AT&T has new wireless data plans you can’t afford.

Saving money takes a back seat to AT&T’s newest supersized Mobile Share data packages reported by The Verge. AT&T’s goal of monetizing data usage for their most ravenous wireless data users means a 900 percent price hike from the days of the company’s $30 unlimited data plan. Here are the newest plans:

• 30GB data usage = $300 a month
• 40GB data usage = $400 a month
• 50GB data usage = $500 a month

Unlimited texting and talking are included in these prices, but the individual device fees for each smartphone, tablet, or wireless modem are not.

AT&T’s pricing is relevant to rural customers who face an imminent threat of losing landline phone and broadband service should the phone company win the right to abandon its copper wire network in favor of wireless-only service. A family watching Netflix consuming 45GB of usage on AT&T’s DSL service pay as little as $15 a month for broadband. With AT&T’s wireless Internet service, that same family will spend a prohibitive $500 a month.

Areas in yellow are Wireless ISP projects seeking funding to expand. Most of them are in the panhandle region of northern W.V. The areas shaded in purple are grant proposals to promote the benefit of subscribing to broadband service.

Frontier Communications has forced a West Virginia broadband improvement council to temporarily suspend plans to distribute $4 million in funding to independent ISPs planning to expand service in rural areas after a company official objected that the funding would duplicate broadband service Frontier already provides itself or through its satellite broadband partner.

The West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council ended up postponing its broadband awards program after Frontier Communications executive Dana Waldo, who serves on the Council, objected to the money being distributed.

Waldo noted state code prohibits the board from awarding grants for projects in areas already provided service.

That state code, passed by the West Virginia legislature in 2008, came courtesy of a coalition of phone, cable, and broadband equipment companies like Cisco working with then-Gov. Joe Manchin to push the broadband bill into law. Verizon was the most influential supporter, serving as West Virginia’s largest telecommunications company before selling its landline network to Frontier.

The code Waldo refers to:

The council shall exercise its powers and authority to bring broadband service to those areas without broadband service. The council may not duplicate or displace broadband service in areas already served or where private industry feasibly can be expected to offer services in the reasonably foreseeable future. In no event may projects or actions undertaken pursuant to this article be used to finance or support broadband or other services in competition with private industry.

The Council relied on broadband map data provided by Frontier Communications to help score and rank projects that appeared to be outside of Frontier’s broadband service area. When the project rankings were first announced in September, Frontier executives immediately claimed their map data was outdated and subsequently updated map data voluntarily supplied by Frontier, not independently verified, showed many of the high-ranking independent projects would compete with Frontier’s DSL service, disqualifying them from further consideration.

Waldo

Waldo declared he was not comfortable with the broadband awards because “many of those areas are currently served or can be reasonably served by Frontier.”

State officials were hopeful a new list of qualifying projects could be developed in accordance with the latest Frontier map data and were scheduled to be announced on Dec. 12.

But Waldo noted that Frontier could end up unhappy with many of those projects as well.

He noted Frontier technically already offers every household in West Virginia broadband access through its new partnership with a satellite Internet Service Provider. Frontier began offering rural customers satellite Internet service earlier this year.

“If our mission is to increase broadband access, we need to consider satellite,” he told the Council. “We have hundreds of [satellite] customers.”

While Frontier considers satellite broadband a solution in the most rural areas where it is unlikely to provide service anytime soon, it could prove even more valuable as a weapon against potential competition in a state that prohibits public funding of competing services.

The biggest losers should Frontier prove its case are rural Wireless Internet Service Providers, who have requested $3.1 million in grants to build antenna towers. An additional $923,000 was expected to fund programs that promote the benefits of signing up for high speed service. Frontier has ties to four of those projects, and has stated no objections to them.

Frontier has also not objected to the much larger $126 million federal grant to construct an institutional statewide fiber broadband network. Frontier is the primary vendor that will sell access on that network.

Despite industry propaganda touting an “unlimited broadband future” (possibilities, that is, not an end to usage caps) and good sounding headlines about robust competition in the broadband market, the reality on the ground isn’t as rosy.

Americans looking for a better deal for broadband are largely stuck negotiating with the local cable company or putting up with less speed from the phone company to get a cheaper rate.

That is hardly the “success story” being pushed by the Mother of All Broadband Astroturf Front Groups, Broadband for America. BfA, backed by money from some of America’s largest telecom companies calls today’s marketplace “dynamic” and “rapidly changing.” For them, competition is not the problem, the way we define competition is.

Tell that to San Jose Mercury News columnist Troy Wolverton, whose dynamic and rapidly changing Comcast cable bill has now reached $144 a month, and threatens to go higher still when his two-year contract expires.

Wolverton is a case study of what an average American consumer goes through shopping around for broadband service. Despite assertions of a vibrant, competitive Internet access paradise from groups like Broadband for America, Wolverton found very little real competition on the menu, despite being in the high tech heart of Silicon Valley.

Valley residents can typically choose between AT&T and Comcast, if they have any choice at all. Neither company offers a great deal for consumers.

Comcast offers faster speeds at considerably higher prices that can be reduced somewhat by signing up for a costly triple-play service. AT&T’s prices are lower, but its service is slower and is based on a technology that in my experience is less reliable.

So it goes for millions of Americans who face the same dilemma: take a higher-priced package from the cable company or settle for less from the phone company. With the exception of Verizon FiOS, most large telephone companies still rely on basic DSL service to deliver broadband. AT&T’s U-verse and CenturyLink’s Prism are both fiber to the neighborhood services that deliver somewhat faster speeds than traditional DSL, but also have to share bandwidth with television and traditional phone service, leaving them topped out at around 25Mbps.

Wolverton could not believe his only choices were Comcast and AT&T, so he visited the California Broadband Availability Map, one of the state projects earnestly trying to identify the available choices consumers have for broadband access. Despite California’s vast size, it quickly became apparent that even companies like AT&T and Comcast largely don’t deliver broadband outside of cities and suburbs. Several smaller, lesser-known providers emerged from the map that were open to Wolverton, which he explored with less-than-satisfying results:

In addition to Comcast and AT&T, it listed Etheric Networks, which offers a wireless Internet service directed at home users that’s based on Wi-Fi technology, and MegaPath, which offers Internet access through a variety of wired technologies, including DSL.

After further research I found that neither of those companies was a legitimate option. MegaPath can’t deliver residential service to my house that’s faster than 1.5 megabits per second. Etheric, which focuses on business customers, offers a service level with speeds of up to 22 megabits per second, but it costs a cool $400 a month.

Other non-options for Wolverton included the highly-rated Sonic.net, which in his neighborhood is entirely dependent on AT&T’s landlines for its DSL service. That was a no-go, after Wolverton discovered he would be stuck with 3-6Mbps service. Clearwire also offers service in greater San Jose, but not at his home in Willow Glen.

That left him back with AT&T and Comcast.

But that is not really a problem in the eyes of industry defenders like Jeffrey Eisenach, managing director and principal at Navigant Economics and an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School. Navigant is a “research group” that counts AT&T as one of its most important clients. The firm provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues cover for clients trying to sell their agenda. Navigant’s “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.”

Eisenach goes all out for the broadband industry in his paper, “Theories of Broadband Competition,” which throws in everything but the kitchen sink to defend the status quo:

• The cost of broadband service is declining;
• The duopoly of cable and phone companies are still competing for customers and introducing new services;
• Competition can take the form of provider innovation (ie. providers compete by offering a better services, not lower prices);
• Wireless competition is accelerating, citing LightSquared and Clearwire as two conclusive examples of competition at work;
• The cost of service on a per-megabit basis has declined.
• Competition in today’s broadband market delivers ancillary benefits not immediately evident when only considering the customer’s point of view;

Eisenach’s pricing proof stopped in 2009, just as cable providers like Time Warner Cable began raising broadband prices. TWC’s Landel Hobbs to investors: “We have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data.” (February, 2010)

Eisenach has appeared at various industry-sponsored evidence touting his views of broadband economics and competition that later turns up as headline news on Broadband for America’s website. But just as Wolverton’s initial optimism finding other choices for broadband faded with reality, so do Eisenach’s conclusions:

1. Eisenach’s evidence of broadband price declines stops in 2009, coincidentally just prior to the recent phenomena of cable broadband rate increases, which have accelerated in the past three years;
2. Competition still exists in urban and suburban markets, as long as phone companies attempt to stem the tide of landline losses, but it’s largely absent in rural markets and in decline in others where companies “reset” prices to match their cable competition. AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon’s FiOS both effectively ended their expansion, leaving large swaths of the country with “good enough for you” service. Cable operators have even teamed up with Verizon Wireless to cross-market their products — hardly evidence of a robustly competitive marketplace;
3. Innovation can take the form of services customers don’t actually want but are compelled to take because of bundled pricing or, worse, the decline in a-la-carte add-ons in favor of “one price for everything” models. Verizon Wireless set the stage for providers of all kinds to consider mandatory bundling for any product or service that can no longer deliver a suitable return on its own. For customers already taking every possible service or fastest speed, this pricing  may deliver lower prices at the outset, but for budget-focused consumers, compulsory packages or high prices on a-la-carte services assures them of a higher bill;
4. Eisenach’s examples of competition are a real mess. LightSquared is bankrupt and Clearwire has shown it cannot deliver an equivalent broadband experience for customers and throttles the speeds of those perceived to be using the service too much. Other wireless providers typically limit customer usage or cannot deliver speeds comparable to wired broadband;
5. While the cost per megabit may have declined in the past, cable providers are still raising prices, and as Google and community-owned providers have illustrated, delivering fast speeds should not cost customers nearly as much as providers continue to charge, with no incentive to cut prices in the absence of equally fast, competitive networks;
6. While broadband may open the door for additional economic benefits not immediately apparent, competitive broadband would further drive innovation and reduce pricing, delivering an even bigger bang for the buck.

Wolverton recognized taking a promotional offer from AT&T will temporarily deliver savings over what Comcast charges, but he would have to set his expectations lower if he switched:

I’m reluctant to switch to AT&T. [U-verse] Max Plus is the fastest level of service it offers at our house, but with a top speed of 18 megabits a second, it’s significantly slower than Comcast’s Blast. Speed matters to us, because my wife and I often share our Internet connection, and we frequently use it to transfer large files such as apps, videos, photos or songs to or from the Net.

[…] What’s more, as the FCC outlined in another recent report, Comcast does a better job of delivering the speeds it advertises than does AT&T.

What’s worse in my book is that AT&T’s U-verse’s Internet service is a version of DSL. It’s faster than regular DSL, because the copper wires in your house and neighborhood are connected to nearby high-speed fiber-optic cables. Even with that speed boost, though, I’m hesitant to go back to any kind of DSL service, because my wife and I suffered through years of unreliable DSL service from AT&T predecessor PacBell and then EarthLink, which piggybacked on AT&T’s lines.

Wolverton also objected to Comcast’s bundled pricing scheme, which delivers the best value to customers who sign up for broadband, television and phone service. Wolverton does not need a landline from AT&T or Comcast, and would like to drop the service. He’s not especially impressed with Comcast’s TV lineup (or pricing) either. But he noted if he switched to broadband-only service, Comcast would effectively penalize him with a broadband-only rate of $72 a month, exactly half the current cost of Comcast’s triple-play package.

In a later blog post, Wolverton confessed he liked Comcast’s broadband service and speeds, and with the carefully-crafted pricing the cable and phone companies have developed, he expected to remain a Comcast customer given his choices and pricing options, which are simply not enough.

Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) are incensed about efforts by CenturyLink to win waivers from the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America rural broadband funding program that could leave WISPs facing new competition from CenturyLink made possible by surcharges paid by phone customers nationwide.

At issue is a filing from CenturyLink before the FCC that would allow the phone company to “change the rules,” according to critics. One of CenturyLink’s most prominent arguments is that WISPs have data caps that inconvenience customers. But CenturyLink buries the fact it has usage caps of its own in a footnote.

“The waiver application we filed … would allow CenturyLink to spend tens of millions of dollars to bring more broadband services to more rural and high-cost customers who do not have reasonable access to broadband service today,” CenturyLink said in a media release. “These funds would be provided by the FCC’s Connect America Fund, as well as additional investment dollars would be provided by CenturyLink. If the waiver application is approved, CenturyLink will build needed broadband services to thousands of homes in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon and several other states.”

CenturyLink claims WISPs charge considerably more for service, suffer from line-of-sight restrictions which could leave many rural customers without service, have limited spectrum which keeps broadband speeds to a bare minimum and often forces customers to endure stringent data usage caps.

The waiver request would allow CenturyLink to receive and use federal Connect America funds to deploy its DSL service to rural customers already served by WISPs if two conditions are met:

• The state where CenturyLink would spend the money has not independently verified the coverage area of the wireless ISP and objective data opens the door to an argument that a WISP cannot adequately service areas where they claim coverage;
• The WISP imposes unusually high prices ($720/yr or more) or severe usage caps (25GB per month or less).

Chuck Siefert, CEO of the Montana Internet Corporation (MIC), a WISP, argues CenturyLink has no case, and is attempting to modify the rules to accomplish its own objectives rather than adhering to the original goals of the program — to deliver broadband to the rural unserved:

CenturyLink is simply raising an old protest in a new venue. Having been designated as eligible for almost ninety million dollars of the Connect America Program (CAP), it wishes to have the opportunity to use more than a third of that as it chooses, rather than as the Commission designated after input and analysis from all parties. The Rubicon has been crossed with respect to this issue: unserved areas are those that are not served by fixed wireless providers.  Regardless of CenturyLink’s opinion of the quality of service provided, these areas have been deemed served by the Commission and CAP incremental support may not be used to build out broadband in these areas. CenturyLink is certainly capable of using other funding to build out in these areas; the Commission has not precluded that.

CenturyLink’s complaints that WISPs often come with data usage caps is ironic because CenturyLink is now imposing usage caps on its own broadband service. CenturyLink argues data caps expose the limitations inherent in wireless broadband in their filing with the FCC:

Satellite broadband also often comes encumbered with restrictive data caps. The same is true of many of the WISPs subject to this waiver request. They impose on their users highly restrictive data caps of less than 25 GB per month. Indeed, two of the WISPs impose a cap of just 5 GB per month.

It is no surprise that these WISPs would impose such unusually low caps; like satellite providers, they must ration out their highly constrained capacity among the various end users who compete for it. WISP broadband capacity—unlike the customer-specific links in DSL-based broadband—is shared by all customers within a given wireless cell or sector.

This means that the more customers a WISP persuades to sign up, the worse the average service quality gets for all customers unless the WISP sharply limits how much customers may consume.

That imperative may be an unavoidable consequence of the WISPs’ technology, but it further underscores the need to give the affected consumers a robust broadband alternative.

Siefert claims CenturyLink’s assertions about the quality of its DSL service, pricing, and performance simply fall short of the truth, and MIC does better by its customers.

Pricing

CenturyLink charges a $134.89 non-recurring charge plus $29.99/mo for “up to 1.5Mbps” DSL service, plus “up to” $99.95 for professional installation. CenturyLink’s DSL modem costs $99 and has a one-year warranty.

Siefert claims MIC charges $30/mo for “bursting speeds up to 10Mbps” and $250 for technician installation, but the company offers regular installation promotions that cost $99. MIC warrants its equipment for the life of the service and charges no fee for service calls as long as the customer is current on their bill.

But Stop the Cap! found speeds and pricing less advantageous than Siefert might have the FCC believe. For instance, MIC’s $30 tier only guarantees 384kbps with speed “bursts” up to 10Mbps. Getting committed 2Mbps service runs $55 a month with the same “bursting” speed of 10Mbps. We also found CenturyLink willing to negotiate installation charges, and the company frequently discounts or even waives them if a customer signs up for a multi-service package.

Data Caps

CenturyLink now imposes a 150GB usage cap on customers with 1.5Mbps service or slower, 250GB for customers at higher speeds.

MIC claims it does not even monitor individual customer usage. Siefert says data use limitations are found in the terms and conditions of its service and are imposed only when a customer creates a problem for other users on the network.

“Rather than strictly applying data caps, MIC’s policy is to contact its customers and explain the impact their usage has on other customers,” Siefert explains. “As a small provider in a local community, MIC is able to do this in a way that a carrier like CenturyLink cannot. CenturyLink’s representations regarding transfer caps imply that WISPs arbitrarily and automatically shut a customer down once the cap is reached. This assertion is not based on evidence and is not an accurate statement of MIC’s approach to the caps. CenturyLink’s argument that WISPs operate like satellite and therefore WISPs service areas should be categorized as unserved areas based on how transfer caps are used fails.”

Stop the Cap! found different information on MIC’s website, however, including a 20GB monthly data cap and a $15/GB overage charge. Siefert’s submission to the FCC may suggest the published cap is a guideline more than a rule.

Performance

CenturyLink still uses T1-level circuits (1.5Mbps) to connect at least some of their remote D-SLAMs, according to Siefert, which helps the phone company extend DSL service to homes and businesses far away from the company’s central office. The net result is that customers fight for the bandwidth on an insufficient backhaul, which dramatically reduces speeds during peak usage times. In Helena, Montana CenturyLink “daisy-chains” D-SLAMs to support customers over a single T3 line, creating latency problems, packet loss, and further reductions in speed and performance.

MIC is capable of providing a total of 252Mbps per distribution site. The incoming next generation of wireless technology will increase that to 1.4Gbps. Additional distribution sites can divide the traffic load similar to how new cell towers can reduce demand on other nearby towers.

Speeds

CenturyLink sells speeds “up to” a certain level without guaranteeing customers will actually get the speed they are paying to receive. Siefert says CenturyLink customers in Montana currently can manage up to 7Mbps in some areas.

MIC says it can commit to its customers they can receive 10-40Mbps (and 80Mbps by the end of 2012) over its wireless network.

Independent Netindex.com suggests MIC does offers faster service on average than CenturyLink provides in Montana:

• Montana (statewide average): MIC 5.04Mbps vs. CenturyLink 3.8Mbps
• Helena: MIC 5.08Mbps vs. CenturyLink 2.73Mbps

The Wireless Internet Service Provider Association says their members are not eligible for federal Connect America subsidies, and most wireless providers are privately financed operations built with the support of their rural customers.

Said Richard Harnish, WISPA’s executive director, “We find it hard to believe that a company like CenturyLink that gets millions of dollars in federal support now wants more free money to overbuild unsubsidized rural broadband networks that WISPs already successfully operate. To do this, CenturyLink has attempted to discredit the taxpayer-funded National Broadband Map and invent its own standards in an effort to show that they should receive more than $30 million in additional subsidies.  Our strong opposition reflects WISPA’s view that CenturyLink’s arguments are factually and technically flawed.  We thank the other associations, state agencies and WISPs that support our views.”

Walden

House Republicans attacked the Federal Communications Commission Tuesday for “rushing” special waivers and conditions that allowed LightSquared to begin operations without fully considering its impact on GPS devices and services.

GOP Reps. Cliff Stearns (Fla.), Fred Upton (Mich.), and Greg Walden (Ore.) said the need for intensifying an investigation first launched in February was more pertinent than ever with this week’s bankruptcy declaration by the wireless Internet service.

“Now, more than ever, we need to get to the bottom of how we got this far down a dead-end road,” said the congressmen in a joint statement. “There are many unanswered questions, specifically about whether the FCC’s own objectives led to sloppy process. We are continuing to examine the information we’ve received so far to determine what happened and how it can be avoided in the future.”

Upton

All three said the FCC’s “rushed” review cost investors billions that were “wasted” building a broadband network that was later determined to create serious interference problems for global positioning satellite receivers.

The FCC previously denied they were pressured by Obama Administration officials to approve the project as part of the White House’s strong focus on broadband improvement.

But the House Republicans believe the interference problems should have been identified before the project got too far along.

Initially, the FCC issued a conditional approval to begin testing the service, which quickly led to growing evidence it unintentionally blocked GPS reception.

A preliminary report found GPS receivers were incapable of rejecting the adjacent channel interference from LightSquared’s powerful ground-based transmitters.

While technically not the fault of LightSquared, which argued it should not be held responsible for poor GPS receiver design, the fact millions of GPS receivers are already in use swayed the FCC to reject the use of those frequencies for the wireless Internet service.