Mehlman

A telecom industry front group acknowledged today American broadband in the last decade has not won any awards for speed or price, but if you just give the industry ten more years of deregulation, there will be more competition than ever to change that.

For the Internet Innovation Alliance’s Bruce Mehlman, the cable and phone companies have done a fine job bringing broadband to Americans, especially considering the industry is only ten years old.  If you leave things the way they are today, the next decade will bring even more competition from phone and cable companies, he promises.

But consumer groups wonder exactly how a duopoly will ever deliver world class service in the next ten years when it has spent the last ten hiking prices on slow speed broadband and now wants to limit or throttle usage.

This afternoon, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered tried to referee the broadband debate, pondering whether America is a world leader in broadband or has just fallen behind Estonia.  Reporter Joel Rose was perplexed to find two widely diverging attitudes about broadband, each with their set of numbers to prove their case.

On one side, consumers and public interest groups like Consumers Union and Free Press who believe deregulation and industry consolidation has created a stagnant broadband duopoly that only innovates how it can get away with charging even higher prices.

On the other, the phone and cable companies, the groups they finance, and their friends on Capitol Hill who believe there isn’t a broadband problem in the United States to begin with and government oversight would ruin a good thing.

Compared with other nations, the United States has continued to see its standing fall in broadband rankings measuring speed, price, adoption rates, and quality.  When East European countries and former Soviet Republics now routinely deliver better broadband service than America’s cable and telephone companies, that story writes itself. Embarrassed industry defenders prefer to confine discussion of America’s broadband success story inside the U.S. borders, discounting comparisons with other countries around the world.

For Rep. Joe “I Apologize to BP” Barton (R-Texas), it’s even more simple than that.  Even questioning the free market is downright silly.

“As everybody knows, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” Barton said at a March congressional hearing to discuss broadband matters. “And y’all are trying to fix something that in most cases isn’t broke. Ninety-five percent of America has broadband.”

Industry-financed astroturf and sock puppet groups readily agree, and dismiss industry critics.

Bruce Mehlman, co-chair of the industry-supported Internet Innovation Alliance, which opposes more regulation, acknowledges that the story of broadband in the U.S. is a classic glass-half-full, glass-half-empty predicament. Still, he says he thinks broadband adoption in the U.S. is going pretty well considering broadband has only been available for 10 years.

“For the optimist, you’d say within a decade we’ve seen greater broadband deployment than you saw for cell phones, than for cable TV, than for personal computers,” Mehlman says. “It’s one of the great technology success stories in history.”

Mehlman says Americans don’t need more government intervention to make broadband faster and cheaper. “We haven’t yet and that’s in the first decade,” he says. “In the second decade, the marketplace is only going to be that much more competitive.”

Kelsey

The problems go further than that, however.

Derek Turner, research director for the public interest group Free Press, told NPR broadband rankings tell an important story. “For the providers to try to say that there’s no problem, it’s merely just a smoke screen,” he says.

Providers would prefer to measure their performance against each other instead of comparing themselves with foreign providers now routinely providing better, faster, and cheaper service than what American consumers can find.  They have to, if only because of those pesky international rankings illustrating a wired United States in decline.

Joel Kelsey at Consumers Union tells NPR there is an even bigger question here — what role broadband plays in our lives.

Because 96 percent of Americans can only get broadband from a duopoly — the phone or cable company, the only people truly singing the praises of today’s broadband marketplace are the providers themselves and their shareholders.  Consumers see a bigger problem — high prices, and particularly for rural consumers, slow speeds.

“If you talk to [the] industry,” Kelsey says, “they think of broadband as a private commercial service akin to pay TV or cable TV.”

On the other hand, Kelsey says, “There’s a lot of folks who think it is an essential input into this nation’s economy — an essential infrastructure question.”

National Public Radio reporter Joel Rose dived into the battle over broadband numbers between consumer groups and industry representatives. Is America’s broadband glass half-full or half-empty? (June 28, 2010) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

One of the lesser-known implications of broadband reform includes major changes to the Universal Service Fund (USF), a program that collects a few dollars a month from every phone customer to help subsidize the costs of delivering service to rural America.  As traditional phone lines become ever less important, a proposal to begin applying USF charges to broadband service has gotten increasing attention from conservatives who oppose the program, calling it a new “tax on broadband.”

The need for USF subsidies on rural telephone service continues to decline along with the number of landline customers.  Over the history of the program, repeated abuses have been documented which have diverted funding into cell phones for school administrators, telecommunications services in decidedly non-poor or rural areas, and steering vendor contracts to providers that kick money, trips, or other gifts back to decision makers.  With the FCC increasing the USF subsidy rate to 15.3 percent for the second quarter of 2010, an enormous amount of money is at stake, available for qualified programs.

So much money is available, some companies are building USF funding into their business plans.  Independent rural telephone companies can make a killing on USF subsidies, which are targeted precisely at their service areas.  But now cell phone companies have begun riding the USF gravy train, and are now marketing products and services that would be impossible to provide without USF funding.

One of the most controversial programs is free cellphones for income-challenged Americans, a program that first appeared during the Bush Administration, made possible by the Universal Service Fund.

To qualify, subscribers must either have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or participate in one of the following assistance programs:

• Medicaid,
• Food Stamps,
• Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
• Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8),
• Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP),
• Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), or
• The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program

An extension of Lifeline and Link-Up, the free cell phone program has been extended to more than a dozen states by providers like TracFone’s SafeLink Wireless or Sprint’s Assurance Wireless.

Safelink provides qualified customers with free ($50 value) Motorola cell phones and free calling with no contract requirement.  They also receive free texting, national/international calling, voicemail, caller ID, and call waiting.

“A telephone service, just in general, is not a privilege, it’s a right, and we feel it’s a corporate responsibility to provide it,” says José Fuentes, TracFone’s director of government relations. “Everyone should be in contact, should have the opportunity to get a phone call, especially if it’s an employer.”

Fuentes may be right, but TracFone’s altruism is made considerably easier when the federal government is picking up the majority of the tab every month.  USF funding contributes $10 of the estimated $13.50 the service actually costs to provide.

Traditional Lifeline landline service has been a part of American life for decades, but the prospect of welfare recipients getting free cell phones is ready-made for demagoguery in the media.  A common meme is that the program represents more “Obama socialism,” despite the fact the program began under the previous administration, and there may be nothing inherently wrong with extending Lifeline service to an increasingly wireless world.

What this really represents is the opportunity to consider different approaches to funding subsidy programs.  For example, would such programs like cell phone subsidies be better served if they were funded by the carriers themselves as part of spectrum auction proceeds?  Is the FCC trying to substantiate the need for continued USF spending by expanding the number of projects and programs qualified to receive funding?  Is 15.3 percent a fair amount to charge telephone ratepayers?

Under the FCC’s proposed Broadband Plan for America, USF fees would be collected from and largely diverted to broadband service.  Rural America would get broadband service at a price comparable to what big city residents pay, and providers could substantiate the return on investment to begin constructing such projects partly subsidized by USF funding.

But that means the price of your broadband service will increase and some consumers don’t like it.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLOS Asheville Broadband Tax 4-28-10.flv[/flv]

WLOS-TV in Asheville, North Carolina reports on concerns about a forthcoming proposed broadband tax.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”451″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGRZ Buffalo Free Cell Phones On Your Dime 4-8-10.flv[/flv]

WGRZ-TV in Buffalo covers the free cell phone angle as residents see ads from companies like Assurance Wireless that offer free cell phones to income-challenged Americans. (2 minutes)

One out of every four American families has now cut the cord on their landline phone service.

With cellular bills increasing, many people are deciding the traditional phone line that has been them for decades is no longer worth the expense, especially if you spend most of your time reaching for your cell phone to make or receive calls.

But is dropping landline service such a great idea?

Here are some things to consider:

PRO

• Reduced expense for the family budget
• If you don’t use it much, why pay for it?
• Many cable companies offer less expensive “digital phone” products that can be bundled with your cable and broadband service
• Skype, Google Voice, and Voice Over IP services can often knock phone service costs down to just a few dollars a month
• Portability

CON

• 911 emergency services have a harder time identifying your location
• Call sound quality is usually lower than traditional landlines
• Your telephone directory listing will become unavailable unless you make special provisions to keep it
• The costs for cell phone service are often higher than basic landline service
• Monitored alarms and certain other services require either a landline or added-cost wireless technology
• During periods of unrest or bad weather, call volumes can increase exponentially causing disruptions to cell phone service

Telephone companies are increasingly desperate to hold on to their customers, and many remind departing customers the chance to retain their landline service at dramatically lower pricing.  Many companies offer budget, non-flat rate calling plans for less than $10 a month, but you’ll pay between 8-11 cents for every local call.  Others offer calling allowances of 250 or fewer local calls per month.  A few larger cities have calling plans that charge by the minute.

If you are considering dropping your landline, be sure to consider all of the options and alternatives before disconnecting service.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCPO Cincinnati Pros cons of dropping your landline phone 5-12-10.flv[/flv]

WCPO-TV in Cincinnati provides additional insight into landline disconnections and your alternatives.  (2 minutes)

Get out your tiny violins.  Telephone and cable companies that have ignored your neighborhood for years are decrying attempts by the federal government to fund projects that would finally extend broadband service to rural America.  Companies ranging from tiny Eagle Communications in Kansas, to major regional telephone companies like FairPoint Communications and Windstream, are upset that new providers are on the way to deliver broadband service to bypassed homes or communities stuck in their broadband slow lane.

The Associated Press reports coast-to-coast complaints from incumbents who have refused to deliver service or force customers to accept 1-3Mbps speeds indefinitely.

From the Blue Ridge Mountains to the Great Plains, some local phone and cable companies fear they will have to compete with government-subsidized broadband systems, paid for largely with stimulus dollars. If these taxpayer-funded networks siphon off customers with lower prices, private companies warn that they could be less likely to upgrade their own lines, endangering jobs and undermining the goals of the stimulus plan.

That’s rich coming from some providers who threaten to refuse to upgrade lines they’ve never upgraded, endanger employees they’ve long since cut, and threaten their quest for monopoly profits serving rural Americans larger carriers are rapidly abandoning.

Anemic Broadband Is Not in Kansas Anymore

Rural Telephone's Exchange Map (click to enlarge)

Kansas-based Eagle Communications provides cable and wireless broadband service to more than a dozen small towns in the state.  For more populated areas, it’s cable broadband service.  For the rural parts of its service areas, Eagle relegates everyone to a slower speed, more expensive wireless network.

The company is upset to learn about additional expansion forthcoming from Rural Telephone Company, a cooperative which recently won a $101 million stimulus grant to construct a fiber optic system to expand service.  With the grant, the co-op phone company will move beyond its currently constrained DSL broadband network into areas even Eagle’s rural wireless signal won’t reach.

Rural Telephone Company says their broadband grant will provide service “in an area 99.5 percent unserved/underserved and provide a rural infrastructure required for economic stability, education and health care.”

Eagle says it’s unfair competition.

“It is extremely unfair that the government comes in and uses big government money to harm existing private businesses,” Gary Shorman, president of Eagle Communications, told the AP.  “This hurts our company.”

“It’s a little disappointing that companies that aren’t adequately serving these areas are trying to undercut those of us who are trying to step in and get the service where it’s needed,” says Lawrence Strickling, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the arm of the Commerce Department handing out much of the stimulus money.

The $101 million Kansas project, for instance, will bring connection speeds of up to 1 gigabit to businesses and up to 100 megabits to as many as 23,000 homes. While the network will cover the population center of Hays, where both Rural Telephone and Eagle Communications already offer broadband, that accounts for just eight of the 4,600 square miles to be reached. Much of the area has no broadband at all, says Larry Sevier, Rural Telephone’s chief executive.

The goal is to “close the digital divide between Hays and the outlying areas,” says Jonathan Adelstein, head of the Rural Utilities Service, which awarded the money.

Eagle Communications' Wireless Service Area - Central Region (click to enlarge)

For rural Kansans choosing between Eagle’s wireless service or Rural Telephone’s current maximum 1.5Mbps DSL service for those outside of the Hays city limits, the definition of “high speed service” maxes out at an anemic 3Mbps:

Eagle Communications Wireless Network Pricing – Hays, Kansas

• Eagle 256/256 $34.95 /per month
• Eagle 768/512 $37.95 /per month
• Eagle 1.0/384 $44.95 /per month
• Eagle 2/512 $54.95 /per month
• Eagle 3/512 $59.95 /per month

Rural Telephone Company Pricing for Outside the City Limits – Hays, Kansas

• Rural Telephone’s 1.5Mbps DSL — $29.95 per month
• Rural Telephone’s 512kbps DSL — $19.95 per month

Gone With the Windstream: Phone Company Says Broadband Stimulus Doesn’t Give a Damn About Their Georgia Business Model

Many of the projects seeking funding don’t actually want to get into the Internet Service Provider business, preferring to construct fiber-based networks available equally to all-comers at wholesale pricing.  Sure they’ll wire government buildings, schools, and libraries as a public service, but their real goal is to make available super high speed networks that incumbent providers haven’t, under the theory a rising tide lifts all boats.  They even invite existing ISP’s to hop on board, buying access to deliver improved service to their existing customers.

But because some providers don’t own or control the infrastructure outright, they’re not interested.

One such project is the North Georgia Network Cooperative, created from a consortium of private business advocates, a state university, and two power company co-ops.

North Georgia sees broadband as a major economic stimulant… if they actually had it.  Large parts of the region don’t, so the Cooperative applied for and won a $33.5 million NTIA grant to construct a 260-mile fiber ring running through 12 counties in the state.  The network will easily deliver connections upwards of 10Gbps for institutions and broadband speeds far faster than incumbent DSL provider Windstream currently provides across the region.

Windstream's biggest promotional push is for its 6Mbps DSL service

Windstream’s DSL packages look better than many other independent phone companies, at least based on their website.  Windstream offers 3, 6, and 12 Mbps DSL packages across northwestern Georgia,  but that doesn’t mean you can actually obtain service at those speeds.  Stop the Cap! reader Frederick, who tipped us off to this story, notes that he can’t obtain more than 1.5Mbps DSL service from his home in Dalton, Georgia because the phone lines in his area won’t support faster speeds.

“I’m actually less than a mile from my area’s central office, but because the phone lines in my area are deteriorated, they had to lock my speed in at 1.5Mbps — anything faster causes the modem to reset,” Frederick writes.  “Windstream does the same thing to my cousin in Lafayette, who was offered 6Mbps service but can only get 3Mbps in reality.”

Frederick says most people in the community don’t really care where the faster broadband comes from — just that it comes.

“If Windstream, who incidentally also applied for government money, could do it there would have never been a need to go around them in the first place,” he says. “Hell, the ironic part is the Cooperative will sell wholesale access to Windstream to use as it sees fit, but because Windstream doesn’t own it they’re pouting, refusing to participate.”

Windstream says it has already invested $5 million in network upgrades covering northern Georgia over the last three years and the Cooperative’s stimulus grant undermines the economics of that investment.  Michael Rhoda, Windstream’s vice president of government affairs told AP Windstream now has to share rural customers with a government-funded competitor.  Windstream wants that funding limited strictly to those areas where broadband service is uneconomic to provide.  To underline that point, the company has applied for $238 million in stimulus funding to reach the “last 11 percent” who don’t have broadband in Windstream’s service areas.

Maine’s Three Ring Binder Project Snaps Shut on FairPoint’s Monopoly Fingers

Maine's Three Ring Binder Project plans to serve most of Maine (click image for additional information)

More often than not, independent efforts to launch improved broadband service in a region come after years of dealing with an intransigent provider comfortable moving at a snail’s pace to improve service.  Financially-troubled FairPoint Communications has been struggling to meet Maine’s broadband needs since the company took over service from Verizon two years ago.  The state government, university, and smaller telecommunications companies decided they could do better — applying for, and winning a $25.4 million dollar grant to construct three fiber rings across the state.

FairPoint insists the project duplicates the company’s own efforts to improve connectivity in Maine and has appealed to lawmakers to stop the project.  But FairPoint recently called a truce when it reached a deal to charge users of the new network a usage fee, with FairPoint getting a large share of the proceeds to expand its own broadband efforts.

[FairPoint’s financial problems have left the company] unable to bring broadband to wide swaths of rural Maine, says Dwight Allison, chief executive of Maine Fiber Co., which was created to build and operate the stimulus-funded network. The project, he says, represents a serious competitive threat to a company that “feels its monopoly is being attacked.”

Of course nothing precludes FairPoint from getting access to the new fiber network at the same wholesale pricing other providers will pay, but the company so far doesn’t seem interested.

Various talking points designed to derail the project are debunked by the Maine Fiber Company:

• Fiction: It’s government-run broadband.
• Fact: Three Ring Binder will be owned and operated by Maine Fiber Company, a private company based in Maine. MRC is unaffiliated with any telecom carrier to ensure fair and equal access to the system for all competitors.

• Fiction: This project will create unfair competition for private providers.
• Fact: MFC will be a wholesale provider of dark fiber, and its customers will be Internet Service providers, wireless carriers, and telephone companies. MFC will not provide “lit” service in competition with private broadband carriers. MFC is required to provide service on an open access and non-discriminatory basis. All carriers in Maine will be able to use the network to serve their customers in Maine, resulting in robust competition for the benefit of Maine consumers.

• Fiction: This project duplicates service FairPoint already provides.
• Fact: Prior to receiving a federal stimulus grant, the project was carefully reviewed by the National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA) of the US Department of Commerce to determine whether there was overlap with existing carriers. NTIA determined that TRB would substantially improve access to high-speed Internet access in rural Maine. If material duplication had been discovered, TRB would not have been funded. TRB will offer a mid-mile, dark fiber service that is fundamentally different from what currently exists in rural Maine. In fact, carriers seeking to obtain dark fiber service along the TRB route have routinely been denied access by incumbent fiber providers.

Last week, Stop the Cap! considered the challenges America faced developing universal electric service — so much of that debate echos in today’s struggle to provide universal broadband service.

Although hindsight allows us to recognize the benefits universal electrification has brought Americans over the past 100 years, the transformational benefits from universal broadband are bit more mysterious because many applications haven’t even been envisioned yet.

IBM is a proponent of two revolutionary concepts universal broadband makes possible: The Internet of Things and The System of Systems.  The company produced a video to consider the implications of improved connectivity and how that will impact our daily lives:

[flv width=”641″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/IBM – The Internet of Things.flv[/flv]

IBM Social Media produced this video explaining The Internet of Things, one of the concepts made possible with universal broadband. (5 minutes)

Now imagine the implications if the platform which makes this all possible remains in the hands of a broadband duopoly intent on securing big profits earned from high pricing, limits on service, and other cost-controlling measures.  Transformational broadband — for the right price as long as you don’t use too much, brought to you by big cable and telephone companies.