Despite industry propaganda touting an “unlimited broadband future” (possibilities, that is, not an end to usage caps) and good sounding headlines about robust competition in the broadband market, the reality on the ground isn’t as rosy.

Americans looking for a better deal for broadband are largely stuck negotiating with the local cable company or putting up with less speed from the phone company to get a cheaper rate.

That is hardly the “success story” being pushed by the Mother of All Broadband Astroturf Front Groups, Broadband for America. BfA, backed by money from some of America’s largest telecom companies calls today’s marketplace “dynamic” and “rapidly changing.” For them, competition is not the problem, the way we define competition is.

Tell that to San Jose Mercury News columnist Troy Wolverton, whose dynamic and rapidly changing Comcast cable bill has now reached $144 a month, and threatens to go higher still when his two-year contract expires.

Wolverton is a case study of what an average American consumer goes through shopping around for broadband service. Despite assertions of a vibrant, competitive Internet access paradise from groups like Broadband for America, Wolverton found very little real competition on the menu, despite being in the high tech heart of Silicon Valley.

Valley residents can typically choose between AT&T and Comcast, if they have any choice at all. Neither company offers a great deal for consumers.

Comcast offers faster speeds at considerably higher prices that can be reduced somewhat by signing up for a costly triple-play service. AT&T’s prices are lower, but its service is slower and is based on a technology that in my experience is less reliable.

So it goes for millions of Americans who face the same dilemma: take a higher-priced package from the cable company or settle for less from the phone company. With the exception of Verizon FiOS, most large telephone companies still rely on basic DSL service to deliver broadband. AT&T’s U-verse and CenturyLink’s Prism are both fiber to the neighborhood services that deliver somewhat faster speeds than traditional DSL, but also have to share bandwidth with television and traditional phone service, leaving them topped out at around 25Mbps.

Wolverton could not believe his only choices were Comcast and AT&T, so he visited the California Broadband Availability Map, one of the state projects earnestly trying to identify the available choices consumers have for broadband access. Despite California’s vast size, it quickly became apparent that even companies like AT&T and Comcast largely don’t deliver broadband outside of cities and suburbs. Several smaller, lesser-known providers emerged from the map that were open to Wolverton, which he explored with less-than-satisfying results:

In addition to Comcast and AT&T, it listed Etheric Networks, which offers a wireless Internet service directed at home users that’s based on Wi-Fi technology, and MegaPath, which offers Internet access through a variety of wired technologies, including DSL.

After further research I found that neither of those companies was a legitimate option. MegaPath can’t deliver residential service to my house that’s faster than 1.5 megabits per second. Etheric, which focuses on business customers, offers a service level with speeds of up to 22 megabits per second, but it costs a cool $400 a month.

Other non-options for Wolverton included the highly-rated Sonic.net, which in his neighborhood is entirely dependent on AT&T’s landlines for its DSL service. That was a no-go, after Wolverton discovered he would be stuck with 3-6Mbps service. Clearwire also offers service in greater San Jose, but not at his home in Willow Glen.

That left him back with AT&T and Comcast.

But that is not really a problem in the eyes of industry defenders like Jeffrey Eisenach, managing director and principal at Navigant Economics and an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School. Navigant is a “research group” that counts AT&T as one of its most important clients. The firm provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues cover for clients trying to sell their agenda. Navigant’s “experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.”

Eisenach goes all out for the broadband industry in his paper, “Theories of Broadband Competition,” which throws in everything but the kitchen sink to defend the status quo:

• The cost of broadband service is declining;
• The duopoly of cable and phone companies are still competing for customers and introducing new services;
• Competition can take the form of provider innovation (ie. providers compete by offering a better services, not lower prices);
• Wireless competition is accelerating, citing LightSquared and Clearwire as two conclusive examples of competition at work;
• The cost of service on a per-megabit basis has declined.
• Competition in today’s broadband market delivers ancillary benefits not immediately evident when only considering the customer’s point of view;

Eisenach’s pricing proof stopped in 2009, just as cable providers like Time Warner Cable began raising broadband prices. TWC’s Landel Hobbs to investors: “We have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data.” (February, 2010)

Eisenach has appeared at various industry-sponsored evidence touting his views of broadband economics and competition that later turns up as headline news on Broadband for America’s website. But just as Wolverton’s initial optimism finding other choices for broadband faded with reality, so do Eisenach’s conclusions:

1. Eisenach’s evidence of broadband price declines stops in 2009, coincidentally just prior to the recent phenomena of cable broadband rate increases, which have accelerated in the past three years;
2. Competition still exists in urban and suburban markets, as long as phone companies attempt to stem the tide of landline losses, but it’s largely absent in rural markets and in decline in others where companies “reset” prices to match their cable competition. AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon’s FiOS both effectively ended their expansion, leaving large swaths of the country with “good enough for you” service. Cable operators have even teamed up with Verizon Wireless to cross-market their products — hardly evidence of a robustly competitive marketplace;
3. Innovation can take the form of services customers don’t actually want but are compelled to take because of bundled pricing or, worse, the decline in a-la-carte add-ons in favor of “one price for everything” models. Verizon Wireless set the stage for providers of all kinds to consider mandatory bundling for any product or service that can no longer deliver a suitable return on its own. For customers already taking every possible service or fastest speed, this pricing  may deliver lower prices at the outset, but for budget-focused consumers, compulsory packages or high prices on a-la-carte services assures them of a higher bill;
4. Eisenach’s examples of competition are a real mess. LightSquared is bankrupt and Clearwire has shown it cannot deliver an equivalent broadband experience for customers and throttles the speeds of those perceived to be using the service too much. Other wireless providers typically limit customer usage or cannot deliver speeds comparable to wired broadband;
5. While the cost per megabit may have declined in the past, cable providers are still raising prices, and as Google and community-owned providers have illustrated, delivering fast speeds should not cost customers nearly as much as providers continue to charge, with no incentive to cut prices in the absence of equally fast, competitive networks;
6. While broadband may open the door for additional economic benefits not immediately apparent, competitive broadband would further drive innovation and reduce pricing, delivering an even bigger bang for the buck.

Wolverton recognized taking a promotional offer from AT&T will temporarily deliver savings over what Comcast charges, but he would have to set his expectations lower if he switched:

I’m reluctant to switch to AT&T. [U-verse] Max Plus is the fastest level of service it offers at our house, but with a top speed of 18 megabits a second, it’s significantly slower than Comcast’s Blast. Speed matters to us, because my wife and I often share our Internet connection, and we frequently use it to transfer large files such as apps, videos, photos or songs to or from the Net.

[…] What’s more, as the FCC outlined in another recent report, Comcast does a better job of delivering the speeds it advertises than does AT&T.

What’s worse in my book is that AT&T’s U-verse’s Internet service is a version of DSL. It’s faster than regular DSL, because the copper wires in your house and neighborhood are connected to nearby high-speed fiber-optic cables. Even with that speed boost, though, I’m hesitant to go back to any kind of DSL service, because my wife and I suffered through years of unreliable DSL service from AT&T predecessor PacBell and then EarthLink, which piggybacked on AT&T’s lines.

Wolverton also objected to Comcast’s bundled pricing scheme, which delivers the best value to customers who sign up for broadband, television and phone service. Wolverton does not need a landline from AT&T or Comcast, and would like to drop the service. He’s not especially impressed with Comcast’s TV lineup (or pricing) either. But he noted if he switched to broadband-only service, Comcast would effectively penalize him with a broadband-only rate of $72 a month, exactly half the current cost of Comcast’s triple-play package.

In a later blog post, Wolverton confessed he liked Comcast’s broadband service and speeds, and with the carefully-crafted pricing the cable and phone companies have developed, he expected to remain a Comcast customer given his choices and pricing options, which are simply not enough.

Time Warner Cable has been mailing offers to broadband-only customers offering free cable-TV service if they upgrade their Internet speeds to the company’s Ultimate 50/5Mbps tier, which currently sells for $99.95 a month in most markets.

The company began the promotion in early summer, but targeted broadband-only customers already upgraded to Turbo or Extreme speeds. Now it is available to any Time Warner broadband-0nly customer.

Customers can choose between two levels of service:

• $99.99 a month for 12 months: 50/5Mbps Internet service plus “Digital Essentials” TV, which includes local stations and around 40 additional cable networks;
• $139.99 a month for 12 months: 50/5Mbps Internet service plus “Digital TV,” which includes over 200 television channels and free HD DVR service for 6 months.

Time Warner Cable has regularly targeted its Internet-only customers with promotions to entice them to upgrade to television and phone service, typically marketing a discounted triple play package. This is the first time the company has sought to get broadband customers to upgrade to its most costly Internet tier by throwing in television service as an added incentive.

The company tells customers the deal will improve their online video experience and reduce potential problems when multiple members of a household access Internet services at the same time.

Thousands of customers across northeast Massachusetts from Tewksbury to Rockport have been without Internet and phone service since early Monday after a mattress being used by a homeless man caught fire adjacent to Verizon’s copper and fiber optic cables on a bridge that crosses the Merrimack River.

”Your communications services may have been interrupted due to a fire in Lawrence that damaged a major cable providing service to your community,” Verizon’s dispatch manager Donna Powers wrote in letters sent to officials in the affected communities.

The outages are impacting communities including Gloucester, Manchester, Rockport, Essex, Littleton, Lawrence, Andover, North Andover and Tewksbury, and points in-between.

With high-capacity fiber circuits out of action, regional calls and certain Internet services were disrupted. Verizon is giving priority to restoring network operational and surveillance circuits, high-capacity fiber backbone circuits, and 911.

Verizon will not give a time frame when it expects to fully restore service, although the company indicated it is now rotating crews continuously to restore service to individual homes and businesses in the Lawrence and North Andover areas.

Lawrence Fire Chief Jack Bergeron said the problem started with a lit cigarette disposed on a vagrant’s mattress, which was on fire by the time firefighters arrived on scene. The mattress was on top of conduits that contained the copper and fiber cables, despite signs marked “danger” and “high-voltage.”

With no redundant backup facilities, a major outage can leave customers without service for days until repairs are completed.

In a new twist, Comcast has announced rate increases for cable television that are roughly at the rate of inflation (2.3%) — the lowest rate increase for the company since 2001 — but is also hiking rates for Internet service at a substantially higher rate.

The company claims the Internet rate increase is partly due to the increased number of channels on its cable systems in Oregon and southwest Washington, as well as the cost to launch new interactive applications and multi-platform content that customers want and value.

Comcast’s rate increase for video represents the new reality for the cable business — companies continue with 7%+ increases in cable TV rates at the risk of cord cutting, analysts say. With cable television packages increasingly seen as ripe for cutting as they grow more expensive, cable operators are turning to broadband — a service customers can’t live without — to make up the difference.

Comcast had not touched broadband rates in the Pacific Northwest for seven years, until the company began hiking them in 2011. Monthly rates for the popular “Performance” Internet service (15Mbps) are going up again this year, from $48.95 to $51.95, according to The Oregonian. Prices are higher for standalone broadband service. Comcast’s Digital Starter TV package is increasing to $67.49 a month. Rates for customers on promotions will not  increase until those offers expire.

But some customers complain Comcast is now charging nearly $200 a month for its triple-play package.

One customer told the newspaper after his introductory triple play promotion expired, the bill rose to $190 a month for phone, Internet, and cable service with two DVR boxes. The customer does not have any premium movie channels.

The Oregonian has tracked Comcast’s rates in the Pacific Northwest for almost a decade. The staircase of climbing prices for cable television is leveling off as Comcast makes up the difference from its Internet rates.

The newspaper noted Frontier Communications, which provides competition for Comcast in the suburbs of Portland, has given Comcast only a slight headache.

Frontier continues to offer its barely-advertised FiOS television package for around $65 a month, but customer complaints about Frontier’s service in the area have been reflected by Comcast’s growing subscriber numbers.

One Oregonian reader summed up his feelings about Frontier:

Frontier was atrocious. I don’t just mean bad, I mean an embarrassment to humanity […] which chimpanzees and dolphins laugh at us for putting up with. I’ve had Frontier service for a little over a year now only because there is nothing else where I live.

The nightmare started with them coming out hook up DSL at my new house, but instead of hooking me up, [they tore] out the demarc box on the house and left with it,  lost all records of ever having talked to me, much less scheduling an appointment.

After finally getting Internet service a week late, the original [service order] showed up leading them to bill me for multiple accounts, which took five months to  resolve. They never were able to prove to me I actually owed what I ultimately paid (I got them to within one bill’s worth of my calculated value and gave up).

Half of the time I’ve held off paying my bill until a day or two before the due date so it’s too late to mail a check and their online payment system is down, forcing me to call in my payment and pay a $3 service fee.

All of that is on top of the blatant theft of forcing customers who already own modems to pay a “modem rental fee” for a modem they aren’t renting.

Just in time for the forthcoming Democratic National Convention, Time Warner Cable has launched TWC Wi-Fi in uptown Charlotte and inside the convention venue — the Time Warner Cable Arena.  Republican House Speaker Thom Tillis, who has collected tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from large telecom companies, including Time Warner Cable, was on hand to help celebrate.

More than 90 hot spots around the city are being fired up, and during the convention (Aug. 27-Sept. 7) anyone will be able to connect for free.

Before and after the Democrats arrive in town, the network is available free only to paying Time Warner Cable customers with standard (10Mbps) Internet service or faster or customers with Business Class service. The cable company claims that covers the “vast majority” of its broadband customers.

Tillis

Most of the hotspots are in and around Center City, South End, Myers Park, Dilworth and Midtown.

Non-customers can purchase access at prices starting at $2.95 per hour.

Customers can connect using their Time Warner Cable e-mail address and password.

Based on comments from local residents, many are convinced the government shelled out the money for the service, or customers ultimately will with the next round of rate increases. In fact, this is Time Warner Cable’s attempt to boost subscriber loyalty by offering broadband while on the go.

No government money is financing this particular project, although several local and state officials were on hand to help cut the ribbon on the service, including the Republican Speaker of the House Thom Tillis, who earlier voted to block community-owned broadband in North Carolina. Tillis has deposited $37,000 in campaign contributions during the 2010-2011 cycle from large telecom companies including Time Warner Cable, despite running unopposed.