The following stories have been tagged scale ← Back to All Tags

FCC to Regulate Comcast, or Vice Versa?

If this merger is approved, I have little doubt that Comcast-NBCU will retain hundreds of attorneys and lobbyists to exploit gaps and loopholes in any conditions and regulations. Once we allow companies to become this powerful, the FCC does not regulate them. They regulate the FCC.

We Can't Shop Our Way to a Better Economy

Our colleague at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Stacy Mitchell (too brilliant to be a relation of mine), recently gave an incredible presentation that focuses on some of the threats to our economy and how we can build stronger, more resilient communities.

She doesn't discuss broadband explicitly, but much of her critique of the largest corporations in banking and the food system applies to the big cable and telephone companies. Highly recommended.

Video: 
See video

New Book Investigates How Big Companies Like AT&T Rip Us Off

A  recent book by David Cay Johnston, The Fine Print, examines specifically how big companies have found ways to take advantage of the tax and regulatory systems to their benefit and to the detriment of consumers. The sad part - we don't even realize it.

Johnston discusses how big companies and their leaders exploit tax rules to re-distribute wealth upwards. Johnston also examines how this exploitation is almost never covered in the media, encouraging big companies to stoop to new lows in ripping off consumers. Telecommunications is one of the industries he covers in the new book.

In the first chapter (read the first chapter via Democracy Now!), Johnston describes how friend and journalist, Bruce Kushnick, came across twenty years' worth of telephone bills in his elderly aunt's possessions. Kushnick tracked the changes in her bills, systematically reviewing and comparing every charge. Kushnick found an array of confusing and cryptic "fees," "charges," and "taxes." The end result:

When he cross-checked his aunt’s telephone bills over the years, he could hardly believe the numbers. His aunt paid $9.51 for her local phone service in 1984. By 2003 her bill had swollen fourfold to $38.90. In the two decades since the breakup of the AT&T monopoly, even after adjusting for inflation, his aunt’s telephone cost $2.30 for each dollar paid in 1984. And that was without any charges for long-distance calls.

Johnston notes the method used by telecoms to increase prices over time:

Bit by bit, the line items grew, and others were added. It was easy to miss the escalating prices because they came separately over time—a nickel on one line of the bill, a quarter or two on another. With many small line items, people tended not to notice how the total was creeping upward much faster than the rate of inflation or the size of their income.

As we continue to watch, big telcos like AT&T take every opportunity to ensure their monopolistic advantage so they can continue these types of activities. Our readers know about the millions invested in lobbying to prevent municipalities from taking steps to providing the means to encourage competition. We see over and over again how any whiff of potential threat to a monopoly will bring swift and heavy retribution.

Johnston also spoke with NPR in a recent interview on Fresh Air. During the conversation, he talked about how the drive to bring benefits of ubiquitous connectivity has fizzled:

We've paid, between cable company rate increases and telephone company rate increases, over a half-trillion dollars to get the Internet.

But what quietly happened without much attention is that the Internet, the standard that these companies had to meet, was a very low standard, far below the quality of the Internet that people have in other modern countries. America invented the Internet, so by the fact is it started out as number one. We now rank 29th in the speed of our Internet, according to Pando Networks.

LUS Logo

In the interview, Johnston talks about Lafayette, Louisiana, and how AT&T, Verizon, and other big telcos have used legislatures and influence to twist regulations as a way to maintain their monopolies:

We are paying super-high prices for low speeds and poor quality, and a number of cities that did not have quality high-speed Internet have built municipal systems. And a good example I tell in the book is about Lafayette, Louisiana. The town fathers there were not going to get electricity over 100 years ago, so they created a municipal electric system.

Well, they also built a municipal Internet, and it is so high-powered and so fast that a lot of the work done for the Pixar animated movies is done, not in Hollywood, but in Lafayette, Louisiana.

Well, the response from AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Time Warner and the other cable and telephone companies has been to go to the legislatures and say we want a law passed that either blocks or makes virtually impossible to build municipal systems. That's competing with our business interests. And that's part of the whole strategy they have: We want to be monopolies without competition; we want to run the system in our interest to maximize our profits, with no regard for the overall economy of the United States.

We wrote the definitive case study of Lafayette's fiber network in our Broadband at the Speed of Light report. Also from the NPR interview:

So what I'm arguing in the book is we need to have a balanced policy. We need to have a policy not just written by and for telephone and cable companies but written to promote the entire economy. If we wired our whole country with a super-fast Internet that can handle all telecommunications services, and we charged appropriately so that the companies earn a respectable profit for it, and the customers pay a reasonable price, I think you would see industries, that no one can imagine today, arise.

In his book, Johnston also covers how big companies and the very wealthy exploit the tax system to avoid contributing to the tax roles. There are even issues of public safety - utility companies receiving waivers to avoid inspecting gas lines due to slack regulations - that have resulted in catastrophe and that are almost never covered in the news.

Democray Now! describes the book:

"The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use "Plain English" to Rob You Blind"... claims you are being systematically exploited by powerful corporations every day. He writes that these companies squeeze their trusting customers for every last cent, risk their retirement funds, and endanger their lives. And, says Johnston, they do it all legally. We’ll ask him to explain the fine print.

The book has also been noticed by VentureBeat's John Koetsier, who focuses on what this type of environment does to our Internet situation:

Slower Internet than Bulgaria. Data rates 38 times more expensive than Japan. And only 5 percent of the upload speed generally found in France.

In his new book The Fine Print, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston tell us, among other things, what’s wrong with the Internet in America. The answer is fairly depressing: It’s too slow, too expensive, and … too controlled by a duopoly of AT&T and Verizon.

Here are two interviews with Johnston, who talks about his book, his findings, and the state or corporate power in the Unted States.

New Minnesota Networks Face Tough Challenges

MPR News recently ran two stories on the trials and tribulations of new and prospective broadband networks. Conrad Wilson's story about the continuing Monticello drama and Jennifer Vogel's account of factors affecting the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) projects give us a good idea of the many hurdles in the way of building new fiber-optic networks.

We have reported many times on the drama that has unfolded in Monticello. The municipally owned fiber-optic network has faced some withering challenges and yet perseveres.

Monticello asked for a modern communications network but the existing service providers, the cable and phone companies, insisted the city was "sufficiently wired." Conrad's reporting suggests otherwise:

Bill Tapper, who owns a cabinet company with clients around the world, recalls a time just a few years ago when the Internet was so slow it hurt business.

"The service we had in Monticello was horrible," he said. "My employees would sometimes take the data home where they had a better Internet connection than we did and do their uploads at night."

Tapper said he lost out on business, but at the time the established Internet service providers like phone and cable TV companies told Tapper and other frustrated business owners in town that the city was wired sufficiently.

Fibernet Monticello

After the community voted in favor of a publicly owned fiber-optic network, the incumbent provider, TDS, filed a lawsuit. The lawsuit strategically succeeded in stalling the development of the new network but did not destroy the project. Even though the incumbent provider describes pre-network status as "just fine before the city got involved," TDS took advantage of the delay they caused to began building their own fiber network.

Currently, subscribers in Monticello are benefitting from their high-speed fiber in ways beyond expanded and improved access. Because of the threat of competition, Charter is wooing the community with below rock-bottom (albeit temporary) rates.

But Minnesota has recently considered some legislation from State Rep. Linda Runbeck, R-Circle Pines, that would revoke local authority to decide if a community should build a network. She was quoted in the MPR story:

"You're putting the public sector right up against the private sector," Runbeck said. "It's clearly a very competitive industry ... It's a high risk industry. Why should we put that risk on the taxpayer?"

Why?? Perhaps because local employers were sending employees home to be more productive. Businesses need better connections that the few big cable and phone companies want to provide.

She states she will introduce the same bill next session and though her bill is dead this year, it continues to collect co-sponsors. Not a good sign for Minnesota's rural communities.

Jennifer Vogel's story on what has slowed the completion of some ARRA funded projects is a reminder of how hard it is to work in this space.

Because of the many projects funded by the ARRA, fiber is in demand and hard to obtain. Unsurprisingly, the price has increased, driving up the estimated costs of the 18 approved Minnesota projects. Contributing to the higher prices are problems with manufacturing, due to the earthquake loss of a major Japanese production plant a year ago.

As we often see, the bigger providers were able to jump to the front of the line when fiber did become available:

"[T]he fiber that did show up went to the folks who order more large quantities on a regular basis," said Farmers general manager Kevin Beyer. In other words, the $10 million western Minnesota project couldn't compete with bigger players with more clout. "The first orders filled should have been ours since we ordered ahead of others," he said. "But the game got changed a bit. There was a reshuffling of who mattered."

USDA RUS Logo

A bureaucratic bottleneck caused by paper work and insufficient staff at RUS adds to the disruption; the result is major delays in many projects. The situation has left communities and private builders in a tricky situation. Rather than wait for federal funds, some project leaders are striking out on their own:

Halstad [Telephone in northwestern Minnesota] was selected early and chose not to wait for stimulus dollars to be in hand, therefore securing most of the needed fiber before the shortage took hold. "We just jumped on it," said Tim Maroney, Halstad's CEO. "We didn't wait for the money to come. We started the engineering and negotiations. We took a chance."

Not all projects are in a position to take a chance, especially public projects that are under tighter scrutiny and subject to a higher level of transparency. Public networks must also contend with attacks from the private sector, which we have seen several times in Lake County. At $66 million, the project is the largest ARA approved project in Minnesota. Mediacom, which only serves a few towns in the project area, has filed a complaint with the Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General. (See a PDF of the press release here) and the Minnesota Cable Communications Association has started a fear, uncertainty, and doubt campaign to kill the network for many rural people who Mediacom never plans to serve.

Aggressive and territorial incumbents, material shortages, and bureaucracy, are all hurdles facing the new networks. Municipal networks have the added threat of state preemption which can, and does, put the skids on great ideas to bring high-speed broadband to more people. As these projects are completed and the social and economic benefits of community networks becomes realized, we hope some of those hurdles will disappear.

Christopher Mitchell on PK's In the Know Podcast

Public Knowledge recently had me as a guest on their "In the Know" weekly podcast. Our interview is the last half of the show. The videos we reference in the discussion are embedded below.

Video: 
See video
See video

The Fundamental Danger of Restricting Local Authority to Build Broadband Networks

Several days at the National Conference for Media Reform in Boston gave me time to reflect on the importance of protecting local authority to build, own, and operate their own networks connecting people and businesses to the Internet. Multiple presentations focused on the importance of and strategies for ensuring access to the Internet is not controlled by a few companies -- and most of these strategies are focused at federal government agencies and Congress.

While we support these efforts, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance is not a DC-centric organization. We try to help folks in DC learn about what is happening outside the beltway, but our passion and work focuses directly on helping local communities invest in themselves and preserve their self-determination. 

Access to the Internet will likely be the key infrastructure investment that determines how well communities fare in the coming years. Unfortunately, they have very little control over how those investments are made when the networks are owned by private, absentee companies. Efforts like Universal Service Fund reform, fixing the FCC, re-writing the telecom act, and ensuring network neutrality depend on overcoming incredibly powerful (due to their scale and lobbying power) interests in Washington, DC. But local communities have very little power outside their borders... with some in state capitals and practically none in the nation's capital.

Attacks at the state level on the fundamental right of communities to build this essential infrastructure are intended to eliminate their one means of gaining some control over their digital future. Too many states already ban or limit local authority to build these networks -- and with the Time Warner Cable bill to crush community networks in North Carolina picking up steam and South Carolina's similar attack even on broadband stimulus projects, we will see hundreds more communities with no power to ensure their citizens and businesses have access to fast, reliable, and affordable access to the Internet.

This is deeply concerning.  Taking away the one tool communities have to meet connectivity needs locally reducses them to begging providers to invest.  Many communities have already traveled this route and the results are rarely good.  

We strongly encourage you to talk to your legislators - (if you are in North Carolina, you need to do this IMMEDIATELY - the Senate is poised to act; see Stop the Cap! for more information) to say that communities must have the freedom to choose locally whether a community network is appropriate (and what that would mean, as there are a variety of approaches).

Talk to city leaders too, to make sure they are communicating with state officials, national officials, and relevant organizations (like National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, etc). Cable and telco lobbyists are constantly spreading lies and trying to preempt local authority. If decision-makers do not hear from you, the lobbyist message resonates all the more.

 

Rewards and Tribulations of a Neighborhood Fiber Network

Ars Technica takes an inside look at a small fiber network in a subdivision in Washington State: "Tale of the Trench: What if your Subdivision laid its own Fiber?"  The author makes a valid point in noting that not all community fiber networks offer the best speeds in the country.  However, I do take issue with any suggestion that these experiences are reflective of most community networks.  The scale of this network is tiny -- resulting both in unique problems and common problems greatly exacerbated.  

Issaquah Highlands is a planned community east of Seattle that offers FTTH to residents while essentially assessing them for it whether they use it or not.  In this neighborhood, broadband is treated like water service, with the exception that residents can pay their FTTH fee but also pay to get service from a cable or telephone company instead.  

The cost of implementing a community-owned network prevents most neighborhoods from building their own networks, and it's the main reason why all Issaquah Highlands residents are required to subscribe to the service. The cost of initial buildout was in the millions of dollars and was financed to be paid off over several decades. Once the network is paid off, ownership will be transferred from the builder, Port Blakely, to the community association. However, the community has a strong leadership position on the HFN board even while the builder owns the fiber.

Port Blakely at first contracted with a small Internet provider to build and operate the network, but this ISP quickly collapsed due to financial issues. Port Blakely then contracted with a Seattle-area ISP to operate the network and provide Internet service over the physical infrastructure. This step can be harder than one might expect; there aren’t many options left when it comes to standalone ISPs. Back in the days of dial-up, we had a thriving market in the US, but the proliferation of DSL and cable Internet service provided by whoever owns the wires means that most smaller ISPs have folded. While serving on the HFN board, I always knew that we would have problems replacing our local ISP if that became necessary.

The author was on the advisory board of the network and offers frank assessments of their difficulties - despite romanticizing the support offered by massive carriers like Comcast (see the comments for multiple people discussing their experiences with massive companies vs. smaller ones).  The simple fact is that being small does not mean an ISP will provide better service... but they are tyipically under greater pressure to meet the needs of their subscribers.

Unsurprisingly, cable television was a giant headache to deal with.  

The biggest success of the network was its broadband speeds - which consistently provided what was advertised unlike the massive DSL and cable companies.

Pitfalls aside, 99 percent of the time (when the network was up and running) HFN was phenomenal. Internet speeds were delivered as promised and never with the infamous "up to" rating that cable companies are notorious for. If data moved slower than our plan’s speed, it was because of a clog in the Internet’s tubes or limitations of the servers we were transferring data from. Not only were the speeds lightning fast, connection latency was much lower than any cable or DSL customer would expect. In many cases, I would see latency around 50ms and recall playing games where the latency was so low it was simply reported as 0ms.

With so much bandwidth at my disposal, streaming 1080p HD content without ever seeing a buffer delay became normal and I was quick to pick up every new Internet gadget, knowing that my connection could handle it. As a part-time photographer, I was also moving gigabytes of photos up and down the network on a regular basis, and doing so in mere minutes.

 

Fort Wayne, Indiana: What Happens When You Beg

For years, I have heard Graham Richards, former mayor of Fort Wayne Indiana, brag about this "beg, borrow, buy, build" [pdf] philosophy as Mayor.  I am not insulting him -- his brash style is quite likable, but it is bragging.  He was somewhat of a celebrity among the broadband folks because he both understood the importance of broadband and had convinced Verizon to roll out FiOS in Fort Wayne when they had no plans to.  His philosophy is to first beg, then borrow, then buy, and finally build the network if necessary -- a similar approach of many local governments.  This is also often the path of least resistance (which, Utah Phillips reminds us, is what makes the river crooked).  

Graham is a terrific guy and a great evangelist for broadband (though he never jumped into a frozen Lake Superior) -- but we have long argued that his priorities were wrong in the long term.  Not owning the network means the network is unlikely to care about what the community needs.  Unfortunately, our philosophy has proven prescient.

When we last discussed Frontier's radical price increases for the FiOS subscribers they bought from Verizon, we failed to note that Fort Wayne was one of the transferred communities.  They begged for the network and they have no voice in how it is run.  So when Frontier jacks up its FiOS prices and glibly encourages people to drop their high quality FiOS cable for lesser quality DirectTV (with a long contract), the folks in Fort Wayne have little choice but to shrug their shoulders.

Serfs may occasion upon a good Lord of the Manor, but mostly they didn't.  Ownership of essential infrastructure offers long term benefits.

Photo used under Creative Commons, courtesy of Jenn Raynes

Problem of Scale Hurts Frontier with FiOS

Frontier has been bitten by the same disadvantage many communities face when building their own networks -- little market power means having to overpay for everything. When Frontier bought millions of Verizon rural lines, it bought a few FiOS connections as well. But not enough to gain any bargaining power with channel owners. So Frontier had to raise the costs of its video services up for 46%.

Lest anyone feel too sorry for Frontier, they are doing just fine. It is their customers who suffer.

But it is a reminder that the issue of scale and market power are barriers to all competition, not just community networks. If we want to have real competition in this country, the Congress and the FCC need to stop ignoring the problems caused by massive players distorting the market.

This unregulated market is an invitation for big players to join together and screw everyone else.