community broadband networks

Last year, when Comcast unveiled its Internet Essentials program, the corporate powerhouse received accolades from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. The program was promoted as an example of corporate philanthropy helping to bridge the digital divide.

Comcast received all kinds of positive media coverage for its program. Most of that coverage failed to note that the FCC required Comcast to integrate the program as one of the supposed concessions offered in return for Comcast being able to take over NBC -- giving the largest cable monopolist in the US even more market power.

DSLReports has publicly exposed what many of us suspected all along -- the program was not a concession on Comcast's part. Internet Essentials was originally conceived as a program that would offer slower connections to certain low income households at affordable rates that nevertheless remain profitable for Comcast.

A recent Washington Post Technology profile on Comcast's Chief Lobbyist David Cohen, notes how the program was actually conceived in 2009, but:

At the time, Comcast was planning a controversial $30 billion bid to take over NBC Universal, and Cohen needed a bargaining chip for government negotiations.

“I held back because I knew it may be the type of voluntary commitment that would be attractive to the chairman” of the Federal Communications Commission, Cohen said in a recent interview.

Eligibility depends on four factors:

• Participants must reside in an area serviced by Comcast
• Participants must not have an overdue Comcast bill or have unreturned equipment
• Participants could not have had Comcast service within the last 90 days
• Participants must have at least one child in the house that qualifies for free or reduced lunches

When the program launched in 2011, only households with children qualifying for free lunches under the National Free Lunch Program were eligible. After residents in Philadelphia expressed their derision at the narrow eligiblity, Comcast broadened the criteria to include those that qualified for reduced lunches. Even with this one requirement relaxed, eligibility is narrow. From a 2011 DSLReports article released when the program was new:

Once you've eliminated those who don't qualify for the school lunch program, eliminated those who already have service (not uncommon even in poor homes), and eliminate those who also owe Comcast money (also obviously not uncommon in poor homes), how many customers will Comcast actually wind up having to serve at the $10 price point? Even then, they'll only have to offer it for a few years, making it significantly less of a difficult merger condition than it might originally appear.

The Philly.com article notes that Comcast estimates 2.3 million people nationwide are eligible for the program. Even though meeting the participation criteria is incredibly difficult, Comcast blames low participation rates to on the people they are supposed to be helping:

Comcast says it has found that the biggest barrier to Internet Essentials' adoption is that many people in poor neighborhoods don't understand the Internet (emphasis added by me).

"They think it may be used for Comcast or the government to spy on them," said David Cohen, the program's chief booster and an executive vice president at Comcast.

I am one of those 2.3 million, used to help Comcast increase its market power with the NBC merger. Very few of us think much about the government or Comcast spying on us. In fact, we spend most of our time thinking about paying the bills. If Comcast or the government DID spy on us, we know they would be pretty damn bored.

As a lower-income single parent of two children that qualify for reduced lunches, our household qualifies largely because a subscription to paid TV is a luxury that we have chosen to avoid for several years. But believe it or not, I DO understand the benefits of Internet access and so do all the parents of all the kids that I know who are similarly situated. In fact, the kids understand the Internet, too.

As an experiment, I called Comcast and am happy to report that a very nice lady helped me. After answering all the questions she presented, my application for the Internet Essential program is on its way. 

I hate to report stories like this for multiple reasons. First, there is the conscious decision on the part of Comcast to cynically delay a program supposedly designed to benefit the most vulnerable populations. Then there is Comcast's obvious goal of positive media attention for their hated brand rather than effectively advertising the program to the vulnerable populations.

There is a policy lesson that DSLReports nails:

On the plus side, some people got less expensive broadband, which certainly isn't a bad thing. On the other hand, you've got a Comcast lobbyist who delays a program for the poor in order to profit handsomely by buying NBC, and an FCC claiming credit for a show pony program just to earn political points and to avoid imposing tougher conditions. As we'ved noted previously, hollow programs that do little but sound great has been a constant theme at an agency too timid to actually regulate.

The obvious question that has been utterly ignored by just about all the press coverage of this program is if Comcast makes a profit on its $9.95 service, why is the price so high for everyone else? Comcast, AT&T, and others are constantly crowing about how much competition supposedly exists in U.S. broadband but their profit margins and capacity to incease rates year after year proves the opposite is true.

We need to continue pushing the FCC to protect the rights of all Americans, not just a few big cable and telephone companies.

It is hard to avoid becoming cynical when watching the federal government interact with big corporations like AT&T. So when AT&T announced it would merge with T-Mobile, giving AT&T and Verizon a combined 3 out of 4 cellular subscribers, I thought two things:

1) What a terrible idea. Higher prices, fewer jobs, less choices, etc.

2) The Federal Government will likely not prevent it - instead opting for some minor concessions that no one will bother to enforce.

Sometimes, it is very good to be wrong.

Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post, decodes the language from Wall Street to explain the biggest winner from the federal government blocking the merger: consumers.

“Without the combination, we think the wireless industry will be further weakened by continued hypercompetitive activity, particularly regarding subscriber acquisition costs,” said Nomura Securities analyst Mike McCormack.

That means customers can still get lower rates as the industry competes for their dollars. T-Mobile, for example, will continue to be a low-cost competitor, according to consumer advocacy group Consumers Union. A survey showed that data plans from T-Mobile were $15 to $50 less per month than those offered by AT&T.

An excellent reminder that what is best for Wall Street is not what is best for the 99%. Big companies like AT&T find competing for customers a hassle that lowers their profits -- they consider a market with four sellers to be hypercompetitive. In wireline, they have acquiesced to the "competition" of two competitors -- cable and DSL.

This is one reason communities build their own networks -- the private sector is not truly competitive when it comes to ISPs and most communities have no prospect real of improvement absent a public investment.

But we should rejoice in this victory -- because we earned it. Without the hard work of many grassroots groups, it is hard to imagine the Department of Justice or FCC standing up to such a powerful corporation.

Some quotes from some of the many organizations responsible for protecting the 99% of us who don't benefit from higher prices and fewer choices.

Andrea Quijada of the Media Literacy Project:

“The end of AT&T’s campaign to eliminate mobile competition and jobs is a gift to working class New Mexican families this holiday season. However, we know that this decision was not the result of AT&T putting people before profit. This result was won by media justice advocates and our allies in New Mexico and nationwide. Though we are certain this is not the last we’ve heard from AT&T/T-Mobile, we want to take a moment to acknowledge this victory for consumers.

The National Hispanic Media Coalition spoke out against the merger and celebrated its demise:

"AT&T has finally accepted that its bid for T-Mobile has run its course. NHMC is very pleased that the FCC and the DOJ have so justly put the little guys ahead of giant corporations in their review of this merger. Latinos pay more for cell phone service than any other ethnic or racial group, paying the most on AT&T and the least on T-Mobile. In addition, because T-Mobile's workforce is nearly 50% people of color, and an estimated 20,000 T-Mobile employees would have lost their jobs as a result of this merger, Latinos and other people of color would have been disproportionately harmed. For these reasons, NHMC has worked hard over the past seven months to educate people about the harms of merger. We are ecstatic to have defeated it," comments Jessica González, NHMC's Vice President of Legal and Policy Affairs.

The Center for Media Justice issued these comments:

amalia deloney, Media Policy Field Director of Center for Media Justice stated, “Since AT&T first announced its intent to takeover T-Mobile, the Center for Media Justice has continuously raised concerns about what role a duopoly would mean for historically marginalized communities— particularly communities of color and America’s poor who disproportionately rely on access to mobile broadband to find employment, access healthcare, advance their education and organize for social and economic justice.”

This holiday season, millions of folks across the country will not be blind-sided by high phone bills, and T-Mobile employees – many of whom are people of color and all of whom are nonunion- will get to keep their jobs. Today marks an important victory for rural and poor communities, people of color, and the hard workers of America who simply can’t afford to pad the pockets of the corporate CEOs.

And finally, the Media Acess Project:

Today’s announcement proves that law trumps politics. This anti-competitive transaction clearly exceeded permissible standards. AT&T and T-Mobile thought they could push it through by using lobbyists and political pressure, but the FCC and Department of Justice held firm.

In the aftermath of AT&T accidentally admitting they have nothing but a smokescreen to justify buying one of their few competitors, it seemed that nothing had changed and AT&T was going to continue pushing this anti-competition, anti-consumer deal through.

But then the Department of Justice filed suit to prevent it. What does that mean and what is next? Public Knowledge tells us below. In the meantime, Sprint has also filed suit under the Clayton Act to separately oppose the takeover.

Why do we care here at Community Broadband Networks? Because the biggest companies - AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, CenturyLink, etc. - have tremendous market power that allows them a disturbing amount of power over the future of access to the Internet and as they become even larger, the prospects of any community building a network in their territory becomes more bleak.

Video: 

We watch in frustration as the federal government, dressed as Charlie Brown asks AT&T, wearing Lucy's blue dress and smiling brightly, if she really will hold the football properly this time. "Oh yes, Charlie, this time I really will create all those jobs if you let us buy T-Mobile," says AT&T Lucy.

Over at HuffPo, Art Brodsky recently revisited AT&T's promises in California to create jobs, lower broadband prices, and heal the infirm if the state would just deregulate the cable video market -- which it did, 4 years ago. California upheld its end of the bargain -- wanna guess if AT&T did? Hint: Charlie Brown ended up on his back then too.

The answer comes from James Weitkamp (via Art's HuffPo post), from the Communications Workers of America, a union that all too often acts in the interests of big companies like AT&T and CenturyLink rather than workers:

"AT&T and Verizon have slashed the frontline workforce, and there simply are not enough technicians available to restore service in a timely manner, nor enough customer service representatives to take customers' calls. Let me share some statistics. Since 2004, AT&T reduced its California landline frontline workforce by 40%, from about 29,900 workers to fewer than 18,000 today. The company will tell you that they need fewer wireline employees because customers have cut the cord going wireless or switched to another provider, but over this same period, AT&T access line loss has been just under nine percent nationally. I would be shocked if line loss in California corresponds to the 40 percent reduction in frontline employees.


"Similarly, since 2006 Verizon California cut its frontline landline workforce by one-third, from more than 7,000 in 2005 to about 4,700 today. I venture that Verizon has not lost one third of its land lines in the state."

Note that AT&T, Verizon, and other massive incumbents like Comcast have been wildly profitable over this term.

The same trend holds in cellular wireless - as noted by the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. wireless industry is booming as more consumers and businesses snap up smartphones, tablet computers and billions of wireless applications. But for the industry's workers, the story is less rosy.

In May, on the heels of a record year for industry revenue, employment at U.S. wireless carriers hit a 12-year low of 166,600, according to U.S. Labor Department figures released earlier this month. That's about 20,000 fewer jobs than when the recession ended in June 2009 and 2,000 fewer than a year ago.

While the industry's revenue has grown 28% since 2006, when wireless employment peaked at 207,000 workers, its mostly nonunion work force has shrunk about 20%.

This should not be a surprise. In fact, it would be shocking if the increasing consolidation of telecom created more jobs. The fewer firms in the market, the more they are likely to work together for mutual gain -- to the detriment of all the rest of us.

Rural voices are continuing to make this point, as Parul Desai recently did on the Daily Yonder:

If the merger goes through it is unlikely the two remaining larger carriers would try to compete on price.  AT&T has chosen to emphasize network improvements, speeds of service, and gains in network development that the merger will enable, rather than tout future pricing benefits. The company has indicated to stockholders that it plans to bring T-Mobile revenues per user up to match those of AT&T, suggesting that price increases may be inevitable. 

But for every Parul Desai, there is a massive organization already bought off by AT&T claiming all their members are clamoring for fewer choices and higher prices.

But that is where we are going - both in wireline and wireless. The only question is how long policy makers will pretend the telecom/broadband industry is characterized by competition at all. But the fiction of competition serves a purpose - it allows those policy makers to justify their refusal to regulate in the public interest. As long as they pretend telecom has competition, they can say there is no need to regulate because the market will prevent AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, et al., from raising prices too much and cutting back on investment.

We can do better - but it requires smart government policies on the national level as well as preserving local self-determination to choose if building a publicly owned network makes sense. Though we will not have competition in poles, wires, or towers, we can have competition in services -- telephone, cable television, and access to the Internet. We can... but will we?