Still keeping their fingers on the pulse of West Virginia’s broadband.

The state of West Virginia has a money problem.

In 2009, the state applied for and won a $126 million federal Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program (BTOP) grant to expand broadband service in a state plagued with some of the worst Internet access around. That grant will expire Jan. 31, without all of the money spent and equipment in place.

Whatever money is left unspent will be returned to the federal treasury and lost for good. That represents the absolute worst-case nightmare scenario for government officials loathe to leave money on the table. As a result, the state continues to hurry depleting the remaining grant funds before the clock runs out, even if it results in controversial spending decisions.

Last week, the chairman of the West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council openly admitted the state does not have a unified, coherent broadband deployment plan and has been running the broadband expansion effort on an ad hoc basis. That’s a big mistake in the eyes of Dan O’Hanlon, a retired Cabell County circuit judge who leads the Council.

It should not be this difficult. Ask virtually any consumer in rural West Virginia about what needs to be done and the answer is always the same: expand access in unserved areas and raise speeds for those who already have the service.

Unfortunately, $126 million of consumers’ tax dollars will be spent without really doing either.

The Obama Administration’s efforts to expand rural broadband came with lofty rhetoric, but far too often failed to directly address the problem. Consumers and small businesses want Internet access, and the local phone company simply won’t deliver it. Forget about cable broadband — most rural areas without Internet access are not served by any cable operator.

Phillip “Verizon and Frontier have built West Virginia’s taxpayer-funded broadband network in their own image” Dampier

That leaves the federal government in the position of trying to fund rural Internet connections in ways that don’t appear as blatant corporate welfare — paying off phone companies to provide service where they have simply refused for revenue and cost reasons. Competitors are also outraged at the precedent of directly subsidizing certain players but not others, and a lot of taxpayers might question why their tax dollars are going to the phone company.

As a result, the government has discovered a politically palatable alternative: throwing money at non-controversial “institutional” networks built to serve local governments, hospitals, public safety agencies, libraries, and schools. They also have political cover funding obscure “middle mile” networks that interconnect telecommunications company offices, but don’t directly serve any homes or businesses.

Since most people don’t understand the differences between these types of networks and the services they actually provide, broadband expansion projects offer politicians headache-free ribbon cutting ceremonies, applause, and positive publicity from local media reports that mistake institutional and middle mile networks with broadband finally coming to rural towns and villages. Long after the cartoon-sized ribbon-cutting scissors are put away, rural residents still find themselves stuck with dial-up or satellite fraudband.

Last week, the Joint Committee on Technology overseeing the BTOP grant learned the state lacks a plan to get the most broadband bang for the buck, despite hiring some big dollar Verizon subcontractor-consultants that are supposed to be experts at this kind of thing.

As Stop the Cap! reported in May, the state decided to spend $24 million of taxpayer money to buy 1,064 overpowered Cisco routers built (and priced) for big city university use. Imagine the surprise of rural schools and libraries when routers valued at $22,000 each arrived to serve a handful of concurrent users that would have been just as well-served with equipment you can find at Best Buy. Those routers were coincidentally supplied by a familiar vendor: Verizon Network Integration.

Two years later, more than 300 of those routers were in storage, unused. As of this week, 175 are still there.

This $22,000 router, paid for at taxpayer expense…

Two rural librarians in May told Stop the Cap! they were in a quandary over the equipment installed in their tiny libraries because they had no idea how to switch them on, much less maintain them over the long term. Even worse, both told us, they cannot begin to afford the ongoing monthly service fees that are required to participate in the new broadband network.

“We are getting a Hummer network on a Kia operating budget,” one librarian told Stop the Cap! last spring. “The network sounds great, but in our case we have to find the money to pay the bill to run it every month, and that money is hard to find in a library with five outdated public terminals.”

Seven months later and not a lot has changed.

“We have complained to our local leaders this has created more problems for us than it solved,” that same librarian, who could not use his name because of local politics, told Stop the Cap! “If you have worked in government or community service as long as I have, you cringe whenever you have one of these grants because you have to follow the federal government’s rules and you end up spending the money where it least needs to be spent.”

…will provide service for this rural library’s four public terminals. (Image: West Virginia Gazette)

Committee members echoed that sentiment, observing facilities are ending up with equipment they don’t know how to use or cannot afford because monthly service charges for upgraded broadband from Frontier Communications, the state’s largest phone company, are unaffordable.

One proposed solution to cut further taxpayer expense would be to sell the excess network capacity, deemed significant in many communities, to third party Internet Service Providers to directly resell to individual homes and businesses. After all, taxpayers are footing the bill for the $126 million grant that largely paid for the network and independent ISPs would help solve the problem of extending broadband to the unserved.

No deal. Frontier claims it is selling the project broadband access far below normal commercial rates, offering high capacity speeds at an unspecified “entry-level” price. Allowing third party companies to resell that service would put independent ISPs in direct competition with Frontier.

Unfortunately, well-intentioned members the West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council, the Joint Committee on Technology, and other government officials are in over their heads and increasingly appear captive to the design, recommendations, and implementation of a network plan heavily influenced by high-paid Verizon consultants and implemented on a broadband network owned and operated by Frontier Communications.

That left Gale Given, the state’s chief technology officer claiming critics of earlier spending decisions were engaged in “second guessing.” With the expensive routers mostly already in place, Given offered it was better for schools and other institutions to have more capacity than they need now so they won’t be hamstrung if they ever want to expand.

“Only one problem: Ms. Given assumes we can afford to turn the key on the network they are building us now,” said one librarian this week. “Only we can’t. Worrying about what we can do tomorrow is pointless when we can’t even afford to do it today.”

Time Warner’s maze of explanations and excuses still don’t add up.

Instead of waiting for the outcome of a class action case against Time Warner Cable’s new $3.95 monthly modem fee, readers might do better taking their case direct to the company. Longtime Stop the Cap! reader “PreventCAPS” rattled the cages of Time Warner’s social media customer service representatives, which resulted in credits worth six months of modem rental fees.

Our reader tells us he brought pointed questions about the modem fee, complaints about the inconsistent reasons for imposing them, and irritation about the lack of notification.

Some Q&A:

Q. Why is Time Warner Cable now charging a modem fee? Earlier reports that the fee would cover the cost of equipment do not make sense because the company is not automatically supplying customers with new cable modems and already assesses $24-150 penalty fees to “cover costs” of damaged or unreturned cable modems. 

A. Time Warner Cable now says the fee is to cover the costs of increasing broadband speeds. A representative explained that the company wants to make sure everyone can be assured of getting the speeds advertised, and there are still customers with DOCSIS 1x equipment that can only support broadband speeds up to 9Mbps, which already conflicts with the company’s advertised 10Mbps Standard Service speed (soon to be 15Mbps).

Our Take: DOCSIS 1x equipment was recalled from western New York customers years ago. It was first introduced locally in 1998 and is long past its expiry date. It is a safe bet only a very tiny percentage of Time Warner customers still have first generation equipment. The overwhelming majority of current broadband customers have DOCSIS 2 modems, many installed years earlier. Those customers will keep that equipment for years to come unless they choose to upgrade to 30/5Mbps speeds or higher because a DOCSIS 3 modem is required for faster speeds. Our reader pointedly asked if the new modem fee guarantees every customer will receive the newest equipment and increased service. The answer in response was “no.”

These phony explanations and justifications tapdance around the reality this modem fee is being introduced as a revenue enhancer — nothing more, nothing less.

Customers are not buying this!

Q. Why is the list of supported DOCSIS 3.0 modems so thin and limited?

A. The representative speculated the reason Time Warner Cable so heavily favored Motorola equipment came from contractual support agreements and guarantee obligations with that company. But the representative claimed Time Warner Cable “will activate and support any modem model they currently lease to customers.”

Our Take: This claim represents a new development, but one unlikely to prove consistent across the country. Time Warner Cable’s national call centers have employees currently trained to activate and support only those modems on the approved list. However, local technical support and “Tier 3” agents inside of local offices seem to have a more flexible attitude about accepting other equipment. This is a classic case of “your results may vary.”

Q. Why are there modem fees for Internet service but no modem fee if I use the exact same equipment for my Time Warner Cable phone service.

A. The representative claimed it has to do with Federal Communications Commission rules governing phone equipment.

Our Take: We are not certain what rules would apply in this case, but it is possible the company’s lawyers found some “exposure” if Time Warner began charging the fee for phone service equipment. Again, we suspect the fee applies to broadband primarily because it is the service customers are least-likely to cancel over a price hike. Phone service is more tenuous. Increase the price and disconnect requests are likely to rise.

Q. Why are these fees being instituted to “cover costs” when records show capital expenses for Internet service (and cable modem equipment) have dropped for the past three years in a row?

A. The representative claimed that capital costs don’t cover cable modems.

Our Take: That answer is completely inaccurate. Nice try. Stop the Cap! earlier reported that capital expenditures for customer premise equipment dropped for the last three years in a row. For the benefit of readers (and Time Warner Cable), here is the company’s own definition of that equipment¹:

“Such equipment includes digital (including high-definition) set-top boxes, remote controls, high-speed data modems (including wireless), telephone modems and the costs of installing such new equipment.”

 ¹- Time Warner Cable 2011 Annual Report, “TWC’s capital expenditures,” p.60

The Charleston Gazette

While the eastern seaboard begins to assess the damage of several feet of water invading New Jersey and New York, West Virginia continues to contend with several feet of heavy snow left by Hurricane Sandy. More than 8,400 customers and climbing have reported service outages to the state’s largest phone company — Frontier Communications, which has crews contending with storm-damaged infrastructure ranging from widespread power outages to downed trees and utility lines.

Although parts of the state anticipated heavy snows from Sandy, cities further south including Charleston were unprepared for the wallop of wet, heavy snow that was expected to remain further to the north. Sandy’s heaviest precipitation bands were on the west side of the storm — bad news as far west as central Ohio and Kentucky. While temperatures remained in the 50’s further north, the cold core of Sandy resulted in precipitation falling largely as snow in the Appalachians.

As of noon, more than 200,000 homes in the state remain without power, which also impacts Frontier Communications’ operations.

Sandy knocked out power to at least 32 of the company’s 230 central offices in West Virginia, but the company reports all but three are still running with the assistance of backup generators — some acquired after last summer’s derecho, which knocked out power at half of Frontier’s switching offices.

Frontier says it is trying to get the remaining three switches back in operation, but some remote locations remain inaccessible because of poor roads and downed trees. Tucker County is reportedly among the most difficult to reach.

West Virginia’s Panhandle region has an estimated 1,000 customers without Internet service as of yesterday, particularly in hard-hit Jefferson, Berkeley, and Morgan counties.

Although customers may find their landline phone service working, broadband service could be more intermittent because of power outages affecting remote terminals that help extend service into rural locations. Those are vulnerable to electricity interruptions which Frontier’s Dan Page reports are widespread across the state, with the exception of the Wheeling area.

Frontier won’t say how many customers in West Virginia are currently without service, but noted many will have to wait until power restoration efforts are complete. Frontier’s crews have secondary priority and will repair services after electric service crews move on.

The storm impacted Frontier customers all the way west to Indiana, where fewer than 1,000 customers were without service in the Terre Haute area.

Any customer experiencing trouble with their phone or Internet should call Frontier at 1-877-462-8188, option 2 to request repair (or 1-800-921-8101). Repair technicians are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Hurricane Sandy’s destructive forces of wind and water, combined with extensive electrical outages has wreaked havoc with telecommunications services from Maine to Virginia, leaving some customers potentially without service for weeks.

The storm has flooded Verizon‘s central switching offices in New York City, did extensive damage to Sprint’s wireless network and infrastructure, has left large sections of upstate and downstate New York without cable service, and clocks ticking for wireless cell customers using cell sites currently running on battery backup power.

Some of the worst problems are affecting Verizon’s landline and FiOS networks after the company lost two critical switching centers in Manhattan to extensive flooding. That has contributed to significant problems for Verizon customers across Manhattan, Queens, and Long Island. Further afield, Verizon customers without service can blame power outages and fallen trees that took out overhead wiring. Together, Verizon customers are experiencing significant problems with landline, broadband, and FiOS TV and Internet services in some areas.

Many Verizon Wireless cell sites are operating on battery backup units which maintain service for only a limited time. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut customers report increasing difficulty maintaining cell service signals as those battery backup units start to fail. Verizon engineering crews can restore undamaged cell sites with backup generators once permitted into storm-ravaged areas.

One of the hardest hit wireless carriers

Cablevision‘s business largely depends on areas that took a direct hit from Hurricane Sandy. Cablevision repair crews are encountering extensive power outages and damaged overhead wiring brought down during the storm in Connecticut and Long Island. Its service area closer to New York City has been primarily affected by power outages. Comcast said it was still starting an assessment process and was not prepared to report on the current state of its network, which operates in cities north and south of the New York City metro area.

While Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley reports little damage to Time Warner Cable’s systems, many remain offline from power interruptions, and Time Warner’s Twitter feed for upstate New York reports isolated outages in Portland, Maine and across upstate New York, primarily due to power losses or damage to infrastructure.

Sprint appears to be the hardest hit wireless carrier with widespread service outages, interruptions and call completion issues throughout the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, Maryland, North Virginia and New England. Some customers far away from the worst-hit areas report trouble making and receiving calls on Sprint’s network. Many cell sites are also damaged.

AT&T is assessing damage to its landline operations in Connecticut, where it is the dominant phone company. Many AT&T cell phone sites, like Verizon, are operating on battery backup in power outage areas until AT&T can bring generators online to maintain service.

T-Mobile and MetroPCS report damage and service outages to their cellular networks as well, mostly from power outages.

Lyndhurst, NJ

Even old style communications networks were not spared from Hurricane Sandy. The Northeast Radio Watch reports a large number of broadcasters across the region off the air as of this morning:

• Outside of WOR (710), most New York City area AM stations are off the air. WOR survived the storm with its recently built three tower site located just above the flood waters. Chief engineer Tom Ray told NERW the water is 10 feet deep at WOR’s transmitter site in the Meadowlands. Many AM stations in New York favor transmitter locations in now-ravaged Lyndhurst and the Meadowlands. The result: indefinite absence of all-news WINS (1010) (it’s now back up — thanks to an update from Scott Fybush), which is now being heard on WXRK (92.3). Also missing: WLIB (1190), WSNR (620), WMCA (570), WNYC (820), WPAT (930), WNYM (970), WADO (1280) and WWRV (1330). FM outlets favor much higher transmitter locations, usually atop large skyscrapers, that escaped flood damage.
• WABC continues to air the audio portion of its broadcast on WEPN-AM (1050) and FM (98.7) for the benefit of those without power. WCBS studios are currently powered “by candlelight.”
• The Jersey shore’s FM outlets are mostly silent. Atlantic City was among the hardest hit, and some stations may be off the air for some time while rebuilding.
• Connecticut stations are also off the air. Powerhouse WICC (600) in Bridgeport has transmitters on Long Island Sound — a poor choice to withstand Sandy. It is likely underwater. Also gone: WGCH (1490 Greenwich), WAXB (850 Ridgefield) and WSHU (1260 Westport) and WALK-FM (97.5 Patchogue).

Repair crews for all concerned will likely only start assessing damage later today, but many will have to wait for power crews to complete work — they have first priority. Those lucky enough to see service restoration once power returns will be in far better shape than others who could wait weeks to get their Internet, television and phone service back.

Correction: Original story included reference to studio power knocked out at WOR-TV. That should have said WOR-AM (radio). 

Cohen

Comcast’s chief lobbyist stalled plans to unveil cheaper Internet service for the financially disadvantaged to use as bait to win regulator approval of its 2009 merger with NBC-Universal.

The Washington Post today reports David Cohen’s influence at the cable operator as its chief of lobbying has helped the cable company achieve its status as America’s largest cable operator and entertainment conglomerate.

Cohen has friends in high places thanks to his status as a Democratic Party money bundler. A self-styled “consigliere” to the Roberts family that controls the company, Cohen has overseen a transformation of Comcast from one cable operator among many into a high-powered force not to reckoned with in Washington or Silicon Valley.

Comcast’s growth into a mega-corporation with $58 billion in annual revenues came, in part, from dealmaking that won regulator approval in D.C. Maintaining good relations with those regulators is a Cohen specialty. It did not take the Post too long to find former FCC officials giving Cohen high praise:

• “Every meeting with David is incredibly substantive,” Eddie Lazarus, former chief of staff to the FCC told the newspaper. “He always comes with a willingness to find solutions.”
• “David loves politics, he loves government and he has incredible situational awareness — a 360-degree view of business,” said Blair Levin, a former senior adviser to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “He’s just so good at what he does.”

Under Cohen’s leadership, Comcast has spent lavishly on its corporate lobbying and legal team. Today, 20 full time lobbyists work under Cohen’s direction, with dozens of others available on retainer. The company spent $8.3 million of its subscribers’ money solely on lobbying. The Post reports that makes Comcast the ninth biggest K Street spender, above Verizon.

The poor and disadvantaged had to wait for Comcast to seal the deal on their $30 billion acquisition of NBC-Universal before affordable Internet could become reality for them.

In 2009, Comcast insiders were hard at work on a discount program for the disadvantaged who could not afford Comcast’s regular prices for broadband service. But the program was stalled at the direction of Cohen, who wanted it to be a chip with regulators to win approval of its acquisition of NBC-Universal. The program, sure to be popular among advocates of the digitally disadvantaged, was a key part of approving the $30 billion deal.

“I held back because I knew it may be the type of voluntary commitment that would be attractive to the chairman [of the FCC],” Cohen said in a recent interview.

Regulators promoted Comcast’s “concession” to offer the discounted Internet service as a win for consumers as part of the final approval of the deal. In reality, Comcast was planning to offer the service anyway and finally introduced it in 2011 — two years after first being proposed inside the company.

That fact is a slight embarrassment to current FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, who has told audiences the discounted Internet program was partly to his credit.

“This particular program came from our reviewing of the Comcast NBC-U transaction,” Genachowski said in a speech. “Comcast embraced it as good for the country, as well as good for business. And I’m fine with that.”

Cohen defends Comcast’s lobbying expense as part of the company’s effort to combat scrutiny and challenges to its all-or-nothing video business model, denying customers access to a-la-carte programming.

Comcast’s scope has now grown so large, it has become a force few companies are willing to challenge, and those that try are quick to run into a blockade of Comcast lawyers, lobbyists, and carefully constructed contracts that protect the company’s bottom line from would-be competitors.

Deep pockets like Verizon, Apple, Netflix and Google have all tried… and failed to recast the cable television experience with on-demand programming, a-la-carte channels, and cord-cutting technology.

In response, Comcast has kept competitors tied down to the same cable packages that require subscribers to pay for everything, even if they seek only a few channels. Comcast leverages its broadband network with usage limits that effectively curtail cord-cutting among consumers looking to skip the TV package. Anyone seeking a place in today’s entertainment industry ends up dealing with Comcast sooner or later.

“They are hugely important because they can singlehandedly sink or swim multiple businesses that rely on the Internet ecosystem by virtue of controlling the dissemination of information through their pipes and now by supplying so much of the content,” said Joel Kelsey, a policy director at consumer interest group Free Press. “So many companies have come to us and ask we fight their battles for them because they are afraid of retribution.”

Cohen is well-compensated for his effectiveness. His latest three-year contract makes him one of the highest paid corporate lobbyists in Washington, with a $15 million annual compensation package and $3 million in bonuses, not including his ample stock holdings in Comcast.

His influence extends to the highest levels of the Obama Administration. Last summer, the family hosted a $1.2 million campaign fundraiser for President Obama, and the Cohens have separately contributed $877,000 to various campaigns. Comcast itself has spent $3.3 million in campaign contributions so far this year.