FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act. The rhetoric rarely matched the results.

Washington insiders are predicting Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski will leave his position early in President Obama’s second term.

It cannot come soon enough, as far as we’re concerned.

One of the biggest disappointments of the Obama Administration has been the poor performance of a chairman that originally promised a departure from the rubber stamp-mentality that allowed Big Telecom providers to win near-instant approval of just about anything asked from the Republican-dominated FCC of the Bush Administration. If only to underline that point, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell joined Republican ex-commissioner Meredith Atwell-Baker on a trip through the D.C. revolving door, taking lucrative jobs with the same cable industry both used to oversee.

We had high hopes for Mr. Genachowski when he took the helm at the FCC — particularly over Net Neutrality, media consolidation, and predatory abuse of consumers at the hands of the comfortable cable-telco duopoly. Genachowski promised strong Net Neutrality protections, better broadband — especially in rural areas, an end to rubber stamping competition killing mergers and acquisitions, and more aggressive oversight of the broadband industry generally.

What we got was the reincarnation of the Cowardly Lion.

The Washington Post reviews Genachowski’s tenure during the first term of the Obama Administration and reports he has few unabashed supporters left. Telecom companies loathe Genachowski’s more cautious approach and consumer groups hate his penchant for caving in when lobbyists come calling. In short, another Democrat that talks tough and caves in at the first sign of trouble.

“His tenure has been nothing but a huge disappointment because he’s squandered an opportunity to give consumers the competitive communications market they deserve,” Derek Turner, head of policy analysis at public interest group Free Press told the Post. “If someone like him upholds compromise, it quickly leads to capitulation, which is what he’s done. He folds…to the pressure of big companies.”

Genachowski’s Record:

• Heavily promoted rural broadband and oversaw a review program measuring actual broadband speeds against those claimed by providers. But much of the money available for improving rural broadband has been separately awarded to “middle mile” and “institutional networks” that are not accessible to most consumers or businesses. Genachowki has heaped automatic praise on many of the phone companies winning broadband funding, despite the fact many of them are satisfied giving consumers no better than 4Mbps service;
• Reformed the outdated Universal Service Fund, which long outlived much of its usefulness, into a broadband expansion fund. But some unintended consequences have led to some rural providers suspending network upgrades because of funding uncertainties still unresolved;
• Approved a blockbuster merger deal between Comcast and NBC-Universal that included temporary “hard-won” concessions Comcast later admitted they were going to offer anyway – merger or not. The result is a new high bar for tolerating super-sized media consolidation with no serious consideration of the impact on consumers. The latest evidence: support for Rupert “Phone Hacker” Murdoch’s latest efforts to buy more newspapers in the United States;
• Rejected an AT&T/T-Mobile merger deal, but only after the Justice Dept. took the lead dismissing it as an anti-consumer, anti-competition nightmare. Within hours, Genachowski’s office issued a “me, too” press release condemning the deal he said little about earlier;
• Demanded a strong Net Neutrality framework to protect the open Internet, but utterly caved under pressure from politicians receiving hefty corporate contributions from AT&T and others. The resulting loophole-ridden “protections” do not apply to wireless, and the industry-approved compromise is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by some of the same companies that earlier applauded Genachowski’s flexibility;
• Genachowski handed out his direct phone numbers to the CEO’s of the top Big Telecom companies, and has been directly lobbied by those “super-citizens,” while ordinary consumers are stuck filing comments with the FCC’s arcane Electronic Comment Filing System. Genachowski also directed closed-door meetings be held on the subject of Net Neutrality with large telecom companies. These meetings were closed to the public with no consumer representatives on hand;
• Genachowski refused to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service,” which would give the agency clear-cut authority to oversee the service. Instead, he has stuck with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s odd interpretation of broadband as “an information service,” not subject to much review by the agency;
• Appropriately nixed Philip Falcone’s LightSquared venture, the biggest threat to GPS navigation around. But Genachowski’s controversial early boosting of the venture, including support for expedited special permission to launch the network without the usual scrutiny, resulted in an embarrassing about-face after long-standing critics’ fears of navigation interference were vindicated;
• In 2012, Genachowski’s cozy relationship with the industry reached whole new levels with unabashed support for Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, despite no evidence justifying them. The FCC has continued to ignore repeated requests for a review of these pricing schemes.

Phillip “Do you want to depend on AT&T for phone service that could be gone with the wind for weeks?” Dampier

Superstorm Sandy is getting credit for exposing the thin veneer of the “wireless future” some phone companies want to give their most rural customers after disconnecting their home phone lines in favor of wireless service.

Unfortunately for the providers selling you on the wireless revolution, reality intruded last month when Category 1 Hurricane Sandy arrived. In its wake, the storm obliterated a significant amount of wireless phone service for weeks in some of the most urbanized sections of the country, while leaving underground, traditional wired phone service largely untouched.

The storm that blew into the northeastern U.S. Oct. 29 left a legacy of interrupted or inadequate cell service that lasted more than two weeks. AT&T and Verizon Wireless reported their networks were not fully restored until Nov. 15. Sprint and T-Mobile are still addressing some issues with their networks as of today.

Although the storm was enormous in scope, it was only a Category 1 hurricane. It could have been much worse.

So where did things go wrong?

Although some sites lost their wired backhaul connection which connects the tower to the provider, the biggest problem was commercial power interruption. Without power, many providers were caught flat-footed with inadequate on-site backup plans to keep cell towers up and running until regular power could be restored.

The wireless industry fought tooth and nail against common sense regulations proposed by the Federal Communications Commission after Hurricane Katrina devastated infrastructure and power facilities in southern Louisiana and Mississippi.

The FCC proposed that every cell tower be equipped with on site battery backup equipment that could sustain service for a minimum of eight hours — sufficient time for power to be restored or company engineers to arrive with more robust generators.

Providers howled about the cost of outfitting the nation’s 200,000 cell sites with even a conservative amount of backup power. The cellular industry lobbying group and Sprint sued, calling it a wasteful and unnecessary mandate. The Bush Administration eventually dropped the whole matter in November 2008 as part of its war on “burdensome” regulation.

Since then, providers have been free to design their own emergency backup plans, or have none at all. Few have made those detailed plans public, giving customers information about how likely their cell phone will work in the event of a disaster.

Verizon Wireless has been the most aggressive, voluntarily adopting the proposed FCC standards and outfitting all of their cell sites with a minimum of eight hours of battery backup power. Other providers have backup facilities at some sites, often with lower capacity batteries that won’t last as long.

Sandy illustrated that even eight hours might be inadequate. Many cell sites were on generator power for more than a week, assuming engineers could regularly reach each tower with equipment and fuel.

Other cell sites could not be returned to service immediately because of major wind damage or flooding. Those that were in service were often overburdened by enormous call volumes.

Meanwhile, unless your landline provider’s central office was flooded, your phone line kept working during and after the storm, especially if your neighborhood wiring is buried underground.

In many cases, it was the only thing working, because traditional phone lines are independently powered and not dependent on electric service in your home to operate. That is what kept your dial tone humming even as your smartphone’s battery ran out.

Ironically, the network that performed the best through the storm is the same one AT&T and Verizon would like to phase out, starting in rural areas. AT&T wants to completely abandon wired service in its most rural service areas, where calling and waiting for emergency assistance is already a hindrance. AT&T plans to spend billions to bolster its rural cell tower network to cover the landline areas it wants to abandon, but those communities would be entirely dependent on the reliability of that network, because AT&T’s competitors are unlikely to build additional infrastructure to compete.

As Sandy just demonstrated, if high-profit Manhattan customers could not be assured of reliable cell phone service from any company that provide service there, how likely is it that a customer in rural Kansas will be in real trouble summoning help over AT&T’s wireless infrastructure in the event of a cell tower failure, wiping out the only telecommunications service available in nearby towns?

Rural Americans already depend on their satellite dish to receive hundreds of channels of television entertainment, but broadband over satellite has traditionally been slow, limited and very expensive.

There is little evidence things will change quickly for those without access to traditional cable or phone company DSL. But the launch of new, higher capacity satellites, have at least increased satellite broadband speeds and eased back on extremely low usage caps under a provider’s “fair access policy.”

This week, Viasat’s Exede broadband pricing through DirecTV was formally announced. The “up to 12Mbps” service will cost:

• $39.99 for 10GB of monthly usage;
• $69.99 for 15GB;
• $119.99 for 25GB

These discounted prices are good for the first year of a two year contract. Prices increase $10 a month for the second year. Contract customers will have the $49.99 installation fee credited back on a future invoice.

There is one significant improvement: the satellite service removes the data cap between 12 midnight-5am daily – good for automated downloads, software updates and any other high bandwidth applications.

Customers have until Jan. 31 to sign up for the promotion.

Wall Street pans AT&T’s plans to spend billions to upgrade and expand its U-verse service.

Wall Street credit ratings agencies are unhappy with AT&T’s plans to increase spending on its broadband network to upgrade U-verse speeds and provide the fiber to the neighborhood service to more customers.

First, Moody’s placed AT&T’s “ratings on review for downgrade,” because AT&T’s plan to spend $22 billion to upgrade service and repurchase its own shares would throw AT&T’s debt level too high. Now Fitch Ratings has gone further, telling clients it has “downgraded” AT&T with a “negative outlook” because the phone company will spend money to provide U-verse to customers not profitable quickly enough to make the spending worthwhile.

Several Wall Street firms question the return on investment providing Internet service in rural areas where capital costs are higher. But many investment analysts are more positive about AT&T’s wireless service, which delivers substantial profits in much shorter time periods. Fitch called AT&T’s investments in LTE 4G service positive and important as Verizon Wireless continues to build and expand its own 4G LTE network.

CenturyLink CEO Glenn Post does not think much about AT&T’s plans to shift its most rural landline customers to wireless in its efforts to decommission traditional landline service.

“From a regulatory standpoint, that could be a tough go,” Post explained to Wall Street investors on a conference call last week. “There may be some areas that will have better service with wireless in some ways. As far as a competitive threat, we don’t see that being a real issue for us because just the bandwidth requirements and the limited wireless access or capability in a lot of areas.”

CenturyLink, one of four large independent phone companies and owner of former Baby Bell Qwest, is doubling down on its wired infrastructure to reach customers. The company recently announced Phoenix would be the latest city to get its fiber-to-the-neighborhood service Prism TV — the first legacy Qwest market to get IPTV service from CenturyLink. The service soft-launches in Phoenix this month, with a second city in the region or Pacific Northwest slated to get Prism sometime next year.

The company has spent much of 2012 investing in broadband, managed hosting and cloud computing for business customers, and fiber expansion to reach more than 15,000 cell towers across CenturyLink’s national service area, depicted in green on the accompanying map.

But CenturyLink executives stress their investments are “strategic” — made in areas that are most likely to deliver quick returns for the company.

While CenturyLink spends money to secure video franchising agreements in metro Denver and Colorado Springs for Prism TV service, it is moving at “a snail’s pace” to deliver broadband service in northeastern North Carolina’s Northampton County. County officials there anticipate CenturyLink will take years to deploy basic DSL service to communities outside and around Conway and Gaston.

The broadband problem in income-challenged parts of North Carolina illustrate the conundrum for county officials, who have to advocate for broadband improvement while combating misleading broadband maps that suggest access is not a problem in the state.

Donna Sullivan with the Department of Commerce notes that broadband maps in states like North Carolina have a census block granularity which does not always reveal the true picture of broadband availability.

“That means if one household in that census block can receive broadband services, the entire census block is considered covered—even though there very well may be households who cannot receive broadband to that location,” she told the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald.

Northampton County, N.C.

CenturyLink is in no hurry to expand broadband to the 1,921 households in the county of 22,000 who cannot buy broadband service at any price.

Derek Kelly, a CenturyLink spokesman, said the company is working to expand broadband services in the region, but noted the costs to lay down a fiber network to help reach the unserved is “one of the largest costs.”

That cost is much less of a problem if the customer at the end of the line happens to be a wireless company like Verizon or AT&T.

Company officials admit they are spending enormous sums “investing in fiber builds to as many [cell] towers in our service area as economically feasible.” In the third quarter alone, more than 1,000 cell towers received fiber upgrades for a total of 3,300 so far this year. The company hopes to reach 4,000-4,500 cell towers by New Year’s Eve.

The reason why CenturyLink chases wireless business while allowing rural and income-challenged service areas to go without broadband is a simple matter of economics. Cell phone companies sign lucrative, multi-year contracts for fiber connectivity to cell towers to support forthcoming 4G service. In contrast, CenturyLink was surprised to find an astounding 94 percent of families with children in Northampton are qualified for the company’s special Lifeline Program which delivers slow speed, discounted broadband service for families on public assistance.

Post

For CenturyLink’s more urban and prosperous service areas, the news for broadband service improvements is better.

As CenturyLink continues to extend its middle mile fiber network, broadband speeds are gradually improving.

Over 70 percent of CenturyLink customers can receive at least 6Mbps DSL service, more than 57% can receive at least 10Mbps and 29% can access the Internet at 20Mbps speeds or better, according to Post.

But the more urban and prosperous a service area is, the greater the chance a cable competitor has successfully poached many of CenturyLink’s DSL customers with the promise of better speed.

Post said he recognizes the company must do better to remain competitive.

“We’re shooting for 20-25Mbps for a very large percentage of our areas,” Post said. “But with [pair] bonding, we can virtually double the broadband capacity and speeds in our markets. We’re already doing bonding in a number of markets today. So where we have 20Mbps, we could have 40Mbps.”

CenturyLink’s fiber to the neighborhood network, essential where it plans to roll out Prism TV, can also support faster broadband speeds if a customer wants broadband alone and does not care about television service.

Nationwide, the company added 10,000 Prism TV subscribers in the third quarter and has a total customer base of around 104,000 subscribers. But that represents a penetration rate of just over 10%, hardly noticed by still-dominant cable operators.

CenturyLink executives were asked to comment on AT&T’s strategic plan to transform their landline network announced last week in New York. Post found little in common between CenturyLink and AT&T’s vision for the future and does not think the company has to respond to AT&T’s attempt to redefine rural America as wireless territory.

“We don’t see that as a major investment for us or a major risk at this point.”