Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal’s not-living-in-the-real-world editorial page strikes again.

The commentary pages have always been the weakest part of the Journal, primarily because they screech pro-corporate talking points in contrast to the more balanced reporting in the rest of the newspaper.

Mr. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. decided to distort broadband reality (again) in yesterday’s edition with a glowing commentary on how wonderful broadband providers are in his piece, “Springtime for Broadband.” The only thing missing was a border in fine print labeled, “Sponsored by Verizon, AT&T, and your cable company.”

While your Internet bill is being hiked at the same time your provider is slapping usage limits on your connection, Jenkins dismisses consumer-fueled complaints about broadband price gouging, assaulting Net Neutrality, and overall poor customer service as part of Washington’s “broadband policy circus.”

Charges fly hourly that Google or some other company is guilty of gross insult to net neutrality (that sacred principle nobody can define). Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has introduced legislation to regulate data caps and Internet pricing. Law professor Susan Crawford, until recently a White House technology adviser, clearly craves to be America’s next go-to talking head on broadband. Lately she’s been everywhere calling for a crackdown on the competing “monopolists” who supply Internet access.

How dare they complain, decries Jenkins in a robust defense of the 21st century version of the railway robber barons.

Comfortably playing patty cake with provider-fed talking points from the industry echo chamber, Jenkins is ready for battle, facts or not.

But wireless providers have invested big money to deploy high-speed mobile networks, and fixed and mobile are inevitably beginning to compete. The latest evidence: Australia recently predicted that up to 30% of households will go the all-wireless route and won’t be customers for its vaunted national broadband project.

Jenkins

Not exactly. The basis for this 30% figure is the National Broadband Network’s own business plan, which warns –if– the company raised prices to a maximum theoretical level, up to 30 percent of its customers would rely on wireless instead… by the year 2039. That is 26 years from now. You have nothing better to do in the meantime, right?

In fact, conservative critics of the fiber network, some defending the big wireless cell phone industry in Australia, have suggested fiber optics is a big waste of money because “wireless is the future.”

That old chestnut again.

“Now you can present a bulletin without touching a typewriter … it’s just there on the computer system, you don’t need a reel to reel tape recorder. I’ve got a touchscreen in front of me. Back then I had a big cartridge deck,” said Ray Hadley on 2GB radio. “Can you imagine the advances in technology in the next 26 years? I can’t. I can’t comprehend it. By the time they finish the NBN, it could be superseded by something we don’t even know about.”

NBN Myths, a website set up to tackle the disinformation campaign from political and industry opponents has one simple fact to convey: “Despite what you may have read from certain clueless commentators, there is not a single country or telecommunications company anywhere in the world that is attempting to replace fixed networks with wireless in urban areas, or even planning to do so in the future.”

Which would you rather have?

Even Telstra, the biggest telecom company in Australia scoffs at such a notion, noting a growing number of its customers have both wired and wireless service, and they do not depend on one over the other.

Research firm Telsyte found that 85 per cent of Australians want speeds of 50Mbps or higher, speeds impossible for wireless to offer. In fact, when the NBN fiber network became available to Australians, almost half the current users as of October last year had chosen an even-faster 100Mbps plan option. But Australians also want mobile broadband, and they are signing up for that as well.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics notes the number of mobile broadband Internet connections also grew by around 40% in Australia between 2009 and 2010. But here is the Achilles heel of wireless: it cannot deliver the same speeds or capacity, and providers charge high prices and deliver low usage caps. As a result, the wireless industry has pulled off a coup: they earn enormous revenues from networks they have successfully rationed. The total amount of data downloaded over Australia’s wireless networks actually fell on a per user basis, despite the growth in customers.

Much of Jenkins’ commentary is spoon-fed by the industry-funded Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which produces industry-sponsored studies designed to tell America all is well in our broadband duopoly.

In the latest federal survey, the average broadband speed in America is up to 15.6 megabits per second, from 14.3 a year earlier. Nearly half of customers who six months ago made do with one megabit or less have now moved up to higher speeds. Since 2009, the U.S. has gone from 22nd fastest Internet to the eighth fastest.

The 15.6Mbps figure comes from the Federal Communications Commission. The statistics about our global speed ranking come from Akamai’s voluntary speed test program. Other studies rate America much lower. More importantly, while providers in the U.S. try to squeeze out more performance from their copper networks, other countries are laying speedier fiber networks that are destined to once again leapfrog over the United States. Most charge less for their broadband connections as well.

Jenkins also quotes the ITIF which touts 20 million miles of fiber were laid in America last year. But the ITIF, when pressed, will admit the majority of that fiber was “middle mile” connections, institutional or business network fiber you cannot access, or fiber to cell towers. Fiber to the home expansion has stalled, primarily because Verizon has suspended expansion of its FiOS network to new areas after Wall Street loudly complained about the cost.

Jenkins argues that if we leave providers alone and stop criticizing their growing prices, declining competition, and fat profits, the marketplace will suddenly decide to invest in network upgrades yet again.

“The day may come when even Verizon, which visibly soured on its $23 billion FiOS bet, rediscovers an urge to invest in fixed broadband infrastructure to meet growing consumer lust for hi-def services,” writes Jenkins.

Would Wall Street rather see providers invest in network upgrades or return profits to shareholders? Investment expansion in the broadband industry comes when a company senses if they do not spend the money, their business will be swept away by others that will. Cable broadband threatens telephone company DSL, so AT&T cherry-picked communities for investment in its half-measure U-verse fiber to the neighborhood network. Google Fiber, should it choose to expand, will be an even bigger threat to both cable and phone companies. Municipal fiber to the home networks upset the incumbent players so much, they spend millions of ratepayer dollars in efforts to legislate them out of existence.

Jenkins’ view that giving the industry carte blanche to do and charge as it pleases to stimulate a better broadband future is as fanciful as NBN critics in Australia suggesting fiber upgrades should be canceled in favor of waiting 20+ years for improved wireless to come along.

He even approves of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, calling it proper price discrimination in a “fiercely competitive” environment to defray a network’s fixed costs.

Do you think there is fierce competition for your broadband dollar?

Broadband’s fixed costs are so low and predictable, it literally calls out consumption pricing as just the latest overreach for enhanced profits. As Suddenlink’s CEO himself admitted, the era of big expensive cable upgrades are over. Incremental upgrades are cheap, the costs to offer broadband are declining, so it is time to reap the profits.

Jenkins closes with one recommendation we can agree with: “A low-tech way to stir up broadband competition would be to relax the regulatory obstacles to the actual physical provision of broadband.”

We can start by scrapping all the state laws the industry lobbied to enact that prohibit community-owned broadband competition. If big cable and phone companies won’t provide communities with the quality of broadband service they need to compete for 21st century jobs, let those communities do it themselves.

Scored first place again this year.

Consumer Reports has released its 2013 ratings for broadband service providers, showing independently owned cable companies and fiber optic broadband services from companies large and small deliver the best bang for the buck.

WOW, a small cable operator serving limited areas of the country yet again achieved first place in the ratings, appearing in the May issue. Verizon and Frontier’s FiOS fiber networks rated #2 and #5 respectively. (Frontier acquired its fiber to the home network from Verizon in 2009.)

In general, cable broadband service scored considerably better than telephone company DSL. Wireless broadband did more poorly, with Verizon’s 4G LTE network in 23rd place. Satellite scored worst, with both ViaSat and Hughes among the bottom three.

Verizon’s ongoing speed boosts assure the company of high ratings for its FiOS fiber network.

Mediacom once again took honors as America’s worst cable company. This year, it managed to score even worse than ViaSat, formerly WildBlue. Other bottom dwellers: FairPoint DSL, AT&T DSL, Frontier DSL, Charter Cable and Comcast Cable.

Compared with last year, few companies saw dramatic improvements or declines, despite glowing press releases touting improvements and investment.

Time Warner Cable, which scored 19th last year dropped to 20th place this year.

TDS, an independent phone company, managed a surprising 5th place score last year, despite only giving most of its customers DSL service. This year it is in eighth place.

Cablevision, which faced criticism for an overburdened broadband network last year managed almost no change in ratings this year, despite a measurable improvement in service.

Consumer Reports’ ratings are largely based on customer perceptions shared with the magazine in its annual questionnaire. CenturyLink may have delivered an improved experience for its customers between 2012 and 2013. Last year the phone company was in 18th place. This year it improved to 11th place.

The Kansas House of Representatives voted 118-1 to pass a bill they admit was written and pushed by the largest telecom companies in the state. The chief supporters all received campaign contributions from AT&T and other telecom interests.

Kansas’ House of Representatives voted 118-1 Monday to support a bill largely crafted by AT&T that will let the state’s largest phone company discontinue service at-will in rural areas of the state.

H.B. 2201 had near-universal support from legislators that openly admitted the legislation was conceived and written by the state’s largest telecommunications companies, chiefly AT&T, and grants the phone companies a third round of deregulation.

The legislation is expected to sail through the Kansas Senate with bipartisan support and Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who generally favors telecom deregulation, is likely to sign it.

The legislation was originally pushed as a money-saver for Kansas ratepayers. The bill calls for a major reduction in funding requirements for the Kansas Universal Service Fund (KUSF), which subsidizes rural telecommunications services in the state. The KUSF is principally funded through a surcharge found on customer bills. Under the terms of the bill, funding requirements will be drastically reduced, cutting the surcharge in the process.

The Kansas Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board testified if H.B. 2201 only contained KUSF reform, the group would have supported the measure. But the bill also has a myriad of deregulation measures that received little apparent attention by legislators:

1. H.B. 2201 eliminates quality of service requirements. AT&T and other phone companies can deliver any level of phone service they choose with no oversight and nobody to answer to;
2. Allows price discrimination based on geographic location, which could mean substantially higher phone rates in rural areas, especially for nearby toll calls;
3. Allows telecom companies to exit the Lifeline program for inexpensive service for the poorest Kansans after 90 days written notice;
4. Removes AT&T and other phone companies as “carriers of last resort,” which means they are no longer required to provide phone service upon request.

The elimination of the “carrier of last resort” provision is essential to AT&T’s plans to abandon rural landline service, forcing customers to buy substantially more expensive cellular phone and data service. With the passage of H.B. 2201, AT&T can notify rural Kansas customers it will drop their landline service and/or broadband at-will.

Siewert

The single “no” vote came from freshman Rep. Larry Hibbard, (R-Toronto), who noted landline service was essential in many rural areas. Hibbard worried AT&T would use the legislation as an excuse to raise rates or force elderly Kansans to use a wireless cell phone, which could prove too confusing for them.

“This bill may come back to haunt rural Kansas,” Hibbard warned.

“We have this mentality, ‘if I don’t have a wire, I can’t make a phone call.’ That’s not true,” countered Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican who supports the bill. “That copper line is being replaced with an antenna, and it’s more reliable.

“We are not killing Lifeline,” Schwab added. “We are just not mandating it.”

Other supporters were far more sanguine, even disclosing the substantial role telecom companies had getting the legislation written and shepherded through the House.

“This was an industry bill that they all worked very hard” to put together, admitted Rep. Joe Seiwert (R-Pretty Prairie) during a House Republican caucus meeting. “[This bill] puts legislators in an easier position of not having to ‘choose between friends.'”

Kuether

Seiwert, for example, did not have to disappoint his largest campaign contributor — AT&T — or others who donated to his campaign, including the Koch Brothers, Cox Communications, CenturyLink, Verizon, and the Kansas cable lobby.

Rep. Annie Kuether of Topeka, who is the ranking Democrat on the Utilities and Telecommunications Committee, also supported the bill. Kuether is the recipient of campaign contributions from AT&T, Cox Cable, Time Warner Cable, Kansas cable and telephone company PAC groups, and more than a dozen independent telecommunications providers doing business in Kansas.

For ordinary Kansans, the bill does not assure savings, and could lead to dramatic price increases, especially in rural areas forced to pay for cell service. The measure also eliminates the Kansas Corporation Commission as a last resort for customers with service problems that go unresolved. Those customers would be on their own after the bill becomes law.

Legislators did not see any incompatibility between the proposed bill and Kansas state policy, set forth in Statute 66-2001:

It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state to:

(a) Ensure that every Kansan will have access to a first class telecommunications infrastructure that provides excellent services at an affordable price;
(b) ensure that consumers throughout the state realize the benefits of competition through increased services and improved telecommunications facilities and infrastructure at reduced rates;
(c) promote consumer access to a full range of telecommunications services, including advanced telecommunications services that are comparable in urban and rural areas throughout the state;
(d) advance the development of a statewide telecommunications infrastructure that is capable of supporting applications, such as public safety, telemedicine, services for persons with special needs, distance learning, public library services, access to internet providers and others; and
(e) protect consumers of telecommunications services from fraudulent business practices and practices that are inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.

The Associated Press notes this is AT&T’s third trip through the state legislature to win deregulation. A 2006 state law deregulated prices for bundles of services that included wireless, Internet access, cable TV or other video and moved toward deregulating rates for local service in exchanges where competition existed. A 2011 law went further, allowing companies to avoid most state price caps. This year’s bill would allow those companies to avoid even the Kansas Corporation Commission’s consumer protection regulations and minimum quality-of-service standards.

The Kentucky Resources Council is appealing to Kentucky residents and elected officials to stop AT&T’s plan to abandon rural landline service in the state with the passage of a bill now before Kentucky lawmakers the company effectively wrote itself.

Tom FitzGerald, director of the non-profit group, has been bringing attention to AT&T’s agenda in the Kentucky media and through the organization’s website.

FitzGerald explains AT&T’s long term agenda is deregulation and eventual abdication of its basic responsibility to provide affordable, essential basic telephone service to every resident in the state who wants it.

In 2006, AT&T won deregulation of all services other than basic telephone service. The company promptly raised prices after the deregulation became law. Now the company is back asking the government to walk away from its oversight of basic telephone service. But even more concerning, in FitzGerald’s view, is that AT&T is prepared to walk away from their rural customers in the process:

In requiring that access to basic telephone service continue to be regulated, the General Assembly recognized that stand-alone basic telephone service is, for many Kentuckians, an essential service.

AT&T may believe, as it told the Federal Communications Commission in 2009, that “plain-old telephone service” is a “relic of a bygone era,” yet basic reliable wireline local exchange telephone service remains a lifeline for those who use it to convey medical monitoring information, for smoke and security alarms, and for voice service.

Basic local service is more than just “voice” service — it includes, by state law, reliable unlimited local exchange calling, 911 service, directory and operator assistance, and the ability to connect with other carriers.

AT&T is circulating a proposed bill that would deregulate basic local telephone services in the service areas of AT&T, Windstream and Cincinnati Bell in Kentucky. What would the bill do?

Unless you currently live in a household with fewer than 5,000 housing units in the telephone exchange, you will no longer be guaranteed access to basic local service as a stand-alone option.

For those smaller exchanges, AT&T could immediately cease providing the service if it offers an “alternative voice service.” Or, it could petition the state Public Service Commission to be relieved of the obligation by meeting certain criteria regarding other providers of voice service in the area. No new houses built in the service areas would have a right to a landline offering basic phone services on a stand-alone basis.

There is nothing in the draft bill that would require AT&T to seek PSC approval prior to ending the stand-alone landline phone service in exchanges where it or another provider offers wireless alternative voice service.

In addition, there is no requirement that AT&T demonstrate that the wireless service is of comparable reliability and consistent signal quality.

Deregulating basic local phone service based on the mere existence of a wireless “alternative voice service” provider that can be an affiliate, does not assure access for all customers to voice and other basic exchange services that are functionally equivalent, competitively priced and comparable to the currently regulated landline basic telephone services.

FitzGerald

AT&T’s characterization of its proposed legislation is that it will help shepherd in the transformation of the company’s old telephone network to a new modern network that can deliver broadband, telephone and television service. But AT&T’s network upgrades are reserved for urban areas only. Should AT&T have its way, it can simply abandon wired service in rural areas and tell those customers to purchase AT&T wireless phone service instead, at significantly higher prices and with no guarantee of service quality or reliability.

Customers in rural areas who have cellphones can already share stories about poor reception, dead spots, and garbled phone calls. Should AT&T win approval of its deregulation bill in Kentucky, rural residents may find that cellphone their only link to 911 and the outside world. FitzGerald wonders if that is sufficient for rural Kentucky.

“Before an telephone company is relieved of the obligation to offer reliable stand-alone basic service under regulations that guarantee nondiscriminatory access, the PSC must be empowered to determine whether there is sufficient competition in the provision of the full array of reliable basic phone services from other carriers on a stand-alone basis,” FitzGerald writes.

“It must also ensure that it will remain available to low-and fixed-income Kentuckians and those more costly to serve because of their location. Ending the obligation in Kentucky, without an assurance that comparable services will be available in a deregulated marketplace for those who are most in need of and least able to afford such services, is not in the public’s interest.”

Africa’s international Internet connectivity is primarily provided by underseas fiber cables. (Map: Steve Song)

One of the most common arguments pro-capping telecom companies use is since the rest of the world has already adopted consumption billing for broadband, why can’t North American ISPs follow in their footsteps. But ISPs around the world are actually heading away from capped, throttled, or nickle-and-dime broadband pricing towards flat rate, unlimited service.

The Republic of South Africa is a case in point. Located on the southeastern tip of the African continent, South Africa has faced down a number of broadband challenges. Antiquated infrastructure lacking investment in upgrades, political and economic challenges, and very costly, limited capacity international connectivity have all conspired to leave the country with poor broadband service.

The biggest problem domestically is deteriorating landline infrastructure, leaving most South Africans with slow speed ADSL service. Wireless mobile broadband has proved less costly to deploy, but connectivity costs remain high regardless of how customers obtain service because of international bottlenecks.

South Africa’s problems are similar to those faced in South Pacific nations like Australia and New Zealand. Data caps have been a fact of life for years, primarily because there has never been sufficient capacity on underseas fiber and satellite links to sustain anticipated traffic if the caps were removed. But those problems are starting to ease as new high capacity backbone connections continue to come online.

Heavily capped broadband transforms how people use the Internet. In all three nations, many people do their heaviest web surfing at work over business connections. Some ISPs ease their usage caps or speed throttles during low-demand overnight hours, leaving many to hold off on significant file transfers and software updates until most people have gone to bed.

Regardless of whether you live in Johannesburg, Adelaide, or Wellington, people hate data caps and speed throttles and cannot wait to be rid of them.

That day has come in South Africa. Telkom, the former state-owned telephone company, has announced dramatic price cuts and relaxation of speed throttles for customers choosing its unlimited ADSL offerings. The company has announced a 40% price cut for residential customers and a 35% cut for business customers that took effect Feb. 1. Speed throttles that used to block international traffic when customers were deemed to be “using too much” are also being removed, although Telkom can still reduce speeds for their heaviest users.

Speeds are still very slow compared to what most North Americans can receive, but the average South African can now purchase unlimited 4Mbps ADSL for around $42 a month. A 10Mbps account remains out of reach for many at an unaffordable $157 a month. Some of Telkom’s competitors sell unthrottled and unlimited 1Mbps service for a budget-priced $22 a month.

South African ISPs are managing to achieve speed increases, but the primary bottleneck remains Telkom’s aging copper wire infrastructure. The answer is more fiber links further out in telephone exchanges and reducing the amount of copper customers have between their homes and Telkom’s central exchange offices. Although urban residents in relatively prosperous areas can achieve faster speeds, South Africa’s large expanse of low income areas often rely on prepaid wireless services because wired infrastructure is often sub-standard.

International capacity concerns will continue to ease as new underseas fiber cables are brought online. By 2014, one new underseas fiber cable will be able to carry more Internet traffic than all of the currently operational cables preceding it combined.