Verizon Communications is indefinitely finished expanding FiOS — its fiber to the home triple-play package of broadband, phone, and TV — to new cities across its service area.  In short, if your community isn’t already engaged in franchise negotiations with the telecommunications company, there is no fiber from Verizon in your immediate future.

The company said after spending $23 billion upgrading its aging copper wire phone network, it needs to finish construction and improve its reach in existing FiOS-wired communities.  When the company ceases FiOS construction, it hopes to pass 18 million customer homes across its multi-state service area.

The decision to stop expansion of advanced fiber optics threatens to leave hundreds of communities behind, too late to the party or simply too far down Verizon’s priority list.  Among important cities Verizon will pass up include Alexandria, Virginia, Boston and Baltimore.

That concerns city officials, especially in Baltimore which already considers itself on the disadvantaged list.

“My take on it is that Baltimore is not equipped for the future,” Rev. Johnny Golden, past president of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance and an advocate for improved access to technology in the city told the Baltimore Sun. “We have a decent broadband system for today, but it does not have the infrastructure to take us into the future where we need to go.”

Despite the fiber bypass, the company will continue negotiations with about a dozen communities where negotiations were already underway – mostly in New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.  Despite company spin, the decision to drop the shovels and wheel away the spools of fiber does represent a dramatic change of plans, evidenced by the company’s decision to bypass the aforementioned lucrative urban communities.

For cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, Verizon’s announcement brings a sigh of relief.  Both cable operators handily beat Verizon’s DSL offerings and are swiping increasing numbers of Verizon’s phone customers who are disconnecting their landline service in favor of cell phones or “digital phone” service from the cable companies.

Both Time Warner Cable and Comcast have also kept a larger percentage of their customers than Verizon hoped.

In markets where FiOS is available, Verizon has only achieved 25% penetration for television service and 28% for Internet, far below the 40 percent penetration Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg hoped to achieve.  The reasons consumers didn’t switch to Verizon FiOS vary, but include:

• Pricing was not always lower than what the incumbent cable operator offered, and in many cases prices for some service were higher once the promotional rate expired;
• Cable operators in competitive areas improved service, offered more aggressively priced bundles, and increased broadband speed;
• Many cable operators locked their customers into two year “price protection agreements” which hold customers in place until agreements expire (if they don’t auto-renew);
• Installation can prove disruptive because of the elaborate rewiring required in many homes;
• Consumers didn’t see enough compelling reasons to switch.

Still, Verizon has future-proofed their fiber optic service areas and are better positioned to deliver extremely high broadband speed and HD offerings than their cable counterparts.  But that has never impressed short-term focused Wall Street.  Many in the financial press have attacked Verizon for the costly fiber upgrades they believe will not work for the short-term investor seeking immediate return from their Verizon stock purchase.  With the rumor mill predicting upcoming retirement for Seidenberg, his likely successors are hardly FiOS fanboys.

John Killian, Verizon’s current chief financial officer, is a short-term results man.  Samuel Greenholtz, an analyst with the Gerson Lehrman Group, doesn’t see Killian sharing much of Seidenberg’s visionary long term thinking.  Lowell McAdam, another prospect for the top job, is currently the president of the Wireless Services division, and would likely bring a wireless “solution” for broadband customers left off the FiOS list.  Neither man seems particularly interested in restarting the push for fiber in the future.

For 2010, capital expenses are flat or down across the company except in the Wireless Services division.  Verizon already declared copper phone wiring dead, and has elected to abandon its rural and suburban customers,  systematically sold off to America’s “rural phone companies” Frontier, CenturyLink, or Windstream.  Those still with Verizon but without FiOS will find the future of their landlines increasingly perilous.  Greenholtz notes Verizon has terminated another 1,200 line technicians and the company intends to spend two percent less on its copper wire network this year over last.

Greenholtz witnessed first hand what happens when a company starts to ignore its legacy network — his residential phone line quit working:

Having worked at Verizon and its predecessors for over 25 years, I expected a fix would be swift and trouble-free.  Wrong. I was offered a two-week appointment date for repair people to come out and look at the problem. I might add here that my wife does not use the cellular device that she carries around anymore than necessary and certainly never uses it when in close proximity to the hardwired set. By resorting to measures that I certainly would never have thought of using 10 years ago, I was able to get attention brought to the problem much quicker — and the issue has been resolved satisfactorily.

It seems that Verizon’s residential repair and maintenance has sunk to a new low.  Neighbors and other people on copper cabling are often experiencing problems. If there is static on the line, subscribers are frequently told nothing can be done to correct the situation because they need to replace the cable or do cable maintenance – but there is no budget available to do the work.   So, repairmen take the brunt of the public’s unhappiness with the service they are receiving. In contrast, when I spoke with some friends regarding FiOS and its maintenance issues, I found a much better response time to any difficulties the customers were experiencing.

Shockingly for a Wall Street-focused “expert network,” Greenholtz was allowed to offer his belief the only real solution to phone companies ignoring their undesirable customers is to regulate the heck out of them.

What can be done to cure the situation with residential landline services?   Unfortunately, it is going to have to come down to regulation.  Verizon, and no doubt, AT&T, has been doing what they want for many years now.  The PUCs have given them a lot of opportunities to offer advanced services that the commissions thought would spread throughout the serving areas, but they are increasingly realizing that is not in the plans.  They are going to have to force these companies to be responsive to the needs of the entire footprint, not just the Fortune 500 territories — and the nearby residential homes.

[Update 4/1/2010: While working on another story, I was amused to discover we had written about Mr. Greenholtz before, back on April 15th, when he was telling his readers “do-gooders” forced Time Warner Cable to attempt usage caps on customers.  I wonder if we would have heard something different from him had his broadband service faced an Internet Overcharging scheme.]

Blind deregulation and legislative-friendly handouts to companies like AT&T and Verizon have never resulted in better service for consumers.  They haven’t proven to save consumers any money either.  Ultimately, the decision to provide FiOS and U-verse came with investor consent, and when the economic downturn threatened the value of the stock and dividends, no deregulation or statewide franchise agreement is going to keep the fiber party from coming to a close.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Verizon FiOS Winds Down 3-26-10.flv[/flv]

WSYR-TV in Syracuse reports on the demise of Verizon FiOS’ expansion plans, which have a significant impact on central New York where many communities will be left behind.  One saving grace for New Yorkers ticked off at Albany — they’re now off the FiOS list indefinitely.  (2 minutes)

The Wall Street Journal reports Apple is developing two new iPhones for launch this June, including one that’s designed to work with Verizon Wireless.

According to the report, the new iPhone models can run on CDMA networks, such as the one Verizon Wireless uses.  The introduction of such a phone would mark an end for the three year exclusivity agreement Apple has with AT&T in the United States.

“There has been lots of incorrect speculation on CDMA iPhones for a long time. We haven’t seen one yet and only Apple knows when that might occur,” an AT&T spokesman told the Wall Street Journal.

For AT&T, the Apple relationship has been crucial, helping to make the carrier the U.S. leader in lucrative smart-phone market share. According to comScore Inc., AT&T has over 43% of all U.S. smart-phone customers, compared with 23% for Verizon. These customers are especially attractive because they generally pay higher monthly rates for data plans.

For several quarters, AT&T’s growth has come almost single-handedly from the iPhone. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the carrier said it activated 3.1 million new iPhones. In comparison, it counted only a net total of 2.7 million new subscribers as some customers moved from other phones to iPhones.

“You’re not going to lose the iPhone [exclusivity] and make up growth somewhere else without bearing the cost,” said Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. research analyst Craig Moffett.

The impact on Verizon Wireless data network will be an important measure of whether American wireless broadband networks can sustain the demand customers have for wireless broadband service and speed.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Verizon Getting iPhone 3-29-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC carried three reports about the Verizon Wireless iPhone story published in the Wall Street Journal and its potential impact on the American wireless marketplace.  (11 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Wall Street Journal iPhone On Verizon 03-29-10.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal included this “web-extra” report on their story and what it means for consumers.  (2 minutes)

This week Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski appointed Karen Peltz Strauss Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Deputy Chief.

Strauss is supposed to focus on disability issues, among other things, and will help the Commission to implement the components of the National Broadband Plan that address access for people with disabilities, including leading the effort to develop a proposed Accessibility and Innovation Forum.

“The FCC has a vital role to play in empowering and protecting all consumers and ensuring they have access to world-class communications networks and technologies” said Chairman Genachowski. “I look forward to drawing on Karen’s extensive experience with telecommunications access issues to realize those goals.”

A news release from the FCC includes a brief review of her 25 years’ experience working on telecommunications access for people with disabilities.

But the agency forgot to mention Strauss also serves on the board of directors of an industry front group — the Alliance for Public Technology.  APT claims it represents the best interests of consumers, but considering who is writing the checks, that’s highly doubtful.

APT’s website suggests the group “makes policy decisions based on the potential benefit to consumers. The Board members themselves as well as APT’s member organizations serve the education, health care, social service and economic development needs of senior citizens, people with disabilities, minorities, children, low income families, rural communities, and all consumers.”

That’s true, if you, as a consumer, are for big telecom mergers like AT&T and BellSouth, which APT supported, oppose Net Neutrality, which APT feels should not be imposed on providers, liked the idea of Cingular being absorbed into AT&T’s empire of wireless, which APT also supported, and so on.

In fact, this group even praised Verizon’s willingness to invest in West Virginia:

Verizon has demonstrated a commitment to increased investment in advanced telecommunications capabilities. According to the company, Verizon invested almost $560 million in its Maryland network and $150 million in West Virginia in 2001 (2002 figures not available). Verizon added more than 31,000 miles of fiber optic cable in Maryland and 20,500 miles of fiber optic cable in West Virginia. Over 2.5 million access lines in Maryland now have access to DSL. Authorization to provide in-region long distance service in Virginia will facilitate Verizon’s capacity to build on economies of scale and scope in order to provide a high standard of service and accelerated deployment of advanced technologies to the consumers of Maryland, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

The only thing Verizon wants to accelerate in West Virginia is their exit.

Laughably, one of the reasons APT supports AT&T so much (besides the big checks the company writes to fund their operation) is:

With BellSouth’s entry into the Florida and Tennessee long-distance markets, AT&T began to offer 30 minutes of free long distances to its customers and inserted “thank you” messages into the time between a customer dials a number and the connection occurs. These actions demonstrate tangible benefits for consumers because of an increased number of competitors in the long distance market.

I know that makes me feel warm all over.  Who should I call first?

Wading through APT’s public policy positions unearths absolutely no surprises.  They exist to advocate for the interests of the companies that fund their operations, and that includes all the bully boys:

• AT&T
• CTIA
• Embarq
• Qwest
• United States Telecom Association
• Verizon

Despite this, APT writes with a straight face, “These companies give donations based on a shared vision for the ubiquitous deployment of high-speed telecommunications technology, but have no say in the governance of the association.”

Sure they don’t.  But then again, those checks would stop coming if APT began actually representing the consumers they claim to care so much about.

It’s disappointing the FCC would want someone so closely aligned with the interests of large telecommunications companies working to implement a National Broadband Plan that is supposed to represent the public interest.

It’s just another example of the Inside the Beltway Tickle Party, where lobbyists and “dollar a holler” experts flow between government jobs, privately-funded think tanks, and the private sector.  Consumers are only too aware that their best interests are not represented by employees whose loyalties change depending on what hat they wear to the office.

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission formally introduced its omnibus National Broadband Plan to America, Congress, and the telecommunications industry.  The FCC seeks nothing less that a transformation of broadband to better meet the needs of Americans for years to come.

The 376-page plan recognizes broadband is no longer a novelty.  It’s now becoming one of the essential utilities of life — joining power, telephone and water service as something virtually every American will eventually have in their home.  But while the Commission lays the general groundwork for future regulatory policy to help achieve that goal, it ignores the historical reality that made universal service for utilities possible.

I am a strong believer in reviewing past mistakes to avoid repeating them in the future.  That is why Stop the Cap! occasionally turns back the clock and reviews history.  Railroad robber barons, telephone company monopolies, and electric service providers all abused their positions and consumers paid through the nose for service until the government finally broke up the anti-competitive trusts that limited competition.

Just like today’s broadband players, in the early 20th century, electric companies asked for and received favorable treatment by Congress.  The industry argued such treatment was required to make investors comfortable with the enormous amount of investment required to construct power generation facilities, run wiring to homes, and obtaining easy access to American streets and backyards.  Regulations must be kept to a bare minimum, providers demanded.  Anything else, they claimed, would discourage critical private investment, would create job losses, and slow deployment of service to millions of Americans.  Sound familiar?

By the time the American public realized electric companies were abusing their monopoly positions to charge outrageously high prices, the half-measures legislators proposed to control rates and improve service were often ineffective.

Just as with electric service, any broadband plan that seeks to tinker around the edges of the problem will not solve the problem.  Providers will find loopholes, lobbyists to help water down the provisions they dislike, and lawyers to mount endless legal challenges to stall reform.

The warning signs are already apparent in the FCC plan.  The agency seeks to cooperate with some of the biggest players in the industry that are responsible for what the FCC calls “the critical problems that slow the progress of availability, adoption and utilization of broadband.”

That ultimately means working with existing providers instead of creating the right conditions to welcome new players into the market.

The anti-competitive, de facto duopoly pricing power available to cable and telephone companies has created an enormous digital divide for rural Americans who cannot pass “Return on Investment” means tests, prices broadband service out of reach for many, and seeks even higher pricing while proposing to limit service with Internet Overcharging schemes like “usage-based billing” and “usage limits.”

Where one lives is often the most important factor when considering broadband speed and service quality.  It’s the luck of the draw.  A customer on one side of the street may have the option of Verizon FiOS, a true fiber-to-the-home service providing equal upstream and downstream speeds far higher than the national average.  Across the street, a customer may only be served by another telephone company offering 1Mbps DSL with no alternatives.

Other Americans live within viewing distance of a utility pole where cable or telephone broadband service stops, giving them the choice of paying $10,000 to extend service, or living with dial-up or satellite fraudband.

Few phone or cable companies will ever consider invading another’s turf, even if customers begged.

But it gets worse.

The service customers can obtain from a provider varies even within its service area.  Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse is available in some neighborhoods, but not others.  What stops or slows service expansion?  Anything from a management decision on a whim to concerns by private investors, market conditions, cost controls, or changing revenue expectations that inhibit uniform service across the community.  Local governments used to manage this problem with franchise agreements that made approval conditional on supplying service across an entire community, but companies like AT&T lobbied their way to statewide franchising reforms that can eliminate local oversight.

The cable television industry has a better track record of providing uniform broadband service to customers in their respective service areas, but at what cost?  Time Warner Cable COO Landel Hobbs recently told a group of investors pricing for its Road Runner service can be increased at the company’s whim.  Comcast has already increased prices on its broadband service. Both companies have either tested or implemented usage limits and restrictions on their customers.

What makes these things possible?  Limited competition and insufficient oversight.

The FCC’s solution to limited competition includes vastly expanding wireless frequencies available to mobile broadband providers.  But here’s the problem.  The government will auction those frequencies off to the highest bidders, which are most assuredly the dominant industry players AT&T and Verizon.  For millions of Americans, that means no extra competition at all because their phone, broadband, video, and wireless service all come from these two companies.  The only way smaller players can compete in a bidding war is through consolidating mergers, which reduce the number of competitive choices in many cities.  If the government wants competition, it should provide incentives to spur its development.

Wall Street certainly won’t help much.  They loathe heavily competitive markets now, because inevitable price wars limit their returns.  Getting initial investment to construct new networks is problematic because investors don’t want excessive competition.  Providers howl it’s unfair for government to help their competitors, but their incumbency provides them with built-in benefits unavailable to new entrants.

The FCC recognizes the importance of broadband service as America’s next utility, but is afraid to regulate them as such.  They may have good reason not to try.  Comcast is presently suing the Commission in federal court, claiming they don’t have jurisdiction over broadband policy.  Should Comcast prove its case, the National Broadband Plan could be just another thesis for improved broadband, with no backing authority to implement its recommendations and regulatory changes.

That brings us to Congress.  While the FCC may bring its best intentions to the table with the National Broadband Plan, it’s very likely lobbying will force changes to what finally gets implemented, if anything.

The telecommunications industry never has a problem finding financial resources to hire lobbyists and spread lavish campaign contributions all over Washington.

They’ve already bought and paid for an enormous astroturf group called Broadband for America with 200 member organizations, virtually every single one backed by AT&T or Verizon money or personnel, or equipment providers who stand to earn substantially from broadband improvement.  They are running TV ads telling viewers private providers should be left alone to get the job done, something they’ve had a decade to accomplish with insufficient progress in key areas.

Many in Congress, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, will agree with BfA’s “hands-off” advocacy.  Early reaction from Republicans regarding the Broadband Plan is not favorable.  Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce communications, technology and the Internet subcommittee, told the Washington Post he wants the agency to stay focused on bringing access to people who don’t have it.

“I am concerned, however, that the plan may contain stalking horses for investment-killing ideas, such as so-called net neutrality mandates or a return to outdated, monopoly-era regulation,” he said.

Many Democrats with large telecommunications companies headquartered in or near their districts are likely also to advocate caution.

Regardless of what the FCC recommends, Congress will ultimately control the outcome.

Here are our recommendations you should consider sharing with your elected officials:

Congress and the FCC must be willing to stand up to the telecommunications industry which is not delivering world-class broadband service.  The United States is falling behind in access, pricing, and speed.  Simply accepting the provider argument that they should be left alone in an unregulated, duopoly marketplace is not an option;

Congress must deliver to the FCC clear authority to regulate broadband service and enforce Net Neutrality.  Recent court cases argue the Commission presently lacks that authority.  Congress should take every possible step to ensure the courts this isn’t the case.

Increased oversight of the broadband industry is essential.  Why does an industry making billions in profits need to consider usage limits and usage-based billing designed to deter residential use of broadband service?  Such limits are designed to protect cable-TV revenue that could disappear if Americans dump their television channel packages in favor of watching everything online on their existing broadband account.

Congress should not stand for an unregulated duopoly controlling a service that is becoming as essential as water, energy, and the telephone.  As broadband becomes an essential utility, why is the government not stepping in when the COO of the nation’s second largest cable company — Time Warner Cable, tells investors he can raise broadband prices on a whim?  Is this the 21st century version of the Robber Baron Era?  Robust competition guarantees no executive can make such a statement.  Congress must act to bolster competition, including financial and tax savings incentives for new providers willing to enter markets of all sizes;

Wireless mobile broadband spectrum auctions do not promote competition because the biggest incumbent players are sure to win the bulk of the frequencies, guaranteeing more of the same anemic competition.  Some of the newly available blocks of frequencies should be reserved for bidders who do not currently serve the market where those frequencies are available.  Only that guarantees new competition in wireless;

Free or deeply discounted access to basic Internet service at broadband speeds should be a part of any National Broadband Plan, to ensure access to every American who wants it.

Tomorrow, the Federal Communications Commission is anticipated to release its long-awaited National Broadband Plan (NBP) for the United States.

The proposed road map to better broadband is supposed to bolster availability in rural communities, improve access in urban and suburban areas, and lay the groundwork for 21st century service and speeds.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Blair Levin, executive director of the FCC Broadband Initiative, have provided plenty of clues along the way.  But one thing is certain — the true impact of the NBP will be to pass a de facto national stimulus program for corporate lobbyists, who will spend the rest of the year loving the goodies in the plan and lobbying away the parts they don’t.

Everyone but consumers have plenty of cash on hand to pay for a full assault on Capitol Hill, bending the ears of lawmakers to deliver the changes they can believe in, and outlawing the changes they don’t.  Since those words will be underlined with fat campaign contributions, more than a few lawmakers are likely to listen.

National Public Radio’s Morning Edition asked the question, will the National Broadband Plan come up short? (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The Winners

Public Institutions: To be a health care provider, a school, or library is a good thing these days.  Some of the most generous and non-controversial elements of the NBP will be directed to public institutions.  The cosmetic impact can’t be beat.  Every elected official sees great potential from ribbon-cutting a showcase project that improves health care, local schools, or a nearby public library.  To all three will come fast access fiber connectivity, tele-learning funding, and support for educating the public about broadband.  Libraries will be given special attention to address connectivity, schools will likely find free or low cost fiber in their future, and the digitization of health care records and results will also promise improvements in health care delivery.

None of these projects will create a significant competitive impact on current broadband players, and even earmark-wary politicians will pose for the cameras to launch an inner-city library’s fiber project.  Public safety will also be provided for with plans to improve connectivity and leveraging broadband for our first responders.

Wireless Companies: It can’t hurt to be a big telecommunications company with a wireless division, either.  That’s because one of the major priorities for the NBP will be finding additional wireless spectrum to improve mobile data services in hopes they can provide increased access in rural communities and increased competition in urban ones.

More airways for mobile data will be “a core goal,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in February.  That means AT&T and Verizon stand to gain the largest benefits from expanded spectrum.  Smaller carriers like T-Mobile and Sprint will also benefit to a lesser degree.  The FCC wants to double the number of frequencies available to wireless carriers — 500MHz that must be reallocated from other uses and delivered to providers in new broadband spectrum auctions.

Those with the deepest pockets will win the most spectrum, which assures in priority markets where spectrum is in demand, AT&T and Verizon will likely outbid others.

With a mobile broadband future at stake, that guarantees added pressure on smaller players to merge so they can pool resources to compete for needed airwaves.  That could ultimately reduce competition and choice among wireless providers. Pricing is unlikely to drop either, so long as providers try and recoup their auction expenses.

Levin, in particular, is a proponent of wireless competition.

“We don’t know necessarily whether wireless is going to provide perfect competition to wired. But we do know it’s a very important piece of the puzzle,” Levin believes.

Consumers know better, especially in a country replete with $60-for-five-gigabytes monthly usage plans.

Since wireless broadband is increasingly delivered by the same companies providing wired broadband, wired providers show few signs of fear from bolstered wireless competition.  AT&T U-verse and AT&T Mobility are AT&T.  Verizon FiOS, DSL, and Verizon Wireless are all Verizon.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable are both major investors in Clearwire, a wireless “competitor.”

Equipment & Infrastructure Providers: If you haven’t bought shares in Corning, manufacturer of fiber optic network components, or Cisco, which supplies broadband infrastructure, you might want to consider it.  Both companies, among dozens of others, stand to reap millions in profits from the sale of components to construct 21st century broadband.  All of the major equipment manufacturers and their respective trade associations have already submitted piles of comments to the FCC to help identify priorities and speed implementation of the NBP.  Not only do they promote the use of their products, they also speak in terms of helping to create  thousands of new jobs for those building the next generation of broadband.  What’s not to like about that?

Big Broadband Users: Major companies like Google and Amazon are expected to benefit from improved broadband, especially if it also includes increased competition and open access to privately owned networks.  Constructing larger national and regional networks assures increased capacity and reduced pricing, especially if networks face additional competition.  To underscore the point, the NBP is expected to announce a review by the FCC of the wholesale rates big carriers charge for access.

The Losers

Broadcasters: The nation’s broadcasters are clearly the biggest potential losers in the NBP.  Threatened with plans to capture large amounts of the UHF television band and selling it off to wireless providers may cripple at least some of the nation’s free over-the-air broadcasters.  For some at the FCC, the fact that less than half of all Americans watch television over-the-air must have made their frequencies a rational target.  Most Americans pay a cable, telephone or satellite company to deliver local stations.  If the FCC reallocated half of the current UHF dial and sold it to wireless carriers, the remaining channel space would mean a far more crowded, interference-prone TV dial.

Some wireless industry advocates of the reallocation plan believe stations can get by with reduced power on a network of cell-tower-like relay transmitters delivering signals to more distant suburbs in their service area.  Reduced power means reduced interference, they advocate, although it also means significantly reduced coverage areas, especially for rural Americans which depend on distant stations for free over-the-air television.

Right now, the NBP reallocation proposal will likely be “voluntary,” meaning stations can give up their channel and move to a different one, earning compensation from a federal auction fund to pay 100 percent of the expenses involved with the channel change.  The National Association of Broadcasters, the television industry’s trade association, fears what begins as “voluntary” may evolve into “compulsory.”

Open Access Proponents: Least likely to be included in the NBP is a broad-reaching requirement that broadband providers open their networks, usually a duopoly in most American cities, to would-be competitors at fair terms and prices.  The industry has been down this road before with traditional telephone service, and spent countless millions fighting proposals that would allow consumers to choose different local telephone companies.  In the end, choice for residential phone service over landlines never really got off the ground because the terms and conditions never made economic sense to would-be competitors.

Should the FCC try to mandate that cable and telephone industry broadband lines be opened to third party competitors, that will unleash a full scale lobbying assault on Washington.  In an election year, antagonizing big telecommunications companies is unlikely.  Besides, the industry can always sue, claiming any open access mandate violates their corporate constitutional rights.

The Jury Is Out

Consumers: That’s you and I.  Don’t expect the FCC to announce large, government-constructed, fiber to the home projects for every American now living with a broadband duopoly that delivers the least amount of speed for the highest possible price.  When a significant minority of Americans believes any government project to improve broadband is really a Barack Obama Socialist Wiretapping project, no national scale version of municipal fiber is forthcoming.  Not even close.

Most of the media attention will likely focus on speed goals, cosmetic projects for local institutions, and general statements about increased competition.

The immediate benefits for consumers will be nebulous at best.  We’ll likely gain more from Net Neutrality protections.  The only likely direct benefit, should it come to fruition, is the plan to create a nationwide, free wireless network to ease the digital divide.  Specific speeds, technology used, and service areas aren’t known at this point.  But private providers will work particularly hard to prevent this plan from ever seeing the light of day.

Consumer complaints about telecommunications companies have been skyrocketing.  The Better Business Bureau reports that the most complaints the group received in 2009 pertained to cell phone providers and the cable, telephone, and satellite-providers.

Consumers are screaming for competition and they get rate increases instead.

Without clear measures promoting increased competition and oversight, American broadband will evolve into an expensive, usage-limited experience for most urban customers, and “good enough for you”-slow speed DSL service delivered by a de facto telephone company monopoly in rural areas.

Relief for consumers does not come from handing additional few-strings-attached benefits and resources to the same providers that are responsible for the current state of broadband service in America.

Hollywood: Lobbyists for the music and movie studios have been peppering Washington with demands that broadband-related legislation include increased penalties and restrictions to reduce copyright theft.  They seek a mandate that repeat copyright offenders be banned from broadband service, that consumer electronics incorporate digital rights management technology to thwart unauthorized distribution or access to copyrighted content, and increased financial penalties for those who try.

Should the FCC incorporate these concepts in the NBP, it will likely create a consumer backlash because of past memories of overzealous copyright controls that hamper legitimate use of purchased content.  It will also raise opposition from consumer electronics manufacturers.

Cable and Telephone Providers: There are benefits and risks to companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, AT&T, Frontier Communications, and Windstream, among others.

Reform of the much-maligned Universal Service Fund, which currently benefits traditional telephone customers, could be a game-changer for many companies.  Currently, Verizon and AT&T pay more into the USF than they receive from it.  That is especially true for Verizon which is abandoning rural markets by selling off service areas to smaller providers.  The USF provides a subsidy for rural phone companies to deliver affordable service at comparable pricing enjoyed in larger communities.  By transitioning the USF into a Broadband Service Fund — using the money to construct and improve broadband service — many companies stand to benefit.

Frontier, CenturyLink, and Windstream are among those specializing in “rural phone service” and could use funding to defray the costs of broadband networks otherwise built with investor money.  Verizon and AT&T could earn broadband funding for projects in their service areas currently not delivering broadband, or only providing anemic DSL service.

That has cable companies worried, particularly if the funds can be used to provide service in areas where they already offer service.  Even worse, the thought of a new wireless broadband entrant in a community already served by cable and telephone company broadband.

The cable industry is also worried about a proposal to let consumers ditch cable-owned cable boxes in favor of their own purchased alternatives.

Cable companies rent tens of millions of cable boxes that they control and manage. The FCC wants consumers to be able to purchase and manage their own devices capable of utilizing the services cable operators provide, without having to pay several dollars a month to borrow one from the cable company.

Kyle McSlarrow from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association sent a letter Friday to Genachowski offering the FCC a compromise.  Offering seven points the NCTA says cable is willing to voluntarily abide to, McSlarrow suggests consumers should be able to buy such devices, but that they should not be required to access every possible service on offer from his cable members.  Indeed, such devices also must incorporate security and copyright controls to limit unauthorized access and use of cable-delivered content.

That guarantees the same success rate consumers have today with CableCARD technology, which few consumers use or understand.

Regardless of what comes from tomorrow’s National Broadband Plan, look beyond the happy talk, general promises, and visionary language.  The devil is in the details, definitions, schedules, and clear path from tomorrow’s platitudes into next year’s broadband improvement reality.