Schneiderman

The New York Attorney General has some strong words for Verizon Communications:

“Verizon [must] divest those portions of its New York franchise where it is no longer willing to continue providing wireline service and replace Verizon with another carrier that will provide wireline service.”

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is more than a little concerned with Verizon’s plans to abandon offering landline service on the western half of Fire Island and potentially other areas further upstate to satisfy the company’s wireless business strategy.

In a hostile 13-page filing directed to the New York Public Service Commission, Schneiderman’s office accused Verizon of abdicating its responsibility to provide universal access to high quality landline service in favor of moving customers to inferior Verizon Wireless service.

“Verizon is asking the Commission to depart from a century of telephone service regulation, which had as one of its fundamental principles, universal wireline telephone service for all customers,” Schneiderman wrote.

In return for a guaranteed monopoly, profits, and a secure franchise area across portions of New York, telephone companies like Verizon historically agreed to offer phone service to any customer who wanted it. State and federal universal service rules provided subsidies to phone companies to reach their most rural or expensive-to-reach customers.

The goal, Schneiderman argued, was for every resident in New York to have home phone service, enabling them to communicate with their doctors, families, schools, friends and businesses, as well as to send for police, fire and ambulance assistance in an emergency.

Verizon’s intended replacement, Voice Link, represents a downgrade in service even worse than hundred-year old copper wire “plain old telephone service,” according to the attorney general. Schneiderman called Verizon’s Voice Link inferior and its thick 10-page terms, conditions, and disclaimers “legalistic,” leaving consumers without services they previously received or imposing significant new burdens and obligations.

The issues cited by Schneiderman:

Voice Link Service “is not compatible with fax machines, DVR services, credit card machines, medical alert or other monitoring services or some High Speed or DSL Internet services.” Customers in western Fire Island and other rural parts of New York have no FiOS or cable modem Internet providers to switch to, so those who rely on these services have no alternatives if switched to Voice Link.

Because Voice Link “may not be compatible with certain monitored home security systems,” customers’ homes and businesses will be at greater risk from flooding by burst plumbing, fire or burglars. In the case of plumbing emergencies, visit Carlson Plumbing Company website for reliable solutions and prompt support.

Although wireline customers whose service is suspended for nonpayment can still reach a 911 operator in emergencies, suspension of Voice Link “will prevent ALL Service, including any 911 dialing and associated emergency response services. Customers may also lose the ability to receive or place calls, even to 911, if they fail to “promptly notify Verizon” of a change in their address, email, or credit card expiration date.

Customers must “defend, indemnify and hold harmless Verizon from and against all claims … for infringement of any intellectual property rights arising from use of Voice Link or its software.”

Voice Link Service “does not allow the Customer to make 500, 700, 900, 950, 976, 0, 00, 01, 0+, calling card or dial-around calls (e.g., 10-10-XXXX),” so customers will be unable to use such pay-per-call information services. Voice Link Service “does not allow the Customer to accept collect calls or third number billed calls. The Company will not bill any charges on behalf of other carriers. [Customers] must have an International Calling Plan in order to make international calls. Wireline customers are able to subscribe to toll and international calling plans provided by other carriers, and have these and other third-party service charges included on their Verizon bills.

Verizon Voice Link

Voice Link Service “is subject to the availability of adequate wireless coverage throughout your home, and is not available in all locations.”

Unlike wireline service, which supplies its own power over the copper wiring, Voice Link uses customers’ house current to operate. Verizon has not disclosed how much customers’ electric utility bills will increase to power the Voice Link device. Also, if electric power is interrupted, Customers may have to “reset or reconfigure equipment prior to using” Voice Link. This may be difficult for some physically limited or technologically unsophisticated customers to perform.

During power interruptions, the wireless Devices used in Voice Link are battery operated. Although the Devices include a rechargeable battery back-up that provides only 36 hours of standby power and up to 2.5 hours of talk time in the event of a commercial power outage, “[a ]fter the battery is exhausted, the Service (including 911 dialing) will not function until power is restored.”

After the expiration of a one year replacement warranty for the battery back-up included with customers’ wireless Device, customers “are responsible for replacing the back-up battery as needed,” but Verizon has not disclosed the cost of such replacement batteries.

Wireline customers purchase their own telephones from competitive manufacturers, but the Voice Link device is only supplied by Verizon, which continues to own it. Thus, customers will have to pay Verizon to repair the device if “such repair or maintenance is made necessary due to misuse, abuse or intentional damage to the Device.” Verizon has not disclosed what [the] repair or replacement might cost customers in such event.

When wireline customers end their service with Verizon, they have no equipment to return to the company. However, Voice Link customers who cancel their service “are responsible for returning their Wireless Device to [Verizon] in an undamaged condition. Failure to return the Device within 30 days … may result in [Verizon] charging [customers] an unreturned equipment fee.” Verizon has not disclosed the amount of this fee.

Schneiderman accused Verizon of dragging its feet on repairs on Fire Island and forcing Voice Link on customers as the only available alternative.

“It is clear that Verizon is leveraging the storm damage from Sandy as part of its long-term strategy to abandon its copper networks by substituting Voice Link for [landline] service on western Fire Island and forcing customers to accept wireless Voice Link wherever it does not build FiOS,” Schneiderman argued. “Verizon’s failure to make prompt repairs to its Fire Island facilities during the seven months following Sandy left the Commission little choice but to provide temporary approval of Voice Link so that customers would have some form of telephone service during the 2013 summer beach season. However, this ‘temporary approval’ should not be expanded to allow Verizon to avoid its obligations permanently, on Fire Island or anywhere else in New York.”

Schneiderman wants the PSC to force the issue with Verizon, and not on the preferred terms of its senior executives.

“Rather than allow Verizon to provide inadequate Voice Link service to Fire Island and other New York customers, the Commission should compel the company to either maintain its wireline network throughout its franchise territory or sell
those parts where it is unwilling to do so to another provider that will provide adequate service,” Schneiderman wrote.

Wisconsin Republicans are outraged AT&T and CenturyLink are not able to charge taxpayers and students more than double the price for broadband in schools and libraries.

Wisconsin taxpayers and students could face substantially higher taxes and tuition fees because Republicans prefer AT&T and other commercial Internet Service Providers deliver high-speed Internet access to schools and libraries, even if prices are more than double those charged by the existing non-profit, cooperative provider.

Last week, under growing pressure and criticism from Republican legislators and the potential threat of private litigation, the University of Wisconsin withdrew its contract with WiscNet, fearing a costly backlash that could interrupt the school’s educational and research missions.

Republicans in the state legislature forced a competition ban in the 2011-2013 budget directly targeting WiscNet, an institutional broadband provider serving 300 public schools, state agencies, and 15 of 17 Wisconsin library systems. They consider WiscNet a direct competitive threat to the business interests of AT&T and other telecommunications companies.

The loss of business from UW has raised questions about the ongoing viability of WiscNet’s operations, and has encouraged critics to continue the campaign against public broadband.

“Isn’t it a sad day when political pressures from telephone company lobbyists keep us from working together,” asked WiscNet Wire. “It’s frustrating, yet fascinating.”

Many of WiscNet’s members report that “going private” for Internet connectivity will more than double their costs. This was confirmed by Wisconsin’s Legislative Audit Bureau, which reported a member paying WiscNet $500 month for Internet service would face bills of $1,100 or more if provided by AT&T or other telecom companies.

Republicans have complained WiscNet’s close ties to the state university system and its efforts to resist the Walker Administration’s efforts to dismantle the institutional fiber network’s current operational plans border on unethical.

Cheerleading the Republicans are providers including AT&T and CenturyLink, both filing their own respective complaints (AT&T) (CenturyLink). Joining them is the Wisconsin State Telecom Association (WSTA), which represents Wisconsin’s independent rural phone companies like Frontier Communications.

William Esbeck, WSTA’s executive director, has been on WiscNet’s case for years. He said WiscNet’s recent victory in a procurement process to supply Internet service across the UW system was proof the bidding was rigged.

“The UW simply created a ‘request for proposals’ that matched what WiscNet was already doing,” said Esbeck.

Republican legislators joined Esbeck threatening hearings and unspecified repercussions for the “civil disobedience” on display by university officials attempting an end run around the Walker Administration.

“There have been repeated, flagrant violations of state law — intentional deception at a level that I just am flabbergasted by, even today — and no accountability for it whatsoever,” said state Rep. Dean Knudson (R-Hudson), at a recent budget committee hearing. Among Knudson’s biggest campaign contributors: the WSTA and CenturyLink.

In a May 23 letter sent to UW System president Kevin Reilly, state Sen. Paul Farrow (R-Pewaukee) accused UW officials of “mismanagement and unethical behavior,” saying they’d shown disdain for the legislature and contempt for the laws and directives it passed, reported Bill Lueders, the Money and Politics Project director at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

Among Farrow’s biggest campaign donors: TDS Telecom and the WSTA.

Both Farrow and Knudson are also known members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate financed group that produces anti-public broadband draft legislation for introduction by the group’s members. Both CenturyLink and AT&T are sponsors of ALEC, AT&T in particular.

The Walker Administration has given the UW System an extra six months to sever all ties with WiscNet.

“We just don’t see the need of delivering [gigabit broadband] to consumers.” — Irene Esteves, former chief financial officer, Time Warner Cable, February 2013

“For some, the discussion about the broadband Internet seems to begin and end on the issue of ‘gigabit’ access. The issue with such speed is really more about demand than supply. Most websites can’t deliver content as fast as current networks move, and most U.S. homes have routers that can’t support the speed already available.” — David Cohen, chief lobbyist, Comcast Corp., May 2013

“We don’t focus on megabits, we don’t focus on gigabits, we focus on activities. We go to the activity set to get a sense of what customers are actually doing and the majority of our customers fit into that 6Mbps or less category.” — Maggie Wilderotter, CEO, Frontier Communications, May 2013

“It would cost multiple billions” to upgrade Cox’s network to offer gigabit speeds to all its customers. — Pat Esser, CEO, Cox Communications, Pat Esser, chief executive of Cox Communications Inc., January 2013

“The problem with [matching Google Fiber speeds] is even if you build the last mile access plant to [offer gigabit speeds], there is neither the applications that require that nor a broader Internet backbone and servers delivering at that speed. It ends up being more about publicity and bragging. There has been a whole series of articles in the paper about ‘I’m a little startup business and boy it is really great I can get this’ and my reaction is we already have plant there that can deliver whatever it is they are talking about in those articles, which is usually not stuff that requires that high-speed.” — Glenn Britt, CEO, Time Warner Cable, December 2012

“Residential customers, at this time, do not need the bandwidth offered with dedicated fiber – however, Bright House has led the industry in comprehensively deploying next-generation bandwidth services (DOCSIS 3.0) to its entire footprint in Florida – current speeds offered are 50Mbps with the ability to offer much higher. We provision our network according to our customers’ needs.” – Don Forbes, Bright House Networks, February 2011

‘Charter [Cable] is not seeing enough demand to warrant extending fiber to small and medium-sized businesses — and certainly not to every household.’ — “Speedier Internet Rivals Push Past Cable“, New York Times, Jan. 2, 2013

Unless you live in Kansas City, Austin, in a community where public broadband exists, or where Verizon FiOS provides its fiber optic service, chances are your broadband speeds are not growing much, but are getting more expensive. The only thing innovative coming from the local phone or cable company is a constant effort to convince customers they don’t need faster Internet access anyway.

At least until a competitor threatens to shake up the comfortable status quo.

Time Warner Cable claims they are perfectly comfortable offering residential customers no better than 50/5Mbps, except in markets like Kansas City (and soon in Texas) where 100Mbps is more satisfying. Why is a glass Time Warner claims is full to the brim everywhere else in the country only half-full in Kansas City? Google Fiber might be the answer. It offers 1,000/1,000Mbps service for less money than Time Warner used to charge for 50Mbps service, and Google is also headed to Austin.

AT&T scoffed at following Verizon into the world of fiber optic broadband, where broadband speeds are limited only by the possibilities. Instead, they built their half-fiber, half-Alexander Graham Bell-era copper wire hybrid network on the cheap and ended up with broadband speeds topping out around 24Mbps, at least in a perfect AT&T world, assuming everything was ideal between your home and their central office.

At the time U-verse was first breaking ground, cable broadband’s “good enough for you” top Internet speed was typically 10-20Mbps. Now that incrementally faster cable Internet speeds are available from recent DOCSIS 3.0 cable upgrades, AT&T is coming back with an incremental upgrade of its own, to deliver around 75Mbps.

It is still slower than cable, but AT&T thinks it is fast enough for their customers, except in Austin, where Google Fiber provoked the company to claim it would build its own 1,000Mbps fiber network to compete (if it got everything on its Christmas Wish List from federal, state, and local governments).

Are you starting to see a trend here? Competition can turn providers’ investment frowns upside down and get customers faster Internet access.

Wilderotter: Most of our customers are satisfied with 6Mbps broadband.

In rural markets were Frontier Communications faces far less competition from well-heeled cable companies, the company can claim it doesn’t believe most of its customers need north of 6Mbps to do important things on the Internet. If they did, where would they go to do them?

Where Comcast and AT&T directly compete, major Internet speed increases are a matter of “why bother – who needs them.” Comcast is more generous where it faces down Verizon FiOS. AT&T also knows the clock is ticking where Google Fiber is coming to town.

Verizon FiOS, Google Fiber, and a number of community-owned fiber to the home broadband networks like EPB in Chattanooga and Greenlight in Wilson, N.C. seem more interested in boosting speeds to build market share, increase revenue to cover their expenses, and make a marketing point their networks are superior. They respond to requests for speed upgrades differently — “why not?”

Verizon figured out offering 50/25Mbps service was simple to offer and easy to embrace. Two clicks on a FiOS remote control and $10 more a month gets a major speed upgrade for basic Internet customers that used to get 15/5Mbps service. Verizon management reports they are pleased with the number of customers signing up.

In Chattanooga, Tenn. EPB Fiber offered gigabit Internet service because, in the words of its managing director, “it could.” The community-owned utility did not even know how to price residential gigabit service when it first went on offer, but the costs to EPB to offer those speeds are considerably lower over fiber to the home broadband infrastructure.

Broadband customers in Chattanooga, Kansas City and Austin are not too different from customers in Knoxville, Des Moines, and Houston. But the available broadband speeds in those cities sure are.

LUS Fiber in Lafayette, La. changed the song Cox was singing about their ‘adequate’ broadband speeds. Earlier this year, Cox unveiled up to 150/25Mbps service to cut the number of departing customers headed to the community owned utility, already offering those speeds.

Convincing Wall Street that spending money to upgrade networks to next generation technology will earn more money in the long run has failed miserably as a strategy.

“Competitors have been overbuilding, investors are wondering where the returns are,” said Mark Ansboury, president and co-founder of GigaBit Squared. “What you’re seeing is an entrenchment, companies leveraging what they already have in play.”

With North American broadband prices rising, and some cable companies earning 90-95% margins selling broadband, one might think there is plenty of money available to spend on broadband upgrades. Instead, investors are receiving increased dividend payouts, executive compensation packages are swelling as a reward for maximizing shareholder value, and many companies are buying back their stock, refinancing or paying off debt instead of pouring money into major network upgrades.

That is not true in Europe, where providers are making headlines with major network improvements and speed increases, all while charging much less than what North Americans pay for broadband service.

UPC Netherlands is Holland’s second biggest cable company and is in the middle of a broadband speed war with fiber to the home providers.

In the Netherlands, the very concept of Google Fiber’s affordable gigabit speeds terrify cable operators like UPC Netherlands, especially when existing fiber to the home providers in the country are taking Google’s cue and advertising gigabit service themselves. UPC rushed to dedicate up to 16 bonded cable channels to boost cable broadband speeds to 500Mbps in recent field trials, without giving any serious thought to the cable operators in the United States that argue customers don’t need or want the faster Internet speeds fiber offers.

“We had to address it head on very recently because of the fiber (competition)” said vice president of technology Bill Warga. “The company is called Reggefiber in the Netherlands. What they’re touting is a 1Gbps service, [the same speed] upstream and downstream. We came out with 500Mbps service. We had to build a special modem because (DOCSIS) 3.1 chips aren’t out yet. We had to double up on the chips in the modem and put it out there because we had to have a competing product, if anything just in the press. That was a reaction but that tells you how quickly in a marketplace that something can move.”

Despite that, groupthink among cable industry attendees back home at the SCTE Rocky Mountain Chapter Symposium agreed that Google Fiber was a political and marketing stunt, “since the majority of users don’t need those types of speed.”

Who does need and want 500Mbps? Executives at UPC, who have it installed in their homes, admits Warga. But cost can also impact consumer demand. Currently, the most popular legacy UPC broadband package offers 25Mbps for €25 ($32.50). The company now sells 60/6Mbps for €52,50 ($48.75), 100/10Mbps for €42,50 ($55.25) or 150-200/10Mbps for €52,50 ($68.25).

Warga also admits the competition has put UPC in a speed race, and boosted speeds are coming fast and furious.

“They’ll come in and say they’re 100, or 101Mbps we’ll come back and say we’re 110 or 120, or 130Mbps,” Warga said. “It’s a bit of a cat and mouse game, but we always feel like we can be ahead. For us DOCSIS 3.1 can’t come soon enough.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”367”]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Cable Broadband Speeds 1-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal investigates why cable companies are getting stingy with broadband speed upgrades while gigabit fiber networks are springing up around the country. (4 minutes)

Powell

You and I may think America can do better providing fast and inexpensive broadband service. But a former chairman of the FCC now representing industry interests waved shiny keys of distraction to explain away why cable companies are still delivering Internet speeds slower than those found in Romania, Latvia, South Korea and Japan.

Michael Powell, the poster child of D.C.’s “revolving door” problem gave a well-compensated, rousing (yet fact-lacking) defense of an industry he was supposed to oversee in the public interest as the Bush Administration’s FCC chairman from 2001-2005.

“America is home to the world’s very best Internet companies,” said Michael Powell, chief executive of the National Cable and Telecommunications Assn. at the annual Cable Show in Washington, D.C. “We have worked hard to reach everyone, and now offer service to 93% of American homes. Despite our success, many people like to denigrate U.S. broadband by painting false comparisons to other countries. There are some nations doing very well, but it is foolish to compare countries like Latvia and France to the United States of America.”

Powell’s response is hardly a fact-filled defense for cable company broadband that still delivers slow speeds at high prices. Instead of attempting to call the statistics inaccurate, he tried to explain away the discrepancy by complaining people are ignoring the size of the country and its population.

In denial

Powell’s arguments might have some merit if the cable industry did not make a point of bypassing vast rural areas that do not meet Return on Investment tests. It is difficult to claim cable companies cannot deliver comparatively fast service in rural Iowa when they don’t offer any service at all.

The People’s Republic of China’s population is far larger than our own and is now a vital market for fiber optics manufacturers and suppliers. While some of America’s cable industry CEOs repeatedly argue America does not need fiber broadband or gigabit broadband speeds, the Chinese government has insisted that every new housing development be pre-wired with fiber that will easily and inexpensively supply those speeds in the near future.

Powell is correct to say speeds are improving in the United States, but there is growing evidence they are improving even faster overseas, especially in countries that are basing their primary telecommunication infrastructure on fiber optics, which can support enormously fast Internet speeds. As those fiber networks are lit, America will fall even faster in broadband rankings as long as cable operators continue to insist there is no demand or interest in the next generation of high-speed service. At the prices they charge, they may just prove their own “no demand”-argument, at least in this country.

Powell himself helped lay the foundation for America’s broadband duopoly by deregulating the industry with one hand while ignoring the need for competitive checks and balances with the other. At the end of Powell’s tenure, his greatest achievement was constructing an industry-friendly personal resumé to win lucrative employment as a telecommunications lobbyist.

Who better to speak with “authority” on telecommunications matters than a well-connected former FCC chairman that does the industry’s bidding? The NCTA hired him to deliver just the kind of defense cable operators hope Americans will believe.

Those that are aware of what broadband is like abroad don’t.

Greenlight, the broadband provider owned and operated by the city of Wilson, N.C. today announced that it will begin offering gigabit Internet connectivity services to its customers by this July.

“In January, the Federal Communications Commission issued a challenge to communities to provide gigabit service by 2015, and we’re proud to answer that challenge now. We are excited to launch our gigabit service and allow our customers to be the first in the state to experience such high speed Internet access,” said Will Aycock, general manager of Greenlight. “Ultra-high speed Internet will help position Wilson for the future and will provide our businesses and residents with the tools they need to succeed.”

In January, the Federal Communications Commission Chairman issued the “Gigabit City Challenge” which challenged providers to offer gigabit service in at least one community in each state by 2015. Gigabit services are approximately 100 times faster than average high-speed Internet connections.

Greenlight was formed in 2008 to offer an independent, locally owned and operated option for television, telephone and Internet broadband connectivity for Wilson residents. Since then, Greenlight has grown to offer services to more than 6,000 residential customers and businesses and the Wilson County School System. In addition, Greenlight provides free wireless Internet access throughout the downtown Wilson area.

The community-owned broadband provider far out-delivers broadband performance from competitors Time Warner Cable and AT&T. Neither the cable or telephone company was willing to upgrade service in Wilson so the city decided to launch its own public network and manage its broadband future itself.

Unfortunately, many cities in the Tar Heel State cannot follow Wilson’s lead. The state’s dominant commercial cable and phone companies lobbied the Republican-controlled legislature for legislation that makes it nearly impossible for other public broadband providers to emerge.

The gigabit option will become available this summer on the community’s fiber to the home network.