Efforts to develop new unlicensed uses for the public airwaves that include high-powered public Wi-Fi may be shelved if AT&T and House Republicans succeed in their joint effort to force those frequencies to be sold in a spectrum auction.

Majority House Republicans on the House Communications & Technology Subcommittee on Wednesday lectured all five FCC commissioners, insisting they have no authority to set aside spectrum specifically for unlicensed use when those airwaves could be sold to private companies.

Sub-Committee chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) criticized FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his plans to “give away” scarce airwaves eventually open to the public’s use when they could fetch as much as $19 billion in auction proceeds from large telecommunications companies seeking to own and control those frequencies.

Walden, the House’s second largest recipient of campaign contributions from the same companies likely to bid on that spectrum, insisted federal law only allows the Commission to designate unlicensed uses for so-called “technically necessary guard bands,” which act as a buffer between neighboring frequency users to protect against interference. Walden also criticized the FCC for setting aside too much spectrum for that protection.

Walden, the second largest recipient of telco cash in Congress.

The Oregon congressman has collected more than $84,000 in campaign contributions from telephone companies so far this year. Only House Speaker John Boehner won larger contributions from companies like AT&T.

Other Republican members of the subcommittee agreed with Walden’s sentiment and also received generous contributions from AT&T this year.

Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), wanted to be sure the FCC does not impose “value-sapping restrictions” on the use of privately-owned airwaves owned by large telecommunications companies. Terry is the third largest recipient of campaign contributions in the House from those telecom companies, adding $69,400 so far this year to his campaign coffers.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) expressed concerns that spectrum auctions could displace low-power television stations to make way for mobile communications. But Barton did not oppose the auctions generally. His largest contributor: AT&T, which sent him checks for more than $21,000 in 2012.

Representative Robert E. Latta (R-Ohio) suggested auctioning off airwaves intended for public use to large mobile broadband companies would help America’s competitiveness, alluding to his belief unlicensed, free use of the airwaves for new wireless applications would not. Latta cashed $10,500 in AT&T checks so far this year — his fourth largest contributor. Latta added he wanted there to be transparency and openness in the entire spectrum process. He did not disclose his significant contributions from AT&T at the hearing, despite being a chief stakeholder in the debate.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) agreed with large telecommunications companies that the maximum amount of available spectrum should be sold off to private companies to sell mobile broadband services to the public. Blackburn’s third largest campaign contributor this year is Verizon Communications, who sent her $15,400. AT&T, her ninth largest contributor, handed her $13,250, together adding up to $28,650.

The Democrats on the panel roundly criticized Republican plans to sell off spectrum intended for unlicensed, public use applications to large wireless companies, which already own and control frequencies they still have not put into service.

Terry, worried about “value-sapping” regulations.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called unlicensed spectrum an incredible economic success story.

“Innovative services like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are now ubiquitous parts of our communications system,” he said in his opening remarks. “They came about because of the use of unlicensed spectrum.”

Waxman suggested eliminating or limiting unlicensed spectrum would destroy innovation and further concentrate wireless communications in the hands of a handful of companies. Waxman said Congress’ original intent in passing laws that permitted the FCC to move forward with spectrum auctions also authorize the agency to protect competition and prevent unnecessary concentration of spectrum ownership to the detriment of smaller providers.

“I am troubled by attempts by some to relitigate issues that were resolved earlier this year, when the bill passed Congress with widespread support,” Waxman added. “After-the-fact-spin that unfairly twists the language of the law deserves little weight by the Commission or the courts.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) noted the FCC by statute is prohibited from considering the amount of revenue possible from spectrum auctions when drafting auction rules. She found Republican efforts to recast those rules to raise as much money as possible by selling off as much spectrum as possible “interesting.”

Many Republicans also complained the FCC must not set rules that either limit the maximum amount of spectrum owned by one company or set aside certain frequencies exclusively for smaller competitors. The Republicans want auctions to maintain a more straightforward “highest bidder takes all” format. Critics say that gives the advantage to larger, deep-pocketed existing providers and dissuades the entry of new competitors.

Some Republicans were also upset with FCC meddling over when and how private companies begin providing service on the airwaves they won at auction. Current FCC rules prohibit warehousing unused spectrum. The rules were designed to ensure large companies don’t invest in airwaves just to keep them off the market and unavailable to competitors.

Tomorrow is election day in the United States. Stop the Cap! has reviewed both presidential candidates’ positions (or the lack thereof) as well as the past voting records and platforms of members of both major political parties. With this in mind, it is time for our election guide for broadband enthusiasts. Regardless of what candidate you support, please get out and vote!

Neither political party or candidate has been perfect on broadband advocacy or consumer protection.

We’ve been disappointed by the Obama Administration, whose FCC chairman has major problems standing up to large telecom companies and their friends in the Republican-led House of Representatives. Julius Genachowski promised a lot and delivered very little on broadband reform policies that protect both consumers and the open Internet. Both President Obama and Genachowski’s rhetoric simply have not matched the results.

Bitterly disappointing moments included Genachowski’s cave-in on Net Neutrality, leaving watered down net protections challenged in court by some of the same companies that praised Genachowski’s willingness to compromise. Genachowski’s thank you card arrived in the form of a lawsuit. His unwillingness to take the common sense approach of defining broadband as a “telecommunications service” has left Internet policies hanging by a tenuous thread, waiting to be snipped by the first D.C. federal judge with a pair of sharp scissors. But even worse, the FCC chairman’s blinders on usage caps and usage billing have left him unbelievably naive about this pricing scheme. No, Mr. Genachowski, usage pricing is not about innovation, it’s about monetizing broadband usage for even fatter profits at the expense of average consumers already overpaying for Internet access.

Obama

Unfortunately, the alternative choice may be worse. Let’s compare the two parties and their candidates:

The Obama Administration treats broadband comparably to alternative energy. Both deliver promise, but not if we wait for private companies to do all of the heavy lifting. The Obama Administration believes Internet expansion needs government assistance to overcome the current blockade of access for anyone failing to meet private Return On Investment requirements.

While this sober business analysis has kept private providers from upsetting investors with expensive capital investments, it has also allowed millions of Americans to go without service. The “incremental growth” argument advocated by private providers has allowed the United States’ leadership role on broadband to falter. In both Europe and Asia, even small nations now outpace the United States deploying advanced broadband networks which offer far higher capacity, usually at dramatically lower prices. Usually, other nations one-upping the United States is treated like a threat to national security. This time, the argument is that those other countries don’t actually need the broadband networks they have, nor do we.

The Obama Administration bows to the reality that private companies simply will not invest in unprofitable service areas unless the government helps pick up the tab. But those companies also want the government to spend the money with as little oversight over their networks as possible.

That sets up the classic conflict between the two political parties — Democrats who want to see broadband treated like a critically-important utility that deserves some government oversight in its current state and Republicans who want to leave matters entirely in the hands of private providers who they claim know best, and keep the government out of it.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s regular cave-ins for the benefit of Big Telecom brought heavy criticism from us for his “cowardly lion” act.

Just about the only thing the two parties agree on is reforming the Universal Service Fund, which had until recently been directing millions to keeping traditional phone service up and running even as Americans increasingly abandon landlines.

But differences quickly emerge from there.

The Obama Administration believes broadband is increasingly a service every American must be able to access if sought. The Romney-Ryan campaign hasn’t spoken to the issue much beyond the general Republican platform that market forces will resolve virtually any problem when sufficient demand arises.

Republicans almost uniformly vociferously oppose Net Neutrality, believing broadband networks are the sole property of the providers that offer the service. Many Republicans characterize Net Neutrality as a “government takeover” of the Internet and a government policy that would “micromanage broadband” like it was a railroad. Somehow, they seem to have forgotten railroad monopolies used to be a problem for the United States in the early 20th century. Robber barons, anyone?

President Obama pushed for strong Net Neutrality protections for Americans, but his FCC chairman Julius Genachowski caved to the demands of AT&T, Verizon, and the cable industry by managing Net Neutrality with a disappointing “light touch” for those providers. (We’d call it “fondling” ourselves.)

Democrats favor wireless auctions and spectrum expansion, but many favor limits that reserve certain spectrum for emerging competitors and for unlicensed wireless use. Republicans trend towards “winner take all” auctions which probably will favor deep-pocketed incumbents like AT&T and Verizon. The GOP also does not support holding back as much spectrum for unlicensed use.

Republicans have been strongly supporting the deregulation of “special access” service, critical to competitors who need backhaul access to the Internet sold by large phone companies like AT&T. Critics contend the pricing deregulation has allowed a handful of phone companies to lock out competitors, particularly on the wireless side, with extremely high prices for access without any pricing oversight. The FCC under the Obama Administration suspended that deregulation last summer, a clear sign it thinks current pricing is suspect.

Romney

Opponents of usage-based pricing of Internet access have gotten shabby treatment from both parties. Republicans have shown no interest in involving themselves in a debate about the fairness of usage pricing, but neither have many Democrats.

As for publicly-owned broadband networks, sometimes called municipal broadband, the Republican record on the state and federal level is pretty clear — they actively oppose community broadband networks and many have worked with corporate front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to ban them on the state level. Democrats tend to be more favorable, but not always.

The biggest problem broadband advocates face on the federal and state level is the ongoing pervasive influence of Big Telecom campaign contributions. While politicians uniformly deny that corporate money holds any influence over their voting, the record clearly indicates otherwise. Nothing else explains the signatures from Democrats that received healthy injections of campaign cash from companies like AT&T, and then used the company’s own talking points to oppose Net Neutrality.

But in a story of the lesser of two-evils, we cannot forget AT&T spends even more to promote Republican interests, because often those interests are shared by AT&T:

• AT&T has spent nearly $900,000 on self-identified “tea party” candidates pledged to AT&T’s deregulation policies;
• AT&T gave nearly $2 million to the Republican Governors Association — a key part of their ALEC agenda;
• AT&T gave $100,000 to everyone’s favorite dollar-a-holler Astroturf group — The Heartland Institute, which opposes Net Neutrality and community broadband.

Susan Crawford, President Barack Obama’s former Special Assistant for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy has the solution for America’s lack of universal broadband, and she solves it in just four Tweets:

• Step 1 gives private companies the push they need to get rural broadband financing within their existing Return on Investment formulas by reducing capital costs for unserved areas;
• Step 2 stops the corporate welfare legislation that protects the incumbent duopoly from publicly-owned competition that can ignore Wall Street’s insistence that more competition = fat profit erosion;
• Step 3 gives the ISPs access to public land and infrastructure either at no or low cost in return for recognizing they are benefiting from that taxpayer-owned infrastructure, so they better not abuse the privilege;
• Step 4 makes ISPs common carriers that have no financial interest in the content transported down broadband lines, thus no incentive to favor their own services while discriminating against others.

Whether such policies can withstand court challenges claiming violation of corporation free speech rights is, of course, another matter. But Crawford’s ideas create incentives for broadband providers to aggressively wire their respective service areas while avoiding monopolizing what travels down those broadband pipelines.

The views of the Adam Smith Institute, despite the near-global financial meltdown engineered by the Masters of the Universe.

Forbes columnist Tim Worstall is unimpressed with Google’s foray into fiber optics.

Worstall, a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, has repeatedly penned columns tsk-tsking the global broadband speed race.

In his world view, nobody except certain specialists needs any connection faster than 2Mbps:

The most obvious being that outside certain very specific uses (video editing for example, where people can pay up for their own T1 line) there’s not really much evidence that speeds above 2 Mbps or so actually improve productivity or economic performance/growth. Sure, they’re great for consumers who want to download movies but that’s not really a justification for a large scale infrastructure program.

Worstall’s Luddite-like knowledge of broadband technology makes it difficult to take him seriously. Notwithstanding the fact a T1 line delivers just 1.5Mbps (at a cost several times a typical cable or DSL broadband connection), Worstall’s declaration that faster speeds are only good for “downloading” movies (the concept of streaming also escapes him) is simple nonsense.

Worstall’s tantrum is really part of a bigger discussion about how to do broadband better in both the United Kingdom and the United States. Incumbent providers are dragging their feet while reaping profits for overpriced, too-slow service. Consumers and businesses are fed up, and some are now increasingly turning to the government to do-something to shake up the status quo.

Government? For those slavishly devoted to free market ideals at the Adam Smith Institute, such a notion guarantees an intemperate outburst with phrases like “government takeover,” “government interference in private business,” or “government monopoly” — all ideas Worstall complains are “blindingly awful.”

“The idea that the solution to anything is a government run engineering monopoly just boggles the mind,” Worstall declares.

In his piece, “Why High Speed Broadband Just Doesn’t Matter,” Worstall has just a single litmus test to define broadband worthiness: how much economic value can be extracted from the Internet — Ferengi economics at their finest.

Worstall (Image: Forbes)

Worstall:

So more people can watch TV. Apologies, but this doesn’t really convince. Higher definition TV just isn’t the sort of technology that boosts the economy of a country. It might be nice to have but it most certainly does not justify taxing some to provide the service to others.

[…] The truth is that as long as you’re getting broadband of a kind (2 Mbps say) then it’s possible to extract that economic value. Faster speeds might be nice but they’re just not necessary for economic development.

Even if you accept Worstall’s inaccurate contention fast Internet is only good for watching online entertainment, he evidently forgets PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated the value of that industry at $2 trillion, and that was by 2011. Why even have a cable television business, if the only thing it is good for is watching reality shows and Law & Order reruns? Because it makes money — lots of it.

Back to Google, which is creating a bit of a pickle for the cable and phone companies — an increasingly fat and happy bunch earning easy profits selling broadband at duopoly market prices. Proponents for better broadband advocating for new, publicly-owned broadband networks have had to confront astroturf and conservative groups using popular memes that “big government” cannot do anything right and if there was a market for gigabit broadband, private companies would already be selling it.

Starting this summer, Google is.

That spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e for the corporate love muffins at the Adam Smith Institute and their industry friends who are quite happy with the way things are today, thank you very much. Google just happens to be an example of a free market success story — a ‘responsible’ company willing to invest money in the game-changing broadband Worstall and friends spent years arguing we don’t actually want or need.

As Kansas City residents line up around the virtual block, eagerly plunking down $10 to “pre-register” for Google service, it becomes difficult to continue the standard line that super-fast Internet is just a tech-geek curiosity.

So what does a free-market-knows-best-devotee do in light of all this? Change the story.

Worstall picks up a premise first offered by The Guardian and runs with it. Namely, Google is actually riding the wave of past phone company failures to cheaply benefit from assets those companies deployed first:

There’s a very large difference between being able to do something usefully experimental with an orphaned asset and having to pay for the construction of that asset in the first place. The telecoms companies lost fortunes on laying that fibre (indeed, several, including such as Global Crossing, went resoundingly bust for billions in doing so). That something that was built for $100 can find a use when it is sold for $1 (just to make up some numbers) is not an argument in favour of spending the $100.

Yet that is exactly what the argument being proposed is. Look, Google’s got really cool fast broadband, now we should build it for everyone! What’s being missed is that, at least so far as we know as yet, that really fast broadband isn’t worth the cost of building it. It only makes sense even for Google because they’ve not had to pay full price for it.

Google got a discount, so that is why they are in the business.

Worstall’s declaration is news to Kansas City, which has been enduring Google’s construction crews for months as they lay fiber infrastructure across the metropolitan area. Evidently Google hired illusionist David Copperfield to perform the masterful trick of shading the truth:  re-purposing already-there fiber while pretending it was being buried and strung for the first time.

Adam Smith didn’t have super fast broadband when he posited his views on unfettered free markets in the 1700s. If his devoted followers are left in charge, you won’t either.

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

AT&T’s real priorities are to satisfy Wall Street demands for regular revenue growth. Rural wired broadband just cannot compete with the margins the company earns on its enormously profitable wireless and ARPU-raising U-verse services. (Graphic adapted from original work of Mark Fiore)

Today: AT&T — More Rural Broadband? Don’t Call Us, We’ll Call You

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson earlier this year declared expansion of its U-verse fiber to the neighborhood service “largely complete,” despite the fact almost half of AT&T’s customers only have access to much slower DSL service, or cannot receive any broadband service at all.

For those living in AT&T’s service areas, which include a large portion of the midwest, southern states east of the Mississippi, Connecticut, and parts of California and Texas, Stephenson has not inspired confidence the company is rethinking what is possible in rural broadband.

“We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America?,” Stephenson told investors earlier this year. “And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid.”

AT&T’s lack of confidence this year is in contrast with their bombastic rural broadband lobbying campaign of 2011, launched as part of an effort to win approval for its aborted merger with T-Mobile USA. The company sent slick talking points promoting the deal to community groups it supported with contributions, politicians it bought with contributions, and astroturf efforts it bankrolled with contributions.

The result was declarations like this from former Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who swept through Washington’s revolving door and came out on the other side working for AT&T-backed lobbyist-law firm Sidley Austin and serving as an “honorary chairman” of the industry-backed Internet Innovation Alliance:

Thousands of the smallest communities outside of urban areas either lack broadband service or have just one option that can be pricey for a relatively low connection speed, inadequate for modern business demands. The joining of AT&T’s and T-Mobile’s wireless spectrum will largely fill the gap and bring robust Internet connectivity to rural localities where wired infrastructure is cost prohibitive.

With the merger now nothing more than a bad memory, Stephenson’s interest in the innovation of Internet access quickly faded.

Last week, AT&T customers learned the company isn’t even interested in taking free money from the federal government and ratepayers to do better. Offered access to $115 million in broadband subsidies from the reform of the Universal Service Fund (USF), AT&T officials shrugged their shoulders and indicated they were not interested because they are not yet “ready” to participate.

Quinn

“AT&T is in the midst of evaluating its options for further rural broadband deployment,” said Robert Quinn, AT&T’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs wrote in a letter to the commission. “As our chairman stated last month, we are optimistic about AT&T’s ability to get more broadband into rural areas, particularly as the technology continues to advance. However, until AT&T finalizes that strategy, it cannot commit to participating in the incremental support program. ”

For communities like Orangeburg, S.C., that answer is not good enough. The community received an $18.65 million federal grant of broadband stimulus funds to develop high-speed broadband in an area where only 20-40 percent of residents have Internet service today. AT&T is the dominant phone company and offered the same non-committal response to Orangeburg’s pleas for better service that the  company gives to customers elsewhere.

While AT&T reports it is not yet ready to do better in rural South Carolina, it is very motivated to make sure nobody else does either, funding a massive lobbying effort in coordination with its friends at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to pass a virtual ban on community broadband development across South Carolina.

Christopher Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks calls it “monetizing scarcity.” Orangeburg officials call it a big headache and are working around AT&T, frustrated with the phone company’s disinterest while it also helps build barriers to impede the community’s efforts to build its own network.

“If some of these other providers had a desire to serve these rural areas, they would have already been doing it,” said county administrator Bill Clark. “We are entering the broadband business because third-party providers are reluctant to provide the service.”

AT&T’s reluctance to accept USF money may have a lot to do with the company’s focus on its wireless network which is seen as a much more lucrative investment. Profit margins for barely-competitive wireless service remain sky high, and are growing higher as AT&T raises prices and the industry works to cut costs.

Even the company’s urban-focused U-verse network delivers opportunities for greater revenues from AT&T customers likely to buy additional services. Investing in DSL just does not pull in the same level of profits, and companies like AT&T will remain reluctant to expand rural broadband unless the government delivers a much larger government subsidy, according to Benjamin Lennett, a policy director at the New America Foundation.

“It underscores how flawed it is to rely on private companies to serve these rural areas where their margins are not going to be that high,” Lennett said.

Unfortunately for communities trying to work around AT&T’s roadblock, the company has made sure towns and villages building their own networks soon discover that road remains closed in more than dozen states thanks to  AT&T with the help from corporate groups like ALEC, who feed willing legislators bills often drafted by the corporations they are designed to protect.