Real estate listings increasingly are promoting Verizon FiOS availability to would be buyers and renters

Real estate listings that prominently mention Verizon FiOS availability?

It’s true.  The much-coveted fiber-to-the-home service from Verizon has increasingly become important in residential home sales and rentals, according to realtors.  With the housing market still a shadow of its former self, just having broadband access is no longer good enough for many homebuyers and renters.  They want assurances that they can obtain fiber optic service, particularly as Verizon ceases expansion of its fiber deployments for the time being.

Despite claims from some providers that the type of broadband doesn’t really matter, real estate agents, such as those on www.hpw.com/, beg to differ.  The only thing worse than slow broadband is no broadband.  Those homes without broadband access of any kind can be a dead weight in an agent’s portfolio.  Practically nobody wants a home stuck with dial-up.  It’s like buying a home without electricity.

Just closing a sale on property that can only obtain slow speed DSL service or is served by a lackluster cable operator can also be a nuisance if a better provider is available nearby.

Some real estate listings have even begun providing Verizon FiOS certification guaranteeing would-be buyers of renters that FiOS service is ready and available. Look at this listing of Myrtle Beach sc homes for sale to find your next investment property.

None of this escaped Verizon’s attention, of course.  The company has used demand for FiOS in its advertising and communications strategies, and even has a rewards program for real estate professionals who convince buyers they are missing out if they aren’t Verizon FiOS customers.

Verizon claims up to 65 percent of home buyers say fiber optic broadband, including Internet connectivity, TV and phone service is an important and growing part of their home buying decision.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon FiOS Real Estate.flv[/flv]

Verizon produced this video about how important their FiOS product is becoming to home buyers and renters.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Agent Rewards Program benefits Real Estate with FIOS.flv[/flv]

Verizon has an Agent Rewards Program that rewards real estate professionals with $100 gift cards for signing up home buyers and renters for Verizon service.  (1 minute)

Customers of Vistabeam in Nebraska and Wyoming who subscribe to the company’s rural Wireless Internet Service are about to discover their online activities are about to be capped… for real this time.

Matthew Larsen, who runs the Wireless Cowboys blog, includes some illustrative examples of Internet Overcharging schemes in action and what they’re all about.  He writes about his experiences at Vistabeam, which serves rural Nebraska and Wyoming with wireless broadband service.  The company started operations with an admittedly-unenforced 3GB usage limit, backed up with a stinging $25/GB penalty overlimit fee to underscore the point.  Today that cap is described by Larsen as “a joke” — too low to be taken seriously.  [Note to Frontier: Are you reading this?]

But the company was determined to monitor and measure its customers’ online activities and developed an in-house tool that is providing daily insights into customer usage, and gives Vistabeam the ability to begin penalizing customers who exceed the limits established by the provider.

Wireless providers, known as WISPs, often provide the only Internet access in rural areas that are too sparsely populated to deliver DSL service and where cable television is a financial impracticality.  For Nebraska and Wyoming residents bypassed by cable and underserved by DSL (if at all), it’s often a choice between dial-up, satellite fraudband service barely capable of 1Mbps service with a punitive “fair access policy,” or an independent WISP.  A number of customers have chosen the latter.

Vistabeam offers service plans for its 2000 customers ranging from 384kbps for $29.95 a month to 4Mbps service for $99.95 a month, with a discount for paying in six month increments.  That’s not cheap by any means.  But rural Americans routinely face higher broadband bills because of the inability of providers to achieve economy of scale.  Fewer customers have to share the expenses to construct, operate and maintain the service.

But those bills could soon grow even higher if customers exceed the new harder-line Vistabeam will take on usage cap offenses.

Larsen’s measurements identified what their customers were doing with their broadband connections and identified Vistabeam’s biggest users:

Out of 2000+ customers, 80 used more than 10 gigs for the month.

One customer – a 1 meg subscriber at the far eastern edge of our network, behind seven wireless hops and on an 802.11b AP – downloaded 140gig.

Another one, on the far western side of our network, downloaded 110gig.   We called them and found out that they were watching a ton of online video.

We discovered a county government connection that was around 100gig – mostly because someone in the sheriff’s department was pounding for BitTorrent files from 1am to 7am in the morning, and sometimes crashing their firewall machine because of the traffic.

One wonders what the sheriff’s department was grabbing off BitTorrent, but the question itself opens the door as to whether or not your provider (and by extension, you and I) should know what they are doing with their broadband connection in the first place.

Larsen says the other subscribers on his list were watching lots of online video, had a virus, or had “mistakenly” left their file sharing programs running.

Larsen’s solution is usage caps and overlimit penalties for his subscribers.

A home equipped with a WISP antenna on the roof

Package                                                               Monthly Download Cap

384k                                                                       10 gigabytes

640k                                                                       10 gigabytes

1 meg                                                                    20 gigabytes

2 meg                                                                    40 gigabytes

3 meg                                                                    50 gigabytes

4 meg                                                                    60 gigabytes

8 meg                                                                    80 gigabytes

Additional capacity over cap                        $1 per gigabyte over the cap

Although Larsen claims the cap and the overlimit fee isn’t “a profit center,” it would be disingenuous to suggest it isn’t about the money (underline emphasis ours):

I feel that these caps are more than generous, and should have a minimal effect on the majority of our customers.   With our backbone consumption per customer increasing, implementing caps of some kind became a necessity.    I am not looking at the caps as a new “profit center” – they are a deterrent as much as anything.    It will provide an incentive for customers to upgrade to a faster plan with a higher cap, or take their download habits to a competitor and chew up someone else’s bandwidth.

Customers upgrading to a faster plan have to pay a correspondingly higher price for that service and taking their “download habits to a competitor” reduces the cost for the provider no longer encumbered with serving the higher-usage-than-average customer now heading for the door.  Among his 2,000 customers, the end effect will be what Larsen himself hopes is a deterrent for customers using increasingly common higher bandwidth applications like online video, file backup, and uploading and downloading files.  Larsen himself admits that one of his customers was a little bit upset to be told he was using too much.

Rural providers do face higher costs to provide service than their urban counterparts.  But before they enjoy any benefits from Universal Service Fund reform or other government-provided stimulus, customer-unfriendly Internet Overcharging schemes should not be part of the deal.

A survey released this week by Arbitron Inc. and Edison Media Research found, for the first time, that Americans are more willing to give up TV than the Internet.

Asked to choose the ”most essential” medium, 42 percent of the survey’s 1,753 respondents picked the Internet, 37 percent picked TV, 14 percent said radio and 5 percent said those dead-tree format newspapers.

That represents more evidence that major telecommunications companies will need to lasso control of the Internet before the cable television profit train derails.  That’s because the Internet delivers the prospect of a two-for-one deal.  Enjoy your online web surfing -and- stream your favorite television shows online at the same time — no more ever-increasing cable-TV bill for channels you never asked for and don’t watch.

Even more worrying for big cable — young people are increasingly never bothering to sign up for cable television in the first place.  In the 18-24 age group, 74 percent said they would quit TV before surrendering the Web, and many never bothered with subscription television to begin with.

The last time Arbitron and Edison posed this question in a survey was in 2001, back when dial-up access still predominated.  Back then, 72 percent of respondents said they could do without Internet and 26 percent said they’d give up TV.

“The shift over these nine years has been steady and profound,” said Edison Research president Larry Rosin.

Some consumers don’t want to watch television over their computers and would prefer to be entertained in a comfortable chair in the living room.  But Internet video innovation is increasingly solving that problem by coupling your television or DVD player to the web.  Several providers like Netflix even deliver their streaming video service through video game consoles.

How do cable companies stop the herd mentality to broadband video, leaving those big cable TV bills behind?  Stick a meter on broadband service, and charge consumers for every TV show they watch or simply put a limit on their broadband service.  The broadband usage cap or meter can, indeed, kill the online video star.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WJW Cleveland The Download Internet More Important Than TV 4-9-10.flv[/flv]

WJW-TV in Cleveland reports that more people are ready to ditch their televisions than being willing to part with their Internet connection.  (3 minutes)

Milton, Vermont

Jesse and his nearby neighbors on the west side of Milton are frustrated.  They live just 20 minutes away from Burlington, the largest city in the state of Vermont.  Despite the proximity to a city with nearly 40,000 residents, there is no cell phone coverage in western Milton, no cable television service, and no DSL service from FairPoint Communications.  For this part of Milton, it’s living living in 1990, where dial-up service was one’s gateway to the Internet.

Jesse and his immediate neighbors haven’t given up searching for broadband service options, but they face a united front of intransigent operators who refuse to make the investment to extend service down his well-populated street.

“After many calls to Comcast, they eventually sent us an estimate for over $17,000 to bring service to us, despite being less than a mile from their nearest station,” Jesse tells Vermont Public Radio.  “They also made it very clear that there was no plan at any point in the future, 2010 or beyond, to come here unless we paid them the money.”

Jesse and his neighbors want to give Comcast money, but not $17,000.

For at least 15 percent of Vermonters, Jesse’s story is their story.  Broadband simply remains elusive and out of reach.

Three years ago, Vermont’s Republican governor Jim Douglas announced the state would achieve 100 percent broadband coverage by 2010, making Vermont the nation’s first “e-State.”

Vermont Public Radio reviewed the progress Vermont is making towards becoming America’s first e-State. (January 20, 2010) (30 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Gov. Douglas

In June 2007 the state passed Act 79, legislation that established the Vermont Telecommunications Authority to facilitate the establishment and delivery of mobile phone and Internet access infrastructure and services for residents and businesses throughout Vermont.

The VTA, under the early leadership of Bill Shuttleworth, a former Verizon Communications senior manager, launched a modest broadband grant program to incrementally expand broadband access, often through existing service providers who agreed to use the money to extend service to unserved neighborhoods.

The Authority also acts as a clearinghouse for coordinating information about broadband projects across the state, although it doesn’t have any authority over those projects.  Lately, the VTA has been backing Google’s “Think Big With a Gig” Initiative, except it promotes the state as a great choice for fiber, not just one or two communities within Vermont.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google Fiber Vermont 3-22-10.mp4[/flv]

Vermont used this video to promote their bid to become a Google Fiber state.  (2 minutes)

Some of the most dramatic expansion plans come from the East Central Vermont Community Fiber Network.  ECFiber, a group of 22 local municipalities, in partnership with ValleyNet, a Vermont non-profit organization, is planning to implement a high-capacity fiber-optic network capable of serving 100% of homes and businesses in participating towns with Internet, telephone and cable television service.  In 2008, the group coalesced around a proposal to construct a major fiber-to-the-home project to extend broadband across areas that often don’t even have slower speed DSL.

The ECFiber project brought communities together to provide the kind of broadband service private companies refused to provide. Vermont Public Radio explores the project and the enthusiasm of residents hopeful they will finally be able to get broadband service. (March 8, 2008) (24 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

ECFiber's Partner Communities

The Vermont towns, which together number roughly 55,000 residents, decided to build their own network after FairPoint Communications and local cable companies refused to extend the reach of their services.  Providers claim expanding service is not financially viable.  For residents like sheep farmer Marian White, interviewed by The Wall Street Journal, that means another year of paying $60 a month for satellite fraudband, the speed and consumption-limited satellite Internet service.

White calls the satellite service unreliable, especially in winter when snow accumulates on the dish.  Unlike many broadband users who vegetate for hours browsing the web, White actually gets an exercise routine while trying to get her satellite service to work.

“I open a window and I take a pan of water and, a cup at a time, I launch warm water at the satellite dish until I have melted all the snow off the dish,” Ms. White says. “It works.”

Other residents treat accessing the Internet the same way rural Americans plan a trip into town to buy supplies.

Kathi Terami from Tunbridge makes a list of things to do online and then, once a week, travels into town to visit the local public library which has a high speed connection.  Terami downloads Sesame Street podcasts for her children, watches YouTube links sent by her sister, and tries to download whatever she thinks she might want to see or use over the coming week.

A fiber to the home network like ECFiber would change everything for small town Vermonters.  The implications are enormous according to project manager Tim Nulty.

“People are truly afraid their communities are going to die if they aren’t on the communications medium that drives the country culturally and economically,” he says. “It’s one of the most intensely felt political issues in Vermont after health care.”

Despite the plan’s good intentions, one obstacle after another has prevented ECFiber from making much headway:

• The VTA rejected the proposal in 2008, calling it unfeasible;
• Plans over the summer and fall of 2008 to approach big national investment banks ran head-on into the sub-prime mortgage collapse, which caused banks to stop lending;
• An alternative plan to build the network with public debt financing, using smaller investors, collapsed along with Lehman Brothers on September 14, 2008;
• An attempt by Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) to insert federal loan guarantees into the stimulus bill in February 2009 was thwarted by partisan wrangling;
• Attempts to secure federal broadband grant stimulus funding has been rejected by the Commerce Department;
• Opposition to the plan and objections over its funding come from incumbent providers like FairPoint, who claim the project is unnecessary because they will provide service in those areas… eventually.

For the indefinite future, it appears Ms. White will continue to throw warm cups of water out the window on cold winter mornings.

Vermont Edition takes a comprehensive look at where the state stands in broadband and wireless deployment. (April 8, 2009) (46 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

For every Tunbridge resident with a story about life without broadband, there are many more across Vermont living with hit or miss Internet access.

Take Marie from Middlesex.

Most residents in more rural areas of Vermont get service where they can from FairPoint Communications

“I am in Middlesex, about a half-mile off Route 2, and five minutes from the Capitol Building. Yet up until just recently, we had no sign of high-speed Internet. I understand that my neighbors just received DSL a few weeks ago, but when I call FairPoint, they tell me it’s still not available at my house, which is a few hundred yards up the hill. Hopefully, they’re wrong and I’ll see DSL soon,” she says.

Marie is pining for yesterday’s broadband technology — FairPoint’s 1.5Mbps basic DSL service, now considered below the proposed minimum speeds to qualify for “broadband” in the National Broadband Plan.  For Marie, it’s better than nothing.

Geryll in Goshen also lacks DSL and probably wouldn’t want it from FairPoint anyway.

“We have barely reliable landline service. A tech is at my house at least three times per year. I was told the lines are so old they are decaying. Using dial-up is impossible. I use satellite which is very expensive and is in my opinion only one step up from dial-up. I am limited to downloads and penalized if I reach my daily limit,” he says.

Many Vermonters acknowledge Douglas’ planned 100-percent-broadband-coverage-by-2010 won’t come close to achievement and many are highly skeptical they will ever see the day where every resident who wants broadband service can get it.

Chip in Cabot is among them, jaded after six years of arguments with FairPoint Communications and its predecessor Verizon about obtaining access to DSL.  It took a cooperative FairPoint engineer outside of the business office to finally get Chip service.  His neighbors were not so lucky, most emphatically rejected for DSL service from an intransigent FairPoint:

“I laughed when Governor Douglas announced his e-State goal “by 2010” three years ago. Now I’m thinking I should have made some bets on this claim. It took years of legal battles and a zoning variance to obtain partial cell coverage here in Cabot. Large parts of the town still do not have any cell coverage. Governor Douglas can perhaps be forgiven – he has no technical knowledge, and as a politician would be expected to be wildly optimistic about such “e-State” claims. The Vermont Telecommunications Authority and the Department of Public Service should know better however. We’re talking about rural areas where there is no financial incentive to provide either DSL or cell service. It will take a huge amount of money to provide service to those remaining parts of the state. I’m not optimistic.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Wall Street Journal Vermont Broadband Problems 03-02-09.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal chronicled the challenges Vermonters face when broadband is unavailable to them.  ECFiber may solve these problems.  Some of the stories in our article are reflected in this well-done video.  (3/2/2009 — 4 Minutes)

One of the frustrations communities filing for federal grant money often face are the onerous terms and conditions that arrive with the application.  In many cases the rules are so complex, an entire industry of paid consultants to advise would-be grant applicants has grown up with the bureaucracy.  Miss one qualification and your potentially worthwhile application gets an automatic rejection.  Hiring an expensive consultant (often formerly employed in a government agency as an application processor) can often work miracles for a potentially dubious application.

Although some terms and conditions are included to prevent potential waste, fraud, and abuse or are intended to close potential loopholes, many others are influenced by elected officials trying to steer funding into projects they want to “pre-qualify.”  Often the intentions are obvious to would-be applicants, who discover only one company in their midst is capable of meeting all of the requirements of a grant program.  It never hurts to have a powerful member of Congress sign a cover letter of support for an application either, especially if that member of Congress helps oversee your agency’s annual budget.

And so we come to the broadband stimulus program, which has its own bureaucratic red tape and pre-conditi0ns to be met before funding becomes available.  Big phone and cable interests have already been rigging the system through broadband mapping projects that magically show broadband service in areas where none exists.  That’s critically important, because an application can be rejected out of hand if it seems to duplicate or overlap an existing broadband provider’s service area.  Incumbent players have wasted no time filing objections to thousands of broadband grant applications, often citing broadband maps which show a would-be applicant wants federal tax dollars to compete against them.

Mount Washington Resort – Bretton Woods, New Hampshire (left), Town Office – Minneiska, Minnesota (right)

Larger players sat out most of the first round of broadband stimulus applications, which often involved “last mile” projects which would deliver real results to those stuck on dial-up.  These projects actually provide service to individual homes and businesses where none existed before.  Many of the largest telecommunications companies are seeking a better deal for themselves from so-called “middle mile” project grants which allow them to improve their broadband infrastructure without actually hooking up a single new customer.

The collateral damage of this high stakes poker match is visible in rural communities in states like Minnesota, where some found their stimulus applications rejected because they couldn’t afford a requirement for 50 percent in matching funds.  That won’t be a problem for a New Hampshire community that did win $1 million in stimulus funding.  They are lucky enough to host the Mount Washington Resort at Bretton Woods, which will have broadband available in every room, in part thanks to taxpayers.  The resort, now undergoing a $50 million dollar luxury renovation, encouraged the local phone company to apply.  A single night booked for this weekend at the Omni Mount Washington Resort starts at $259 on the economy rate.  The “Winter Wonderland Inclusive Package” will set you back at least $569 a night.  At least now you can Twitter about it with all of your followers.

In contrast, Minneiska, Minnesota (population 116) doesn’t have a hotel, or broadband access, but you can drive down the road to the Winona Days Inn and get a room this weekend with a queen-sized bed for $65 a night. If the bed has a mattress similar to that on the purple mattress review, then it’s comfortable enough.  Winona is big enough to get DSL service, so Days Inn throws in Internet access for free.  You can contemplate that over your free hot waffle breakfast.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Wiring the Wrong America 3-12-10.mp4[/flv]

CNN asks the question, are we wiring the wrong America for much-needed broadband service?  Before you answer, yes we noticed CNN used the sounds of a fax line to simulate the sounds of a dial-up connection, too.  (3 minutes)