Rep. Avila with Marc Trathen, Time Warner Cable's top lobbyist (right) Photo by: Bob Sepe of Action Audits

Over the course of an hour this afternoon, North Carolina’s Senate Finance Committee discussed the implications of H.129, legislation proposed, written, and lobbied by Time Warner Cable and some of their phone friends across the state.

On hand was Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable), who tried to turn her competition-busting bill into an emotional epiphany about jobs and the benefits private providers bring to a state now ranked dead last in broadband.

Pass me a tissue.

Nobody doubts Ms. Avila is looking out for the interests of the state’s big cable and phone companies.  Unfortunately for her district, she isn’t looking out for the broadband interests of her constituents, forced to pay some of America’s highest prices for low end service.

As Avila pals around with lobbyists from Time Warner Cable and the state’s cable trade group (more lobbyists), consumers in places like Orange County in north-central North Carolina see themselves on broadband maps but find they cannot actually get service from any providers.

As the hearing progressed into two-minute statements from parties interested in the outcome, the disconnect between well-paid lobbyists and corporate front groups like Americans for Prosperity with elected officials and consumers on the ground surveying a bleak broadband landscape said a lot.

Cable companies and their lobbyist friends sought to portray community broadband projects as fiscal failures — one suggested that was a global reality, despite the fact many countries have embarked on nationwide broadband plans that directly involve government to help build infrastructure.  The global leader in broadband, South Korea, is a perfect example.  With collaboration between the government and the private sector, Korea will have 1 gigabit broadband service across much of the country within a few years.  That’s because South Korea does not believe broadband is simply a convenience, they see it as a social and economic necessity.

The other side sees it as a private moneymaker that can charge rapacious prices because it’s not an essential service.

Shining a bright light on this reality was Americans for Prosperity, who delivered their own speaker at today’s hearing.  As the group complained about government ‘overreach’ providing incentives in the 1930s for rural power and phone service, it quickly became apparent there are some in this debate willing to let rural Americans sit in darkness, without a phone line (much less broadband), to make a free market point: if private companies can’t or won’t deliver the service, you don’t deserve it and shouldn’t have it.

One wonders where this thinking will ultimately take us.  Will community gardens be opposed for taking vegetable profits away from private corporate farms?  Flea markets on public fairgrounds should be banned because they unfairly compete with eBay, Dollar Tree or a supermarket?  The irony is these “small government conservatives” are all for big government legislation to keep potential competitors at bay.  For them, broadband cannot be a locally-determined community project — just something you buy from a company that may or may not have an interest in serving you.

Just ask the gentleman from Orange County, who appeared as the final speaker.  He spent his two minutes complaining about faulty cable and phone company-provided broadband coverage maps that claim service where none exists.  After spending money on equipment, he learned CenturyLink had no interest in actually providing him with DSL.  In fact, when he asked both the phone and cable company when that might change, the impression he was left with was “never.”

Whether members of the state legislature understand the irony of CenturyLink spending a fortune making sure Orange County never delivers the broadband service the company won’t provide itself is something voters across the state will need to impress on them.

They should be told, in no uncertain terms, to oppose H.129 and leave community broadband alone in North Carolina.

Signal boosters use an outdoor antenna to reach distant cell tower sites, while using an indoor antenna your mobile device can lock onto for improved reception.

If the Federal Communications Commission has its way, Americans annoyed with lousy cell phone reception will soon be able to purchase a new generation of signal boosters capable of delivering service to fringe reception areas ignored or bypassed by providers.  And unlike home cell-phone extenders, they won’t use your home broadband connection while also eating up your voice and data allowance.

A signal booster, not to be confused with a “femtocell” some wireless carriers sell or give to customers, acts like an amplified super-antenna — giving a boost to phones and mobile broadband signals in difficult reception areas.

This devices have been around and legal to use for a several years in North America, much to the consternation of cell phone companies and some public safety officials who deal with occasional interference problems created by misused or malfunctioning equipment.  The FCC is trying to find ways to mitigate interference problems while still allowing customers to benefit from signal boosters.  There are documented cases of rescuers relying on the equipment in remote disaster areas, and rural residents have managed 911 calls that would have been impossible without signal boosting technology.

Despite the agency’s efforts, several cell phone companies — particularly AT&T, object to the Commission’s plans to allow the independent use of signal-boosting equipment on “their” frequencies and networks.  Because cell phone boosters agnostically enhance every company’s signal within its frequency range and does not require users to pre-register phones to get access, AT&T stands to lose revenue if they are not the exclusive authority on selling, approving, and registering the use of miniature relay stations that boost their network’s coverage area.

AT&T currently sells customers femtocells which reduce dependence on the carrier’s overburdened 3G network — offloading traffic onto home and workplace wired broadband connections, which includes both voice calls and data.  But only a small percentage of customers get the equipment for free, often extending their contracts in the process.

Some providers and emergency responders have documented instances where these devices have created interference problems for cell tower sites and for emergency radio traffic that co-exists on the same frequency bands signal boosters occupy.  In some cases, inappropriate use of signal boosters has blocked emergency traffic, shut down cell sites, or reduced their coverage.  That is why the FCC wants the next generation of signal boosters to be able to intelligently interact with cell sites and other traffic users and reduce their power or discontinue service if they begin to create interference problems.

AT&T’s suggested safeguards go well beyond what most other carriers want from the FCC:

First, AT&T proposes that wireless licensees have “ultimate control” over any signal boosters operating on their networks under a presumptive authorization.  Specifically, signal booster operators must activate their devices with the licensee prior to initial use. In addition, the booster must possess technology to permit the licensee’s network to identify the device as a booster and identify its location at all times. Further, the licensee must have “dynamic control over the boosters’ transmit power” and have the authority and ability to turn off the booster for any reason at any time. Alternatively, AT&T proposes that the booster have “automatic gain control functionality that adjusts the power provided to the booster based on distance to the relevant base station.”

Second, AT&T proposes that signal boosters may only be operated on a channelized basis on the frequencies authorized for use by the wireless licensee whose signal is being boosted. AT&T suggests that manufacturers could meet this requirement by selling carrier-specific narrowband boosters or by designing “intelligent” boosters that limit transmissions to the spectrum licensed to the carrier whose signal is being boosted.

Third, AT&T proposes that signal boosters be designed with oscillation detection and will terminate transmission when oscillation occurs.

Fourth, AT&T proposes an expanded certification process for signal boosters that are to be used pursuant to a presumptive authorization. Specifically, the booster would be subject to (1) the Commission’s equipment certification process; (2) an industry-driven certification process;105 and (3) individual licensee approval to ensure compliance with the licensee’s proprietary confidential network protocols.

Fifth, AT&T proposes that any presumptive authorization standards be applied prospectively and that the Commission bring enforcement action against parties that sell, market, or use devices that do not meet the presumptive standard.

Wilson Electronics is a major manufacturer of cell signal boosters.

Equipment manufacturers are not impressed with AT&T’s ideas.  One tells Stop the Cap! if adopted, signal boosting equipment would cost more than double today’s average price of $200-400.

“AT&T has built so many requirements into their proposal, they know the result will be a product too expensive to sell to consumers,” the source tells us.  “And the part where AT&T wants the right to authorize and register the equipment gives them the option of charging a fee for doing so, turning the product into yet another way for AT&T to make money.”

Equipment manufacturers agree that there have been instances of interference problems, and they are willing to work with the Commission to find solutions, but not at the risk of adopting proposals some suspect are designed to destroy the signal booster business.

“AT&T is a control freak, plain and simple,” the source says.  “If they don’t own it or control it, it’s offensive to them.  It must be eliminated.”

More than one equipment manufacturer has noted, not for attribution, they find AT&T’s complaints a bit ironic.

“This is the same company that is already notorious for dropping calls,” said the source.  “You would think they would look favorably on anything that could deliver ‘more bars in more places,’ because AT&T sure isn’t doing it these days.  Just ask their customers.”

[Important Update — 7:53am ET 4/7 — Because of a technicality, it is important for everyone to reference H.129 when calling your state senators.  Members of the Senate Finance Committee are still evaluating the House version of the bill — H.129, so senators will more readily identify the bill we are opposing when we reference the House version (and not S.87).  You can also call it the “Level Playing Field” bill, but with disgust.  Include the fact you found the name highly ironic, since the only thing it will “level” are the state’s community broadband networks — right to the ground.  If you already called, why not just send a follow-up e-mail opposing H.129.]

Stop the Cap! has learned lobbyists for North Carolina’s cable and phone companies are growing concerned over increasing opposition to their custom-written duopoly protection bill that will ruin community broadband developments across the state and threaten ones already up and running.  Now they’re in a mad dash to push S.87 (the Senate version of H.129) through the Senate Tuesday before you have a chance to call and express outrage over this corporate protectionism.

Our sources tell us the bill has been yanked from the Senate Commerce Committee and is moving faster than North Carolina’s cable and DSL broadband to the Finance Committee, where bill sponsors hope for a quick voice vote and no public comment allowed.

The engineer of the legislative railroad in the Senate is Sen. Tom Apodaca (R) who serves the western North Carolina counties of Buncombe, Henderson, and Polk — areas with broadband challenges of their own.  Apodaca’s lead role pushing an anti-broadband bill is ironic considering his campaign website lists his priorities as:

• “Great schools for our children.” Western N.C. residents without broadband service at home are forced to resort to sitting in their cars in school parking lots or spend hours at overburdened public libraries to access Wi-Fi networks to complete homework assignments.  Great schools in a digital economy require great broadband – both in school and at home
• “Better paying jobs.” Digital economy jobs are always in demand and bring good salaries.  But those with inadequate broadband will find the kind of entrepreneurial experience and independent study required to excel in these fields hampered by satellite fraudband service or dial-up that limits possibilities and leaves North Carolina behind.
• “Let people keep more of the money they earn.” It’s a great idea, and competition for big cable and phone companies guarantees it.  In Wilson, consumers don’t face annual rate hikes for their cable service.  Can your community say that?  When their network is paid off, Wilson’s GreenLight will start paying off for local residents as well, keeping money in the community.
• “And access to quality health care.” As Google intends to prove in Kansas City, Kansas — great health care and excellent broadband go hand-in-hand to deliver better patient outcomes at a cheaper price.  Every health care provider wants faster broadband to increase efficiency and reduce costs and medical care errors.  S.87 delivers the equivalent of just another metal filing cabinet and fax machine to the back office.  Allowing communities to build fiber broadband changes everything.

What has proven so perplexing to consumers across the state is how a bill written by and for the cable and phone companies that does not deliver a single new broadband connection is getting such love and care from a legislature that is supposed to represent the interests of voters, not multi-billion dollar out of state corporations.  It confuses some of America’s high tech companies as well, including Google, Alcatel-Lucent, and Intel.  They’ve all signed a joint letter opposing H.129/S.87.

In fact, one of the reasons Google picked Kansas City, Kansas for its 1Gbps network is the friendly working relationship it has established with local utilities, which are all owned by the community of Kansas City.  It no doubt speaks volumes to Google that the North Carolina legislature would rather be at war with their towns and cities for the benefit of Time Warner Cable, AT&T and CenturyLink, than allowing communities to build their own broadband networks.  At a time when the FCC has ranked North Carolina worst in the nation, members of the Senate are being asked to guarantee that will remain so for years to come.

So What Should I Do?

Get on the phone -and- e-mail your state senator and demand a NO vote on S.87. If you are shy, you can call before or after business hours and leave a message on their voicemail. It takes less than five minutes.  Your calls make a huge difference because so few constituents ever call state legislators.  Here are your talking points:

Apodaca

1.  At a time when we need all the broadband improvements this state can muster, S.87 destroys those efforts for the benefit of a handful of out of state phone and cable companies. It’s classic protectionism — the same companies that helped write this bill are fully exempted from its onerous requirements.  The practical reality for rural North Carolina is either waiting for existing companies to deliver service they were always free to provide (and won’t), or allowing communities to do it themselves where appropriate.  Why should rural North Carolina have to depend on out of state corporations for basic broadband service many still don’t have?

2.  Not a single company has been harmed by community broadband projects in North Carolina.  In fact, it has created incentive to improve products and services while keeping prices stable, a welcome relief for consumers enduring annual rate increases far outpacing inflation.  Why is the state Senate trying to pass legislation that will guarantee higher bills and worse service?

3.  North Carolina’s fiber networks are not economic failures risking taxpayer dollars.  In fact, protections for taxpayers are already a part of the state code.  The General Assembly has already established: (1) rules governing Public Enterprises (NCGS Chapter 160A, Article 16); (2) strict rules in the Budget and Fiscal Control Act governing all municipal budgets and expenditures, including hearing and disclosure requirements (NCGS Chapter 159, Article 3); and (3) strict oversight of municipal borrowing by the Local Government Commission (NCGS Chapter 159).  S.87 attempts to micromanage public projects to the point where they simply cannot function and pay off bondholders and will, for future projects, ensure they never get off the ground.

4.  Now that the FCC ranks North Carolina dead last in broadband, isn’t it be time to allow new entrants to shake up the market and deliver some competition? Since when is legislating for less broadband better for this state?  The communities of Wilson and Salisbury now have the tools to compete with any wired city in America to attract new digital economy business and jobs.  S.87 sends exactly the wrong message — telling business the state wants to wait for the cable or phone company to eventually (if ever), deliver service other states now take for granted.  Businesses cannot wait.  We cannot wait.

5.  Provisions of this bill are unconstitutional.  By placing illegal regulatory burdens on only public providers of communications services (defined broadly) H.129/S.87 will harm municipal convention centers, public safety networks, smart grid systems, tower leasing contracts, and even make seemingly free public Wi-Fi networks vulnerable to lawsuits if the large incumbents want in on those services.

6.  The only real level playing field in broadband is the one that already exists without S.87.  Tell your senator you are tired of seeing these cable company-written bills come up in the Legislature year after year when the state has more important matters to worry about.  Time Warner Cable will do just fine without S.87, just as they do well in every other state where these kinds of bills would never get passed into law (or even proposed).

Senate Representation By County

2011-2012 Session

(click on your member’s name for contact information)

A new report has found the home of America’s worst broadband service can be found in the state of North Carolina.

The Tar Heel State ranks dead last in the number of homes able to access the Internet at speeds the Federal Communications Commission defines as “broadband” — 4/1Mbps.  The report quotes from FCC figures that show only 10 percent of North Carolina households are receiving broadband service at speeds that equal or exceed 3Mbps downstream and 768 kbps upstream.  States traditionally thought to be bottom-ranked, including Mississippi and Idaho, are now doing better than the home of Research Triangle Park.

The report comes courtesy of the SouthEast Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (SEATOA), which is attempting to fight off efforts to stop individual communities from delivering the service big cable and phone companies refuse to provide in large parts of the state.

Where Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink do deliver service, customers pay dearly for it.  Broadband.com found most of America’s worst broadband values in North Carolina.  In fact, outside of prohibitively expensive Anchorage, Alaska, seven of the ten most expensive cities were in North Carolina, when measuring cost per megabit (see below for a better understanding of how this figure was computed):

America's Worst Broadband is in North Carolina (source: Broadband.com)

Comparatively, states in the northeast were meccas.  Sixty percent or more of residents in Delaware, Massachusetts and New Jersey have broadband at speeds the FCC now considers bare minimum.  In larger states: New York, 43 percent and Pennsylvania, 44 percent, broadband speed still scored higher despite the large rural sections of both states.  Verizon’s fiber-to-the-home network has compelled upgrades among cable company competitors to keep up with the benefits fiber optics bring.

But in North Carolina, only community-owned networks are delivering service comparable to that found in the increasingly-fiber-wired northeast.  Instead of committing to upgrades, large cable and phone companies are spending plenty lobbying to restrict and banish the improved service these networks provide in communities like Wilson and Salisbury.

SEATOA’s conclusion?  The current inadequate level of service coming from North Carolina’s cable and phone companies allows the state to fall further behind in America’s economic recovery.

More about how Broadband.com calculated the results can be found below the jump.

… Continue Reading

Lynch

Verizon’s ambitions to provide 285 million people with the option of ditching their cable or DSL broadband account for its new LTE/4G wireless network is a dream that will never come true with the company’s wireless Internet Overcharging schemes.  With a usage cap of 5-10GB per month and a premium price, only the most casual user is going to give up their landline cable or DSL service for Verizon’s wireless alternative.

Dick Lynch, executive vice president and chief technology officer at Verizon spoke highly of Verizon’s new next generation wireless network as a perfect platform to deliver broadband service to landline customers, including many of those the company sold off to Hawaiian Telcom, FairPoint Communications, or Frontier.

“[LTE] provides a real opportunity for the first time to give a fixed customer in a home, broadband service — wireless — but broadband service,” Lynch said. “In wireless, I see a great opportunity within the LTE plans we have to begin to service the customers who don’t have broadband today … They will be able to have mobile LTE and also to be able to have fixed broadband.”

Unfortunately, Verizon’s LTE network comes with usage limits and a premium price — $50 a month for 5GB or $80 a month for 10GB.  At those prices, rural America will have two bad choices — super slow 1-3Mbps DSL ($30-60) with allowances ranging from 100GB-unlimited or LTE’s 5-12Mbps (assuming the local cell tower is not overloaded with users) with a usage cap that guarantees online video will come at a per-view cost rivaling a matinee movie ticket.

Still, Verizon is likely to test market the service as a home broadband replacement, particularly in territories they no longer serve.  Verizon has done much the same thing pitching a home phone replacement product that works with their wireless network to residents of Rochester, N.Y., and the state of Connecticut, neither currently served with landlines from Verizon.

Despite the pricing and cap challenges, Deutsche Bank — one of the Wall Street players that follows Verizon — thinks the company’s DSL-replacement has merit, if:

1. If you are a regular traveler that needs a wireless broadband service anyway;
2. You use broadband exclusively for web browsing, e-mail, and very occasional multimedia access;
3. You are wealthy enough not to care about the overlimit penalty.

For everyone else, sticking with traditional DSL service will continue to be the most affordable option, assuming usage caps are kept at bay.  Where available, cable broadband service from companies that serve smaller communities, including Comcast Cable, Time Warner Cable, and Cablevision, among others, will probably continue to deliver the most bang for the buck in rural America.