Want To Know Why U.S. Broadband Is A Bad Joke? Take a Close Look at Frontier Communications

from the ill-communication dept

In telecom policy circles, there's an army of "experts" who twist themselves into pretzels trying to pretend U.S. telecom is a healthy, normal, vibrant market. Blinded by partisan loyalties, sector financial links, or ideologies embedded decades ago, they're incapable of even acknowledging that Americans pay too much money for spotty, substandard service with historically terrible customer support. They're even less likely to acknowledge the corruption, regulatory capture, and lack of competition that made this dysfunction possible. If it is acknowledged, it's downplayed to a comical degree.

As in the Ma Bell days, at the heart of U.S. broadband dysfunction sits phone companies. Providers, that have long refused to upgrade their aging DSL networks despite millions in taxpayer subsidies, lobby for state laws that ensure nobody else can deliver broadband in these neglected footprints either. These are companies that have a bizarre disdain for their paying customers, delivering the bare minimum (slow DSL) at the highest rates they can possibly charge without a full-scale consumer revolt. It's not surprising, then, that many telco DSL customers are fleeing to cable, assuming they even have a second broadband option.

This dynamic often results in some almost comedic dysfunction.

Like in West Virginia, where incumbent telco Frontier has repeatedly been busted in a series of scandals involving substandard service and the misuse of taxpayer money. The graft and corruption in the state is so severe, state leaders have buried reports detailing the depth of the problem, and, until recently, a Frontier executive did double duty as a state representative without anybody in the state thinking that was a conflict of interest.

But it's not just West Virginia. Frontier has since been under investigations from New York to Minnesota for failing to upgrade or even repair its aging network, at points putting human lives at risk. The company has also been repeatedly under fire for blatantly ripping its users off. For example, it has been charging its customers a rental fee for modems they already own. Very rarely do you see state leaders stand up to the company. And you'll certainly never see any kind of substantive pushback by the current, industry-captured FCC.

Customers who can leave (usually to the other end of the duopoly, Comcast), have been fleeing whenever possible, resulting in a looming bankruptcy by the company. In a report to investors this week we're only now starting to finally see something close to truth from the company as it tries to own up to its incompetence. Frontier had apparently tried to redact much of the report detailing the scope of network neglect, but appears to have bungled that as well:

"For example, one redacted sentence says that "Frontier WV's copper network has at least 952,163 connection points that are susceptible to moisture, corrosion, loose connections, etc. that may cause interruptions of service to customers."...The failed redaction of the number of connection points was coupled with failed redactions about the age of the network. The consultant firm's report said that 46.8 percent of Frontier's West Virginia network is between 36 and 47 years old. Both the percentage and the numbers of years were unsuccessfully "redacted" by Frontier.

The report makes it clear that the company probably shouldn't have engaged in mindless M&As, acquiring unwanted aging phone networks from AT&T and Verizon in "growth for growth's sake." Many of those deals were completely bungled and saddled the company with unneeded debt. Most should have been blocked by regulators and lawmakers who were too busy kissing the company's ass. Frontier also should have invested money back into the network to build a stronger company and retain subscribers, instead of engaging in repeated stock buybacks.

There are two reasons the company didn't do better on these fronts. One is sniveling, feckless, U.S. regulators and cash-compromised state and federal lawmakers, who rubber stamp every merger thrown on their desks, and refuse to hold politically powerful monopolies accountable. The other? A lack of competition across most of Frontier's territories:

"So why would a company like Frontier not immediately hit the upgrade button and start a massive copper retirement-fiber upgrade plan to keep the company in the black? In short, Frontier has survived chronic underinvestment because of a lack of broadband competition. Nearly two million Frontier customers have only one choice for internet access: Frontier. For another 11.3 million, there is only one other choice – a cable company that many detest. Frontier has enjoyed its broadband monopoly/duopoly for at least two decades. So long as its customers have fewer options, Frontier is under less pressure to invest in upgrades."

There were ample opportunities for state and federal leaders to step in and correct these problems, while embracing pro-competition policies that minimized the need for government involvement. Instead we let a regional monopoly dictate state and federal policy, and now act surprised when the end result is a smoldering dumpster fire. Granted as Frontier stumbles toward bankruptcy most of its debt will be wiped clean, nobody in the U.S. will learn anything from the process, and a universe of "very serious telecom policy thinkers" will continue to turn a blind eye to the entire mess as history repeats itself.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, competition, corruption, dsl, fcc, promises, subsidies, west virginia
Companies: frontier

Broadband Speeds Dip In Major Cities Due To Covid-19

from the heavy-load dept

Generally speaking, experts believe the U.S. internet should hold up pretty well under the significant new strain created by COVID-19. Italy and China's networks have generally weathered the added load, and most major U.S. ISPs say congestion shouldn't be a problem. Streaming providers have been reducing their overall bandwidth consumption as a precautionary measure, though generally many providers say they've seen greater impact from events like the Superbowl.

That's not to say there won't be a few hiccups. A new report by broadband availability tracking firm BroadbandNow indicates that a number of cities are seeing slowdowns under the weight of millions of additional telecommuters and videoconferencing students. That said, most cities aren't seeing any sort of devastating slowdowns as of yet:

"Eighty eight (44%) of the 200 cities we analyzed have experienced some degree of network degradation over the past week compared to the 10 weeks prior. However, only 27 (13.5%) cities are experiencing dips of 20% below range or greater."

The real problem, of course, is that many U.S. consumers don't have particularly great broadband speeds to begin with, especially on the upstream side. In many areas the best users can get is crappy DSL from an apathetic, government-pampered telco that has neglected upgrades and repairs for years. It's not surprising that many of these connections, which often have upstream speeds as slow as 1-3 Mbps (and don't even meet the FCC's standard broadband definition of 25 Mbps) are struggling under the load:

"It is important to note that though speeds may be holding relatively steady across the nation, many areas do not have robust connections to begin with. For instance, though Anchorage, Alaska is holding within range, its median download speed of 17.77 Mbps is well below the FCC’s current definition of broadband, which is 25 Mbps. The state itself currently ranks 51st in our list of best and worst states for internet coverage, pricing, and speeds."

The other obvious problem highlighted by COVID-19 is a lack of access in general.

One recent study estimated that 42 million Americans lack access to broadband of any kind, nearly double FCC estimates. And with broadband now effectively an essential utility for those under lockdown, the fact that tens of millions more Americans often can't afford service is also likely to cause problems. This digital divide, which receives ample lip service from regulators and politicians but little in the way of substantive action, is more glaring than ever now that broadband has become an essential lifeline for home bound Americans trying to slow the spread of the pandemic.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, congestion, covid-19, fcc

Tone Deaf: Using COVID-19 As A Prop To Celebrate The Death Of Net Neutrality

from the ill-communication dept

So we've noted a few times now how the FCC's decision to kill net neutrality did a hell of a lot more than just kill "net neutrality." It obliterated much of the FCC's consumer protection authority, making it harder than ever to hold U.S. telecom monopolies accountable for bad behavior like rampant privacy violations, ripping you off with bullshit fees, or refusing to upgrade or repair long-neglected taxpayer subsidized networks. And this was a problem even before America began staring down the barrel of a brutal pandemic while stuck at home telecommuting.

Enter American Enterprise Institute's Roslyn Layton, who apparently thought that using COVID-19 as a prop to celebrate the death of U.S. telecom consumer protections was somehow a good idea. In a brutally tone-deaf blog post this week, Layton insisted that the FCC's decision to ignore a bipartisan majority of the public and kiss the ass of U.S. telecom giants was proving to be really helpful during a terrifying crisis:

"Traffic is up 75 percent or more on many US networks, but they are still performing. Hundreds of communications providers have signed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai’s Keep Americans Connected Pledge, a commitment that broadband and telephone services run for the next 60 days without late fees or termination due to unpaid bills. We should thank our lucky stars that Title II net neutrality regulations were repealed by the FCC in 2017. In doing so, the US avoided the fate of much of Europe today, where broadband networks are strained and suffering from a lack of investment and innovation."

I've seen a lot of K Street policy nonsense in covering the telecom sector for close to two decades, but Layton's latest missive is one of the biggest piles of tone deaf horse shit I've ever seen shoveled into prose.

For one thing, Pai's "keep American's connected pledge" is entirely voluntary, and only basically states that ISPs can't kick you offline for non-payment during the next 60 days. But because the FCC neutered its authority to tell telecom giants what to do, the agency couldn't actually hold ISPs accountable should they refuse to adhere to the request or engage in bad behavior during a crisis. It's pinky swears and regulatory policy theater disguised as meaningful action. It's designed entirely to cover up the fact that the FCC just got done neutering itself at lobbyist behest, and the authority it shed would come in useful now.

The second claim Layton makes -- that repealing net neutrality helped prevent U.S networks from collapsing under the load of quarantine traffic -- is just indisputably false.

U.S. telecom giants like Comcast and AT&T actually dropped their overall network investment for 2020 in the wake of the Title II repeal and the massive Trump tax cuts, contrary to FCC and industry claims. And European and Chinese networks, while certainly feeling a pinch, have generally held up well under the strain. U.S. networks are also holding up well so far, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the FCC ignoring the public and kissing Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast's ass. Even FCC advisors to Pai have indicated that the strain we're seeing so far pales in comparison to events like the Superbowl:

While the internet core is holding up well, the problems most Americans will see are largely on the "last mile": aka slow end-user broadband connections (particularly upstream). In many areas, that's mostly courtesy of U.S. phone companies that see so little competition or regulatory pressure they've simply stopped upgrading or repairing aging DSL lines. And that, again, is made worse by gutting the FCC's ability to hold the telecom industry accountable, not better. Claiming otherwise is denialist fantasy.

To "prove" her inaccurate point, Layton points to Netflix's decision to throttle its overall bandwidth usage by around 25% to help ease the overall strain on European networks:

"European policymakers are now eating crow and entreating video platforms to downgrade the quality of their streams, an about face from the regulatory dogma that “all data is equal” and that regulations are needed to keep internet service providers (ISPs) from harming their own networks."

But neither Netflix nor European regulators cited any evidence of actual network strain, and the move was entirely precautionary. It had absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality or the U.S. FCC's net neutrality repeal, and using a pandemic to applaud the death of U.S. consumer protections is both grotesque and bizarre.

So what is Layton actually up to here? Why push this tone-deaf missive now?

Giant U.S. telecom providers aren't keen on the fact that the pandemic is shining a very bright light on the fact that an estimated 42 million home bound Americans still lack access to any kind of broadband whatsoever in 2020. They're also eager to distract from the fact that millions of Americans can't afford broadband courtesy of monopoly domination, a lack of competition, corruption, and regulatory capture. And they're most certainly eager to distract you from the fact that we threw tens of billions in regulatory favors and tax cuts at giants like AT&T in exchange for layoffs and empty promises.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, covid-19, fcc, net neutrality

Coronavirus Telecommuting To Further Highlight Shoddy US Telecom Market

from the completely-unprepared dept

To be clear, there are going to be layers of life and death dysfunction that the Coronavirus shines a bright spotlight on, most notable being a shaky US healthcare system and incompetent government leadership. But the outbreak and response is also going to shine a bright light on the broken US telecom market, and the millions of Americans that won't be able to effectively telecommute in a crisis.

We've noted time and time again how a lack of competition in the US broadband market means consumers pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for broadband that usually ranks somewhere in the middle of the pack. While we talk a lot about this problem, few actually do much about it. Similarly, few really have noticed how as US telcos effectively give up on upgrading antiquated DSL lines, they're giving cable giants like Comcast even bigger monopolies across vast swaths of America. In turn, those cable giants are facing less incentive than ever to improve customer service, upgrade rural networks, or compete on price.

With little competition and federal regulators that are little more than a rubber stamp to their every monopolistic whim, these companies have also been given a green light to gouge US consumers with usage caps and overage fees. Worse, a recent report suggested that 40 million Americans can't get broadband at all, nearly double FCC estimates. The Trump administration and FCC's response to this problem so far has been to blow sweet kisses at the nation's biggest telecom providers in the form of regulatory favors, massive tax breaks for doing nothing, and a lot of overheated rhetoric.

This has always been a problem, but as FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel notes, it's going to become a more obvious problem as millions of Americans are suddenly asked to work (and learn) from home to avoid spreading the virus further and faster:

While the overlaid teleconferencing technology has come a long way in recent years, millions of Americans will need to rely on expensive, slow, capped broadband that comes with what is statistically some of the worst customer service and satisfaction rates of any industry in America. Assuming these Americans have the luxury of working from home at all, many will be forced to rely on throttled, capped, and otherwise restricted cellular and satellite connections, since incumbents have effectively frozen expansion into rural markets, and fought tooth and nail against communities building their own, better networks.

While (as usual) this won't be as big of a problem for the white and affluent (many of whom have long insisted this isn't a big deal), it's going to be a particular problem for the minority, tribal, and low income communities that have been overlooked for decades. Especially as a growing number of colleges and schools try to shift the entirety of their workload online. It's a problem America has historically found relatively easy to ignore. And while broadband is likely to be the least of our issues over the next few months, recommending that millions of Americans work and learn from home will make ignoring that problem exponentially more difficult.

Filed Under: broadband, coronavirus, covid-19, fcc, working from home

Congress Forces FCC To Go Beyond Its Tame, 'Voluntary' Anti-Robocalling Plan

from the ill-communication dept

Last June you might recall that the Trump FCC unveiled a new robocall plan that it claimed would finally put the annoying problem to bed. And while the tech press tripped over itself to suggest the plan was a dramatic departure from FCC robocall policies of the past, the reality is there was little to nothing in the plan that was actually new. As is often the case with this FCC, a coagulation of half-measures, already existing efforts, and empty nonsense were just kind of thrown together in a pile and deemed to be something new and revolutionary.

The biggest change was FCC rule adjustment that would let wireless carriers install robocalling blocking tools on consumer devices by default, in contrast to the current paradigm where consumers have to opt in (assuming the tools are offered at all). But while the plan urged wireless carriers deploy anti-spoofing technology like SHAKEN/STIR to help prevent robocallers from hiding their real numbers, there was absolutely nothing in the plan that actually requires they actually do so. Because hard, clear rules with genuine accountability make AT&T and Verizon mad, you see.

Not surprisingly, the voluntary measures weren't likely to actually drive massive telecom companies to actually shore up their anti-robocall efforts. There were also justified concerns that as wireless carriers deployed anti-spoofing technologies, they'd use the opportunity to further price gouge US consumers. Realizing this, Congress passed the Traced Act, which would require wireless carriers provide anti-spoofing tech to consumers at no additional cost.

Amusingly, last week FCC boss Ajit Pai announced he was considering making deployment of SHAKEN/STIR anti-spoofing technology mandatory. In the FCC announcement, Pai tries to frame the effort as something he came up with on his own, despite the fact he was actually being mandated to do so by Congress:

"Pai framed it as his own decision, with his announcement saying the chairman "proposed a major step forward... to protect consumers against spoofed robocalls." But in reality the FCC was ordered by Congress and President Trump to implement this new rule. The requirement on the FCC was part of the TRACED Act that was signed into law in December 2019. Pai previously hoped that all carriers would deploy the technology voluntarily."

Pai didn't actually release his plan, but when he does it's likely to just mirror what was already established by new law. The problem remains that the Pai FCC will still need to be tough with giant companies that lag on deploying this technology, and, given the agency's tendency to roll over and bare its tummy on feckless fealty to industry, actual follow through will likely prove hard to come by, especially if bigger, more politically potent companies are the ones lagging behind.

Filed Under: ajit pai, congress, fcc, robocalling, robocalls, shaken/stir, spoofing

So Wait, People Seriously Think Bill Barr Will Rein In Tech Monopoly Power?

from the ill-communication dept

So we've noted for a while how while a lot of the anger against "big tech" is certainly justified, there's a sizeable segment of this growing DC chorus that's being quietly orchestrated by telecom giants. Companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast just effectively convinced the FCC to self-immolate, dismantling huge swaths of its broadband consumer protection authority (what could go wrong?). At the same time, the DOJ and FCC have been rubber stamping every terrible telecom merger than comes down the pike. When it comes to telecom monopolies, you'll hear nary a peep from the Trump administration.

Contrast that to the GOP and Trump administration's sudden, breathless interest in "big tech" monopolies. In case you'd missed it, top telecom lobbyists have spent the last two years pushing ironically for a massive regulatory crackdown on "big tech" companies. For example Mike Powell, former FCC boss turned top cable industry lobbyist, put it this way at a 2018 appearance at an industry trade event:

"Our governmental authorities need to get a handle on what kind of market power and harm flow from companies that have an unassailable hold on large pools of big data, which serve as barriers to entry, allowing them to dominate industries throughout the economy," he said. "For years, big tech companies have been extinguishing competitive threats by buying or crushing promising new technologies just as they were emerging. They dominate their core business, and rarely have to foreclose competition by buying their peers. Competition policy must scrutinize more rigorously deals that allow dominant platforms to kill competitive technologies in the cradle," he added."

So you'll notice here that telecom is accusing big tech of all the things telecom routinely engages in, from buying competitors to stifle competition, to laying claim to massive troves of consumer data with little accountability or oversight. This bizarre asymmetrical policy positioning, where Silicon Valley monopolies are bad but telecom monopolies apparently don't exist, has since become a DC mainstay, as reflected by the positions of folks like Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn. Neither have so much as mentioned telecom in passing in their conversations about monopoly power, and the latter of the two has literally never seen an AT&T policy proposal she didn't support.

Enter Bill Barr, the former Verizon General Counsel who spent years helping Verizon crush competitors, violate privacy and wiretap law, and generally engage in all the kind of behaviors he's now supposedly policing. On that end, reports this week emerged stating that Barr has slowly been taking control of numerous antitrust inquiries at the DOJ from DOJ antitrust boss Makan Delrahim:

"Barr has centralized oversight of antitrust matters under a handful of appointees in his office and that of his deputy attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen. Those moves have sidelined the Antitrust Division’s current leadership, headed by Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, who for the past year has been the public face of DOJ’s investigations into Silicon Valley’s treatment of its users and customers."

Delrahim of course flubbed the AT&T Time Warner lawsuit, which I still believe had more to do with pleasing Rupert Murdoch and pissing off CNN than any serious concern about monopoly power. Such concerns are violently out of character for the Trump administration, which only seems to embrace such rhetoric when it serves a political purpose (see: the nonexistent censorship of Conservatives). Delrahim also just came under fire recently for rubber stamping the controversial Sprint T-Mobile merger in some very problematic ways, tying himself in knots to approve the competition-eroding deal.

On one hand, you could believe that Barr suddenly and uncharacteristically cares about monopolies and is engaged in a good faith effort to more seriously police them, as Matt Stoller suggests here:

"He has an understanding of what it’s like to be in competition with these monopolists. He understands what’s at stake,” said Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly nonprofit.

“I have more faith in Barr than in Delrahim,” added Stoller, though he still predicted that Barr and the DOJ would bring a narrower antitrust suit against the tech platforms than he believes is warranted.

The problem with this claim is Barr has never, in history, shown the slightest interest in seriously reining in monopoly power, as his time at Verizon makes pretty clear. It's far more likely that Barr's interested in using the DOJ's antitrust enforcement authority as a political and personal blunt weapon. Notably to help this administration's BFFs in the telecom sector wage regulatory war on companies they (not at all coincidentally) are trying to erode video ad market share from. It's similar to the way that Ajit Pai has bizarrely demonized Netflix while just completely ignoring much worse problems in telecom.

As Mike noted in a recent interview with Mathew Ingram, it's also very likely Trump sees these inquiries as a great way to gain leverage in efforts like his misguided war on encryption:

"In reality, Barr has been (misleadingly) complaining about encryption to support his authoritarian impulses to want to have access to all information. This has never been the way the world works, and thanks to technology, law enforcement already has more access than ever to most information about people. The real goal here for Barr was just to use 230 as a wedge to try to break encryption."

There's really been zero evidence to suggest most of these "big tech" inquiries at the DOJ are being seriously conducted in good faith. In fact there's ample evidence the wheels of DOJ antitrust enforcement have been hijacked for what has often been bizarre and petty vendettas on behalf of Trump. But sure, a guy who spent years propping up US telecom monopolies and has never shown the slightest genuine interest in the problems monopolies cause is just the guy to finally fix the nation's longstanding monopoly problems, why not.

Filed Under: antitrust, big tech, competition, doj, fcc, makan delrahim, michael powell, telcos, william barr
Companies: amazon, apple, facebook, google, verizon

T-Mobile Cares So Much About Consumer Privacy, It's Fighting The FCC's Flimsy Fine For Location Data Sharing

from the light-wrist-slaps dept

T-Mobile, like many mobile carriers, insists in highly values consumer privacy. But that hasn't really been reflected in the company's response to ongoing SIM hijacking scandals. Nor was that dedication particularly apparent when T-Mobile (along with AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint) were all caught selling access to user location and 911 data to pretty much any nitwith with a nickel.

Last week, after a year of stonewalling, the Trump FCC announced it would be doling out some light wrist slaps to companies that were caught selling access to this data. For most of the companies, the fines they received were a tiny, tiny fraction of not only their annual revenues, but the billions made over the last decade selling access to this data to law enforcement, people pretending to be law enforcement, and even stalkers. All four of the companies also just received tens of billions on dollars from the Trump tax cuts in exchange for promises they completely flaked out on.

It would be a pittance to pay off the fine and move on, especially given this particular FCC is unlikely to engage in much follow up to either confirm data collection has actually stopped, or police access to the mountains of data already collected. But T-Mobile says it's intending to fight the fine anyway, because, you know, it cares just that much about consumer privacy and accountability:

"While we strongly support the FCC’s commitment to consumer protection, we fully intend to dispute the conclusions of this NAL and the associated fine," the company said."

So yeah, T-Mobile will "support" the FCC's "commitment to consumer protection" (which barely exists in the first place) by...(checks notes)...fighting the already feeble end result. This is, again, apparently a reflection of T-Mobile taking "consumer privacy seriously":

"We take the privacy and security of our customers’ data very seriously," said T-Mobile. "When we learned that our location aggregator program was being abused by bad actor third parties, we took quick action. We were the first wireless provider to commit to ending the program and terminated it in February 2019 after first ensuring that valid and important services were not adversely impacted."

Again, there's little chance these companies will actually leave billions in location data revenues on the table. While all four major carriers say they've stopped the practice, it's far more likely they've simply tweaked their privacy policies, renamed the collection systems, and buried them deep in some subsidiary somewhere. After all, who is going to do the legwork required to audit the entire industry's privacy and data collection practices, Ajit Pai?

Filed Under: competition, consumers, fcc, fines, privacy
Companies: t-mobile