AT&T's Regulatory Hypocrisy On Proud Display In Kansas, Where It's Fighting To Keep The State A Broadband Backwater

from the do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do dept

Thu, Dec 4th 2014 5:58am — Karl Bode

Like any giant, pampered duopoly, AT&T claims to loathe regulation when it has even the remotest potential to hamstring anti-competitive behavior (like Title II on the net neutrality front), but is perfectly fine with it when it protects the company's long-standing stranglehold on the United States broadband market. One of many glaring illustrations of this is in Kansas, where the company recently wrote but failed to pass SB 304, which, like nearly two dozen similar laws around the country, would prohibit towns and cities from wiring themselves for broadband -- even in cases where nobody else will. From the bill:

"Sec. 4. Except with regard to unserved areas, a municipality may not, directly or indirectly offer or provide to one or more subscribers, video, telecommunications or broadband service; or purchase, lease, construct, maintain or operate any facility for the purpose of enabling a private business or entity to offer, provide, carry, or deliver video, telecommunications or broadband service to one or more subscribers."

Like many of these bills, if you then look closer at the bill's definition of "unserved," you'll find it includes very expensive and capped satellite and wireless broadband, making it incredibly hard to gain approval:

"Unserved area” means one or more contiguous census blocks within the legal boundaries of a municipality seeking to provide the unserved area with video, telecommunications or broadband service, where at least nine out of 10 households lack access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile, or satellite broadband service, at the minimum broadband transmission speed as defined by the FCC."

Facing an immensely uncompetitive duopoly between AT&T and former Washington Post run CableOne, the city of Chanute, Kansas has been looking to build a citywide fiber network capable of offering 1 Gbps speeds at around $40 per month. After defeating AT&T's attempt to pass new regulations hamstringing the project, Chanute now finds themselves face to face with a 1947 ma-bell era law that requires companies get permission from the Kansas Corporation Commission to sell bonds to fund such telecom projects. With the KCC likely to approve the request, AT&T lawyers have jumped in to intervene, according to the Wichita Eagle:

"Any decision made by the KCC could impact AT&T’s business operations in the area, which is why we asked to intervene in the proceeding," the company said in a written response to questions from The Eagle. “AT&T remains interested in both broadband issues and the work of the KCC."

As I've noted previously, AT&T's also in the process of going state by state ~~paying~~ asking state lawmakers to gut any and all remaining consumer protections (like laws requiring they continue offering 911 to the elderly) so it can back away from aging DSL markets it doesn't want to upgrade. In Kansas specifically, AT&T has promised locals they'll be awash in all manner of miracle broadband improvements, if only they eliminate the Kansas Corporation Commission’s consumer protection regulations and minimum quality-of-service standards. Well, at least the ones that apply to AT&T.

Again, just so we're clear, this is the same company that insists that absolutely any regulatory effort to protect consumers from duopoly power is the very worst sort of government over-reach, but has absolutely no qualms about using government over-reach and regulation to make sure broadband prices remain high and service quality continues to suck.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadband, chanute, kansas, muni-broadband
Companies: at&t

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jay Fude (profile), 4 Dec 2014 @ 6:18am

Well, I see a solution
If we change the FCC to say minimum broadband transmission speed is 999mbs, then I have no problem with the law, as written. Make sure that is average throughput, not "up to", and I'm good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DaveK (profile), 4 Dec 2014 @ 6:21am

Oh, what a surprise.
or purchase, lease, construct, maintain or operate any facility for the purpose of enabling a private business or entity to offer, provide, carry, or deliver video, telecommunications or broadband service to one or more subscribers

Carefully worded so that they can still provide massive subsidies from taxpayers' money for private entities to lease, construct, maintain or operate such facilities... someone should propose an amendment to include "fund" along with those other forbidden verbs, I'd love to hear AT+T squawk at the thought of losing all their pork!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2014 @ 9:31am
  
  Re: Oh, what a surprise.
  you meant to say SQUEAL like a pig...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daniel Fletcher, 4 Dec 2014 @ 6:38am

At least they aren't ComCast
The USA is not even in the top 10 for wireless speed, but ranked #1 for price. Just like everything else, it's all about the money, with the guise of being for "better customer satisfaction."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mcinsand, 4 Dec 2014 @ 6:49am
  
  Re: At least they aren't ComCast
  Based on published stories, Comcast seems to be worse than AT&T. After my AT&T experiences, though, I am firmly convinced that they have an R&D arm dedicated to providing sadastic customer experiences.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2014 @ 9:51am
    
    Re: Re: At least they aren't ComCast
    They are getting training from Comcast.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2014 @ 6:49am

Inb4 'this is Kansas so the Kochs have a hand in all of this'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 5 Dec 2014 @ 5:04am
  
  Re:
  Citation, please?
  
  What makes you think they don't?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 4 Dec 2014 @ 8:16am

"at the minimum broadband transmission speed as defined by the FCC."

Oh, so that's why they keep pushing the FCC to not raise the minimum requirements for broadband. Well played, multi pronged attack there, AT&T. Sun Tzu would be proud. I thought it was just because you were lazy and cheap, but it was a part of a larger attack plan. I'm impressed. Disgusted, but impressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2014 @ 8:30am

The definition of broadband should include ping time
Most definitions of broadband concern themselves with bandwidth, but fail to mention ping time. But without a low ping, using interactive services becomes hard. In the extreme, a van full of discs can have high bandwidth, but it has extremely high latency.

When one includes ping time, satellite stops being a viable alternative.

I'd suggest a good start for a definition of broadband would be minimum 10 megabit/s bandwidth and maximum 100ms round-trip latency, end-to-end (middleware proxies are cheating and work only for some applications).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 4 Dec 2014 @ 8:45am
  
  Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
  Satellite is never a viable alternative. It's a last-ditch thing, what you do if you can't get a real internet connection.
  
  Whenever I see satellite being included as a broadband "option", I know that the paper, person or study is full of crap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 4 Dec 2014 @ 9:21am
    
    Re: Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
    Is satellite latency a limitation of the technology or physics? Is there that much processing involved or are the satellites just that far away that the speed of light is the limiting factor?
    
    Basically I'm asking if satellite could ever become reasonable connectivity.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 4 Dec 2014 @ 9:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
      It's a limitation of both. There are hard physical limits involved (for instance, the fastest round-trip a signal could possibly take from the surface of the earth to a comms satellite and back is about a quarter of a second.) and there are technological ones (for example, no consumer satellite broadband system transmits to the satellite -- the phone is usually used for the upstream link).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 4 Dec 2014 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
        (for example, no consumer satellite broadband system transmits to the satellite -- the phone is usually used for the upstream link)
        
        That information is out of date. I know that HughesNet Gen4 does actually upload to the satellite via microwave (like a sat phone). No phone lines are needed.
        
        When I was a DirecTV Installer (DirecTV used to be affiliated with Hughes) satellite internet installers were warned not to aim the dish anywhere near trees or telephone lines or place the dish near the ground so you don't end up frying squirrels, birds or kids playing by the dish.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 4 Dec 2014 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
        Good to know. I've never thought of those systems as consumer ones.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Derek Kerton (profile), 4 Dec 2014 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
        Fenderson's right.
        
        Also, a cable to your home can be a dedicated wire JUST FOR YOU, such as a telco twisted pair for DSL. It can also be a coax broadband pipe shared among a hundred or fewer neighbors, such as cable. In those cases, you share the full radio spectrum the wire can carry among a small group of subscribers, and can get better speeds.
        
        With satellite, the satellite transponder is aimed at a part of the country, say the West, and you share it's bandwidth with the entire region. That means if you're near Seattle and I'm near San Francisco, and you request a website, my dish also receives the transmission of the website you requested (and ignores it). Also, the satellite ISP does not have the full RF spectrum, only very narrow licensed bands. That is a lot less bandwidth shared among a lot more users, hence the lower speeds, and lower usage caps from satellite ISPs.
        
        Fenderson is right that "Satellite is never a viable alternative. It's a last-ditch thing, what you do if you can't get a real internet connection."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2014 @ 12:01pm

That law as written looks as rediculous to me as a law saying thou shalt not offer for sale a variety of plants to house owners because we planted palm trees along the curbs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wshuff (profile), 4 Dec 2014 @ 12:58pm

I saw on Ars that Chanute has received approval for the bonds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2014 @ 1:11pm

100Mbps
The FCC should just change the minimum broadband speed to 100Mbps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2014 @ 1:12pm

Ya think?
Nah, 1000Mbps broadband wouldn't have any effect on AT&T's DSL. Nobody could ever use that kind of speed. Hey, it may be cheaper than us, but what would customer service be like? We have a bigger help desk than they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2014 @ 1:15pm

Google Fiber
Google is letting customers sign up for 1GB service in Austin. Seems Comcast is significantly upping the service for existing customers at no charge. (What nice guys they are.)

The truth is, when Google or another service moves in, prices go down, and service goes up.

I can't remember the providers, but when a new company moved into El Paso recently, the incumbent dropped the price on their 5Mbps service to match the newcomer, at $15/month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2014 @ 4:59pm

Well, Kansas has backwater status in so many areas - what's another? No big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2014 @ 6:57pm

These companies are a blight on the nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pragmatic, 5 Dec 2014 @ 5:02am

"Any decision made by the KCC could impact AT&T’s control over business operations in the area..."

FIFY, AT&T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]