This FCC broadband coverage map depicts broadband service gaps in orange.

According to broadband coverage maps drawn from data provided by telecommunications companies across Mississippi, high speed Internet service is available just about everywhere in the state.

Only it isn’t.

Now one Public Service Commissioner is going public warning broadband expansion funding is in jeopardy because the Federal Communications Commission is relying on faulty map data.

Northern District Commissioner Brandon Presley told the DeSoto Times-Tribune things are not nearly as rosy as some providers would have you believe.

“The maps the FCC have are just plain wrong,” Presley said. “Their maps show that Mississippi is almost completely covered and that is certainly not the case. Getting this corrected is a top priority so that Mississippi can get its fair share of funding to cover these areas for residents and businesses.”

The implications for DeSoto County, Mississippi’s fastest growing county, are profound.

Thanks to map data volunteered by service providers that suggest virtually the entire state already has access to broadband, federal assistance funding for expanding Internet access may be off-limits. Most assistance programs require that areas be unserved to avoid duplicating existing service.

“Currently, the map vastly overstates the broadband coverage in the state,” Presley said. “While the map shows neighboring states with extensive underserved areas, Mississippi appears with nearly universal coverage.”

The FCC’s map of unserved areas depicts Mississippi as a broadband outlier in the southern United States, with far more service options than other nearby southern states. Digging deeper reveals major problems with the FCC’s data.

For instance, the state’s map reveals much of Mississippi is covered by wireless providers like AT&T, C-Spire, and Verizon. But those companies offer only limited data plans at high prices that are not equivalent to traditional wired broadband from a cable or phone company. A company called Callis Communications is depicted as providing a large part of the state with DOCSIS 3 cable modem service, when in fact Callis markets cloud-services to business customers and does not operate a cable company.

Most of Mississippi’s broadband connections from cable companies and AT&T are in larger communities including Tupelo, Jackson, Meridian, Gulfport, Hattiesburg and Biloxi. That leaves large sections of central and western Mississippi with significant service gaps.

Presley said his office is working to correct the FCC’s National Broadband Map, but with federal spending cutbacks looming, it may already be too late.

“Without this assistance, rural communities will continue to be left behind as small businesses, health care and emergency services will be left without necessary access to the Internet,” Presley told the newspaper.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLOX Biloxi Broadband map could cost the state millions 12-21-12.mp4[/flv]

WLOX in Biloxi reports Mississippi officials are scrambling to correct faulty broadband map data with the FCC so the state can qualify for broadband expansion funding.  (2 minutes)

Efforts to develop new unlicensed uses for the public airwaves that include high-powered public Wi-Fi may be shelved if AT&T and House Republicans succeed in their joint effort to force those frequencies to be sold in a spectrum auction.

Majority House Republicans on the House Communications & Technology Subcommittee on Wednesday lectured all five FCC commissioners, insisting they have no authority to set aside spectrum specifically for unlicensed use when those airwaves could be sold to private companies.

Sub-Committee chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) criticized FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his plans to “give away” scarce airwaves eventually open to the public’s use when they could fetch as much as $19 billion in auction proceeds from large telecommunications companies seeking to own and control those frequencies.

Walden, the House’s second largest recipient of campaign contributions from the same companies likely to bid on that spectrum, insisted federal law only allows the Commission to designate unlicensed uses for so-called “technically necessary guard bands,” which act as a buffer between neighboring frequency users to protect against interference. Walden also criticized the FCC for setting aside too much spectrum for that protection.

Walden, the second largest recipient of telco cash in Congress.

The Oregon congressman has collected more than $84,000 in campaign contributions from telephone companies so far this year. Only House Speaker John Boehner won larger contributions from companies like AT&T.

Other Republican members of the subcommittee agreed with Walden’s sentiment and also received generous contributions from AT&T this year.

Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), wanted to be sure the FCC does not impose “value-sapping restrictions” on the use of privately-owned airwaves owned by large telecommunications companies. Terry is the third largest recipient of campaign contributions in the House from those telecom companies, adding $69,400 so far this year to his campaign coffers.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) expressed concerns that spectrum auctions could displace low-power television stations to make way for mobile communications. But Barton did not oppose the auctions generally. His largest contributor: AT&T, which sent him checks for more than $21,000 in 2012.

Representative Robert E. Latta (R-Ohio) suggested auctioning off airwaves intended for public use to large mobile broadband companies would help America’s competitiveness, alluding to his belief unlicensed, free use of the airwaves for new wireless applications would not. Latta cashed $10,500 in AT&T checks so far this year — his fourth largest contributor. Latta added he wanted there to be transparency and openness in the entire spectrum process. He did not disclose his significant contributions from AT&T at the hearing, despite being a chief stakeholder in the debate.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) agreed with large telecommunications companies that the maximum amount of available spectrum should be sold off to private companies to sell mobile broadband services to the public. Blackburn’s third largest campaign contributor this year is Verizon Communications, who sent her $15,400. AT&T, her ninth largest contributor, handed her $13,250, together adding up to $28,650.

The Democrats on the panel roundly criticized Republican plans to sell off spectrum intended for unlicensed, public use applications to large wireless companies, which already own and control frequencies they still have not put into service.

Terry, worried about “value-sapping” regulations.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called unlicensed spectrum an incredible economic success story.

“Innovative services like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are now ubiquitous parts of our communications system,” he said in his opening remarks. “They came about because of the use of unlicensed spectrum.”

Waxman suggested eliminating or limiting unlicensed spectrum would destroy innovation and further concentrate wireless communications in the hands of a handful of companies. Waxman said Congress’ original intent in passing laws that permitted the FCC to move forward with spectrum auctions also authorize the agency to protect competition and prevent unnecessary concentration of spectrum ownership to the detriment of smaller providers.

“I am troubled by attempts by some to relitigate issues that were resolved earlier this year, when the bill passed Congress with widespread support,” Waxman added. “After-the-fact-spin that unfairly twists the language of the law deserves little weight by the Commission or the courts.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) noted the FCC by statute is prohibited from considering the amount of revenue possible from spectrum auctions when drafting auction rules. She found Republican efforts to recast those rules to raise as much money as possible by selling off as much spectrum as possible “interesting.”

Many Republicans also complained the FCC must not set rules that either limit the maximum amount of spectrum owned by one company or set aside certain frequencies exclusively for smaller competitors. The Republicans want auctions to maintain a more straightforward “highest bidder takes all” format. Critics say that gives the advantage to larger, deep-pocketed existing providers and dissuades the entry of new competitors.

Some Republicans were also upset with FCC meddling over when and how private companies begin providing service on the airwaves they won at auction. Current FCC rules prohibit warehousing unused spectrum. The rules were designed to ensure large companies don’t invest in airwaves just to keep them off the market and unavailable to competitors.

Riding away with your phone subsidy.

T-Mobile USA has thrown down the gauntlet, announcing it intends to end the kind of phone subsidies that have allowed customers to pick up pricey smartphones like the iPhone for as low as $99, with a two-year contract.

Wireless subsidies have been part of the North American wireless experience for nearly two decades. In an effort to bring new customers on board, carriers wanted the upfront cost to consumers to be as low as possible. Until expensive smartphones arrived, consumers were assured they could get a new, cutting-edge phone at contract renewal time for very little money. Carriers tolerated the subsidy even for existing customers because the difference between the company’s cost and the amount consumers paid wasn’t large enough to negatively affect a carrier’s balance sheet.

Companies gradually earn back the subsidy over the course of a typical two year contract by artificially inflating prices for service plans and add-ons. Because wireless rates have been set with the assumption a customer has received a subsidized phone, it made sense to keep getting new equipment every two years, because customers pay for it on each monthly bill.

In most countries outside of North America, it works very differently. Most customers either pay for a phone outright or agree to finance its purchase through a wireless company, paying monthly installments for smartphones that often cost more than $600. Some companies offer more aggressive discounts if one agrees to a 1-3 year contract, but buyers still cover much of the cost themselves. In return, wireless companies abroad typically charge much lower rates for service and do not force people into lengthy contracts. Customers also find they can switch companies as easily as replacing a SIM card, activating an old phone on a new carrier’s network.

There are pros and cons to the subsidy model:

PROS

• Consumers get the latest phones at a reduced up-front cost up to every two-years;
• The subsidy win-back is collected gradually over the course of 24 months;
• Carriers aggressively compete on huge subsidies for popular phones;
• The reduced price of a subsidized phone brings reticent consumers into the market;
• Carriers have increased control over the equipment that is used on their network through price incentives;

CONS

• The subsidy model gives carriers an incentive to lock discounted phones to their network;
• Customers pay artificially higher prices for service, whether they take advantage of a subsidized phone offer or not;
• Consumers don’t realize the true cost of the phones and expect them to cost less than $200 regardless of their retail price;
• Customers are locked into lengthy contracts with stiff early termination fees to protect the subsidy win-back structure;
• Without a subsidy, equipment manufacturers would face natural market pressure to cut costs to remain affordable;

Legere

T-Mobile announced last week it was ending its phone subsidy program next year, and customers will be expected to bring their own phone, buy one at an unsubsidized rate, or finance a full price phone with the carrier. In return, customers will get a lower priced T-Mobile calling and data plan.

Some in the tech press are heralding the announcement as a consumer victory and a breakthrough for lower priced service plans. But before throwing the confetti, consider this.

T-Mobile is making customers bring or buy their own phones, but will still lock them into a two year contract with a $200 early termination fee.

T-Mobile’s retention of its contract plans might delineate the postpaid side of its business and its month-to-month, contract-free, prepaid business. But that does not mean much for customers.

John Legere, the new CEO of T-Mobile USA hinted the measure is designed to reduce customer churn — customers coming and going. Locking a customer in place with termination penalties assures shareholders customers are more likely to remain with T-Mobile for the life of their contract.

That represents a win for T-Mobile, but not for customers. Legere explained the benefits to investors:

“[We are going] to have a lower device subsidy obviously and overall value,” Legere told attendees at the Capital Markets Day Conference. “[… because of the] device margin — $200 to $250 — which we do not have to eat. Over a 24-month period [we get] a customer life value that is the difference between $550 on a Classic [traditional subsidy contract] plan and $600 on a Value [no-subsidy] plan.”

In other words, T-Mobile doesn’t have to front a device subsidy, still holds a customer with a two-year contract, and despite the lower-priced service plans, comes out $50 richer when the contract expires.  T-Mobile is essentially admitting it does not return the entire value of its former subsidy back to the customer.

What is more, T-Mobile may pave the way for other carriers to also drop handset subsidies, keep the traditional two-year contract, and only slightly lower prices.

Nothing peeves Wall Street more than the huge subsidy costs carriers pay up front to discount the latest smartphones. Getting rid of subsidies while only mildly adjusting prices could be the next hidden “price increase,” the perfect gift for an investor that demands higher revenue from every customer.

Phillip “It’s hard to trust a group that so spectacularly flip-flopped on Internet policies when its benefactor AT&T changed its tune” Dampier

When Republican FCC Commisioner Ajit Pai turned up last week at a telecom symposium to warn a more activist FCC could ruin broadband providers’ efforts to charge consumers more money for less service, he was speaking to a very friendly audience.

The conservative Phoenix Center, which ran the event, has been spewing out industry-friendly “research reports” for years that attempt to justify the country’s sky-high broadband pricing. It also promotes a “hands-off” mindset on industry oversight, calling it common sense and consumer-friendly.

Unfortunately for the group and its supporting authors, it has a serious credibility problem — exposed as an industry-funded “think tank” operating as a mercenary research arm for AT&T and other phone companies. In fact, the same group that today generates endless research condemning Net Neutrality had a very different position in 2004 when it published an Op-Ed entitled, “Net Neutrality: Now More Than Ever.”

What changed? Its benefactor. In 2004, AT&T was a competing long distance carrier fighting local phone companies. Today it –is– one of those phone companies. With its Baby Bell owners controlling AT&T’s purse-strings starting in 2006, the Phoenix Center dutifully flip-flopped to maintain continuity with the ‘new AT&T,’ strongly opposed to most forms of broadband regulation.

So it comes as no surprise the Phoenix Center continues pumping out cheerleading “research reports” that attempt to bolster credibility to forces opposing Net Neutrality and supporting an Internet Overcharging free-for-all with the help of usage billing and caps.

One particular bit of nonsense that completely ignores marketplace reality came in Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George Ford’s report, “A Most Egregious Act? The Impact on Consumers of Usage-Based Pricing.”

For example, Ford argues:

A prohibition of differential pricing renders a single price that lies between the low price for the restricted service and the high price for the unrestricted service. Therefore, prohibitions against usage based pricing forces some consumers to pay more for services they do not want or use, while others are allowed to pay less for services they do. The prohibition, in effect, results in a transfer of wealth from one group of consumers to another, and profits are also reduced. Overall consumer welfare is diminished, even though some consumers are better off.

We’re number one… in prices, even with the increasing prevalence of usage-based pricing Ford believes benefits consumers. (Image: CRTC)

But Ford completely ignores the current conditions in today’s broadband market that have made it easy for providers to promulgate an unpopular end to flat rate, unlimited broadband in favor of a highly-flawed, usage-based billing policy:

1. Ford ignores the broadband market is essentially a duopoly for most consumers and effectively a monopoly in rural America. That gives providers what they call “pricing power,” the ability to increase prices at will and change pricing models because consumers are dependent on the service and have limited options to take their business elsewhere;
2. The only “transfer of wealth” involved here is from consumers to providers. While profits soar and costs drop, Ford complains that those using the service more are somehow subsidized by lighter users, when it fact providers enjoy a 90-95% gross margin on broadband. As Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt admitted, the most significant cost attributed on the cable company’s balance sheet for broadband comes from its backbone traffic costs, which are minuscule in contrast to the increasing prices the cable company charges for its broadband service;
3. Consumer welfare is reduced primarily from the high costs charged by providers, made possible by scant competition that would otherwise drive prices downwards, not from expenses associated with broadband traffic;
4. Ford is careful not to advocate for a true usage-based billing system that would be a revenue nightmare for his benefactors. In a strict usage-based pricing model, customers would pay a small fee for infrastructure, support, and equipment expenses and a variable charge based on actual usage. But no provider in the United States advocates for this system. Instead, providers force consumers into tiered broadband plans that include different usage allowances the vast majority of customers will either not exhaust or will exceed, which raises profits even higher with usage overlimit penalties. With no unused usage rollover, most customers are in the same position Ford claims will diminish consumer welfare: paying for service they do not want or use;
5. Most consumers favor unlimited, flat use plans even if they could save money with a usage-constrained pricing model. Since keeping customers happy with a more expensive unlimited plan they like instead of a lower priced plan they don’t want would seem to enhance provider profits. But Ford ignores this reality, perhaps understanding providers are actually laying the groundwork to broadly monetize Internet usage. Whether a provider adopts usage-based billing or a strict cap on usage, which is growing in most households, the inevitable result is still the same: more profits, less cost from constrained usage. Inevitably this will force customers into higher-priced, higher-profit upgrades that deliver a higher usage allowance, again something consumers simply do not want. This is already a reality in the wireless marketplace, and is well-acknowledged by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Although Americans are paying higher cell phone bills than ever before, some of America’s largest wireless providers have been saving a fortune, enjoying near-tax-free status thanks to an economic stimulus package that allowed companies to write off expenses associated with expanding their businesses.

Under accelerated depreciation, both AT&T and Verizon have been able to slash tax obligations by claiming deductions for capital investments most analysts believe they would have made with or without the income tax windfall. Despite this, both companies have raised prices and have cut jobs and employee benefits.

Washington lawmakers are now debating tax policies that could reduce or end corporate subsidies and raise their tax payments.

The stimulus incentives were designed to promote spending and investment by large corporations retrenching in the face of the Great Recession. Through a combination of special interest amendments guaranteed to favor certain businesses and creative accounting, the two largest wireless companies in the country wrote off investments originally planned before the stimulus package was enacted.

Without the corporate welfare package, telecom analyst Craig Moffett predicted AT&T would have paid a 35% tax rate over the past four years, amounting to $29.3 billion in taxes. Instead, it paid $13.3 billion total. Last year it paid 0% — nothing.

Verizon Wireless has skirted around its tax bill thanks to its offshore partner Vodafone. By shifting certain money overseas, and through other creative measures, Verizon ended up paying a 6% tax rate — $1.3 billion total taxes in four years. Not bad for America’s largest wireless operator. Two years ago, Verizon was estimated to have paid nothing at all.

Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy claim corporate tax subsidies effectively cost taxpayers $14.5 billion for AT&T and $12.3 billion for Verizon Wireless over the past four years. Only one company benefited more than AT&T and Verizon: mortgage underwriter Wells Fargo.

If the ability to take accelerated depreciation were to be withdrawn in current tax negotiations, AT&T and Verizon would both find themselves paying taxes at rates comparable to many upper-middle class Americans.

AT&T would see its tax rate rise from 13.3% in 2013 to 29 percent by 2016. Verizon will pay 25% in 2013 and 27% by 2016. Both companies would still continue to aggressively pursue loopholes and other write-offs, including larger contributions to both companies’ pension plans which would reduce cash liabilities.