Sometimes you can’t please some people no matter what you do.

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative’s $64 million fiber-to-the-home expansion project will finally bring 21st century broadband speeds to northern New Mexico. The electric co-op intends to deliver broadband speeds up to 100Mbps to 20,000 largely rural residents and businesses in Taos, Colfax, and Rio Arriba counties who have had limited access to cable broadband or live with speeds often less than 1Mbps from CenturyLink-delivered DSL.

“It’s a whole new ballgame for rural New Mexico,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Raul. “But the pinheads at the local weekly newspaper are ringing their hands over the project, suggesting only businesses deserve 100Mbps while the rest of us should be satisfied with speeds under a megabit per second.”

Indeed, editors at the Sangre de Christo Chronicle are wringing their hands over the project:

But many of us in the Kit Carson service area already have Internet service — and we’re completely happy with it. Kit Carson CEO Luis Reyes, Jr. said a large portion of the organization’s electric customers are currently under-served by other providers with Internet speeds of less than one megabit (1,000 kilobits) per second.

We have no reason to doubt that, but many of these customers probably don’t need the higher speeds. For the Internet customers who use the Internet for email, Facebook, news and other basic functions, Kit Carson’s prices will be most important. Most of us will not pay more for faster Internet speed we don’t need, but we will consider switching to a local provider if it offers identical or better service and prices.

“CenturyLink barely delivers DSL today, and has shown no interest in investing substantially in northern New Mexico, and outside of concentrated built-up areas there is no cable competition,” Raul says. “Kit Carson is the only local concern that has shown any real interest in making our community better, and the local newspaper is complaining about it.”

Proposed service area for Kit Carson Electric's new fiber to the home network serving northern New Mexico.

Kit Carson Electric’s project will provide a true fiber-to-the-home service bundling television, telephone, and broadband service — a substantial upgrade over what the telephone company has on offer.  With speeds far beyond what cable and phone providers in New Mexico are accustomed to providing, the region stands to benefit from entrepreneurs building digital economy businesses over a broadband network that can actually help, not hinder online development.

Currently, area residents pay CenturyLink up to $55 a month for 1.5/1Mbps DSL service.  Residents are so excited by the prospects of much faster speeds at significantly lower prices, Kit Carson Electric has developed an innovative stop-gap service for residents still waiting for direct fiber connections — fiber-to-wireless service.  New and existing customers can sign up for the service for a $100 installation fee and choose from three service tiers:

• 3Mbps — $29.95/month
• 7Mbps — $39.95/month
• 10Mbps — $49.95/month

A three year contract is required (early termination fee is $200).  But customers who eventually obtain Kit Carson Electric’s fiber service will automatically satisfy their contract requirement.

“Kit Carson’s wireless project already blows away CenturyLink’s speeds and pricing, and that is for inferior wireless,” Raul argues. “The Chronicle doesn’t have a clue.”

We can’t understand the newspaper’s concerns either.  Kit Carson Electric has already demonstrated their prices (and interest) in northern New Mexico is superior to that of CenturyLink, owner of former Baby Bell Qwest, which serves New Mexico.

Republican Sen. Jeff Bingaman is thrilled with Kit Carson’s broadband initiative.

“This major investment in broadband technology is exactly the kind of project I had envisioned when I voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman said. “This grant is not only creating jobs now in northern New Mexico, it is laying the groundwork to attract new businesses, improve healthcare services and create new education opportunities in the future.”

The electric co-op has been successful operating non-profit businesses selling propane, telecommunications, and economic development space.  The fiber project will also allow the electric utility to deploy “smart grid” technology to increase the efficiency of their electric service.

A groundbreaking ceremony at the broadband project’s command center held this past summer also coincided with a public emergency communications network upgrade which will increase the efficiency and reliability of first responders and other emergency and public safety agencies.

Wireless operator (and cable company) Rogers Communications likes to spend big dollars pushing the message Canada is in the midst of a wireless spectrum crunch — a big reason why it wants “equal treatment”-bidding in upcoming spectrum auctions that may include “set-asides” exclusively for emerging Canadian wireless competitors.

But apparently the spectrum shortage only impacts areas outside of the province of Quebec, because Rogers plans to experiment with a new LTE wireless video on demand service it plans to pitch Quebecers, perhaps as early as next year.

Rogers CEO Nadir Mohamed told the Montreal Gazette the cable company intends to enter the Quebec market with an “over-the-top” on-demand video service, distributed over Rogers’ growing LTE wireless broadband network.  While Mohamed was quick to say this doesn’t mean Rogers intends to launch a full-scale competitive invasion against provincial providers Videotron, Ltd., and Bell Canada Enterprises, it is pre-emptively getting into the business of serving cord-cutters who drop traditional cable packages to watch online video.

The new service is expected to be accessible on phones, tablets, and Internet-enabled televisions and video game consoles, presumably through a wireless Internet adapter.

Mohamed

“Video for wireless has huge potential for growth,” Mohamed told the Gazette. “It’s sort of the mirror image of (how cable evolved), which went from video, to data to voice.”

Nothing eats bandwidth like online video, and Rogers traditionally caps this and other usage on their mobile wireless network, citing spectrum and capacity shortages. But Rogers sees few impediments serving up certain kinds of online video: namely their own.

That’s not a message the company continues to deliver consumers on its “I Want My LTE” website, part of a robust lobbying effort to get its hands on as much new spectrum as possible, even if it means locking out would-be competitors.  In fact, leaving the impression the company has spectrum to spare is so politically dangerous, Mohamed took the wind out of his own announcement by mentioning, as an aside, their networks still don’t have enough capacity to deliver full-motion video to a large number of customers at the same time.

“I think wireless networks in the foreseeable future will not have the capability to deliver full-motion video to a large number of customers at the same time, even with LTE,” he said. “So what you will see is an integration of wired and wireless, where the wireless network will off-load the traffic to a wired network.”

Rogers’ decision to limit the service, both in scope and range, is also designed to protect itself (and other cable operators) from unnecessary competition.  Rogers won’t offer a full menu of video services outside of its traditional cable system areas in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland, and only Quebec residents (where Rogers doesn’t sell cable TV) will have the option of signing up for the wireless video-on-demand service.

Alltel Service Areas Sold by Verizon Wireless to AT&T

When Verizon Wireless won approval of its takeover deal with formerly-independent wireless carrier Alltel, the federal government required Verizon to divest itself of Alltel’s assets in areas where the combined company would have a mega-share of the local wireless market.  The majority of affected customers, particularly in Montana and the Dakotas, were eventually acquired by AT&T, which uses a completely different network standard.  Customers were handed new phones that work on AT&T’s GSM network, but have since discovered those phones have little use in wide areas where AT&T simply doesn’t deliver a signal.

Even worse, Verizon’s robust network across the region is off-limits for roaming purposes, forcing customers that were perfectly satisfied with Alltel ready to throw their AT&T phones off Mount Rushmore.

“We got stuck with AT&T, which doesn’t care about the rural areas,” Mark Freeman of Harlowtown, Montana told a visiting reporter with the Wall Street Journal.

In the Black Hills, where AT&T’s network is as spartan as the landscape, some customers waited months before they could actually make and receive phone calls in places where Alltel’s old network (and their roaming agreement with Verizon Wireless) suited local residents just fine.

“We’ve been getting dropped calls, missed calls, and [have trouble] servicing [ATM] machines,” said Bill Huffman, an armored car worker in Sioux Falls frustrated by AT&T.  Area ATM machines depend on AT&T’s wireless network to alert drivers when local cash machines run low.  But AT&T’s network isn’t dependable, according to Huffman.

Ironically, customers are flocking to the carrier that would have been their new provider to begin with if not for the federal government divestiture order: Verizon Wireless.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ In South Dakota Dropped Calls and Dead Spots 11-27-11.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless stores in the region have suffered periodic equipment shortages ever since AT&T switched on their own, less satisfactory network.  That’s because AT&T customers are dropping their contracts at a rate rivaling the number of calls AT&T itself drops across the region.  The Wall Street Journal visits with perturbed local residents in Montana and South Dakota.  (4 minutes)

The Federal Communications Commission has concluded allowing AT&T and T-Mobile to merge will cause huge job losses and knock out a vital wireless competitor in an increasingly concentrated U.S. wireless marketplace.

The new 266-page document, produced by FCC staffers, directly challenges AT&T’s contention that the merger will bring about job creation and an improved mobile broadband network for millions of rural Americans.

The report comes on the heels of news the Commission will allow the FCC to withdraw its pending application before the FCC to win approval of the merger.  That allows the company to resubmit the merger request at a later date.

The FCC determined prices will increase an average of 6-7% in these cities if the merger deal gets approved.

The new report, occasionally redacted to remove competitive information, found AT&T vastly exaggerating the benefits of the deal, questioning whether it would indeed lead to lower prices for consumers, bring about enhanced service, and create new jobs.

Overall, the agency concludes, AT&T and T-Mobile have failed to meet their burden of proof that the merger is in the public interest.  The FCC staffers found no compelling reason why AT&T needed T-Mobile to build out its 4G network to the majority of the country.  Indeed, memos accidentally leaked to the Commission by AT&T’s legal team suggested AT&T executives rejected expansion plans as too costly.  Instead, they proposed a $39 billion dollar merger with T-Mobile with a $6 billion deal cancellation clause.  That penalty exceeds the $3.8 billion AT&T rejected spending to pursue 4G upgrades on its own.

Among the Commission report’s findings:

• The merger would increasingly concentrate the U.S. wireless marketplace, leading to unilateral and coordinated efforts to raise prices by remaining carriers;
• Roaming agreements for remaining smaller and regional carriers could become more difficult and expensive to reach with fewer players in the marketplace;
• Pricing innovation, a hallmark of T-Mobile, would be lost.  T-Mobile is cited by the FCC as one of America’s most-disruptive carriers, forcing other companies to match their aggressive offers;
• Despite AT&T’s promises to grandfather existing T-Mobile customers to their existing plans, customers would be unable to upgrade to an equally innovative plan T-Mobile probably would have offered on its own.  Instead, customers would be forced to choose one of AT&T’s more expensive, traditional plans;
• AT&T is overstating the importance of remaining competitors, especially regional carriers and Leap Wireless’ Cricket and MetroPCS, which all have a negligible market share and depend heavily on roaming agreements with companies like Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T to survive;
• Substantial evidence exists to believe without T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon Wireless would likely raise prices and mimic each others’ respective service plans, pricing, usage allowances, and network policies;
• Sprint will probably be forced to raise prices as a consequence of the merger to pay for increasingly expensive backhaul and roaming services, often purchased from AT&T or Verizon.  Sprint would also be pressured by market forces into pricing its services closer to AT&T and Verizon, if only to pay for handset and subscriber acquisition costs.  Sprint’s new customers often come from T-Mobile or smaller providers — less often from AT&T and Verizon.
• AT&T did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate the combination of T-Mobile and AT&T’s cell sites would substantially relieve congestion issues, especially in America’s largest cities where AT&T’s network issues are the worst;
• AT&T’s own documents suggest the company will fire most of T-Mobile’s customer service staff post-merger, leading ironically to the loss of a customer service support unit that has a higher customer satisfaction rating than AT&T itself.  Not only would T-Mobile customers be forced to deal with AT&T’s customer service, AT&T customers will have to compete with millions of T-Mobile customers for the time and attention of AT&T’s existing customer service representatives — a recipe for a congestion of a different kind;
• Much of the cost savings realized from the merger, earned from laying off T-Mobile workers, closing T-Mobile retail stores, terminating reseller agreements, and unifying billing, administration, and network technologies, will be realized by AT&T (and its shareholders), not average customers.  The end effect for consumers will be higher prices and a deteriorating level of customer service.

Smaller, scrappier carriers with aggressive pricing have historically forced larger companies like AT&T and Verizon to compete by lowering prices and offering more generous calling and data plans.

The report angered AT&T’s chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, who called its release “troubling” because, in his words, it represents a “staff draft” not voted on by the Commission as a whole.

“It has no force or effect under the law, which raises questions as to why the FCC would choose to release it,” Cicconi said in a statement. “The draft report has also not been made available to AT&T prior to today, so we have had no opportunity to address or rebut its claims, which makes its release all the more improper.”

But the report’s substantial research suggests FCC staffers have taken a very close look at the arguments and the evidence submitted by AT&T, T-Mobile and opponents of the deal.  The findings only favor AT&T and T-Mobile with a mild agreement that combining resources in certain markets where both compete might reduce network redundancy.  But the cost to consumers is way too high, the report concludes.

Sprint couldn’t be happier with the report’s findings, saying in a statement:

“The investigation’s findings are clear. Approval of AT&T’s bid for T-Mobile would lead to higher prices for consumers, eliminate jobs, harm competition, and dampen innovation across the wireless industry.”

An unredacted copy of the findings will be available to the U.S. Department of Justice for its consideration as it presses its own legal case against AT&T to derail the merger on anti-competitive grounds.

Should T-Mobile remain independent, the FCC says wireless prices will decline.

Stop the Cap! reader Davey in Arizona was displeased to receive notification his Internet Service Provider, CommSpeed, suddenly announced an Internet Overcharging scheme that limits customers to two levels of service: a basic $40 plan with a ridiculously stingy 10GB monthly usage allowance, or a more generous (and double the price) $60 plan that comes with a 200GB usage cap.

Davey is particularly upset the company plans to punish customers who exceed the allowance with a stinging $2/GB overlimit fee.  It will not be difficult for customers to blow past  CommSpeed’s standard 10GB plan limit if they discover file backup, online video, or downloading.  If they do, CommSpeed’s overlimit fee will be coming soon to a bill in their mailbox. For those who use the Internet to watch television and movies, the only real options are to watch less or upgrade to a more expensive plan with a more realistic usage allowance that can accommodate high bandwidth applications.

CommSpeed claims their “advanced 4G network combines the best features of cellular, cable modem & DSL, and Wi-Fi networks, without the inherent limitations associated with these legacy systems.”  The company brands itself as “Tomorrow’s Internet Today.”

What they don’t mention is today’s wireless ISP’s are increasingly challenged by the growing usage demands consumers place on providers.  CommSpeed’s claim that their network “was designed and built, from inception, to deliver a full range of broadband content and applications” flies in the face of their 10GB usage limit. Fiber, cable broadband and even telephone company DSL has a better track record handling increasing usage demands, as long as providers maintain investments in their respective networks.

CommSpeed’s usage cap tells the real story — their network may not be able to handle the growing traffic from customers in their northern Arizona service area.

“The Internet has seen tremendous growth in total usage over the last year. New applications are being developed everyday and these applications are causing an ever increasing demand for bandwidth. Quite simply, the content of the Internet has evolved,” CommSpeed explains on a page dedicated to explaining their new caps.

Unfortunately for wireless, until more spectrum and better technology is available, usage limitations are an increasing reality for customers stuck using these networks. It’s why Stop the Cap! rarely recommends wireless broadband as a primary Internet service except as a last resort, when other choices simply are not available.

Still, we’ve seen much worse from other Wireless ISPs.  CommSpeed’s 200GB limit on their $60 tier is more generous than average.  Plus, the company takes the limits off during the overnight hours of midnight to 6AM.

We also think the company’s usage guestimates are a more honest approximation of real-world usage, not the ridiculous “send 10,000,000 e-mails and download 500,000 songs” reassurances we usually see from Internet Overcharging ISPs:

CommSpeed’s old plans ranged in price from $34.95 for basic 768kbps-1.5Mbps service to $54.90 for 1.5-6Mbps service, depending on the technology in use in the area. The new plans bring a $5 rate hike and usage caps — just two reasons why customers like Davey are so upset. They’ll be even more upset if their bill also include overlimit fees. Stay tuned.

[flv width=”608″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CommSpeed 4G – Tomorrow’s Internet Today.flv[/flv]

CommSpeed heavily promotes its newer 4G wireless broadband service, claiming its great for online video, downloading, gaming, and more, as long as you don’t use it too much.  In 2012, CommSpeed throws up limits on their wireless experience.  (3 minutes)