Tag Archives: broadband

“Essential” broadband is fixed service at 20 Mbps down/3 Mbps up, CPUC white paper says

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Forbes ag tech hartnell alisal demo 13jul2107

“Voice and broadband services required for education; telehealth; safety; and participation in society, such as completing job applications and accessing government assistance programs” will be defined as “essential services” in California if recommendations by California Public Utilities Commission staff are eventually adopted by commissioners.

According to a staff white paper on essential utility service affordability, for broadband service that means a minimum of 20 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds, with a monthly data cap of no less than 1 terabyte (1,024 gigabytes). That’s significantly more than the 6 Mbps down/1 Mbps up service level that the California legislature adopted as the state’s minimum broadband speed standard when it bowed to bags full of cash polite requests from AT&T, Comcast, Charter and other incumbent telecoms companies eager to protect their monopoly model businesses.

People need reliable broadband connectivity, according to the paper, and it needs to be fixed service; mobile broadband doesn’t cut it…

Fixed broadband is an essential service for Californians to be able to participate fully in society. For example, telehealth usage had a 1,202% growth between 2012 and 2017. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) states that “[a]ccess to broadband has become essential for students in all levels of education.” Furthermore, staff finds that mobile broadband services are not a viable substitute for fixed broadband services due to cost, access, and capacity limitations of wireless technology. For example, schoolwork, job applications, and government services are functions that are difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish on mobile. In addition, mobile services provide lower speeds, lower data caps, higher latency and higher prices compared to wireline broadband.

To determine whether all Californians can afford that level of service, the paper looks at three potential metrics: 1. the total cost of essential water, energy and telecoms service divided by household income remaining after housing costs are paid, 2. the number of hours of minimum wage work needed to pay that cost, and 3. a statistically based index that measures ability to pay on the basis of economic vulnerability.

Although the paper looks at some examples (more on that later), it doesn’t try to define what an affordable monthly price for broadband service, or other utilities, would be. Instead, it proposes a methodology for calculating those figures and a framework for applying it.

It’ll ultimately be up to the five CPUC commissioners to decide whether or not to adopt it. They ought to. It’s an excellent piece of work.

A workshop is scheduled for next Monday in San Francisco to discuss the methods and data proposed by the white paper, then public comments will be accepted in September. You can bet that incumbent telephone and cable companies will offer vociferous opposition.

Hancock, Ho, Sieren-Smith, Tome, Enriquez, Lai, Staff Proposal on Essential Service and Affordability Metrics, California Public Utilities Commission, 20 August 2019.

California telco deregulation bill amended, but not by much

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Burlingame pole 8aug2019

The latest, but probably not the final, amendments to assembly bill 1366 are posted on the California legislature’s website. It’s the bill that would extend a current ban on regulation of “Internet protocol enabled” services, including, particularly, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service.

The new version does not address the core objection of telecoms labor unions and the California Public Utilities Commission. They say that because AT&T and Frontier are switching customers from regulated legacy telephone technology to unregulated VoIP service, extending the ban on VoIP regulation would effectively deregulate telephone service completely in California.

On the whole, the new amendments track with suggestions made in the most recent legislative committee analysis of AB 1366. The biggest change to the bill is to the extension itself: it’s now five years instead of ten. Another change is that telephone companies that have obligations to provide a basic level of voice service to anyone that wants it – AT&T is the biggest example – would still have to do that, even if they were using VoIP technology.

There’s still a requirement in the bill for residential VoIP providers to “initiate steps to restore service within 24 hours of receiving a report of a service outage” and complete the restoration within 72 hours, although there’s a long list of exceptions to the rule. Language was added to clarify 1. that the California attorney general “may” – not shall – “institute and prosecute actions or proceedings to enforce” the new rules, and 2. that the CPUC has no “jurisdiction or authority” in that regard.

Other changes require the CPUC to collect consumer complaints and forward them to the attorney general, and allow the California office of emergency services to set some 911 standards.

The Communications Workers of America, AT&T’s biggest union, is strongly opposed to the bill, and democratic lawmakers have been visibly uncomfortable with the idea of going against their wishes. Right now AB 1366 is in the hands of the senate’s appropriations committee, which will decide behind closed doors at the end of the month whether it moves forward or not.

FCC proposes new map-based collection method for broadband availability reports

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

The ever increasing volume of complaints about the accuracy of broadband availability data published by the Federal Communications Commission is producing results. In August, the FCC will vote on a proposal to require Internet service providers to submit electronic map data that shows where they offer service, at what speeds it’s offered and which technology it uses.

The current data sets are based on census block reports, with a census block reckoned as served at a given speed level if one home or business within it can get that level. As a result, estimates of how many people have access to acceptable broadband service are overstated and communities that should be eligible for broadband infrastructure and service subsidies are shortchanged. Sometimes the overestimates are substantial. When taken at face value, the result can be highly embarrassing to a public agency, as the FCC learned earlier this year when it blindly accepted inflated reports of fiber to the home service in the northeast U.S.

The FCC’s proposed new method should improve the accuracy of the data, but it’s an open question as to whether it will be more (or less) useful for detailed broadband availability analysis. One advantage of census block-based reporting is that it matches up cleanly with the wealth of data collected by the federal census bureau. New methods will have to be developed to estimate the number of people and households within a reported service area, as well as all the other data the census bureau offers to broadband analysts, such as household income and education levels.

Another question is how long the transition will take. The FCC didn’t set a deadline for development of the internal systems needed to submit and process the data, although it did say that the new data would have to be submitted six months after it’s ready to accept it. That’s just the first step, though. Once the new data is in hand, it has to be evaluated and published by the FCC, and then assessed by other agencies that use it to make broadband infrastructure subsidy decisions, such as the California Public Utilities Commission and the federal agriculture department.

In the meantime, ISPs will have to continue submitting broadband availability data the old way.

Telephone deregulation bill amended by California senate committee, but it’s still a hot mess

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Deregulation of telephone service – and with it, telecommunications infrastructure – moved ahead yesterday in the California senate’s energy, utilities and communications committee. Backed by AT&T, Frontier Communications, Comcast and other monopoly model incumbents, assembly bill 1366 was approved on a largely positive, but not quite unanimous vote. It extends a ban on regulation of voice over Internet protocol service (VoIP) by the California Public Utilities Commission and other state agencies. As the shift from old style, regulated telephone service to unregulated VoIP continues, the effect is to allow telcos and cable companies to back out from under the CPUC’s jurisdiction.

That’s a clearly stated goal of the bill’s author, assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D – San Diego) who told the committee “we’ve got to figure out a better way than just handing something to the PUC, which would take ten years to get the kind of progress we’re making right now with this bill”.

AB 1366 was amended, but I don’t know exactly what those amendments are yet. Printed copies were given to committee members just before the bill was taken up. It appears that the changes are largely in line with recommendations in an earlier analysis by committee staff and will, to some degree, allow VoIP regulation in regards emergency services and “last resort” rural services.

Judging from the discussion, though, the bill is still confusing and contradictory, with drafting errors, loopholes and a vague and largely useless enforcement mechanism. Gonzalez said that more changes would be made later.

Gonzalez and a couple of representatives from non-profit groups (who demonstrated no particular telecommunications policy involvement or knowledge) spoke in favor of the bill. They were followed by long line of similarly irrelevant endorsers, led by AT&T staff lobbyist Bill Devine, and joined by lobbyists for Frontier, Comcast, Cox Communications, CTIA and Verizon.

Then came the opposition.

A representative from the Communications Workers of America, AT&T’s principal union, repeated arguments made in the assembly. CPUC commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves then made the case for keeping the commission in the game…

We know that millions of Californians do not benefit from any competition in the communications marketplace, that hundreds of thousands have no high speed broadband access, and a third of Californians – 13 million approximately – do not benefit from any competition. This is an oligopoly, it’s not a free market. This bill prohibits the state from guaranteeing essential and reliable communications services to all Californians, simply because the infrastructure has been upgraded. It will eliminate programs to insure infrastructure access to rural Californians, to the deaf, to the disabled and to the poor…

The bill is not about stifling innovation or apps like Skype. This bill is about deregulating the companies that own and manage the poles, wires and radios in California. Companies like Comcast and AT&T, not these apps. Under this bill, these companies will be left to their own sense of social responsibility…

They’ll decide which communities receive the next generation of technologies, like fiber, like 5G…they’ll decide whether or how quickly infrastructure is repaired or upgraded in poor communities and rural communities. They’ll decide whether they address complaints from local governments and your constituents…They will decide whether the service they provide is reliable and redundant so all Californians can reach 911 dispatchers at all times.

The next stop for AB 1366 is the senate appropriations committee, where more amendments might surface. That might not happen until the end of August. If it survives, it’ll go to a vote by the full senate. Labor organisations are strongly opposed to the bill, a fact that made Gonzalez visibly uncomfortable. If that opposition continues, all bets are off on AB 1366’s future.

California senate committee considers AT&T-backed bill to end telephone service regulation

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Darth leia 625

A bill that would extend California’s ban on regulation of “Internet protocol enabled” services, including voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service, is due for a hearing in the California senate’s energy, utilities and communications committee today. Assembly bill 1366, authored by Lorena Gonzalez (D – San Diego), would allow AT&T, Frontier Communications, Comcast, Charter Communications and other big, monopoly model incumbents to do an end run around California’s laws, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.

Several regional broadband consortia have also gone on the record opposing it. I drafted the Central Coast Broadband Consortium’s opposition letter, which says, in part…

The current text of AB 1366 extends a ban on oversight by the California Public Utilities Commission of telephone service provided via Internet protocol technology. When first enacted, this ban made sense and had little practical effect, because “Voice over Internet protocol” (VoIP) service was in its infancy. The child has grown up, though, and VoIP is a fully mature service that is rapidly supplanting traditional, and traditionally regulated, analog telephone service.

There might be good arguments for ending state oversight of telephone service. We do not support that position, but it is an appropriate subject for debate and deliberation by the California Legislature. Such a drastic change in California policy should not be enacted through a back door maneuver, as AB 1366 would do.

As of this morning, the version of the bill approved by the California assembly is still on the table. It includes token amendments made in the assembly that have vague language about VoIP service quality, but are of little practical use. The senate committee’s staff prepared an analysis that confirms that the token amendments in the bill “are largely unenforceable”. The analysis proposes a few more marginal changes, but leaves the core of the bill – as pushed by AT&T, Frontier, Comcast, Charter and a long list of their financially groomed, um, friends – intact.

The amendment came in response to strong opposition from the Communications Workers of America, the primary union representing AT&T employees. They are still listed as opposing AB 1366. The key test today will be whether or not CWA members turn out to oppose the bill, as they did in the assembly’s communications and conveyances committee.

The eternal why not WiFi question has an eternal answer

by Steve Blum • , , ,


The retro look.

Every so often someone asks me something like why can’t we just use WiFi to deliver broadband service? For those of us who’ve been working in the community broadband sector for a decade or more, the question was settled with the collapse of the Great Muni WiFi Bubble more than ten years ago. But for most, that’s a relic of the distant and dim pre-iPhone past, when rocking good service was measured in kilobits and the fastest way to download a movie was to drive to a store and rent a video.

The answer is that WiFi technology was originally designed as an indoor substitute for short distance ethernet cables, and not for outdoor or wide area service. It uses unlicensed spectrum with power determined by federal regulations and propagation characteristics set by the laws of physics.

The primary factors that determine the practical service radius of a WiFi-based network are transmit power (again, limited by law) and antenna design and position. Other factors, such as foliage, interference/noise level and the limitations of the WiFi protocol, come into play, but raw power and antenna capabilities are the big ones.

So if you have a top of the line WiFi access point bolted to a light pole, using maximised omni-directional antenna design and transmit power, it can communicate at reasonably high speeds with a similar access point over something like 400 meters, assuming there are no major obstructions.

But if that access point is communicating through clear air with a laptop or mobile phone or similar mass market device, that effective distance drops to 100 meters or less. If there’s a wall between the device and the access point – i.e. the user is inside a home or business – the distance is considerably, maybe impossibly, less. The transmit power and antenna design of the user’s equipment counts, too. If the user has a special gizmo – a WiFi bridge with higher power and a better antenna – the effective range might go up as high as 200 meters, and it might be useable indoors. Might be.

But while might be is good enough for an occasional free connection to a hotspot, it isn’t an acceptable standard for mainstream, consumer grade broadband service. That’s why we need something better: appropriately designed, professionally engineered and sufficiently provisioned copper, fiber or wireless infrastructure.

Maine puts buy net neutral requirement on state, but not local agencies

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Network neutrality is on the books in Maine. Governor Janet Mills signed legislative document 1364 into law last week. When it goes into effect later this year, the new law will require Internet service providers to sign net neutrality agreements when they do business with state agencies. They’ll have to pledge not to block or throttle Internet traffic on the basis of content, or engage in paid prioritisation – in other words, create fast lanes for their own content or for other customers…

E. “Net neutral service” means fixed or mobile broadband Internet access service that is provided without engaging in any of the following:
(1) Blocking of lawful content, applications, services or devices, subject to reasonable network management practices;
(2) Throttling; or
(3) Paid prioritization.
F. “Paid prioritization” means management of the network of an Internet service provider that provides broadband Internet access service to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, either in exchange for monetary or other consideration from a 3rd party or to benefit an affiliated entity.

Net neutrality obligations do not apparently extend to local governments, however. The law applies to “a department, agency or instrumentality of the State” but not to “political subdivisions”, which is how local governments and agencies are usually referred to in Maine’s laws.

Maine’s net neutrality law is likely to have more practical impact than the version California passed last year. Senate bill 822 was challenged in federal court as the ink dried on governor Jerry Brown’s signature, and attorney general Xavier Becerra agreed not to enforce it until court challenges to the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality are complete, a process that could go on for several more years. A companion bill – SB 460 – which had the same kind of net neutrality purchasing requirements as Maine’s law was killed by lobbyists from AT&T, Charter, Comcast and other big telecoms companies that write big checks to California’s lawmakers.

AB 1366 will effectively end telecoms regulation in California, CPUC says

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Cpuc graphic voip vs pots 24jun2019

Update: AB 1366 will be heard in the senate energy, utilities and communications the week after next (h/t to Adam Bender at Communications Daily for the heads up).

Assembly bill 1366 will block modernisation of California’s telecommunications grid and allow telephone and cable companies “to disregard California laws”, according to a position paper unanimously adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission yesterday. The commission’s opposition comes ahead of a California senate hearing on the bill scheduled for the week after next.

As first pushed by AT&T and authored by assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D – San Diego), AB 1366 would have simply extended an existing ban on any regulation of “Internet protocol enabled” services by the CPUC or other state agencies. That restriction took effect in 2013 in order to give Internet-based services such as voice over Internet protocol telephone service a chance to develop in a competitive marketplace. At yesterday’s meeting, commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen said it’s a different world now…

The original purpose of this bill has been more than fulfilled. VoIP was a nascent technology [when the ban was proposed], it is now a dominant technology and is going to overtake and replace landlines, and the services it provides are indistinguishable from those of traditional landline service. So, extending the bill now would be a barrier to consumer protections and our ability to protect public safety during emergencies. We can provide this regulation without, in any way, undermining competition.

That’s assuming competition exists. The CPUC’s concern isn’t the wide range of messaging, social media and other services that ride on the Internet. It’s about the replacement of regulated, old school copper-based telephone services with unregulated VoIP technology, as AT&T is aggressively doing. Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves said a “point that is raised often by the industry is competition is the solution to service quality. Unfortunately, we also know that the majority of Californians do not have competition”.

AB 1366 is still a work in progress. Strong opposition from the Communications Workers of America union caused Gonzales to backpedal during an assembly committee hearing in April, and her first try at amending the bill was not fully baked. It’s due to be considered by the senate’s energy, utilities and communications committee on Tuesday, and it’s a good bet that it’ll be amended again.

Rural broadband gaps are life and death issues, California wildfire study says

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Paicines pole route

Ageing, inadequate infrastructure contributed to the destruction during last year’s Camp Fire in Butte County that killed 86 people and did billions of dollars worth of damage. Congested roads were a big part of the problem, but so was a lack of telecommunications service, either because it was knocked out by the fires or, in many cases, not there in the first place, according to a report by a “strike force” commissioned by California governor Gavin Newsom…

In a matter of hours, 52,000 people from rural Paradise and surrounding communities evacuated onto roads built for a fraction of that capacity and converged on Chico, overwhelming the recovery system. The scale and speed of catastrophic, wind-driven wildfires, like the Camp Fire, incapacitate existing emergency response systems, local infrastructure and planned recovery efforts. Many California communities designed their fire emergency response and recovery systems decades ago, using old technology and outdated fire modelling. A clear overhaul of the California emergency response systems and the underlying infrastructure is needed.

The lack of broadband in rural communities and access to cell service make it difficult to communicate clear emergency evacuation orders to residents or locate residents who are in trouble.

Broadband did not play a significant role in warning residents of massive fires sweeping through California’s wine country in 2017. The North Bay/North Coast Broadband Consortium surveyed nearly 1,600 residents of the fire stricken areas. Only 11 said they received warnings from online sources: five on Facebook, four from Nextdoor.com and two via notices on public agency websites.

Phone calls – including those from from family, friends, public agencies – played a bigger role. About a third of the respondents were alerted via either mobile or landline calls.

The big problem during the wine country fires was the damage done to telecommunications infrastructure. Nearly four-fifths of the people surveyed lost mobile connectivity, either partially or completely, and two-thirds lost landline connections. Overall, 69% were cut off from the Internet for at least some of the time during the disaster.

FCC puts political agenda ahead of regulatory relevance

by Steve Blum • , , ,

Self licking ice cream cone

The Federal Communications Commission is in danger of becoming just another one of Washington, D.C.’s self licking ice cream cones. Some would argue that it has already achieved that exalted status, but until pending court challenges to recent, major decisions – net neutrality and local property rights preemption, particularly – are decided, there’s still hope.

The latest example of hype-over-substance from the FCC’s current republican majority is the annual broadband deployment report that, at times, reads like an update from the old Soviet Union about its latest five year plan for increasing tractor production. Glorious.

Democrats on the commission can be just as political, particularly when they hold the majority, but they aren’t always so (nor, to be fair, are republicans, at least not historically). Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC’s senior democrat, dissented from the report because it 1. relies on bad data, and 2. its standards are set too low…

This report deserves a failing grade…

The claim in this report that there are only 21 million people in the United States without broadband is fundamentally flawed. Consider that another recent analysis concluded that as many as 162 million people across the country do not use internet service at broadband speeds. Adding insult to injury, the same flawed data we rely on here is used to populate FCC broadband maps. For those keeping track, one cabinet official has described those maps as “fake news” and one Senator has suggested they be shredded and thrown into a lake…

It’s time for the FCC to adopt a 100 Megabits per second standard and set Gigabit speeds in our sight.

The FCC’s 2019 broadband deployment report sets a low standard – 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload speeds – and inflates service providers’ availability reports by assuming that if one person in a census block has access to a given speed level – the FCC’s standard for such reports – then everyone does. Rosenworcel is correct: the 2019 report doesn’t quantify the reality of broadband deployment in the U.S. And it certainly doesn’t justify the FCC’s self congratulatory hype.