The Republican party platform on technology gives little credit to the Obama Administration’s handling of all-things-high-tech and demands a wholesale deregulation effort to free the hands of service providers, get rid of Net Neutrality, and sell off wireless spectrum to boost wireless communications.

The platform authors are particularly incensed about Net Neutrality, a policy that requires providers to treat Internet content equally on their networks. Some Republicans have previously called that “a government takeover of the Internet,” telling providers what they can and cannot provide customers. Vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) fiercely opposes Net Neutrality. In 2011, he supported a resolution disapproving of the policy and in 2006 he voted against an amendment to a bill that would have codified it into federal law.

“The most vibrant sector of the American economy, indeed, one-sixth of it, is regulated by the federal government on precedents from the Nineteenth Century. Today’s technology and telecommunications industries are overseen by the FCC, established in 1934 and given the jurisdiction over telecommunications formerly assigned to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which had been created in 1887 to regulate the railroads. This is not a good fit,” the Republican platform states. “Indeed, the development of telecommunications advances so rapidly that even the Telecom Act of 1996 is woefully out of date.”

Mitt Romney is an ardent deregulator. Under a plan favored by the Republican presidential candidate, agencies like the Federal Communications Commission would be required to offset the cost of any new regulations by eliminating existing regulations. Additionally, Romney plans to issue an executive order as president telling all agencies they must notify Congress about any forthcoming regulations and wait for the House and Senate to approve them before they could take effect. With the current level of Congressional gridlock, a consensus to approve any new regulatory policy is unlikely. The end effect would likely be a near-moratorium on government regulation.

The Republican platform also attacked the Obama Administration for failing to expand broadband to rural areas, but offered nothing beyond generalities about “public-private partnerships” on how to expand broadband to the unserved.

Romney

“That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers,” the platform said. “We encourage public-private partnerships to provide predictable support for connecting rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

One can infer from the language in the document Republicans are opposed to public broadband initiatives.

The Republicans also promise to accelerate public spectrum sell-offs to private companies through auctions to expand the number of frequencies available for wireless communications.

The Obama Administration defends its telecommunications policies, noting the FCC’s National Broadband Plan and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s broadband stimulus program have identified unserved areas, despite provider obfuscation, and targeted funding to open up new broadband opportunities. The administration also says it has effectively reformed the Universal Service Fund into a new Connect America Fund that will underwrite prohibitively expensive rural broadband expansion projects.

The White House also defends its spectrum policies noting existing spectrum still has licensed users that face lengthy and often costly transitions to other frequencies to clear space for cell phone companies. Still, President Obama ordered the FCC to find 500MHz of spectrum to reallocate to wireless communications and the FCC plans the first ever incentive auction that will let TV stations voluntarily surrender their frequencies in return for financial incentives.

Both the Obama and Romney campaigns oppose efforts to internationalize Internet regulatory policy through organizations like the United Nations or the International Telecommunications Union. Some governments have stepped up their efforts to lobby for a transition away from Internet policies they see dominated by the United States.

Democrats are also considering Internet language in their party platform for the party’s upcoming convention next month.

Insiders at the Federal Communications Commission have leaked word all five commissioners have cast their votes in favor of a controversial partnership deal between Verizon Wireless and the nation’s largest cable operators to cross-market products and services to customers.

Three Democrats and two Republicans have approved both the marketing agreement and a spectrum transfer deal from cable operators to Verizon Wireless.  Republicans did not approve of an order mandating a data roaming obligation or the recognition the FCC has the authority to oversee the marketing agreement, but both will remain part of the final order.

The Justice Department earlier approved the modified deal that includes a time limit on the marketing partnership and restricts certain cross-marketing in FiOS-wired areas.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said the spectrum transfer was urgently needed to address wireless spectrum shortages. But consumer groups opposed the deal, calling it anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Some unions also say the deal comes close to collusion and will lead to Verizon further pulling back from its fiber upgrade FiOS in favor of selling cable subscriptions.

T-Mobile is proving once again that as an independent cell phone provider, it is prepared to be a scrappy competitor for your wireless dollar. America’s fourth largest cell phone company today announced it was getting into an emerging “unlimited data” war with its larger competitor Sprint and smaller contender MetroPCS, announcing it will bring back a truly unlimited data plan for its customers.

“We want to double-down on worry-free (marketing),” said Harry Thomas, T-Mobile’s director of marketing. “We want to eliminate the situation of ‘Do I want to stream Netflix for kids or worry about data overage?’ ”

Starting Sept. 5, T-Mobile’s Unlimited Nationwide 4G Data plan will be available for $20 per month when added to a Value voice and text plan or $30 per month when added to a Classic voice and text plan. For example, a single line Value plan with unlimited talk and text combined with unlimited nationwide 4G data will cost $69.99 or a single line Classic plan with unlimited talk, unlimited text and unlimited nationwide 4G data will cost $89.99.  The plan cannot be combined with Smartphone Mobile Hotspot/tethering. Customers who want to share their phone’s data service with other devices will have to choose between a 5GB or 10GB add-on option instead.

TmoNews obtained this screen shot courtesy of an anonymous employee at T-Mobile USA.

T-Mobile says their new unlimited 4G data plan comes without tricks or traps, promising no data caps, speed limits/throttles or bill shock from overlimit fees. But like every provider, T-Mobile will have a provision in its terms of use that allows it to cut the data usage party short in cases of exceptionally extraordinary usage, but the company says it will enforce that only in the most extreme cases.

“We’re big believers in customer-driven innovation, and our Unlimited Nationwide 4G Data plan is the answer to customers who are frustrated by the cost, complexity and congested networks of our competitors,” said Kevin McLaughlin, vice president, marketing, T-Mobile USA.  “Consumers want the freedom of unlimited 4G data. Our bold move to be the only wireless carrier to offer an Unlimited Nationwide 4G Data plan reinforces our value leadership and capitalizes on the strength of our nationwide 4G network.”

T-Mobile doesn’t consider Sprint’s “truly unlimited” plan in the same class, because it currently operates on a much slower “4G” standard called WiMAX, which Sprint is moving rapidly away from. Many T-Mobile customers use the company’s 4G-like HSPA+ network for data, which offers respectable speeds if your phone supports the standard (the Apple iPhone, for example, does not.) T-Mobile is moving forward on its own upgrade to 4G LTE starting in 2013.

T-Mobile’s announcement comes one day after MetroPCS, a regional carrier, announced its own limited-time promotion offering unlimited talk, text, and data for $55 a month (up to three additional lines can be added for $50 a month each). Once a customer signs up for the unlimited service promotion, they can keep it as long as they remain a customer.

The two attention to unlimited data plans from the three carriers are in marked contrast to AT&T and Verizon Wireless, which have both moved to curb unlimited use plans — switching customers to usage allowances and overlimit fees. Both companies, considerably larger than any of their competitors, claim unlimited data is impossible to offer because of wireless spectrum shortages and the expense of continually upgrading networks to meet demand.

But this does not seem to pose any problem for Sprint, T-Mobile, or MetroPCS.

Wall Street believes the new interest in unlimited data is a marketing move to differentiate the smaller companies from the two dominant providers.

Wells Fargo analyst Jennifer Fritzsche wrote in a research note to her investor clients that T-Mobile is strategically re-positioning itself in the market to attract new customers.

“We believe T-Mobile felt the need to make some change in order to attract attention,” wrote Fritzsche.

Other analysts believe T-Mobile needed a “game-changing” marketing move to help it recover from its ongoing losses of contract customers. The company has been losing just over 500,000 “branded” contract customers every quarter for the last year.

The pricing and service changes may require Sprint to revisit its current rates.

Sprint’s $109.99 Simply Everything plan offers unlimited data, text, and voice — and runs $20 higher per month than T-Mobile’s forthcoming offer, $55 more than MetroPCS.

Dish Network is planning to introduce 5Mbps nationwide satellite broadband service after its partner company EchoStar successfully launched the satellite that will host the new service.

Bloomberg News reports Dish will introduce the service in late September or October this year and intends to market it in areas where DSL or cable broadband has been spotty or unavailable.

Dish’s broadband service will use its new EchoStar 17 satellite launched in July. The satellite can technically support download speeds up to 15Mbps, but Dish wants to start with slower speeds to maximize the number of potential customers the satellite can accommodate, which the company estimates can be as high as two million.

With an estimated 8-10 million Americans currently bypassed by broadband, Dish may have little trouble establishing a substantial customer base, if the service works as advertised. Past satellite broadband ventures have traditionally offered slow speeds and draconian “fair usage policies” which strictly limit how much customers can use the service.  The services are not cheap either.

EchoStar’s vice president of investor relations Deepak Dutt said the newest generation of satellite broadband services offer much faster service and higher capacity by an order of magnitude. But average usage per subscriber has also risen, providing a challenge for satellite broadband providers that may lack the capacity to sustain high bandwidth content, especially streaming video.

Dish already offers up to 12Mbps satellite broadband through a marketing partnership with Carlsbad, Calif.-based ViaSat, Inc. But ViaSat’s service is limited to certain geographic regions in the United States. Dish insiders say their service with EchoStar will compliment, not replace their deal with ViaSat, and will expand coverage nationwide.

The combination of broadband and satellite television may make it possible for Dish to sell new bundled packages that can compete with phone and cable companies. Dish also claims to be waiting for Federal Communications Commission approval to use its wireless spectrum to offer mobile Internet and phone service, which could also be included in a future bundled offer.

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

AT&T’s real priorities are to satisfy Wall Street demands for regular revenue growth. Rural wired broadband just cannot compete with the margins the company earns on its enormously profitable wireless and ARPU-raising U-verse services. (Graphic adapted from original work of Mark Fiore)

Today: AT&T — More Rural Broadband? Don’t Call Us, We’ll Call You

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson earlier this year declared expansion of its U-verse fiber to the neighborhood service “largely complete,” despite the fact almost half of AT&T’s customers only have access to much slower DSL service, or cannot receive any broadband service at all.

For those living in AT&T’s service areas, which include a large portion of the midwest, southern states east of the Mississippi, Connecticut, and parts of California and Texas, Stephenson has not inspired confidence the company is rethinking what is possible in rural broadband.

“We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America?,” Stephenson told investors earlier this year. “And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid.”

AT&T’s lack of confidence this year is in contrast with their bombastic rural broadband lobbying campaign of 2011, launched as part of an effort to win approval for its aborted merger with T-Mobile USA. The company sent slick talking points promoting the deal to community groups it supported with contributions, politicians it bought with contributions, and astroturf efforts it bankrolled with contributions.

The result was declarations like this from former Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who swept through Washington’s revolving door and came out on the other side working for AT&T-backed lobbyist-law firm Sidley Austin and serving as an “honorary chairman” of the industry-backed Internet Innovation Alliance:

Thousands of the smallest communities outside of urban areas either lack broadband service or have just one option that can be pricey for a relatively low connection speed, inadequate for modern business demands. The joining of AT&T’s and T-Mobile’s wireless spectrum will largely fill the gap and bring robust Internet connectivity to rural localities where wired infrastructure is cost prohibitive.

With the merger now nothing more than a bad memory, Stephenson’s interest in the innovation of Internet access quickly faded.

Last week, AT&T customers learned the company isn’t even interested in taking free money from the federal government and ratepayers to do better. Offered access to $115 million in broadband subsidies from the reform of the Universal Service Fund (USF), AT&T officials shrugged their shoulders and indicated they were not interested because they are not yet “ready” to participate.

Quinn

“AT&T is in the midst of evaluating its options for further rural broadband deployment,” said Robert Quinn, AT&T’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs wrote in a letter to the commission. “As our chairman stated last month, we are optimistic about AT&T’s ability to get more broadband into rural areas, particularly as the technology continues to advance. However, until AT&T finalizes that strategy, it cannot commit to participating in the incremental support program. ”

For communities like Orangeburg, S.C., that answer is not good enough. The community received an $18.65 million federal grant of broadband stimulus funds to develop high-speed broadband in an area where only 20-40 percent of residents have Internet service today. AT&T is the dominant phone company and offered the same non-committal response to Orangeburg’s pleas for better service that the  company gives to customers elsewhere.

While AT&T reports it is not yet ready to do better in rural South Carolina, it is very motivated to make sure nobody else does either, funding a massive lobbying effort in coordination with its friends at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to pass a virtual ban on community broadband development across South Carolina.

Christopher Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks calls it “monetizing scarcity.” Orangeburg officials call it a big headache and are working around AT&T, frustrated with the phone company’s disinterest while it also helps build barriers to impede the community’s efforts to build its own network.

“If some of these other providers had a desire to serve these rural areas, they would have already been doing it,” said county administrator Bill Clark. “We are entering the broadband business because third-party providers are reluctant to provide the service.”

AT&T’s reluctance to accept USF money may have a lot to do with the company’s focus on its wireless network which is seen as a much more lucrative investment. Profit margins for barely-competitive wireless service remain sky high, and are growing higher as AT&T raises prices and the industry works to cut costs.

Even the company’s urban-focused U-verse network delivers opportunities for greater revenues from AT&T customers likely to buy additional services. Investing in DSL just does not pull in the same level of profits, and companies like AT&T will remain reluctant to expand rural broadband unless the government delivers a much larger government subsidy, according to Benjamin Lennett, a policy director at the New America Foundation.

“It underscores how flawed it is to rely on private companies to serve these rural areas where their margins are not going to be that high,” Lennett said.

Unfortunately for communities trying to work around AT&T’s roadblock, the company has made sure towns and villages building their own networks soon discover that road remains closed in more than dozen states thanks to  AT&T with the help from corporate groups like ALEC, who feed willing legislators bills often drafted by the corporations they are designed to protect.