The Cowardly Lion is back.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski believes he has a sound legal basis to implement Net Neutrality policies to protect Internet traffic from provider interference, but has stopped considerably short of implementing his own proposed enforcement mechanisms.

Genachowski outlined his ideas to implement Net Neutrality reform in brief remarks before the Commission this morning.

“Broadband providers have natural business incentives to leverage their position as gatekeepers to the Internet,” the text of the speech says. “The record in the proceeding we’ve run over the past year, as well as history, shows that there are real risks to the Internet’s continued freedom and openness.”

Genachowski praised the progress the Internet has managed to achieve over the past decade, and said his efforts would ensure that progress could continue with a minimum of regulation.  In that spirit, Genachowski announced he would not move that the Commission re-assert its legal authority to oversee broadband by a process to reclassify the service under Title II, which governs telecommunications services.

Comcast successfully sued for repeal of the Commission’s original authority, implemented by Bush FCC chairman Michael Powell, which classified broadband as “an information service.”  A DC Circuit Court discarded the legal basis for Powell’s regulatory authority in a sweeping victory for the cable giant, which was sued for throttling down speeds for broadband customers using peer to peer applications.

Genachowski argued he has “a sound legal basis” to pursue his latest vision of Net Neutrality rules in spite of the earlier court case.  But critics doubt that and charge that the FCC chairman has capitulated to America’s largest broadband providers, including Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

Genachowski's view of the Internet does not meet the realities consumers face without Net Neutrality protection assuring a free and open Internet.

“By not restoring the FCC’s authority, Chairman Genachowski is unnecessarily placing his Net Neutrality agenda, and indeed his entire broadband agenda, at risk,” said Free Press executive director Josh Silver.

Boiled down, Genachowski now seeks just two major principles governing provider behavior:

1. No censorship of content.
2. Full disclosure of network management techniques so consumers know what providers are doing to their broadband connections.

Consumer groups are furious that the chairman has apparently discarded many of Net Neutrality’s most important consumer protections, and accused him of caving in to lobbyist demands and abdicating his responsibility to oversee critical broadband infrastructure.

Marvin Ammori, a cyber-activist and public interest law professor said the proposal also fell well short of meeting President Barack Obama’s repeated promises to enact strong Net Neutrality policies.

“It’s make-believe Net Neutrality,” said Ammori, who called Genachowski’s proposals “garbage” and “meaningless gestures.”

Now off the table:

A ban on Internet Overcharging schemes that allow providers to limit, throttle, or overcharge consumers who use more than an arbitrary amount of Internet usage per month. This exposes home broadband users to the same kinds of bill shock that wireless customers already experience.

A ban on using “network management” to artificially slow or block traffic the provider — at its sole discretion — determines is “harmful” or “congests” their network. Under Genachowski’s new proposal, the definition of “harmful” could be made by an engineering department on technical grounds or in an executive suite as companies ponder their financial returns. So long as they manage traffic without “unreasonable discrimination,” it’s okay with the Commission.

Built-in loopholes guarantee providers need only set rates high enough to assure only “preferred partners” can afford the asking price, and that only their competitors meet the definition of “harmful” traffic worthy of speed throttling.  The proposal also reportedly only covers video and voice traffic on wireless networks.  It’s open season on everything else if you access the web from a smartphone or wireless broadband service.

Actual legal authority to implement any broadband reform policies. It was Julius Genachowski and the FCC’s General Counsel Austin C. Schlick that argued without asserting legal authority under Title II, nothing the Commission did could be assured of withstanding a court challenge.  Yet today the chairman now claims his legal team has found some legal precedents that somehow will keep his policies in force after inevitable lawsuits are filed.  Former FCC chairman Powell thought much the same thing about his own idea of reclassifying broadband as “an information service.”  The DC Court of Appeals thought otherwise, something Schlick knows personally, having fought the Comcast case before that court.  In the end, Schlick correctly guessed his case was a train wreck, and was reduced to asking the court for legal pointers about how to draft regulations that could survive a court challenge.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/The Third Way The Future of Internet Policy in America 5-2010.flv[/flv]

This “other” Julius Genachowski from May of this year delivered remarks that carried a very different tone about the importance of restoring legal authority to oversee broadband.  But that was before AT&T put him on their speed dial, successfully reaching him personally more than a half dozen times in the last few weeks to argue their point of view.  Consumers don’t have Julius Genachowski’s phone number.  (4 minutes)

In short, Genachowski’s proposals represent near-total victory for providers, and any cable or phone company annoyed with the few scraps still on the agenda need only file suit arguing the Commission lacks the authority to stick its nose into their business affairs.  Without Title II authority in place, that lawsuit is probably going to result in a favorable ruling putting us back where we are today — with no Net Neutrality protections.  But by then, the Internet will be a very different place, loaded with toll booths from content providers and your ISP, who may ask for extra money if you want to watch Netflix or download files.  Your speeds may be reduced at any time, to any level, if a provider deems you’ve over-consumed your traffic allowance for that day, week, or month.

Worse, some providers will dispatch bills with overlimit fees that could run into the hundreds of dollars (or more) for those with a family member who left a high bandwidth application running while running out the door to catch the school bus.

Providers and their well-paid lobbyists celebrate their victory over consumers' wallets

So long as providers agree to abuse everyone more or less equally (excepting their own “preferred partners” of course), Julius Genachowski believes the next ten years of America’s online experience can be as great as the last.

In his dreams.  As Public Justice attorney Paul Bland said about dealing with ruthless companies like AT&T, assuming providers will behave favorably towards consumers puts you on the candy bridge into Rainbow Land.

Even with Genachowski’s proposed reforms, diluted to be point of being homeopathic, Republicans were moving in for the kill this morning.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said she would work to topple any FCC-led Net Neutrality order.

“This is a hysterical reaction by the FCC to a hypothetical problem,” she said, adding that Genachowski “has little if any congressional support” for the action.

To overturn any order, Blackburn vowed to reintroduce her bill to prevent the FCC’s policy making process.

Robert McDowell, one of two Republican FCC commissioners, called the move to enact reforms a defiance against Congressional will.

“Minutes before midnight last night, Chairman Genachowski announced his intent to adopt sweeping regulations of Internet network management at the FCC’s open meeting on December 21. I strongly oppose this ill-advised maneuver. Such rules would upend three decades of bipartisan and international consensus that the Internet is best able to thrive in the absence of regulation,” McDowell said in a prepared statement.

All this is taking place at the same time Comcast has foreshadowed America’s future broadband experience: charging backbone provider Level 3 extra for sending Comcast customers online movies and TV shows, censored a blog run by one of its customers trying to get around Comcast’s unresponsive customer service agents, stifled innovation by independent cable modem manufacturer Zoom Modems, has achieved a fever pitch in lobbying Washington to hurry up and approve its colossal merger deal with NBC-Universal, and has a lobbying team convinced it can achieve victory on all fronts from a favorable incoming Congress.

If they and other broadband providers succeed, it’s time to get out your wallet and count your money before handing it over.  A consumer revolt is all that stands between your Internet experience today and an endless series of pay-walls and stifled speeds tomorrow.

GCI delivers unlimited downloads of customers' money.

GCI spokesman David Morris either does not know what his own company does to abuse its customers or he openly lied about it in statements to the media:

GCI said it hasn’t yet charged anyone fees for exceeding the data limits (some customers dispute this), but the company began contacting its heaviest data users this summer to move them to new, limited plans. The company is also upgrading Internet speed for its customers this year at no extra cost.

GCI said it hasn’t decided when to enforce the data limits on everyone else. The crackdown might not happen until next year, according to Morris.

Apparently Morris is living in a time warp, because “next year” is this year.

After our article earlier this morning, Stop the Cap! started receiving e-mail from angry GCI customers with bills showing outrageous overlimit fees running into the hundreds of dollars GCI claims they are not charging.

Our reader Steve in Alaska sums it up:

“GCI is a bad actor that abuses its customers with bait and switch broadband, baiting customers with expensive unlimited bundled plans and then switching them to limited plans with unjustified fees,” he writes. “A legal investigation exploring whether this company is violating consumer protection laws is required, especially after misrepresenting the nature of these overcharges in the Alaskan media through its spokesman.”

GCI is apparently iterating the credit card industry’s tricks and traps.

Our reader Scott’s latest broadband bill shows just how abusive GCI pricing can get:

GCI: the Grinch That Stole the Internet (click to enlarge)

Scott was floored by GCI’s Festival of Overcharging, which turned a $55 a month bill for broadband into nearly $200.  It exemplifies everything we’ve warned about over the past two years with these pricing schemes:

Well it finally happened, I got hit with GCI internet bill shock, $196.58 total for my 8Mbps plan with 25GB usage.

My usage prior to this has always been around 15-20GB/mo according to them — just the usual web surfing/e-mail with a little online gaming over the weekends (Eve Online) but not much.

Something ratcheted up my usage to nearly twice that (I did buy one game off Steam for digital delivery), which still would have been perfectly reasonable given the $75.00/mo plan I chose — that’s double what most people pay for unlimited in the lower 48 states. I only moved to this plan because their $135/mo bundle plan wasn’t affordable due to the required overpriced digital phone + taxes.

I tried calling their customer service and just got the company line about how expensive it was to provide their service, and I must have an open Wi-Fi router or “downloaded” too many YouTube videos, iTunes, or other content. He also stressed five or six times lots of customers go over their limits thanks to Netflix streaming and you really can’t use it with GCI Internet service.

To date I’ve never gotten a straight story from them on how this is managed, or from their marketing material which never mentioned overage until recently, or their reps that used to say you’d get a phone call to warn you if you went over their limits. The rep I spoke to most recently claims you’re supposed to call them daily or every other day – or login to a special portal online to monitor usage.

Either way this company has no sense of customer service, nor does it operate in the interest of Alaskan consumers that are cut off from the lower 48 and need reliable and affordable Internet services.

Stop the Cap! recommends making a copy of David Morris’ comments and notifying GCI you are not paying their overage fees because they are “obviously in error,” at least according to the company’s own spokesman.  Then get on the line with the State of Alaska’s Consumer Protection Unit and the Better Business Bureau and demand your overlimit fees be credited or refunded.  We’ve even got the complaint form started for you.  GCI values its A+ Better Business Bureau rating, so chances are very good they’ll take care of you to satisfactorily close the complaint.

GCI’s claims that with Internet usage limits, the company can deliver its customers faster speeds.  But Stop the Cap! argues those speeds are ultimately useless when GCI allows you to use as little as 3 percent of your service before those overlimit fees kick in.

A Broadband Reports reader ran the numbers before speed upgrades made them even worse:

GCI, an Alaskan Internet Service Provider, is getting pummeled by angry customers as they continue to learn the company has launched an Internet Overcharging scheme that limits their broadband use.  Some customer claim the company is actively trying to trick those previously enrolled in unlimited plans into limited service tiers with tantalizing “free speed upgrades.”

Stop the Cap! reader Thomas was one of more than a dozen readers who complained to the Anchorage Daily News about the broadband ripoff.

He is outraged by the bait and switch tactics employed by GCI that sold customers on expensive bundled service packages that promised “unlimited Internet” service the company is now trying to take away.

Thomas first learned GCI had slapped limits on his broadband account… from Stop the Cap! GCI never bothered to inform him, or many other customers, about the new usage limits.  After he read our earlier story, he called GCI and learned he was a victim of Internet Overcharging.

GCI’s limits range from 40-100GB on plans ranging in price from $45-105 per month.

GCI, like most Internet Overchargers, tries to blame its customers for the imposed limits.

GCI estimates that 5 percent of its Internet customers are consuming 70 percent of the company’s available bandwidth. These users share a portion of their Internet cable with other GCI customers, and they have been slowing down the other households’ Internet speed, GCI spokesman David Morris told the Anchorage newspaper.

In an effort to prove their contention that usage limits improve service, GCI handed out free speed upgrades along with usage allowances and attempted to conflate the two.

In reality, most broadband slowdowns come from overselling access and being unwilling to invest in appropriate capacity upgrades to meet the growing needs of customers.  For companies like GCI, imposing usage limits to scare users away from high bandwidth services is cheaper and more profitable than meeting customer demand.

“Most of the under-30 crowd that I know use Netflix and Hulu streaming services so we can watch what we want, when we want. Cable TV does not give us the flexibility we want,” Sean Hogan, an Anchorage accountant, told the newspaper.

“I’m getting charged $180 per month and I don’t even want the phone or cable,” said Mike White, an Anchorage customer who upgraded his data-usage plan recently because he was worried about violating GCI’s limits.

GCI claims its new limits allow customers to do many things they had no interest in doing under their old unlimited plans, like sending millions of e-mail messages or browsing tens of thousands of web pages.  To make the limits sound generous, they made a chart:

Of course, these limits ignore the reality customers do most or all of these things, and if they use their high speed connection to download files or watch the increasing amount of video content delivered in High Definition, they’ll blow through some of GCI’s limits with little effort.

Despite GCI’s claims of generosity, its customers think otherwise, and many are moving to curb their usage to avoid potential penalty fees or service termination the company could impose with enforcement of their caps:

Morris said that most of GCI’s customers will discover that their Internet usage is far below the new limits. Depending on the plan, the limits range between 50 and 125 gigabytes per month.

Chris Bruns, an Anchorage father and college student, isn’t so sure. “I’m in the high-30 (gigabyte) range every month,” he said.

GCI’s cheapest substitute for an unlimited plan is 40 gigabytes — the equivalent of downloading and watching 60 movies per month on your computer.

Bruns found out recently — after calling GCI to ask some questions about his family’s Internet speed and usage — that his previously unlimited plan, called Ultimate Xtreme, now had a 40 gigabyte ceiling.

“I was pretty miffed. It came as a surprise,” he said.

“When we signed up, we specifically got the unlimited plan because we knew we used it a lot,” he said.

He said he has since curbed the family’s Internet usage to be on the safe side. He said he and his wife regularly download movies for themselves and cartoons for their two children on Netflix to watch on their computer. Using Netflix is a way to keep the kids from seeing “garbage” on TV, Bruns said.

Ed Sniffen, a consumer-protection attorney in the Alaska Department of Law, may a victim of GCI’s bait and switch broadband himself.

Sniffen said he has had an unlimited-data plan with GCI and didn’t know on Tuesday afternoon whether he received a notice about the new policy. He said anyone who has a concern should contact the Law Department’s consumer-protection office.

The story in the newspaper prompted an enormous response — some 265 comments and counting.  A sampler:

GCI provides terrible service compared to companies in the lower 48 at exorbitant prices. They are a monopoly that needs to be tweaked.

GCI’s Network costs are FIXED. They are raping and pillaging us.

“GCI said it hasn’t yet charged anyone fees for exceeding the data limits…” — GCI lies. Just a few months ago I was charged nearly $100 for exceeding the bandwidth limit. Since then, I’ve upgraded my package to a ridiculous amount of bandwidth (at a ridiculous price) just so I can avoid that problem.

This is crazy. You go anywhere in the lower 48 and almost every Internet provider out there has some sort of unlimited plan, and it doesn’t involve payment with an arm, a leg, a kidney, or a first-born child. GCI needs to get this crap sorted out.

I got an offer to double my Internet speed and usage for a few bucks extra, and free cable (the good package, not the basic cable). Two months later, I still haven’t seen anyone show up to do anything, and I’m still getting charged out the tail end for overage charges. I keep requesting to up my Internet (I have a college student who takes some Internet classes) but they never do it. The only reasons I switched from ACS were because when it rained we had no phone OR internet (they said the problem was with our lines – our landlord at the time needed to fix it, but the contractor said it was ACS’s line problem – THEY needed to fix it.)  If there was another alternative to phone/Internet, I would so be there.

I was out and out LIED to by a GCI Rep. I was told if I changed my plan I would receive higher speeds with NO OTHER CHANGE for the same price. I questioned the GCI rep about this in detail several times before agreeing. The next day I no longer had unlimited downloads. I was LIED to and RIPPED OFF by GCI.

GCI’s statement that they have not charged overlimit charges is incorrect as over ten individuals that I know including myself have been hit with bills ranging from $300 to $2000 for one month of service.

Phillip "Darn, they didn't pick my essay" Dampier

Time Warner Cable paid $20,000 for a report that concludes, “policymakers not only need to focus on the oft-stated long-term goal of encouraging Fiber-To-The-Home but also on the more immediate need to bring fiber significantly closer to the customer.”

That declaration was included in one of five essays released this week by Time Warner Cable’s Research Program.  When we first wrote about this program in February, we were convinced that the resulting essays would parrot the cable company’s public policy agenda.  We were largely right, especially in those that delved into public policy matters.  They stayed safely inside the company’s policy boundaries.  Even those who focused on technical matters avoided directly challenging the company writing the check.

The cable company earlier announced it would pay $20,000 stipends to essayists that wrote research reports on these questions:

• How are broadband operators coping with the explosive growth in Internet traffic? Will proposed limits on network management practices impede innovation and threaten to undermine consumers’ enjoyment of the Internet?
• How can policymakers harmonize the objectives of preventing anticompetitive tactics and preserving flexibility to engage in beneficial forms of network management?
• Regarding these issues, describe a vision for the architecture of cable broadband networks that promotes and advances innovation for the future of digital communications.
• How might Internet regulations have an impact on underserved or disadvantaged populations?

The winners:

• Dale N. Hatfield, executive director, Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology and Entrepeneurship, University of Colorado, “The Challenge of Increasing Broadband Capacity.”
• John G. Palfrey, Jr., Henry N., Ess III professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “The Challenge of Developing Effective Public Policy on the Use of Social Media by Youth.”
• Nicole Turner-Lee, vice president and director, Media and Technology Institute, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, “The Challenge of Increasing Civic Engagement in the Digital Age.”
• Scott J. Wallsten, vice president for Research and Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Institute, “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.”
• Christopher S. Yoo, professor of Law & Communciations, University of Pennsylvania Law School, “The Challenge of New Patterns in Internet Usage.”

Among the reports were a few that echoed the cable industry’s public policy agenda, particularly Scott Wallsten’s policy essay, “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.” Wallsten is an industry favorite.  He works for the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten's essay parrots the cable industry's agenda

Wallsten argues worrying about residential broadband service is far less important than delivering broadband improvements to businesses to spur economic growth.  Part of the money to do that might come from raising residential broadband prices.  Wallsten points out consumers are willing to pay far more than they do today for their broadband accounts — up to $80 a month for today’s typical access speeds.  That’s music to an Internet Overcharger’s ears.

Wallsten’s essay hints that broadband expansion to the unserved, and Washington’s focus on broadband competition, might be misplaced if they are looking for the biggest economic bang for the buck.  His overall conclusion?  Worry about business broadband, not home residential use.

This is hardly new territory for Mr. Wallsten, who in 2007 wrote a piece warning of the perils of flat rate, unlimited use broadband pricing for the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute, both great friends of large industry players. Only this time, he got a nice chuck of change from Time Warner Cable ratepayers.

More remarkable was Dale Hatfield’s essay, “The Challenge of Increasing Broadband Capacity.” Unlike Mr. Wallsten’s cable industry public policy echo chamber, Hatfield tries to keep things technical, but also safely made sure he didn’t stray too far off Time Warner’s broadband plantation.

Hatfield discusses the challenges of different broadband technologies ranging from twisted-pair copper wiring that delivers DSL to cable’s hybrid coaxial-fiber networks and the latest generation wireless and fiber optic technologies.  Hatfield largely calls them as he sees them, noting DSL’s inherent distance limitations and maximum supportable speeds, cable’s potential for last-mile/neighborhood congestion, wireless spectrum inadequacy, and the promises fiber optics can bring to the broadband revolution if costs can be reduced.

Hatfield avoids embarrassing his benefactor too much by spending the least amount of time and space on the benefits fiber brings to the broadband expansion question:

The fourth technology, fiber optic cable, is generally regarded as the “gold standard” in terms of increasing broadband digital access capacity because of its enormous analog bandwidth and its immunity to natural and man-made forms of electrical noise and interference. The actual digital transmission rate delivered to or from a customer depends upon the details of the architecture employed, but the ultimate capacity is limited more by economic factors rather than by the inherent technical constraints on the underlying technology imposed by Shannon’s Law. In this regard, fiber optic cable is often referred to as being “future-proof” because the maximum digital transmission rates are governed more by the electronic equipment attached to the cable rather than by the actual fiber itself. It is future-proof in the sense that the capacity can be increased by upgrading the associated electronic equipment rather than by taking the more expensive step of replacing the fiber itself.

Hatfield

While Time Warner Cable does market itself as having an “Advanced Fiber Network,” it is, in reality using the same technology the cable industry has used for a decade — fiber distribution into individual towns and large neighborhoods, coaxial cable the rest of the way.  Hatfield believes that simply isn’t good enough:

[…]Both DSL and cable modem technology benefit from the shorter distances that are associated with a more dense deployment of their access nodes. This suggests the growing need to extend fiber optic cable capacity closer to the customer—either fixed or mobile—to minimize the distance between the customer and the access nodes.

Hatfield’s subtle conclusion is that broadband expansion is ultimately best served by delivering fiber-optic connections straight to the home, something Time Warner Cable has argued against and refused to provide for years, but has now paid $20,000 to put on their website:

[…]Policymakers not only need to focus on the oft-stated long-term goal of encouraging FTTH but also on the more immediate need to bring fiber significantly closer to the customer to support a vastly increased number of access nodes. This is particularly important in the wireless case, where the capacity added through frequency reuse is critical to facilitating wireless competition with the two major suppliers of fixed broadband capacity—the incumbent telephone and cable television companies.

EPB’s new 1Gbps municipal broadband service is causing some serious embarrassment to the telecom industry.  Since last week’s unveiling, several “dollar-a-holler” telecom-funded front groups and trade publications friendly to the industry have come forward to dismiss the service as “too expensive,” delivering speeds nobody wants, and out of touch with the market.

The “Information Technology and Innovation Federation,” which has historically supported the agenda of big telecom companies, has been particularly noisy in its condescending dismissal of the mega-speed service delivered in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Robert Atkinson, president of ITIF, undermines the very “innovation” their group is supposed to celebrate.  Because it doesn’t come from AT&T or Verizon, it’s not their kind of “innovation” at all.

“I can’t imagine a for-profit company doing what they are doing in Chattanooga, because it’s so far ahead of where the market is,” Atkinson told the New York Times.

“Chattanooga definitely is ahead of the curve,” Atkinson told the Times Free Press. “It’s like they are building a 16-lane highway when there is a demand for only four at this point. The private companies probably can’t afford to get that far ahead of the market.”

Bernie Arnason, formerly with Verizon and a cable industry trade association also dismissed EPB’s new service in his current role as managing editor for Telecompetitor, a telecom industry trade website:

Does anyone need that speed today? Will they in the next few years? The short answer is no. It’s kind of akin to people in the U.S. that buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini – all that power and speed, and nowhere to really use it. A more apropos question, is how many people can afford it – especially in a city the size of Chattanooga?

[…]Will there be a time when 1 Gb/s is an offer that is truly in demand? More than likely, although I still find it hard to imagine it being really necessary in a residential setting – I mean how many 3D movies can you watch at one time? Maybe a service that bursts to 1 Gb/s in times of need, but an always on symmetrical 1 Gb/s connection? Truth be told, no one really knows what the future holds, especially from a bandwidth demand perspective.

Arnason admits he doesn’t know what the future holds, but he and his industry friends have already made up their minds about what level of service and pricing is good enough for “a city the size of Chattanooga.”

Comcast’s Business Class broadband alternative is priced at around $370 a month and only provides 100/15Mbps service in some areas.  Atkinson and Arnason have no problems with that kind of innovation… the one that charges more and delivers less.

For groups like the ITIF, it’s hardly a surprise to see them mount a “nobody wants it or needs it”-dismissive posture towards fiber, because they represent the commercial providers who don’t have it.

Fiber Embargo

The Fiber-to-the-Home Council, perhaps the biggest promoter of fiber broadband delivered straight to customer homes, currently has 277 service provider members. With the exception of TDS Telecom, which owns and operates small phone companies serving a total of 1.1 million customers in 30 states, the FTTH Council’s American provider members are almost entirely family-run, independent, co-op, or municipally-owned.

Companies like American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Hiawatha Broadband Communications, KanOkla Telephone Association Inc., and the Palmetto Rural Telephone Cooperative all belong.  AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, Verizon, and Windstream do not.  Neither do any large cable operators.

While not every member of the Council has deployed fiber to the home to its customers, many appreciate their future, and that of their communities, relies on a high-fiber diet.

EPB’s announcement of 1Gbps service was made possible because it operates its service over an entirely fiber optic network.  Company officials, when asked why they were introducing such a fast service in Chattanooga, answered simply, “because we can.”

The same question should have been directed to the city’s other providers, Comcast and AT&T.  Their answer would be “because we can’t… and won’t.”

Among large providers, only Verizon has the potential to deliver that level of service to its residential customers because it invested in fiber.  It was also punished by Wall Street for those investments, repeatedly criticized for spending too much money chasing longer term revenue.  Wall Street may have ultimately won that argument, because Verizon indefinitely suspended its FiOS expansion plans earlier this year, despite overwhelmingly positive reviews of the service.

So among these players, who are the real innovators?

The Phone Company: Holding On to Alexander Graham Bell for Dear Life

Last week, Frontier Communications told customers in western New York they don’t need FiOS-like broadband speeds delivered over fiber connections, so they’re not going to get them.  For Frontier, yesterday’s ADSL technology providing 1-3Mbps service in rural areas and somewhat faster speeds in urban ones is ‘more than enough.’

That “good enough for you” attitude is pervasive among many providers, especially large independent phone companies that are riding out their legacy copper wire networks as long as they’ll last.

What makes them different from locally-owned phone companies and co-ops that believe in fiber-t0-the-home?  Simply put, their business plans.

Companies like Frontier, FairPoint, Windstream, and CenturyLink all share one thing in common — their dependence on propping up their stock values with high dividend payouts and limited investments in network upgrades (capital expenditures):

Perhaps the most important metric for judging dividend sustainability, the payout compares how much money a company pays out in dividends to how much money it generates. A ratio that’s too high, say, above 80% of earnings, indicates the company may be stretching to make payouts it can’t afford.

Frontier’s payout ratio is 233%, which means the company pays out more than $2 in dividends for every $1 of earnings! But this ignores Frontier’s huge deferred tax benefit and the fact that depreciation and amortization exceed capital expenditures — the company’s actual free cash flow payout ratio is a much more manageable 73%. Dividend investors should ensure that benefit and Frontier’s cash-generating ability are sustainable.

In other words, Frontier’s balance sheet benefits from the ability to write off the declining value of much of its aging copper-wire network and from creative tax benefits that might be eliminated through legislative reform.

The nightmare scenario at Frontier is heavily investing in widespread network upgrades and improvements beyond DSL.  The company recently was forced to cut its $1 dividend payout to $0.75 to fund the recent acquisition of some Verizon landlines and for limited investment in DSL broadband expansion.

Frontier won’t seek to deploy fiber in a big way because it would be forced to take on more debt and potentially cut that dividend payout even further.  That’s something the company won’t risk, even if it means earning back customers who fled to cable competitors.  Long term investments in future proof fiber are not on the menu.  “That would be then and this is now,” demand shareholders insistent on short term results.

The broadband expansion Frontier has designed increases the amount of revenue it earns per customer while spending as little as possible to achieve it.  Slow speed, expensive DSL fits the bill nicely.

The story is largely the same among the other players.  One, FairPoint Communications, ended up in bankruptcy when it tried to integrate Verizon’s operations in northern New England and found it didn’t have the resources to pull it off, and delivered high speed broken promises, not broadband.

Meanwhile, many municipal providers, including EPB, are constructing fiber networks that deliver for their customers instead of focusing on dividend checks for shareholders.

Which is more innovative — mailing checks to shareholders or delivering world class broadband that doesn’t cost taxpayers a cent?

Cable: “People Don’t Realize the Days of Cable Company Upgrades are Basically Over”

While municipal providers like EPB appear in major national newspapers and on cable news breaking speed records and delivering service not seen elsewhere in the United States, the cable industry has a different story to share.

Kent

Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent let the cat out of the bag when he told investors on CNBC that the days of cable companies spending capital on system upgrades are basically over.

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Both cable and phone companies have called a technology truce in the broadband speed war.  Where phone companies rely on traditional DSL service to provide broadband, most cable companies raise their speeds one level higher and then vilify the competition with ads promoting cable’s speed advantages.  Phone companies blast cable for high priced broadband service they’re willing to sell for less, if you don’t need the fastest possible speeds.  But with the pervasiveness of service bundling, where consumers pay one price for phone, Internet, and television service, many customers don’t shop for individual services any longer.

With the advent of DOCSIS 3, the latest standard for cable broadband networks, many in the cable industry believe the days of investing in new infrastructure are over.  They believe their hybrid fiber-coaxial cable systems deliver everything broadband consumers will want and don’t see a need for fiber to the home service.

Their balance sheets prove it, as many of the nation’s largest cable companies reduce capital expenses and investments in system expansion.  Coming at the same time Internet usage is growing, the disparity between investment and demand on broadband network capacity sets the perfect stage for rate increases and other revenue enhancers like Internet Overcharging schemes.

Unfortunately for the cable industry, without a mass-conversion of cable-TV lineups to digital, which greatly increases available bandwidth for other services, their existing network infrastructure does not excuse required network upgrades.

EPB’s fiber optic system delivers significantly more capacity than any cable system, and with advances in laser technology, the expansion possibilities are almost endless.  EPB is also not constrained with the asynchronous broadband cable delivers — reasonably fast downstream speeds coupled with paltry upstream rates.  EPB delivers the same speed coming and going.  In fact, the biggest bottlenecks EPB customers are likely to face are those on the websites they visit.

EPB also delivered significant free speed upgrades to its customers earlier this year… and no broadband rate hike or usage limits.  In fact, EPB cut its price for 100Mbps service from $175 to $140.  Many cable companies are increasing broadband pricing, while major speed upgrades come to those who agree to pay plenty more to get them.

Which company has the kind of innovation you want — the one that delivers faster speeds for free or the one that experiments with usage limits and higher prices for what you already have?

No wonder Big Telecom is embarrassed.  They should be.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/EPB Interviews 9-20-10.flv[/flv]

EPB and Chattanooga city officials appeared in interviews on Bloomberg News and the Fox Business Channel.  CNET News also covered EPB’s 1Gbps service, introduced last week.  (12 minutes)