One of the things we have tried to teach readers over the last few years is how important it is to follow the money trail when encountering a group, politician, or researcher counter-intuitively arguing “up is down” or “right is left.”  So when a business columnist in the Press of Atlantic City slammed rural broadband as a service provided “to a group of people who mostly don’t want it,” we started digging:

The FCC claims this effort will give 7 million rural people reliable access to high-speed Internet connections. So the hundreds of millions of urban and suburban Americans who wish their Internet was faster and more reliable will pay for 2 percent of us to get just that.

Or maybe we’ll be paying for redundant, overpriced telecom work by companies that donate to rural politicians.

Federal stimulus spending in response to the recession already included $7.2 billion for this same purpose. An analysis by Navigant Economics of three big projects under that Broadband Initiatives Program found:

Even “areas in which very high proportions of households were already served by multiple existing broadband providers” were eligible for subsidized broadband work.

The author’s suspicion that money was involved in all this was correct, but he completely missed who was boarding the money train.

Navigant Economics, the “research group” that produced the inflammatory report slamming rural broadband funding, happens to count AT&T as one of its important clients.

The group, a subsidiary of Navigant Consulting, provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues to law firms, corporations and government agencies.

In fact, Navigant pitches its services to a range of corporate clients:

Navigant Economics provides economic analysis in litigation and regulatory proceedings involving competition issues. Our experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.

We provide economic analysis and testimony in connection with mergers and acquisitions and antitrust claims of:

• Anticompetitive horizontal agreements (price fixing, bid rigging, potential anticompetitive effects of joint ventures)
• Unilateral conduct (predatory pricing, refusals to deal, monopolization via patent fraud)
• Vertical restraints (exclusive dealing, requirement contracting, tying and bundling)

We also offer economic analysis and testimony on issues of price and rate of return regulation, mandatory access, quality of service, and benefit-cost analysis, with especial expertise in regulatory proceedings involving communications and the Internet (software and hardware sectors, network unbundling and “net neutrality” issues affecting telecom and cable firms, retransmission consent and other content-related issues, and the range of wireless spectrum issues) and all types of energy markets.

Phillip "Making Sense, Not Dollars" Dampier

The result is what critics refer to as “dollar a holler research” — bought-and-paid-for-results that coincidentally fit the framework of a client’s public policy agenda.  In this case, AT&T (among other phone companies) has fretted about broadband stimulus funding ever since the Obama Administration made it clear the industry would not collectively control the program or reward themselves at taxpayer expense.  In addition to criticizing the decision-making process, phone and cable companies have objected to numerous applicants who applied for grants to build networks serving communities those companies have ignored or under-served for years.

To say AT&T has no vested interest in the outcome of rural broadband would be the first major understatement of 2012.

Martyn Roetter with MFR Consulting said Navigant was giving a bad name to researchers.

“Navigant Economics as well as other economists in academia and the consulting profession seem increasingly prepared to support arguments in favor of their clients’ desires and goals regardless of whether they are reasonable or preposterous,” Roetter wrote. “Unfortunately this behavior tends to blur the distinction between (a) respectable advocacy with findings based on evidence and rational arguments and (b) indefensible nonsense, discrediting both academics and consultants.”

Navigant spent much of 2011 trying to convince regulators and the public that T-Mobile actually doesn’t compete with AT&T, so there should be no problem letting the two companies merge.  Readers win no prizes guessing who paid for that stunner of a conclusion.  Thankfully, the Department of Justice quickly dismissed that notion as a whole lot of hooey.

Navigant’s second ludicrous conclusion is that there is no rural broadband availability problem.  Navigant has a love affair with slow speed, spotty DSL (sold by AT&T) and heavily-capped 3G wireless (also sold by AT&T) as the Frankincense and Myrrh of rural Internet life.  With those, you don’t need any broadband expansion (particularly from a third party interloper).

“The notion that a nominal maximum speed in a shared radio access network is comparable to a nominal maximum speed of a fixed broadband line to a location is a striking example of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the very different operating characteristics and capabilities of these two transmission media,” Roetter soberly observed.

But he knows better.

Roetter

Kevin Post, columnist for the Press of Atlantic City, bought Navigant’s conclusions hook, line, and sinker and repeated them in the press.  In fact, he upped the ante parroting the time-honored provider argument that rural America doesn’t need 21st century broadband because, well, they just don’t want it:

This costly effort is aimed at bringing broadband to a group of people who mostly don’t want it, according to a 2010 Pew Internet survey.

Half of Americans who don’t use the Internet told Pew that the main reason is they don’t find it relevant to their lives.

Only one in 10 nonusers said they would be interested in starting to use the Internet sometime in the future.

Actually, the Pew Internet survey came well before Navigant’s outlandish conclusions, and didn’t directly address the rural broadband availability problem.  Instead, Pew was looking at broadband adoption rates, primarily in places that already have one or more broadband providers.  Pew found what providers have already realized themselves: broadband growth and adoption is slowing; everyone who wants the service in urban America already has it or wants it.  Those that don’t are typically older and lack computers or are too poor to afford the asking price.

Post’s suggestion that a Pew Study concluded rural America does not want broadband service is an exercise in fixing the facts.

That’s the magic of the Dollar-a-Holler Echo Machine.  Big telecom companies hire public policy consultants and researchers to find their way to “scientific” evidence proving their corporate agenda, and then feeds the “facts” and “research” to receptive reporters, astroturf “consumer groups,” and politicians to bolster their case.  It’s not AT&T suggesting there is no rural broadband problem — it’s Navigant Economics.

As Roetter writes, “A basic knowledge of wireless markets exposes the […] indefensible nature of the positions outlined above. A policy based on ‘tell me what you want to hear, pay me, and I will reproduce it all regardless of its merits’ is a disservice to professionals who try to remain objective and independent, i.e. professional.”

Ebenezer Scrooge could successfully serve as the CEO of any large telecommunications company these days, and the New York Times knows a Christmas tale of woe when it sees one.  That is why the venerable newspaper printed a Christmas Eve editorial blasting Verizon’s new “non-aggression treaty” with America’s largest cable companies that puts coal in the stocking for any Verizon customer waiting for FiOS fiber-to-the-home service.  The newspaper believes the days of FiOS are numbered:

Verizon — Verizon Wireless’s main shareholder — relieved itself of the need to expand FiOS, its high-speed, fiber optic network, beyond the 18 million homes it set out to reach six years ago, a rollout that cost $23 billion. For the other 114 million homes in the country, it can simply bundle its wireless service with the cable and wireline broadband services of its partners. The agreement between Verizon and the cable carriers includes a joint venture to develop technology to integrate the wireline and wireless platforms.

Verizon’s cable deals squashed hopes that cable carriers’ purchases of wireless spectrum would lead to more competition against the dominant players, AT&T and Verizon Wireless. And it puts in doubt whether FiOS will ever be a serious competitor to cable, reducing the likelihood that video transmitted over broadband could break up cable’s regional oligopolies.

[…] Verizon’s deals suggest a future in which cable carriers will get uncontested control of high-speed broadband into the home while AT&T and Verizon will get uncontested control over wireless. For consumers with expensive wireless plans, pricey bundles of cable channels and costly, slow broadband, this does not look like good news.

Verizon’s economic future lies in the lucrative world of wireless.  Its FiOS network was an expensive gamble to reinvent its antiquated telephone network to drive customers to keep their landlines and spent a hundred dollars more on video entertainment and super fast broadband.  Wall Street hated the price and loathed the potential for costly competition that would force earnings down through aggressive price-cutting.  In some markets, Verizon FiOS has forced Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable to be a little more generous with broadband speed and lighten up a little on the annual rate increases.

But convincing cable customers to switch remains a difficult proposition even when Verizon offers the superior service.  Verizon has not achieved the level of penetration it expected in many markets.  In short, people just don’t want to wait around for installers.  Besides, cable companies slash prices for customers threatening to depart.

Verizon’s deal with Time Warner and Comcast delivers Verizon Wireless desirable spectrum.  But the agreement to cross-market and cross-bundle product lines smacks of collusion, and is exactly the kind of turf protection that has kept cable companies from competing head-to-head with each other for more than three decades.  Is it more lucrative for Verizon to build out its FiOS network to compete or simply refer people to Time Warner or Cablevision for cable TV.  So long as cable doesn’t offer a competing wireless product, Verizon seems to think there is little harm done.

But for consumers, the absence of competition brings rate increases, reduced innovation, and declining customer service.

The one thing the telecom marketplace needs less of is the “take it or leave it” attitude that earned the scorn of cable customers everywhere.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Broadband Blindness.flv[/flv]

Toast Sacramento produced this 28-minute documentary which succinctly tells the story of North American broadband, and how commercial providers have set us up for long-term failure, especially in rural and suburban areas.  Whether you live in the United States or Canada, phone and cable companies dominate the telecommunications landscape.  Unlike other modern-day necessities, broadband is almost entirely in the hands of an unregulated free market that fails millions.  Where competition exists, customers can get reasonably fast service, but it costs more than it should.  Where competition is hard to find: slow speeds, spotty access, and out-of-sight prices predominate.

The documentary explores:

• the neglect of suburban and rural DSL from large phone companies like AT&T;
• how phony, industry-influenced broadband availability maps convince public officials there isn’t a big broadband problem;
• why the country’s broadband demands may be too great for providers to handle without major new investments, leading to usage limits and slowdowns to delay needed upgrades;
• and how the latest broadband technologies being installed overseas fall victim to Wall Street temper tantrums back home.

Bell Canada is misleading potential customers when mailing them invitations to sign up for Fibe TV, which the company calls “a new TV service delivered through our new state-of-the-art fibre optic network.”

Only it isn’t “state of the art” or fiber to the home.

Bell characterizes its Fibe service as Canada’s “most advanced” telecommunications network, even better than traditional cable television.  But in fact, it’s a marriage between fiber optics and the decades-old copper wire phone network Bell continues to rely on to provide a triple-play package of phone, broadband, and television, all without investing in superior fiber to the home technology.

Only it's not a true fiber network.

That the company claims it is running the most advanced network in the country must come as quite a surprise to Bell Aliant, the dominant provider in Atlantic Canada.  Aliant is busily building a true fiber-to-the-home network for at least 600,000 customers in the most eastern part of the country.

While Fibe is an evolutionary move for Bell Canada, it is hardly revolutionary because of its dependence on traditional copper phone lines.  Canada remains behind the United States in deploying fiber technology of all kinds, including Fibe‘s fiber-to-the-neighborhood system.  Bell’s closest cousin AT&T has been running its own comparable U-verse system for a few years now.

Providers like the benefits of fiber-to-the-neighborhood technology and the fact it costs considerably less than rewiring every home for fiber optic connections.  Fibe can deliver speedier broadband than traditional DSL, but cable operators like Rogers and Videotron are already positioned to beat Fibe speeds, and a true fiber to the home network can beat anything on offer.

Phone and cable companies in the United States who have pitched older technology as a “state of the art fiber network” without actually providing one have been challenged by true fiber to the home competitors like Verizon, and forced to retreat.  But with so few Canadian providers in a position to challenge Bell’s fiber claims, it will be up to regulators to declare the advertising and marketing materials misleading.

While AT&T endures zoning-related delays to build out its fiber-to-the-neighborhood service U-verse, a scrappy anti-cap, pro-speed Internet provider in Santa Rosa has announced its intention to deliver gigabit speeds to San Franciscans over a fiber-to-the-home network that will begin construction early next year.

Sonic.net has been providing broadband services for years in northern California, using AT&T’s network of phone lines to deliver unlimited 20Mbps DSL service (including a phone line) for $40 a month.

Sunset District, San Francisco, Calif. (Courtesy: Stilfehler)

Now the company is branching beyond traditional DSL into fiber optics.  Sonic.net has already completed the first phase of its gigabit fiber network in Sebastopol, where it advertises 100Mbps service for $40 a month and 1000Mbps for $70 a month, both including phone service at no extra charge (two lines for the 1Gbps plan).

In San Francisco, Sonic plans to start with 2000 homes in the Sunset District, expanding its network to fully cover the city within five years.

Such a network could deliver serious competition to Comcast and AT&T, the currently-dominant providers.  AT&T’s U-verse buildout has been stalled over the need to install 768 large, unsightly metal cabinets on San Francisco street corners.  The company, as late as this summer, remains mired in zoning disputes and public protests.  Sonic’s fiber network will require similar equipment, and the San Francisco Chronicle reports Sonic filed its own application with the city Department of Public Works to install 188 cabinets, measuring 5 feet tall, starting next year.

Sonic may have a better chance if only because it does not have AT&T’s less-than-stellar reputation among some residents and customers who have been upset with the company’s wireless performance, and ongoing battles over cell tower placement.  Sonic.net CEO Dane Jasper tells the Chronicle:

“There is a huge demand in San Francisco for higher bandwidth services, and fiber is the only long-term way to meet this demand,” he said.

Given the fact that the company’s all-fiber network will bring “the fastest and cheapest” broadband service to the city, Jasper says he thinks the chances of overcoming the obstacles experienced by his larger rival are “pretty good.”

Sonic.net has gained a reputation for excellent customer service and vociferously opposes usage caps and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  The company has attracted the support of Google, which is using Sonic to manage its gigabit fiber network on the campus grounds of Stanford University in Palo Alto.

AT&T has previously dismissed fiber to the home service as too costly to provide, and has adopted in its place a fiber-to-the-neighborhood system that relies on traditional home phone wiring for the last part of its network.