Downtown Leverett (Courtesy: Town of Leverett)

Life in Leverett, Mass. could get a lot faster as the community considers entering the 21st century by bringing high speed gigabit broadband to town.

For years, residents have had three relatively slow choices for Internet access: dial-up, wireless or satellite-delivered service.  Verizon and cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, which have systems in western Massachusetts, have largely ignored Leverett’s need for speed.

Now the town is considering building its own fiber-to-the-home network to reach every home in Leverett starting in 2014.  The proposed $3.6 million network will also offer residents cable television and phone service — helpful upgrades in the western half of Massachusetts where Verizon has allowed their landline network to degrade to conditions declared intolerable by the state Department of Telecommunications.  Last year, the state agency ordered Verizon to assess and repair its landline network in almost 100 communities in the western half of the state.

Town officials will introduce their plans for the new municipal broadband network at a public meeting April 28.  The community would borrow the money to construct the network, paying it off over 20 years and outsourcing its construction and maintenance to outside companies.

The town originally planned a fiber-to-the-neighborhood network similar to AT&T U-verse, but quickly decided the benefits of a true fiber-to-the-home network were worth the extra investment.

Unlike some other community-owned networks, Leverett will raise taxes on local residents to cover the cost of the service, but Selectman Peter d’Errico says it will save most residents money if they currently pay a satellite provider for broadband service. Research shows the largest majority of Leverett residents get broadband from satellite providers.

“It will be a little more on their tax bill and a lot less on their Internet bill, so overall they will pay less,” d’Errico told the Daily Hampshire Gazette.

d’Errico added the local community is done waiting for private companies to deliver modern telecommunications services in Leverett.  Those companies have repeatedly told town officials there isn’t enough profit or return on investment to justify expanding broadband in rural communities.

Leverett hopes to serve as a template to more than 40 other western Massachusetts communities who belong to WiredWest, a consortium of similarly-situated towns working together to build a regional broadband network.  Leverett’s network would leverage the Massachusetts Broadband Institute’s 1,300 “middle mile” fiber backbone network that is working its way through 123 western and central Massachusetts towns.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGGB Springfield Internet Connection in Leverett 4-11-12.mp4[/flv]

WGGB in Springfield previews Leverett’s efforts for better broadband. Big commercial providers ignore the community so now they want to provide service themselves.  (2 minutes)

A California woman is suing Verizon Communications for selling her faster Internet service, at a higher price, the company cannot actually deliver.

Patricia Allen of Santa Monica filed suit in Los Angeles after Verizon sold her an upgrade to her current DSL plan that turned out to be anything but.  Allen was paying $23.99 a month for 768kbps service, but in March, 2011 Verizon promised they could give her a speed upgrade to 1.5Mbps for $11 more per month.

Exactly one year later, Allen learned her “upgraded service” performed no better than her original Internet plan, which itself only managed around 500kbps, and called Verizon to complain.

Verizon technicians quickly responded Allen could never get the benefits of a faster speed plan because she lived at least two miles from her local Verizon central office.  DSL speeds degrade with distance and can also be impacted by the quality of the landline network Verizon maintains in southern California.  Because Allen lives too far away to receive anything better than 700kbps service, she was advised to downgrade her $34.99 DSL plan back to the one she started with.

Allen requested a refund for the extra $11 a month she was paying for the last year for promised speed improvements Verizon never delivered, but the company flatly refused her request.  Allen is now taking her case to the California courts, and her legal representatives are seeking to have the case designated a class action covering all Verizon landline customers in California who, like Allen, are paying for Verizon-marketed speed upgrades they actually cannot receive.

The suit claims Verizon is well aware it is selling speed upgrades to customers who live too far away from the company’s facilities to actually benefit from the enhanced service, and pockets the proceeds without delivering improved service.  The suit alleges Verizon is engaged in unethical, unscrupulous, immoral, and oppressive business conduct in violation of California state law.

Verizon’s spokesman Rich Young called the lawsuit “baseless and without merit.”

Verizon Class Action Copy

Time Warner Cable’s spring promotion for broadband service has gotten more aggressive on pricing, particularly for the company’s fastest tiers.

In the northeast, we noted new, year-long deals that bring the price of the cable company’s fastest tier — now dubbed “Ultimate 50/5Mbps” to $79.99, down $20 from the regular price.

Time Warner’s “Extreme” 30/5Mbps service is now promotionally priced at $49.99.

The rest of the company’s speed tiers maintain the usual promotional pricing we’ve seen for several years.

All prices are supposed to be for new customers only, but we found them easy to obtain from the cable company’s customer retention department when customers demand the lower price.

Time Warner Cable is likely to charge their new $2.50 monthly cable modem rental fee if you open a new account, beginning in the seventh month of service.

Time Warner Cable has also been advising customers its CA Anti-Virus protection agreement has expired and the company is moving customers to McAfee’s “Family Protection” Suite instead.  The software comes free with your Time Warner Cable broadband subscription.

No broadband for you...

Sometimes even money doesn’t talk… or buy you faster broadband service.

That is a lesson some of New Hampshire’s wealthiest residents — company presidents, top-dollar lawyers, and the trust-fund endowed — in Rindge and Grafton County are learning only too well.

It seems neither Comcast or FairPoint Communications has shown much interest in extending today’s definition of “broadband” to the multi-million dollar homes on Hubbard Road.

“Every year, I start working up the telephone chain, calling people at Comcast. I’m looking for the vice president, or whatever, in charge of infrastructure so I can call him, bribe him, plead with him to connect me,” said Leigh Eichel, who moved to the ritzy cul-de-sac in 2005. “I’ll pay anything!”

Eichel and his friends told their story to David Brooks of the Nashua Telegraph, who used the plight of the 1%’ers to ponder whether broadband should be a universal right.

A century ago, the government decided that mail service to all American homes was necessary and launched Rural Free Delivery. Then it decided electricity was necessary and created regulated utilities that guaranteed connection. It did the same with telephones, creating the universal access fund that collects money from all phone bills to subsidize land lines to the remotest home.

But nothing similar has happened with Internet service, which is mostly unregulated by government. The market has been largely left to its own.

The result is scattered empty spots like Hubbard Road, which should be broadband heaven.

... or you.

Comcast continues, for the seventh year running, to show zero interest in wiring the wealthy enclave.  That left residents trying to make do with satellite broadband, which they cried was too slow and usage-capped.

Eichel finally managed to cajole FairPoint Communications, the bankrupt phone company that bought out Verizon landlines in northern New England, to extend DSL to the neighborhood, but they did it on-the-cheap, leaving residents with sub-par service barely capable of breaking 1Mbps, when they’re lucky.

Welcome to broadband equality of a different kind, whether you are fighting AT&T from a family farm in Wisconsin for better-than-1Mbps DSL or a super-wealthy executive in New Hampshire suffering with FairPoint’s alleged broadband and utterly rejected by Comcast.

Particularly appalling for the well-traveled Hubbard Road residents: the realization that Singapore’s equivalent of a seedy Motel 6 has basic broadband service that beats the pants off New England’s dominant phone company.

Even Money Won't Talk

“I was staying in a budget hotel; there weren’t even windows in the room. Hey, I was spending my own money,” Eichel’s neighbor Rick Slocum told the newspaper. “[They had] 12Mbps broadband — the connection [was] 10 times as fast as my home.”

Brooks concludes New England wants the same thing most of the rest of the country wants — universal fiber-to-the-home access, which delivers 100-1000Mbps, depending on the provider.

They, like most everyone else, will have to wait.  Like AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS, FairPoint’s very-limited fiber offering FAST has reached a limit of its own — the amount the phone company is willing to spend rebuilding their network.  Future expansion plans are now on hold.

Slocum ponders the speed needs America will have in the future, and wonders if even fiber optics will one day need to be replaced for something even faster.

Brooks responds with a prediction.  As long as Comcast and FairPoint are in charge, whatever it is, Hubbard Road probably won’t have it.

AT&T’s ongoing efforts to win deregulation and an end to universal landline service have now reached Colorado, where state lawmakers are reacting favorably to an AT&T-sponsored bill that would strip away rural landline subsidies and deregulate basic phone rates, much to the consternation of incumbent provider CenturyLink.

The long-winded bill,  SB 157 – Concerning the Regulation of Telecommunications Service and, in Connection Therewith, Enacting the “Telecommunications Modernization Act of 2012,” is just the latest in a series of deregulation measures co-authored by AT&T that would let phone companies off the hook for guaranteeing affordable, universal landline service to every American.  Instead, AT&T is happy to sell rural consumers pricey mobile phone service.

Ironically, AT&T’s bill would deliver the worst blows to fellow landline provider CenturyLink, the largest phone company in the state. Consumers pay 2.9 percent of their phone bill toward a rural landline subsidy fund, or 87 cents for a $30 bill. It is no surprise CenturyLink is adamantly opposed to the measure, declaring the loss of rural phone service subsidies a guarantee of future rate hikes and discriminatory pricing, if not the end of basic telephone service in rural Colorado.  The company also receives more than 90 percent of the annual proceeds collected from Colorado ratepayers.

“The bill continues to legislate discrimination of one very large group of consumers. It allows a consumer living on one side of the street in rural Colorado to continue to receive High Cost Fund support while his neighbor on the other side of the street will not, simply because of the logo at the top of their telephone bills” said Jim Campbell, CenturyLink regional vice president for regulatory and legislative affairs. “We continue to be baffled that lawmakers voting in favor of this bill feel it is good public policy to write consumer discrimination into Colorado law.”

As with other AT&T-written deregulation bills, the “sufficient competition” test to prove consumers have plenty of choices for phone service is notoriously easy to meet.  SB 157 defines a market competitive when 90 percent of customers in a geographic area have a choice of at least five providers.  While that sounds like competition, in fact the bill defines just about anything resembling a phone company as “competition.”  That includes traditional landline service, mobile phones, satellite telephony, Voice Over IP providers like Skype, and cable company phone service.

Back for More....

A provider declaring service to any particular geographic area on a coverage map is sufficient evidence that competition exists, even if that provider does not deliver a consistently suitable signal, charges extraordinarily high prices, or only markets service in selected areas or in a package that includes other services.  In rural Colorado, wireless companies maintaining roaming agreements with other providers would count as multiple competitors, even though they rely on the same infrastructure to handle calls.  Poor reception? That’s your problem.

The bill also allows phone companies to charge whatever they like for traditional phone service, and only requires one day’s notice of pricing changes.  The bill would also strip away the right of regulators to demand justification for the inevitable rate increases and takes away their right to reject, modify or suspend rate hikes they deem unacceptably unfair.

That could force CenturyLink prices way up in rural Colorado, perhaps to a level that makes AT&T cell phone pricing not that bad after all.

CenturyLink: Victim of Friendly Fire from AT&T?

That suits AT&T’s Colorado president William Soards just fine, as AT&T is willing to sell rural Colorado lots of wireless phones.

“There’s plenty of competition out there that will be very excited to take their business, and AT&T will be one of them,” Soards told the Denver Post.

Colorado’s Rural Broadband Fund: The Fix Is In

One of the boldest provisions of SB 157 is the establishment of a rural broadband fund that delivers up to $25 million of ratepayer money to a select group of telecommunications companies to underwrite the costs of building  non-competitive broadband networks in the most distant, unwired corners of the state.  They wrote the rules, so it comes as no surprise they are, by definition, the intended recipients — often the very same companies that have refused to provide service in rural communities in the past.  Among those they’ve made certain are prohibited from accessing the broadband fund:

• Broadcasters experimenting with sub-channel broadband data service;
• Government agencies;
• Local municipalities;
• Public-private partnerships;
• Any organization, including non-profits, controlled in whole or part by a public entity;
• Electric utilities;
• Electric co-ops;
• Non-profit electric companies or associations;
• Every other supplier of electrical energy.

Who can access the broadband fund?  Why, the backers of the bill of course, especially AT&T:

• Wireless companies like AT&T;
• Telephone companies;
• Cable operators;
• Wireless ISPs (meeting certain conditions).

Padgett: Let local communities solve their broadband challenges themselves.

The bill is written to require a minimum level of 4/1Mbps service, which may lock out many rural telephone companies unable to deliver those speeds over traditional DSL as well as congestion and distance-sensitive wireless ISPs.  Cable operators are unlikely to provide any service in the most rural areas qualified to receive broadband funding. CenturyLink’s ongoing opposition to the bill suggests they don’t see much broadband funding in their immediate future either. That leaves just one technology most suitable to receive ratepayer funding: heavily capped and expensive wireless 4G broadband from companies like AT&T.

That may leave rural (but potentially not rural enough) Ouray County up the broadband creek without a paddle.

CenturyLink has shown minimal interest in providing ubiquitous broadband across the area dubbed the “Switzerland of America” for its rugged mountainous topography.  With just 4,450 residents, Ouray County is not the phone company’s highest priority.  But the company serves just enough of the county that it might fail the “unserved area” test — a ludicrous notion for broadband-starved Colona, Eldredge, Dallas, Ridgway, Ouray, Thistledown and Camp Bird.

Long-term residents have been through something like this before.  Some remember having to fight for basic electric service as well.  The San Miguel Power Association, a non-profit, member-owned rural electric cooperative established back in 1938, finally brought electric service to the San Miguel Basin area after residents were denied service for years by Western Colorado Power.  The region ultimately had to fend for itself, and did so successfully.

That same electric co-op may just have the best broadband solution for Ouray County — fiber infrastructure already in place, but prohibited from being funded to completion by AT&T’s corporate welfare bill.

Many rural legislators understand the rural broadband problem and see community-owned co-ops as their best chance of getting broadband service in rural Colorado.  They want to amend the bill to strip out the anti-competitive, anti-public broadband language.

Ouray County Commissioner Lynn Padgett is convinced her county’s broadband problems will never be solved by the Colorado Legislature or AT&T.

“Fundamentally, I believe that we need to let those closest to the areas with the rural broadband challenges, and those most accountable, help their communities,” Padgett said.