[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bill Moyers How Big Telecom Increases Our Digital Divide 2-5-13.mp4[/flv]

Susan Crawford appears this weekend on Moyers & Company (check to see if it airs on a local public television station) to explain the real reason America has a digital divide with broadband have’s and have-not’s. The heart of the problem is America’s largest telecom companies, who are only interested in picking off the low hanging fruit — urban customers they can wire cheaply for service and demand monopoly or duopoly-style high prices. Rural America is being left behind, putting profit ahead of the public interest.

America has seen this before during the era of electrification, when power was denied to small towns and family farms. Then the country decided electric service was a utility and must be provided to all Americans. So it should be with broadband. Only the same ideology that argued rural Americans should pick up and move if they want electric service is back in force with broadband, where some argue companies should not have to spend money to provide universal service when they can sit back and reap enormous profits from the areas they choose to serve.

Check out this preview. (2 minutes)

Susan Crawford’s new book, “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” is on the receiving end of a lot of heat from industry lobbyists and those working for shadowy think tanks and “consumer groups.”

Most of the critics have not disclosed their industry connections. Stop the Cap! will.

Crawford’s premise that Americans are suffering the impact of an anti-competitive marketplace for broadband just doesn’t “add up,” according to Zack Christenson and Steve Pociask, both with the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research.

Christenson and Pociask’s rebuttal of Crawford’s conclusions about broadband penetration, price, and its monopoly/duopoly status relies on industry-supplied statistics and outdated government research. For instance, the source material on wireless pricing predates the introduction of bundled “Share Everything” plans from AT&T and Verizon Wireless that raised prices for many customers.

Their proposed solutions for the problems of broadband access, pricing, and competition come straight from AT&T’s lobbying priority checklist:

• Free up more wireless spectrum, which is likely to be acquired by existing providers, not new ones that enter the market to compete;
• Allow AT&T and other phone companies to abandon current copper-based networks, which would also allow them to escape legacy regulations that require them to provide service to consumers in rural areas.

One pertinent detail missing from the piece published in the Daily Caller is the disclosure Pociask is a a telecom consultant and former chief economist for Bell Atlantic (today Verizon). The “American Consumer Institute” itself is suspected of being backed by corporate interests from the telecommunications industry. ACI has closely mirrored the legislative agendas of AT&T and Verizon, opposing Net Neutrality, supporting cable franchise reform that allowed U-verse and FiOS to receive statewide video franchises in several states, and generally opposes government regulation of telecommunications.

Critics for hire.

The so-called consumer group’s website links primarily to corporate-backed astroturf and political interest groups that routinely defend corporate interests at the expense of consumers. Groups like the CATO Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Koch Brother-backed Heartland Institute, and the highly free-market, deregulation-oriented James Madison Institute are all offered to readers.

The Wall Street Journal trotted out Nick Schulz to handle its book review. Schulz is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, which is funded by corporate contributions to advocate a pro-business agenda.

Schulz attempts to school Crawford on the definition of “monopoly,” eventually suggesting “oligopoly” might be a more precise way to state it.

“Washington’s fights over telecommunications—and just about every other industrial sector—could use a lot less militancy and self-righteousness and a lot more sound economics,” concludes Schulz, while ignoring the fact interpretation of what constitutes “sound economics” is in the eye of the beholder. All too often those making that determination are backed by self-interested corporate entities with a stake in the outcome.

Hance Haney from the Discovery Institute claims Crawford’s conclusions are “misplaced nostalgia for utility regulation.” Haney cites AT&T’s breakup as the spark for competition in the telecommunications sector and proof that monopolies cannot stand when voice, video, and data service from traditional providers can be bypassed. That assumes you can obtain those services without the broadband service sold by the phone or cable company (that also likely owns your wireless service provider and controls access to cable television programming).

Haney also ignores the divorce of Ma Bell has been amicably resolved. AT&T and Verizon have managed to pick up most of their former constituent pieces (the Baby Bells) and today only “compete” with one another in the wireless sector, where each charges identically-high prices for service.

Crawford’s critics often share a connection with the industry she criticizes in her new book.

Haney places the blame for these problems on the government. He argues exclusive cable franchise agreements instigated the lack of cable competition and allowed “hidden cross-subsidies” to flourish, causing the marketplace to stagnate. Haney’s argument ignores history. In the 1970s, before the days of USA, TNT and ESPN, the two largest cable operators TelePrompTer and TCI nearly went bankrupt due to excessive debt leverage. With a very low initial return on investment, exclusive cable franchise agreements were adopted by cities to attract cable providers to wire their communities. Wall Street argues to this day that there is no room for a high level of competition for cable because of infrastructure costs and the unprofitable chase for subscribers that will be asked to cover those expenses. Government was also not responsible for the industry drumbeat for consolidation, not competition, to protect turfs and profits.

The cable industry repeated that argument with cable broadband service, claiming oversight and regulations would stifle innovation and investment. The industry even won the right to exclude competitors from guaranteed access to those networks, claiming it would make broadband less attractive for future investment and expansion.

Haney never discloses the Discovery Institute was founded, in part, to support the elimination of government regulation of telecommunications networks. Broadband Reports also notes the Discovery Institute is subsidized by telecom carriers to make the case for deregulation at all costs.

The Discovery Institute is essentially a PR firm that will present farmed science and manipulated statistics for any donating constituents looking to make a political point.

Broadband for America, perhaps the largest industry-backed astroturf telecom group in the country and itself cited as a source by the American Consumer Institute, seized on the criticism of Crawford’s book for its own attack piece. But every book critic mentioned has a connection to the telecom industry or has ties to groups that receive substantial telecom industry contributions.

NetCompetition chairman Scott Cleland, who accused Crawford of cherry picking information, does not bother to mention NetCompetition is directly funded by the same telecom industry Crawford’s book criticizes. Cleland in fact works to represent the interests of his clients: large phone and cable operators.

Randolph May’s criticism of Crawford’s book is unsurprising when one considers he is president of the Free State Foundation, a special interest group friendly to large telecom companies. FSF also supports the work of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group with strong ties to AT&T.

Richard Bennett, who once denied to Stop the Cap! he worked for a K Street lobbyist (he does), attacked the book on behalf of his benefactors at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a group Reuters notes  receives financial support from telecommunications companies. He also received a $20,000 stipend from Time Warner Cable.

In fact, Broadband for America could not cite a single source criticizing Crawford’s book that does not have ties to the industry Crawford criticizes.

[flv width=”636″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Susan Crawford on Captive Audience The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age 12-12.flv[/flv]

Invest an hour of your time and learn about how America ceded its broadband leadership to a handful of telecom companies that have carved out comfortable, barely competitive territories for themselves, leaving Americans overpaying for slow broadband service. Susan Crawford is author of the new book, “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” which has just been published. (65 minutes)

Russian state-controlled telecom operator Rostelecom has announced it is refocusing most of its capital investment on broadband expansion, after the Russian government called on providers to build out Russia’s broadband infrastructure.

At least 60 percent of the company’s investment from 2013-2017 will directly target improved broadband. The company previously emphasized expansion of its mobile wireless division, a highly-criticized decision on the part of Russian officials who consider the country’s cell services already highly competitive and sufficient. Five major cell companies compete in Russia: MTS, MegaFon, Vimpelcom, Tele2 and Rostelecom — the smallest of the five.

Broadband expansion is key for Russia’s economic growth and private market development. Rostelecom maintained a landline monopoly until it merged with several regional operators and today competes among private rivals in the telecom business. Rebuilding and expanding its network is deemed critical to its long term survival.

But the current management of Rostelecom may have fallen out favor with the Kremlin.

Reuters reports Rostelecom CEO Alexander Provotorov may be headed for an early exit after state investigators searched his home in an unrelated fraud probe.

The government is expected to sell off its remaining interest in Rostelecom by 2015 after a restructuring of the government’s telecom assets is complete.

Phillip “It’s hard to trust a group that so spectacularly flip-flopped on Internet policies when its benefactor AT&T changed its tune” Dampier

When Republican FCC Commisioner Ajit Pai turned up last week at a telecom symposium to warn a more activist FCC could ruin broadband providers’ efforts to charge consumers more money for less service, he was speaking to a very friendly audience.

The conservative Phoenix Center, which ran the event, has been spewing out industry-friendly “research reports” for years that attempt to justify the country’s sky-high broadband pricing. It also promotes a “hands-off” mindset on industry oversight, calling it common sense and consumer-friendly.

Unfortunately for the group and its supporting authors, it has a serious credibility problem — exposed as an industry-funded “think tank” operating as a mercenary research arm for AT&T and other phone companies. In fact, the same group that today generates endless research condemning Net Neutrality had a very different position in 2004 when it published an Op-Ed entitled, “Net Neutrality: Now More Than Ever.”

What changed? Its benefactor. In 2004, AT&T was a competing long distance carrier fighting local phone companies. Today it –is– one of those phone companies. With its Baby Bell owners controlling AT&T’s purse-strings starting in 2006, the Phoenix Center dutifully flip-flopped to maintain continuity with the ‘new AT&T,’ strongly opposed to most forms of broadband regulation.

So it comes as no surprise the Phoenix Center continues pumping out cheerleading “research reports” that attempt to bolster credibility to forces opposing Net Neutrality and supporting an Internet Overcharging free-for-all with the help of usage billing and caps.

One particular bit of nonsense that completely ignores marketplace reality came in Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George Ford’s report, “A Most Egregious Act? The Impact on Consumers of Usage-Based Pricing.”

For example, Ford argues:

A prohibition of differential pricing renders a single price that lies between the low price for the restricted service and the high price for the unrestricted service. Therefore, prohibitions against usage based pricing forces some consumers to pay more for services they do not want or use, while others are allowed to pay less for services they do. The prohibition, in effect, results in a transfer of wealth from one group of consumers to another, and profits are also reduced. Overall consumer welfare is diminished, even though some consumers are better off.

We’re number one… in prices, even with the increasing prevalence of usage-based pricing Ford believes benefits consumers. (Image: CRTC)

But Ford completely ignores the current conditions in today’s broadband market that have made it easy for providers to promulgate an unpopular end to flat rate, unlimited broadband in favor of a highly-flawed, usage-based billing policy:

1. Ford ignores the broadband market is essentially a duopoly for most consumers and effectively a monopoly in rural America. That gives providers what they call “pricing power,” the ability to increase prices at will and change pricing models because consumers are dependent on the service and have limited options to take their business elsewhere;
2. The only “transfer of wealth” involved here is from consumers to providers. While profits soar and costs drop, Ford complains that those using the service more are somehow subsidized by lighter users, when it fact providers enjoy a 90-95% gross margin on broadband. As Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt admitted, the most significant cost attributed on the cable company’s balance sheet for broadband comes from its backbone traffic costs, which are minuscule in contrast to the increasing prices the cable company charges for its broadband service;
3. Consumer welfare is reduced primarily from the high costs charged by providers, made possible by scant competition that would otherwise drive prices downwards, not from expenses associated with broadband traffic;
4. Ford is careful not to advocate for a true usage-based billing system that would be a revenue nightmare for his benefactors. In a strict usage-based pricing model, customers would pay a small fee for infrastructure, support, and equipment expenses and a variable charge based on actual usage. But no provider in the United States advocates for this system. Instead, providers force consumers into tiered broadband plans that include different usage allowances the vast majority of customers will either not exhaust or will exceed, which raises profits even higher with usage overlimit penalties. With no unused usage rollover, most customers are in the same position Ford claims will diminish consumer welfare: paying for service they do not want or use;
5. Most consumers favor unlimited, flat use plans even if they could save money with a usage-constrained pricing model. Since keeping customers happy with a more expensive unlimited plan they like instead of a lower priced plan they don’t want would seem to enhance provider profits. But Ford ignores this reality, perhaps understanding providers are actually laying the groundwork to broadly monetize Internet usage. Whether a provider adopts usage-based billing or a strict cap on usage, which is growing in most households, the inevitable result is still the same: more profits, less cost from constrained usage. Inevitably this will force customers into higher-priced, higher-profit upgrades that deliver a higher usage allowance, again something consumers simply do not want. This is already a reality in the wireless marketplace, and is well-acknowledged by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless.