The People’s Republic of China is accelerating its deployment of fiber optic broadband at the expense of DSL, according to a new report from market research firm Infonetics Research.

“The major story in the broadband aggregation equipment market this quarter is the dramatic drop in DSL ports in China, which points to operators there continuing their dramatic shift away from DSL,” said Jeff Heynen, directing analyst for broadband access at Infonetics Research.  “The first quarter is typically one of the slowest for DSL, but the seasonal effect was worsened by Chinese operators’ continued shift away from traditional [DSL].”

The Chinese broadband market is increasingly based on fiber networks, especially in larger cities where broadband demand is rapidly increasing. Worldwide spending on advanced broadband networks is being driven by broadband expansions in China, Japan, and Korea — all accelerating their fiber deployments. For Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE, the news is both good and bad.  Both companies profited from sales of EPON and GPON equipment which help power fiber networks, but lost plenty from the decline in spending on DSL technology.

The North American market has stalled, and is expected to remain in neutral until Verizon decides to re-initiate its FiOS buildout.  Broadband stimulus funding may also help boost spending, but most providers are relying on slow speed DSL to introduce rural America to broadband service.  In markets where providers are delivering fiber to the home, companies like Calix are reaping the rewards, with revenue up 222 percent this quarter, mostly earned from sales of Ethernet Fiber to the Home equipment.

Stop the Cap! reader Cal believes AT&T cannot be reasoned with about Internet Overcharging until you threaten to cancel.

While a significant number of customers have already pulled the plug on AT&T DSL and U-verse service over their recently-introduced Internet Overcharging schemes, some are telling Stop the Cap! they have no plans to actually disconnect service until AT&T threatens to charge them overlimit fees.

For some AT&T customers, there is no suitable alternative to the phone company.  Rural customers without a cable provider, or those who are faced with two bad choices — AT&T or Charter Communications — say they are going to test AT&T’s resolve to actually overbill them.

Cal is an AT&T customer is Missouri.  His alternative?  Charter Cable, which has an Internet Overcharging scheme of its own and delivers what he calls “third world service” in his community.  Given a choice, he intends to stay with AT&T as long as possible, pulling the plug only after his third warning of exceeding the phone company’s new broadband usage limits.  He thinks AT&T’s customer service won’t ultimately let it come to that.

“My sister works for an AT&T call center where she lives, and there was some training on the subject of handling the company’s usage caps,” Cal reports. “Get the right representative or supervisor and they can make virtually anything go away with a few keystrokes, especially if you are prepared to cancel your service over the issue.  While they may not cancel the caps, they very well may credit back any overcharges.”

Cal says his family does not intend to change their usage habits one bit.  He’ll change providers before he rations his Internet usage.

“I maintain control over our Internet access here, they don’t and sure as hell won’t,” he said.  “We do not do illegal downloads and we don’t allow torrenting or anything else that can get my kids into trouble, but we do use a Roku box and watch Netflix instead of buying pay movie channels with programming not suitable for my family to watch.”

Cal says his five children are home-schooled, which makes daily Internet access an essential part of the education process.  Many companies that provide home-schooling materials increasingly require a broadband connection.  While not as bandwidth hungry as Netflix video streaming, with five children in the home, usage adds up fast.

“It is not hard to do 260GB of usage a month, which puts us just over their U-verse limit, and I’ll be damned if I am going to pay AT&T another $10 for 10GB over,” Cal says.  “This is another reason why the Obama Administration is no better than the last one — they are all masters of big corporations who will rob us blind and use the money to pay off Congress to look the other way.”

Cal used to be a Charter Cable customer, but left when that company implemented its own Internet Overcharging scheme.

“I told Charter with their lousy service they were lucky I was a customer, but after putting usage limits on, I left,” he reports.

Cal’s neighbor thinks he has an even better way to battle AT&T.

“My neighbor will cancel service under his name and sign up under his wife’s and bounce between them whenever AT&T threatens to send him a bigger bill; he has already been doing that for years back and forth between AT&T and Charter on new customer deals,” Cal says.

Cal, and many other readers touching base with us, believe AT&T is not very responsive to customer complaints unless customers threaten to cancel service, and they believe AT&T will only change its mind when shareholders see the usage limits as counterproductive.

“AT&T can buy enough people in Washington to make street protests irrelevant, but their shareholders sure won’t like it when they see customers and revenue dropping,” Cal notes.  “If you can’t get cable, you are stuck with AT&T, so you have to keep the pressure on — file complaints with the Better Business Bureau, the FCC, and Congress.  Make them spend more money defending their policy than they earn from its proceeds.”

Purdue

North Carolina Gov. Bev Purdue today announced she will not veto H.129, Time Warner Cable’s special interest corporate welfare bill because there are too many votes available to overturn her veto:

Her statement:

“I believe that every school, household and business in North Carolina – no matter where they are – should have access to efficient and affordable broadband services.

There is a need to establish rules to prevent cities and towns from having an unfair advantage over providers in the private sector. My concern with House Bill 129 is that the restrictions the General Assembly has imposed on cities and towns who want to offer broadband services may have the effect of decreasing the number of choices available to their citizens.

For these reasons, I will neither sign nor veto this bill. Instead, I call on the General Assembly to revisit this issue and adopt rules that not only promote fairness but also allow for the greatest number of high quality and affordable broadband options for consumers.”

While we would have preferred she make the symbolic gesture of vetoing this horrible piece of legislation, by no means does this mean the battle for better broadband in North Carolina is over.

Stop the Cap!, along with other broadband proponents, will immediately begin our efforts to de-elect legislators who best represented the interests of Time Warner Cable and not their constituents.  Most are Republican, but many are Democrats.  They all need to feel the wrath of angry constituents.

It’s our view we had an uphill battle fighting this year’s bill for two reasons:

1. Big Telecom companies learned from their earlier mistakes;
2. The historic change of power to the very-corporate-friendly Republican Party in North Carolina.  Elections really do have consequences.

"I wish you'd turn the camera off now because I am going to get up and leave if you don't." -- Rep. Julia Howard

While not all Republicans are bad, and several rural North Carolina representatives expressed grave reservations about their areas going unserved, there are not enough good ones in office to offset the anti-consumer lockstep voting we saw on this bill.  Rep. Marilyn Avila, who we have consistently called the “Republican representing Time Warner Cable” is a case in point.  Time and time again, she demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the technical nature of “her bill” and its implications on cities and towns across the state.  Indeed, a citizen activist even snapped photos of Avila hobnobbing with her cable lobbyist friends, who mopped up any goofs Avila made along the way.

Another major problem can be found in Rep. Julia Howard (R-Davie, Iredell).  She claimed her word is her bond, right before she broke it.  When the media pressed her on the $7000 in campaign contributions she received from Big Telecom and whether that connected to her support for H.129, she threatened to flee the interview if a Raleigh television station didn’t immediately shut the camera off.

There is a real classy example of standing up for your principles, whatever were that week.  The former realtor and appraiser helped foreclose North Carolina’s broadband future, handing it back to the near-exclusive control of Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink.

Appealing for less broadband competition under the guise of smaller government might be fine for some, but big and bigger cable bills are not, and that is what H.129 will deliver to every resident in the state.  We’ll prove it to you soon enough.

Two can play the legislative game.  We’ll be encouraging new legislation in the state to improve and expand competitive broadband opportunities for consumers and businesses.  Real conservatives should agree: competition is a great antidote to Internet Overcharging.

When Stop the Cap! reader Nancy learned earlier this year AT&T was pushing yet another deregulation bill in the Michigan legislature allowing the company to abandon landline service if and when it chooses, she called AT&T and her state representatives to protest.

“When I called AT&T, the representative literally told me if the company ever did decide to stop offering basic phone service in Michigan, I should just ‘get a cell phone,'” Nancy reports.  “Naturally they tried to sell me one of theirs and I replied I was not likely to be loyal to a company that was willing to abandon me and hundreds of thousands of other rural customers.”

As in Wisconsin, AT&T’s lobbying efforts follow the same basic playbook: use friendly legislators and dollar-a-holler groups financed in part by AT&T to push deregulation as “improving competition” and making the state “business friendly.”  But as Nancy learned from experiences in Wisconsin, those are empty promises when rates go up.

“These same people pushed to deregulate cable in Wisconsin so they could offer AT&T’s cable TV service, promising lower prices if we had AT&T competing against Time Warner Cable,” Nancy remembers.  “Time Warner and AT&T raised their rates for both services, instead.”

Nancy has a good memory.  So do we.  Yet again, AT&T’s chief Astroturfer is Thad Nation, this time under the name of the Midwest Consumers for Choice and Competition.  While consumers get ignored, Nation gets time to testify before the House Energy and Technology Committee.

Nation, who runs a lobbying firm, told legislators companies like AT&T should not have to invest in old copper-lines that consumers don’t care about.  He claims it prevents AT&T and other companies from investing in broadband and wireless.

The only thing missing from this group are actual consumers. Instead, their "partners" include: AT&T, groups funded by AT&T, and several chapters of the Chamber of Commerce.

In reality, legislation pushed by AT&T will allow them and other phone companies to abandon providing even basic landline service in the rural areas they no longer care about. There is no evidence (and no regulation) AT&T will invest in either broadband or improved wireless service in rural areas where the company is unlikely to quickly recoup its investment.

Our friends at the Michigan Telephone Blog pointed us to a piece in the Huron Daily Tribune, a newspaper at ground zero for rural Michigan’s potential loss of landline service should the deregulation bill pass.

Located in Michigan’s “thumb” — the northeastern part of the state separated by Saginaw Bay, Tribune reporters drilled down into the implications for the loss of traditional landline service in this largely-rural area of Michigan.

Huron County Commissioner John Bodis, who chairs the Legislative Committee, said he’s aware of the bill and foresees some issues with it, particularly in regard to the provision allowing phone companies to discontinue landline service in an area where Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) or cell phone service is available.

“If it’s not mandated, they’re not going to do it,” he said. “So, I’m hoping the Senate version will tweak that a little bit and hold their feet to the fire, but I don’t know.”

In its May Capitol Currents, the Michigan Township Association reported its concerns center around residents losing their land-line phone services when other options are not adequate (i.e. poor cell phone coverage because of hills, trees, etc.).

In written testimony to the House Energy and Technology Committee, Brian Groom, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1106, stated over the past decade, the Michigan Legislature has gradually removed telecommunications providers from the oversight of the MPSC, and HB 4314 would complete that process by eliminating the last vestige of regulation — the Primary Basic Local Exchange Service.

“This service, as currently mandated in state statute, requires residential service providers to offer — at the very least — a basic calling plan to customers in their service territory,” Groom stated. “In 2005, when (M)PSC regulation of larger calling plans was eliminated, proponents argued that the public would continue to be protected by the existence of a Primary Basic Local Exchange Service requirement.”

“This means telecommunication companies providing basic local exchange or toll service will be able to discontinue or deny service to any customer who has access to ‘a comparable voice service.’ Nothing in the bill ensures that such service would be affordable, reliable or of a minimum quality,” Grooms continued. “For customers living in remote areas which are of a higher cost to serve via landlines, this legislation could result in them having to depend on higher cost and less reliable forms of telecommunication services. This bill would create a telecommunications environment where large areas of the state have no access at all to traditional landline telephone service.”

“That means people like me and my friends in places like Bad Axe, Elmwood, and Minden City — communities few people outside of Michigan would have heard of, get disconnected because they are too rural to get much attention from these companies,” Nancy says.

Frontier Communications, which provides service in some areas of the state, claims monopolies don’t exist in the phone business:

In written testimony, Bob Stewart, Frontier Communications state director of governmental affairs for Michigan and Indiana, indicated the current atmosphere is no conducive toward monopolies.

“The telecommunications industry in Michigan has moved to a highly competitive environment where monopoly powers even in rural areas do not exist,” he stated. “Unneeded and outdated regulations in the Michigan Telecommunications Act are cleaned up by HB 4314. Michigan needs to celebrate the success of the MTA by declaring victory; not over regulating simply for the sake of regulation.”

But many rural Michigan residents far from cable television and strong signal cell phone service would beg to differ.

“The further inland you head on the ‘thumb,’ the worse things get,” Nancy reports.  “Much of this is farm country and they can’t even get DSL service, and cell reception might be barely adequate outside, but walk inside and your signal is gone.”

Despite consumers like Nancy getting upset when they learn the long term implications of these bills, without a public outcry it is easy for legislators to vote with AT&T.  In the House, HB 4314 passed 102-6.  The six standouts that stood up for consumers?

Reps. Vicki Barnett (D-Farmington Hills, Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor), Steven Lindberg (D-Marquette), Lesia Liss (D-Warren), Edward McBroom (R-Vulcan) and Phil Potvin (R-Cadillac).

At least 41 percent of West Virginian economic development professionals responding in a new survey rate their area’s existing broadband service as “not very good,” a result that could have profound implications for high tech economic development in the state because of poor quality business broadband service.

Some of the results of the survey, conducted by Internet Service Provider Citynet:

• 77% said government involvement in steering broadband policy was “very important.”
• 78% believe modern, reasonably priced broadband Internet infrastructure is “extremely important” or “very important” in competing against other locations for jobs.
• On a 10-point scale, broadband Internet infrastructure (8.56) rates as slightly more important than road improvements (8.26) and water infrastructure (8.26).

“Seventy-eight percent of respondents say it has been their experience that businesses considering locating in their areas place high priority on access to affordable, high-speed Internet when evaluating site selections,” said Jim Martin, president and chief executive officer of Citynet. “And 66 percent say cost and capacity of broadband service are factors more than half of the time when discussing new business prospects.”

Some participants in the survey said they are losing business prospects in part due to the lack of broadband capacity, its speed or cost. Most of the professionals said they were “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar” with broadband expansion programs, such as middle-mile infrastructure, being implemented in adjoining states.

In West Virginia, most broadband expansion is being done by “last-mile” service provider Frontier Communications, which took over most of the state’s landlines from Verizon.  For most homes and businesses outside of areas where cable companies compete, Frontier provides DSL broadband service ranging from 1-3Mbps in smaller communities, perhaps 7Mbps or slightly better in larger cities.

West Virginia has proved to be one of the least impressive states for broadband owing to its terrain and large number of rural communities, providing few incentives for robust competition.  That has meant slow speed service at high prices.

Survey respondents were less than impressed:

• “I have a project pending [and] will probably lose it based on costs of broadband.”
• “The lack of high speed service in the rural areas totally extinguishes the possibility of new small business start-ups.”
• “Prospects don’t look here because of the lack of high speed, affordable, reliable broadband…. Current speeds of up to 3 mb while may be suitable for residential use are not suitable for business.”
• “Not only do too many areas still not have broadband, but too many places where people live do not have it and that affects the quality of life issue when attracting a prospect to live, work and play in WV.”
• “We were looking at a possible location of a data center and the lack of affordable, large capacity broadband was a deciding factor in them not locating in WV.”
• “We need the middle-mile and trunk-line services in West Virginia to remain competitive for many of today’s industries. What good is it if we get high-speed to every place in West Virginia, when we can only reach each other and do not have the facilities to get out of the state and into the major lines?”
• “[We] lost a company that looked at an existing building located in an area that doesn’t have high-speed access. They ended up locating in another area.”
• “You are not in the game without it.”
• “What are we waiting for?”

Citynet has a dog in this fight.  Martin has tangled with Frontier Communications in the past year over broadband stimulus funding and where taxpayer dollars are being spent in the state.  While Frontier has touted “fiber projects” in West Virginia, those are primarily directed at increasing capacity for Frontier’s middle-mile network between its telephone exchanges, in hopes of expanding DSL further out into rural areas.  The company is also trying to address congestion issues that have grown since buying out Verizon’s landline-based broadband business.

Martin has criticized state officials for supporting Frontier’s efforts because the company will end up owning and controlling the network built, in part, from taxpayer dollars.

Stop the Cap! hears regularly from ordinary consumers in the state who are dissatisfied with their broadband choices, especially when they come from just a single provider — Frontier.  Slow speeds, poor service, and repeated service outages have been documented here and by the state’s local media.  Some outages are attributable to Verizon’s poor quality infrastructure (now owned by Frontier), others to Frontier’s unwillingness to replace that infrastructure — instead choosing to repair it, even if further outages occur later.