One of the rural groups fighting to keep funding for rural broadband networks.

The Republican platform on telecommunications and its criticism of the Obama Administration’s handling of broadband inspired a blogger at the Washington Post to ponder the question, “Whatever happened to Obama’s goal of universal broadband access?”

Brad Plumer sees the Republican criticism as valid, at least on the surface:

Does anyone remember when the Obama administration promised to bring “true broadband [to] every community in America”? The Republican Party definitely does, and its 2012 platform criticizes the president for not making any progress on this pledge:

“The current Administration has been frozen in the past…. It inherited from the previous Republican Administration 95 percent coverage of the nation with broadband. It will leave office with no progress toward the goal of universal coverage—after spending $7.2 billion more. That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers.

So whatever happened to the Obama administration’s plan to expand broadband access, anyway? In one sense, the Republican critics are right. Universal broadband is still far from a reality. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s annual broadband report, released in August, there are still 19 million Americans who lack access to wired broadband. Only about 94 percent of households have broadband access. Obama hasn’t achieved his goal.

Stop the Cap! has been watching the rural broadband debate since the summer of 2008, and believes the failure to do better isn’t primarily the fault of Republicans or Democrats — it lies with the nation’s phone companies — particularly AT&T and Verizon. But both political parties, to different degrees, have helped and hindered along the way.

Plumer slightly misstates the commitment of the Obama Administration at the outset. The Obama-Biden Plan never promised to successfully complete universal broadband access in the United States. Here is their actual pledge (emphasis ours):

Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Work towards true broadband in every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives. America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access.

Big Phone Companies Struggle to Abandon Landlines in Rural America

The Obama-Biden Plan for broadband never promised you a rose garden. It simply promised the administration would get to work planting one.

By far, AT&T and Verizon Communications are the most culpable for leaving rural Americans without broadband service. Over the last four years, both companies have diverted investment away from their landline networks into wireless. AT&T has also spent millions lobbying state governments to free itself from the requirement of serving as “the carrier of last resort,” a critical matter for rural landline customers, particularly because rural wireless coverage remains lacking.

In most states, the dominant phone company is still mandated to provide basic telephone service to every customer who wants it. Universal electric and telephone service goes all the way back to the Roosevelt Administration, who saw both as essential to the rural economy.

The Communications Act of 1934 that the Republicans today dismiss as outdated established the concept of universal telephone service: “making available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”

The concept of universal service was reaffirmed, with the blessing of the telephone companies, under the sweeping deregulation of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996. Republicans call that law outdated as well.

Rural America Can’t Win Better Broadband If Their Providers Don’t Play

Decided not to participate in rural broadband funding programs.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) with $7.2 billion to expand access to broadband services in the United States. Of those funds, the Act provided $4.7 billion to NTIA to support the deployment of broadband infrastructure, enhance and expand public computer centers, encourage sustainable adoption of broadband service, and develop and maintain a nationwide public map of broadband service capability and availability.

This first round of serious broadband stimulus was designed to help defray the costs of bringing broadband to rural areas where “return on investment” formulas used by large phone companies deemed them insufficiently profitable to service.

Remarkably, America’s largest phone companies declined to participate. In March 2009, AT&T and Verizon delivered their response to the Obama Administration through Bloomberg News:

Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. may have this response to the U.S. government’s offer of $7.2 billion for high-speed Internet projects: Keep it.

Unlike the businesses that welcomed the $787 billion stimulus package approved by Congress last month, the two biggest U.S. phone companies have reservations. They’re urging the government not to help other companies compete with them through broadband grants or to set new conditions on how Internet access should be provided.

The companies have remained noncommittal as they lobby to shape rules for the grants.

“We do not have our hand out seeking government funds,” James Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president, told reporters March 11. While the company is “open to considering things that might help the economy and might help our customers at the same time,” he said AT&T’s primary focus for broadband is its own investment program.

Also declined to participate.

AT&T’s own financial reports illustrate its “investment program” was largely focused on its wireless services division, not rural broadband. Many other phone companies filed objections to projects they deemed invasive to their service areas, whether they actually provided broadband in those places or not.

When the final NTIA grant recipients were announced, the overwhelming majority were middle-mile or institutional broadband networks that would not provide broadband to any home or business.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service managed the rest of the broadband grants and loans, and the majority went to exceptionally rural telephone companies, co-ops, and tribal telecommunications. AT&T did participate in one aspect of broadband stimulus — its legal team and lobbyists appealed to grant administrators to change the rules to be more flexible about how and where grant money was spent.

In the past year, both AT&T and Verizon have signaled their true intentions for rural landline service:

Verizon’s McAdam: Ready to pull the plug on rural landlines.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam: “In […] areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got [a wireless 4G] LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there,” McAdam said. “We are going to do it over wireless. So I am going to be really shrinking the amount of copper we have out there and then I can focus the investment on that to improve the performance of it.”

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson: “We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America?,” Stephenson told investors earlier this year. “And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid.”

More recently, Verizon has nearly disinherited its DSL service, making it more difficult to purchase (impossible in FiOS fiber to the home service areas). In states like West Virginia, it effectively slashed expansion and infrastructure investment as it prepared to exit the state, selling its network to Frontier Communications. AT&T has shown almost no interest expanding the coverage of its DSL service either. If you don’t have access to it today, you likely won’t tomorrow.

A good portion of the broadband stimulus funding provided by the government is actually in the form of low-interest, repayable loans. Despite rhetoric in the Republican platform about supporting public-private partnerships to expand rural broadband, the Republicans in Congress launched coordinated attacks on the Broadband Access Loan Program offered by the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service in the spring of 2011. Various right-wing pundits and pressure groups joined forces with several Republican members of Congress attempting to permanently de-fund the program, starting with $700 million in federally-backed loans in April, 2011. The loans were targeted to public and private rural telecommunications companies attempting to expand or introduce broadband service.

Attacks on the effectiveness of President Obama’s broadband campaign pledges in the Republican platform ring a little hollow when Republican lawmakers actively blocked the administration’s efforts to keep those promises.

Killing Community Broadband: Priority #1 for Providers With the Help of Corporate-Backed ALEC and State Politicians

AT&T’s Stephenson: Doesn’t have a solution for the rural broadband problem, so why try?

Stop the Cap! has repeatedly reported on the challenges of community broadband in the United States. Launched by towns and villages to provide quality broadband service in areas where larger companies have either underserved or delivered no service at all, publicly-owned broadband is often the only chance a community has to stay competitive in the digital age.

That goal is shared by the GOP’s platform, which states how important it is to connect “rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

Unfortunately, unless your local phone or cable company is providing the service, all too often they would prefer communities continue to receive no service at all.

AT&T is among the most aggressive phone companies lobbying state officials, often through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to pass state laws hindering or banning community broadband development. ALEC supporters, overwhelmingly Republican, accept company-drafted legislation as their own and introduce it in state legislatures, hoping it will become law. Generous campaign contributions often follow.

In the past few years, AT&T and Time Warner Cable have been especially active in broadband backwater states like North and South Carolina and Georgia, where rural counties often receive nothing more than DSL service at speeds that no longer qualify as “broadband” under the Obama Administration’s National Broadband Plan. In North Carolina, Democratic state politicians well funded by Time Warner Cable helped push bills forward, but it took a Republican takeover of the North Carolina legislature to finally get those laws enacted. South Carolina presented fewer challenges for state lawmakers, despite protests from communities across the state bypassed by AT&T and other phone companies.

The efforts to de-fund broadband stimulus and tie the hands of communities seeking their own broadband solutions have done considerable damage to the rural broadband expansion effort.

Universal Service Fund Reform: Not Much Help If America’s Largest Phone Companies Remain Uninterested

The Obama Administration has also kept its pledge to reform the Universal Service Fund, recreating it as the Connect America Fund (CAF) to help wire rural America.

Hopes for rural broadband drowned in the cement pond.

In its first phase of broadband funding, $300 million dollars became available to help subsidize the cost of rural broadband construction. Deemed a “mild stimulus” effort that would test the CAF’s grant mechanisms, only $115 million of the available funding was accepted by the nation’s phone companies — all independent providers like Frontier, FairPoint, CenturyLink, Windstream, and smaller players. Once again, both AT&T and Verizon refused to participate. There is no word yet on whether the two largest phone companies in the country will also effectively boycott the second round of funding, estimated to allocate over $1.8 billion to expand rural broadband.

“Getting to 100 percent is going to be a very difficult long-term goal, given the size of the U.S. landmass and the huge expense to reach those final couple of percentage points,” John Horrigan of the Joint Center Media and Technology Institute told Brad Plumer.

Politics and provider intransigence seem to be getting in the way just as much as America’s vast expanse. Many conservative and provider-backed groups have called America’s claimed 94% broadband availability rate a success story, and don’t see a need to fuss over the remaining six percent that cannot buy the service (and pointing to a larger number that don’t want the service at today’s prices).

Beyond the partisan obstructionism and middle mile/institutional network “successes” that ordinary consumers cannot access, the real issue remains the providers themselves. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

It seems as long as AT&T and Verizon treat their rural landline customers as hayseed relatives they (and Wall Street) could do without, the rural broadband picture for customers of AT&T and Verizon will remain bleak at current stimulus levels regardless of which party promises what in their respective platforms.

The AT&T Document Dump

On Friday, the tech-wireless media was in a frenzy over news one of AT&T’s law firms accidentally posted an un-censored copy of “highly confidential information” regarding its merger proposal with T-Mobile on the Federal Communications Commission website.  Although nobody seems to have a complete copy of the notorious filing to share (it was quickly pulled down after Wireless Week — an industry trade publication — blew the whistle), it turns out if you are willing to plow through AT&T’s periodic publicly-available document dumps, you don’t really need “top secret” information to realize how AT&T is trying to sucker America into accepting its competition-busting merger deal with T-Mobile USA.

What AT&T is Telling the FCC’s Lawyers But Hiding from You

As part of the approval process, the FCC sent AT&T a significant homework assignment, demanding answers to some detailed questions about the justification for the merger, how AT&T intends to use both its existing and newly-acquired wireless spectrum from both Qualcomm and, presumably, T-Mobile, and what specific plans the company has to expand its next generation wireless data network to rural America.

Last week, we learned from the unredacted filing that AT&T will pay $39 billion for T-Mobile to expand a 4G network that AT&T refused to spend $3.8 billion dollars to build themselves.  You read that right.  AT&T says it can expand its own 4G network to an additional 55 million people for just under $4 billion, or buy T-Mobile for nearly $40 billion to accomplish the same thing.

And what exactly does AT&T get from T-Mobile?  A largely urban network running a 4G network that goes nowhere near the 55 million largely rural Americans AT&T claims it intends to serve if the merger wins approval.

So scratch AT&T’s claim that the acquisition of T-Mobile’s network will do anything directly for the rural Americans T-Mobile never directly served.

AT&T’s biggest selling point is that its acquisition of T-Mobile will allow it to reach “97 percent of America” with its improved 4G network:

Because of the spectrum gains and the overall economic benefits resulting from the transaction, senior management made a business judgment that the merger with T-Mobile USA allowed AT&T to expand its LTE build-out to 97 percent of the population. These economic benefits include incremental reductions in cost due to the addition of T-Mobile USA resources, greater scale economies, such as higher volume discounts on handsets and equipment, a larger customer base, and the expectation of a higher take-rate for its LTE service. In addition, the transaction will enable AT&T to re-purpose its existing capital budget allocated to spectrum acquisitions to be allocated for other uses. Overall, the scale and scope of the larger combined wireless business will permit the additional capital investment to be spread over a larger revenue base than would be the case absent the merger.

But the unredacted, “highly confidential” part of the same document exposes important facts AT&T didn’t want the public to know:

“AT&T senior management concluded that, unless AT&T could find a way to expand its LTE footprint on a significantly more cost-effective basis, an LTE deployment to 80 percent of the U.S. population was the most that could be justified,” wrote AT&T counsel Richard Rosen.

In other words, by collecting T-Mobile customers’ monthly payments, AT&T can utilize that additional revenue, earned mostly from T-Mobile’s urban customer base, and use it to pay for rural cell sites the company itself won’t spend the money to upgrade to achieve that 97 percent coverage.

You can read between the lines of AT&T’s public statements and come to the same conclusion Rosen made confidentially, but it helps when the company’s own lawyer says it out loud.

Karl Bode from Broadband Reports thinks there is something familiar about that 97 percent figure.  It just so happens to be Verizon’s existing 3G coverage area.  Verizon pointed to their more robust 3G coverage in a major ad campaign that began just prior to the Christmas shopping season in 2009.  It did enough damage to bring AT&T to court in an effort to stop the ads, and reacquainted America with Luke Wilson, who threw postcards on a floor map touting AT&T’s more robust, but considerably less speedy, last-generation EDGE data network.

Verizon completed their expansive 3G network without the benefit of a merger and is in the process of building their 4G LTE network on their own as well — capable of eventually reaching the majority of Americans without taking out the fourth largest wireless carrier in the country.  AT&T, on the other hand, spent its time in court and handing Wilson more postcards to throw  instead of investing appropriately in its network over the last three years.

AT&T’s Document Dump: More than 1 Million Documents Bury FCC and Justice Lawyers

Another important revelation that doesn’t require the accidental disclosure of redacted data is the fact AT&T is burying government lawyers at both the FCC and Department of Justice in virtual paper.  The company admits to sending at least 1.2 million documents to Justice alone.  Reviewing AT&T’s filings with the FCC exposes the use of the old legal trick of burying your opponents in paper, hoping they will miss important documents that could call into question the veracity of the company’s arguments.

With the FCC, AT&T’s lawyers love to use appendices and attachments as virtual dumping grounds, adding copies of virtually any company document that contain “key words” or “search terms” in response to the Commission’s questions.

Take this Q&A exchange:

FCC Question: Provide all plans, analyses, and reports discussing: (a) spectrum requirements for all band segments; (b) the average data transmission speeds that the Company expects customers will be able to obtain; (c) actual and forecasted traffic and busy hour analyses, (d) total data tonnage; (e) capacity utilization rate; (f) vertically integrated operations; or (g) other technical or engineering factors required to attain any available cost savings or other efficiencies necessary to compete profitably in the sale or provision of any relevant product or any relevant service.

AT&T’s Answer: To respond to this request, AT&T conducted key word searches of custodian files as detailed in the tables appended as Exhibit A. Documents responsive to this request are included in AT&T’s production.

It’s the equivalent of putting the phrase “data transmission speeds” into a search engine and then attaching every document that appears in the results and calling it “your answer,” relevant or not.

AT&T used the same approach in answering the FCC’s questions about how the merger would specifically bring improved 4G service to areas without service today, what impact the merger will have on roaming agreements and wholesale access to the combined AT&T/T-Mobile network, and even in response to a basic question about plans for targeting particular competitors, customers, or customer segments after the merger.

Reality: AT&T Doesn’t Care About T-Mobile’s Network

So what else does AT&T win from a nearly $40 billion investment in T-Mobile?  While the leak of confidential information continues to be largely protected by a trade industry publication that has not released it publicly in full, anyone versed in telecommunications can easily find plenty in AT&T’s public documents.

The most important point is that AT&T admits, publicly,  it has not determined exactly what it intends to do with T-Mobile’s most important asset — its network:

• “AT&T, however, will not be in a position to make any final determinations until it is able to obtain more detailed information about T-Mobile USA’s operations, which will occur later in the acquisition process.”
• “AT&T has not yet begun detailed integration planning efforts.”

Would you spend $40 billion to buy a cellular service provider and not have the first clue what you would do with it?

But it gets even sillier.  AT&T doesn’t even know, several months after the merger was announced, exactly where T-Mobile’s cell towers are and what kind of backhaul connectivity they have:

AT&T has not yet begun detailed integration planning and its knowledge of T-Mobile USA’s operations is necessarily limited at this early stage. The actual process of determining which specific T-Mobile USA sites to integrate and which to decommission will require substantially more data from T-Mobile USA regarding its network as well as a more thorough engineering analysis of each area’s characteristics and capacity needs, which could change by the time the Transaction closes. Consequently, AT&T has not yet determined the exact number or location of T-Mobile USA towers or other locations used for transmission of signals that will be integrated into the combined company’s network to increase network density.

Because AT&T has not yet begun detailed integration planning and its knowledge of T-Mobile USA’s operation is necessarily limited at this early stage, AT&T does not have documents regarding the integration of the two companies’ switching facilities and backhaul.

These facts have made it impossible for AT&T to be responsive to specific questions from the FCC about the impact of acquiring and integrating T-Mobile’s operations into AT&T’s.  That left the company answering the Commission’s questions with statements like this:

Q. Provide all plans, analyses, and reports discussing any possible modification by the Merged Company of the terms, including prices, for providing backhaul for unaffiliated mobile wireless service providers to new or existing towers.

A. AT&T has not yet begun detailed integration planning, and its knowledge of T-Mobile USA’s operations is necessarily preliminary at this early stage. Any consideration regarding potential modification of terms and pricing for backhaul has not yet occurred. Thus, AT&T does not have any documents responsive to this request.

Good to know… or not know.

So if AT&T isn’t dwelling on the details of T-Mobile’s network, what do they expect to obtain from its purchase?

Here are AT&T’s “assumptions.”  That’s right, AT&T isn’t actually promising to do any of this.  It just “assumes” it will based on earlier planning — the same kind of planning that was supposed to deliver 4G upgrades without T-Mobile in the equation, until company executives changed their minds:

• Utilize the parties’ combined scale, spectrum, and other resources to extend AT&T’s deployment of LTE services to over 97% of the U.S. population, extending service to an additional 55 million Americans;
• Integrate AT&T’s and T-Mobile USA’s wireless networks, including:

1. Integrate T-Mobile USA cell sites into the AT&T wireless network, resulting in a more robust network grid;
2. Combine AT&T’s and T-Mobile USA’s GSM networks, eliminate redundant GSM control channels and maximize utilization efficiencies;
3. Combine AT&T’s and T-Mobile USA’s GSM spectrum holdings, resulting in channel pooling efficiencies and improved coverage;
4. Optimize usage of the parties’ combined spectrum holdings and deploy additional spectrum to support more spectrally efficient network technologies; and
5. Decommission redundant cell sites and reuse radios and other equipment from decommissioned sites to enhance network efficiency and performance.

• Make AT&T rate plans available to T-Mobile USA customers, while preserving rate plans for T-Mobile USA consumers who wish to maintain their existing plan of choice;
• Make AT&T services, smartphones, and other devices available to current T-Mobile USA customers;
• Integrate retail outlets, dealers, and marketing efforts under the AT&T brand;
• Integrate billing, customer care, and other support services;
• Integrate certain functional units, including, but not limited to human resources, general & administrative, information technology, finance, procurement, and legal.
• Achieve savings in network infrastructure investment and network and customer equipment purchases; and
• Achieve efficiencies in interconnection and transport costs.

During AT&T’s periodic communications with shareholders, the company has spent most of its time talking about cost savings made possible from closing redundant retail outlets, integrating networks, and the always-vague savings from job redundancies (read that major layoffs).  In fact, AT&T has said they will save up to $10 billion dollars in infrastructure expenses with the merger.  At the same time, its public relations efforts promise the company will spend a veritable fortune — up to $8 billion, improving AT&T’s own network.

You can be certain to the uninitiated, eight billion dollars sounds like a lot of money.  It’s a dollar amount that is sure to razzle-dazzle plenty of people.  That is, until you realize during the same period of time, T-Mobile itself would have been spending up to $18 billion of its own money upgrading its network.  Eighteen billion minus eight billion equals the aforementioned $10 billion — the savings AT&T will realize from continuing to under-spend on both its network and T-Mobile’s.

More Fun Facts: AT&T Cares More About Counting Your Usage Than Measuring Network Capacity & Utilization

Wading through AT&T’s filings has revealed another important fact pertinent to Stop the Cap! readers: AT&T obsesses about measuring your wireless data usage but doesn’t have much of a clue about how much network capacity it has at different cell sites, nor the utilization rates at those sites.  No wonder AT&T drops calls.  If the company isn’t carefully measuring network utilization at a granular level, it can’t hope to find overcongested sites that badly need upgrades to stop the problem of dropped calls and slow speed data:

AT&T does not maintain in the ordinary course of business a nationwide list of all CMAs where its individual network is underutilized. With regard to the areas where AT&T’s and T-Mobile USA’s networks may be underutilized relative to each other, AT&T does not have this information on a CMA by CMA basis, nor does AT&T have engineering data that would provide this granular information for T-Mobile USA.

Money - Better Earned Than Spent

However, when the opportunity to engage in highly-profitable Internet Overcharging exists, measuring customer usage takes a high priority, as we learn from AT&T in response to another question from the FCC:

The .csv file in Exhibit 19-1 contains current (as of March 11, 2011) data usage for each UMTS site (by USID) measured in kilobytes, during the monthly busy hour, and separately for the uplink and the downlink. The .csv file in Exhibit 19-2 contains current (as of March 11, 2011) data usage for each GSM site, measured in Erlangs, combined for the uplink and downlink, for the monthly busy hour. At the Commission’s request, AT&T also provides an estimate of GSM data usage in terms of Kilobytes, using a formula that converts Erlangs to Kilobytes. ll Both exhibits identify the CMA associated with each site. The .xlsx file in Exhibit 19-3 contains usage projections that are currently used by the network engineers for each of AT&T’s 27 regional clusters in the ordinary course of business.

AT&T doesn’t lose any money when it drops your call from an overcongested cell site (unless you grow weary enough of it to cancel service), but can lose plenty if it doesn’t measure customer data usage in hopes of limiting customer use or charging them an overlimit fee when they don’t.

AT&T’s Mother-of-all-Disclaimers: AT&T Has Not Verified It Has Produced All Requested Documents

The most flippant part of AT&T’s document dump is the revelation that despite the million plus documents thrown at two government agencies, AT&T isn’t willing to affirm it actually produced copies of the relevant documents the government wants as part of the review process.  In a host of disclaimers and AT&T’s own descriptions of how it defines the meaning of the government requests, the company notes:

Pursuant to discussions with the Commission staff, AT&T is submitting its Response consistent with the following qualifications:

• Custodian files were searched covering the period from January 1, 2009 through March 21, 2011, except for certain custodians, whose files were searched through early May, 2011.
• AT&T has not verified that it has produced “all other documents referred to in the document or attachments,” pursuant to instruction 4.
• AT&T has not searched backup disks and tapes for documents.

Nothing to slip through scrutiny there, right?

Phillip Dampier

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski recorded a YouTube video to talk to Americans about the development of a national broadband plan for the United States.

In optimistic, flowery language, Genachowski invited Americans to submit their ideas and suggestions not only regarding broadband, but also the priorities Americans think the FCC should have in the future.

The most important part of the five minute video comes right in the beginning when Genachowski called broadband critical to the nation:

“Broadband is our generation’s major infrastructure challenge. It’s for us what railroads, highways and electricity were to past generations.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Genachowski would do well to remember America’s experience with all three of these important history lessons.  The broadband plan Genachowski envisions is subject to the same type of intrusive, anti-consumer tactics that wreaked havoc on past generations of consumers.

The railroad industry’s cartel of ownership and control is a familiar tale.  The Rise of Monopolies tells the story:

The need for all of these industries to stay successful was worrisome for railroad owners. To avoid the loss of production in any of these areas, large corporations attempted to stabilize their situations by pooling markets and centralizing management. By combining all of the fields into one conglomeration, the railroads had a new power, as they acquired control of many facets of the new economy. This body now had the ability to “squeeze out competitors, force down prices paid for labor and raw materials, charge customers more and get special favors and treatments from National and State government” (Chalmers). The railroads had all the power, because they controlled all the prices. Since the new residents of the West could not survive without the use of the railroads, they were forced to pay whatever rates the railroad companies set.

With these huge stores of capital, the railroad companies were able to finance political campaigns through whatever and whomever was needed in government. With this control in Washington, there was no way to stop the overwhelming control of this industry over society. The entire nation was subject to the whims of this monopoly.

It took direct government intervention to break up the railroad monopoly and protect consumers and businesses from the abusive practices of a transportation industry that can make or break you based on pricing and service, with little competition.

Public highways became an important asset that still pays off today.  The Eisenhower Administration’s deployment of the interstate highway system, at the size and scope required, would not have been accomplished by the private sector on its own.  Today’s federal highway system is largely self sustaining through the collection of gasoline taxes paid by drivers.

As Americans struggle with several incumbent providers that refuse to provide 21st century broadband technology, with little competition to drive that infrastructure investment, an uneven variety of broadband networks have emerged, from fiber to the home in some areas to an indefinite reliance on aging DSL slow speed technology for millions of rural Americans, or worse, inadequate satellite broadband.

It may be time to consider the same kind of national approach with a publicly owned fiber network private providers of all kinds can use to serve customers with a uniformly high speed, high quality user experience.

Electricity and the development of rural America is another very familiar tale to any rural broadband user.  From TVA: Electricity for All:

Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation’s consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity.

The Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the people, then it was the duty of the government to do so. Most of the court cases involving TVA during the 1930s concerned the government’s involvement in the public utilities industry.

In 1935 the Rural Electric Administration (REA) was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley.

Many groups opposed the federal government’s involvement in developing and distributing electric power, especially utility companies, who believed that the government was unfairly competing with private enterprise. Some members of Congress who didn’t think the government should interfere with the economy, believed that TVA was a dangerous program that would bring the nation a step closer to socialism. Other people thought that farmers simply did not have the skills needed to manage local electric companies.

Any community wrestling with a municipal broadband project to provide service the private market refused to offer is already acquainted with this familiar story.  So are many rural consumers who are waiting, and waiting, and waiting, for the private market to bring broadband to their communities.  Unfortunately for them, the private market has already written them off as “not profitable enough” to provide service.

The electrification of America did not lead to a socialist takeover of America.  It led to the development and sustainability of rural communities and their local economies.  Agriculture remains one of America’s most important success stories, and without widespread electrification, this story might not have been written.

Scare tactics and horror stories have come whenever a private monopoly or cartel faces the threat of competition, regulation, or a municipal option to provide needed services communities are denied by the private sector.

The fear mongering was there when the railroad monopolies faced investigation and regulation, the “socialism” scare was heard when government attempted to undertake public infrastructure projects of many kinds from highways to utility service, and the same kinds of rhetoric is heard today about “socialist takeovers of the Internet” and “municipal broadband unfairly competes with private providers,” and the logical opposite “the government can’t do anything right.”

Unfortunately, the FCC has a long history of cozy relations with lobbyists who understand how to work within the agency’s nearly-impenetrable bureaucracy.  A review of the broadband plan submissions to the FCC reveals a large  number of them come from lobbying groups and the providers themselves.  Most consumers were left typing comments into a box on the web submission form, with every indication those remarks will be deemed “not serious” by FCC staff.

This time, Chairman Genachowski has to show more than a YouTube video inviting consumers to share their input.  We’d like actual evidence the consumer point of view is actually being taken seriously for a change, and is not simply one tiny noise drowned out in a loud crowd of special interests with profit agendas to protect and public policy to influence.  The FCC already knows what consumers want: widely available, fast, reasonably priced broadband free from Internet Overcharging schemes protected with robust Net Neutrality policies enforced by law.

If the existing providers want to erect roadblocks to competition, oversight, and hell-or-high-water-broadband-deployment, it’s time to break them up and get them out of the way.  That’s broadband we can believe in.

Daryl Kramp, MP for Prince Edward-Hastings, announcing broadband initiative in eastern Ontario

Daryl Kramp, Member of Parliament for Prince Edward-Hastings, on behalf of John Baird, Canada’s Transport and Infrastructure Minister, and the Honourable Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for Ontario, announced that the construction of a 21st century broadband network is a step closer in Eastern Ontario. The Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario have together set aside up to $110 million for the project.

“Our Government is delivering on investments that help create jobs and build sustainable communities,” said MP Kramp. “The construction of a broadband network in Eastern Ontario will help to expand and improve local businesses and their services, and significantly boost our regional economy.”

“Delivering broadband to Eastern Ontario is a critical infrastructure investment that will bring more industry to the region and create the jobs that will help our towns and rural communities prosper,” said Leona Dombrowsky, Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

“Today’s announcement marks a major step forward in helping to secure the future prosperity of Eastern Ontario. Having a high-speed, high-capacity broadband network is one of the most important assets that we can utilize to assist us in unlocking the ingenuity and creativity of our people and businesses. We are extremely grateful to both the federal and provincial governments for their tremendous financial support for this project,” said Ron Emond, Chair of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus.

The governments of Canada and Ontario will each set aside up to one-third of total eligible costs of the project, to a maximum contribution of $55 million. Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) Incorporated and private sector partners will provide the remaining funding, with EOWC Inc. contributing up to $10 million. The total eligible costs of this project are estimated to be $170 million.

Once completed, the network will provide broadband service to the residents and businesses in many of the counties of Eastern Ontario (Hastings, Peterborough, Renfrew, Northumberland, Haliburton, Frontenac, Lanark, Prince Edward, Lennox & Addington, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry, the United Counties of Prescott & Russell and the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville) as well as the City of Kawartha Lakes.

Many of these areas already have rudimentary broadband service in the form of DSL and limited cable television penetration, but many DSL accounts are speed limited to 1-3Mbps, which the EOWC has determined to be woefully inadequate for broadband applications of the near future.

Canada’s broadband initiatives outside of the most rural communities are starting to define the bare minimum network speed at 10Mbps for downloading if the network is to sustain viability in the future.  With a goal of reaching up to 95% of eastern Ontario with broadband service in the next four years, a variety of technologies are likely to be considered depending on the population being reached.  Those living in the most rural areas are likely to find wireless service the most viable option, delivered with a form of WiMax.  Rural enclaves or neighborhoods outside of community centers may continue to be served by DSL service for some time.  But those in suburban and more urban community centers should have access to advanced forms of DSL, fiber optics, or high speed wireless service.

Many public Wi-Fi “hotspots” will be established at community gathering points, accessible to visitors at no charge.

The Government of Canada’s 2009 Economic Action Plan is accelerating and expanding the existing federal investment of $33 billion in infrastructure across Canada with almost $12 billion in new infrastructure stimulus funding over the next two years.

Through the 2009 Ontario Budget – Confronting the Challenge: Building Our Economic Future – the province is investing $32.5 billion in infrastructure for the province of Ontario over the next two years, including a $5 billion contribution from the federal government that will support more than 300,000 jobs and strengthen Ontario’s economy.