transition” results in service and billing problems.  Will stockholders pay inconvenienced customers?
• Vague promises of increased financial incentives for a company to do… its job, without declines in service quality, exposes just how unnecessary this deal is.  Why not offer incentives for Verizon to stay?
• Freezing rates for three years doesn’t prevent massive increases to make up the difference in year four and beyond.

The WUTC staff had it right the first time when it opposed the deal.  A healthy, financially secure Verizon is still a better deal than a smaller independent company saddled with debt.  Frontier seals the fate of Washington state residents from the benefits of fiber optics wired to the home, delivering high speed broadband for the future because Frontier doesn’t do fiber to the home on its own.  With a tiny usage allowance, just waiting for the company to decide to enforce it means you won’t be using your broadband account too much anyway.

The WUTC is accepting comments and you need to start calling and writing.  Make sure to tell the Commission it must secure a permanent exemption for Washington from any Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption/usage-based Internet billing and any usage limits Frontier defines in its Acceptable Use Policy.  Better yet, tell them Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to making you feel good about Verizon turning over your phone service to a company that is traveling the same road three other companies took all the way to bankruptcy.

Customers who would like to comment on the provisions can call toll-free: (888) 333-9882 or send e-mail to [email protected]. The deadline for comments is January 10th.

Keyser, West Virginia

Frontier Communications’ West Virginia roadshow continued this week as company officials continue to sell the company’s plan to take over telephone service from Verizon across much of the state.  But have they stretched the truth to sell state officials on the deal?

Paul Espinosa, general manager of Frontier, told a West Virginia newspaper the company “prides ourselves in taking good care of our customers,” claiming 95 percent of their current residential customers have broadband Internet.

“In some areas it’s DSL. In other markets we do offer fiber,” he told the Mineral Daily News-Tribune in Keyser.

Keyser, a community of just over 5,000, considers broadband high on its list of concerns.  They want it, but they also want to know it is the kind of broadband that will keep Mineral County competitive, particularly for small businesses that depend on it to reach customers.  The county created a Communications Infrastructure Council (CIC) to review broadband communications options considered vital to the community’s economic development.

Rick Welch, who serves on the CIC,  said the economic future of Mineral County depends upon high speed or fiber-optic Internet and not DSL, or Internet service which utilizes existing telephone lines.

Verizon West Virginia has bypassed the state for FiOS development, which provides a fiber-optic connection to the home, claiming the infrastructure costs are too high at today’s prices to satisfy Return On Investment requirements.  Frontier has never had an ambitious broadband agenda centered on fiber optics.

Frontier traditionally offers 1-3Mbps DSL service in most of the smaller communities they serve.  Frontier’s claim that they are currently providing customers in “other markets” with fiber broadband brings these questions:

• Exactly where?
• Under what terms?
• Is this true fiber-to-the-home service, or simply fiber connected central offices?
• Are advanced levels of service are provided to these fiber customers, or are the plans, terms, and speeds identical to traditional DSL plans?

If the deal goes through, Frontier would assume ownership of pre-existing Verizon FiOS deployments, but those were proposed and planned by Verizon, not Frontier.

“DSL will not bring anything to Mineral County as far as economic development is concerned,” he said, noting that high technology businesses require far faster speeds than DSL traditionally provides.

A Verizon representative tasked with trying to sell the deal that gets the company out of the West Virginia’s phone business said that something is better than nothing.

“To hear you say that DSL is not the future is troubling,” Verizon’s John Golden said. “If you are without broadband, DSL would be the future.”

The Mineral County Commission was unimpressed with Golden’s statement.  Commission president Wayne Spiggle told the News-Tribune a lot of businesses and those who work from home would not consider coming to Mineral County when they discovered only low speed DSL service available, commonplace more than a decade ago in other areas. Spiggle said real broadband service was essential to attract the kind of businesses Mineral County needs to succeed.

“Our mission and responsibility to Mineral County is to create an entrepreneurial garden, and high-speed broadband is essential to that,” he said.

The Communications Workers of America are also been fighting to warn state and local officials about the gamble West Virginia will take with Frontier Communications.  Considering the last three deals resulted in bankruptcy for all three, it’s a risk the CWA doesn’t think is worth taking.

“Frontier will wind up taking on at least $3.4 billion in debt from Verizon,” said John Johnston, speaking on behalf of the CWA. “Frontier has said they’ll expand broadband, but will they? With $3.4 billion in debt, that’s a lot of money,” he said.

Chuck Fouts, who serves as local CWA president said bankruptcy brings job losses.  “If you go bankrupt, the first thing that goes is people,” he said.

The union says the state should join their efforts to force Verizon to “do what they said they were going to do” and provide a plan to upgrade the state’s telecommunications system to fiber optics.

As it stands, Verizon sees higher returns from cherry-picking more urban areas for its FiOS service, and isn’t willing to provide the kind of universal service throughout its service areas that phone companies have traditionally provided for decades.

“How can Frontier provide the fiber they claim to offer in “other markets” when Verizon’s deeper pockets have thus far been turned out empty for residents in West Virginia?” asks Stop the Cap! reader Hyatt.

Investment firm D.A. Davidson downgraded Frontier’s stock last week, reporting they felt the deal would be bad for Frontier shareholders.

Moving the stock rating back to “underperform,” the firm was skeptical Frontier would be able to pull off the cost-savings it promised as part of the deal.  They also anticipated Frontier will have to finance as much as $3.3 billion of the debt (at 8-9%) it will take on as part of the transaction.  Perhaps more revealing is their prediction that Verizon shareholders who receive distributed shares of Frontier stock will likely dump them as fast as possible, remembering earlier Verizon deals that quickly led to falling stock prices and eventual bankruptcy.  D.A. Davidson warned potential Frontier investors to “at least move to the sidelines” during the anticipated grand sell-off, moving back into the stock only when it bottoms-out.

Phillip "No, I won't take your word for it" Dampier

Did you realize if you are pro-Net Neutrality, you’re probably pro-piracy and a broadband hog?  That’s the new low achieved this past week by Net Neutrality opponents who are spending millions trying to protect their broadband fiefdoms from any regulation.  But even if they lose their fight to stop Net Neutrality when they find consumers won’t accept a throttled “network managed” broadband future, providers will be “forced” to control those dirty pirates and broadband hogs with usage limits and overlimit fees to help “pay for network expansion.”

It’s why Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and “consumption billing” go hand in hand.  What providers can’t profit from on one end they’ll try from another.

Longtime readers of Stop the Cap! already know how this scam works.  Canadian broadband users got stuck with both: speed throttles -and- usage caps and overlimit fees.  Assuming purposely throttled speeds are banned by Net Neutrality policies, simply under-investing in network expansion, despite the rampant profit-earning capacity broadband delivers, gets us to the same place — throttled speeds from overcongested networks and a convenient excuse to impose usage limits and other control measures to more “fairly” provide service to every customer.  Best of all, providers can pocket the overlimit fees charged to customers who exceed their allowance and train them to use less broadband with fears of more stinging penalty fees on their next bill.

Back in 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, we challenged providers to provide the raw data to prove their assertions that they needed to impose formal limits and so-called “consumption-based billing” and abandon the lucrative flat rate pricing model that earns them billions in profits every year.  Of course, they have always refused, citing “competitive reasons,” “customer privacy,” or some combination of laws that supposedly prohibits any third party analysis.  Of course, they’re only too happy to characterize usage themselves, and we’re supposed to trust them — the same people that want to use that data to justify Internet Overcharging schemes.  Independent analysis?  When broadband pigs fly!

Now, telecom analyst Benoit Felten from the Yankee Group is asking the same questions on his Fiberevolution blog and issuing a challenge:

So here’s a challenge for them: in the next few days, I will specify on this blog a standard dataset that would enable me to do an in-depth data analysis into network usage by individual users. Any telco willing to actually understand what’s happening there and to answer the question on the existence of hogs once and for all can extract that data and send it over to me, I will analyse it for free, on my spare time. All I ask is that they let me publish the results of said research (even though their names need not be mentioned if they don’t wish it to be). Of course, if I find myself to be wrong and if indeed I manage to identify users that systematically degrade the experience for other users, I will say so publicly. If, as I suspect, there are no such users, I will also say so publicly. The data will back either of these assertions.

Felton’s co-author Herman offers his assessment:

Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, the way that telcos identify the Bandwidth Hogs is not by monitoring if they cause unfair traffic congestion for other users. No, they just measure the total data downloaded per user, list the top 5% and call them hogs.

For those service providers with data caps, these are usually set around 50 Gbyte and go up to 150 Gbyte a month. This is therefore a good indication of the level of bandwidth at which you start being considered a “hog”.  But wait: 50 Gbyte a month is… 150 kbps average (0,15 Mbps), 150 Gbyte a month is 450 kbps on average. If you have a 10 Mbps link, that’s only 1,5 % or 4,5 % of its maximum advertised speed!

And that would be “hogging”?

The fact is that what most telcos call hogs are simply people who overall and on average download more than others. Blaming them for network congestion is actually an admission that telcos are uncomfortable with the ‘all you can eat’ broadband schemes that they themselves introduced on the market to get people to subscribe. In other words, the marketing push to get people to subscribe to broadband worked, but now the telcos see a missed opportunity at price discrimination…

TCP/IP is by definition an egalitarian protocol. Implemented well, it should result in an equal distribution of available bandwidth in the operator’s network between end-users; so the concept of a bandwidth hog is by definition an impossibility. An end-user can download all his access line will sustain when the network is comparatively empty, but as soon as it fills up from other users’ traffic, his own download (or upload) rate will diminish until it’s no bigger than what anyone else gets.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) has a better idea to stop Internet Overcharging: the Broadband Internet Fairness Act (HR 2902), which would ban unjustified billing schemes for broadband

The arbitrary nature of what constitutes a “hog” invalidates providers’ arguments at the outset.  Frontier defines a hog as someone who consumes more than 5GB.  Comcast sets their definition of a broadband piggy at 250GB.  The gap between the two is wide enough to allow a small planet to slip through unencumbered.

If a consumer does all of their downloading from midnight to six the following morning, are they as much of a hog on a shared cable modem network as the user watching Hulu during prime broadband usage time?  Probably not.  If a cable provider tries to force too many homes to share the same finite amount of bandwidth available in a designated area, service will slow for everyone during peak usage times.  But nobody will notice or care if customers are maxing out their connection in the middle of the night.  The appropriate answer, especially for an industry that enjoys enormous profits, is to expand their network to maintain basic quality of service at peak times.  DOCSIS 3 upgrades for cable are cost efficient, flexible and often profitable, because providers can market new, premium-priced speed tiers to those who want cutting edge service.

Instead, some providers see delaying upgrades as a better answer, enjoying the cost savings that follow implementation of usage caps, limits and other overcharging schemes which artificially limit demand and further monetize their broadband service offerings.

Unfortunately, even if Felten got responses from providers, he’ll be forced to trust the integrity of data he didn’t collect himself.  Rep. Eric Massa has a better idea.  His proposed Broadband Internet Fairness Act would ban such overcharging schemes unless providers could prove to the satisfaction of a federal agency that such pricing was warranted.  The big difference is that providing “massaged” data to Mr. Felton might be naughty, but would be downright criminal if tried with the federal government.

Shouldn’t the central lesson here be to “trust but verify?”