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

Carroll County Public Network Changes Education, Saves School Funds

Carroll County is a bedroom community, with a variety of economies all around it. Washington, D.C., Camp David, Baltimore, Harrisburg, Fort Detrick, and the Aberdeen Proving Ground are a few of the places surrounding Carroll County. There is very little major transportation infrastructure and no major waterways. Many of the county's 167,000 people commute daily to jobs outside of the bullseye.

Gary Davis, Chief Information Officer at the Carroll County Public Schools (CCPS) and Chairman of the Carroll County Public Network (CCPN) started at the school district in 2002 and immediately recognized that the telecommunications arrangement was insufficient.

Schools and other facilities were connected to the hub via 1.5 Mbps T1 connections and the whole wide-area-network was connected to the Internet via an expensive Frame Relay DS3 connection. The total cost ran as high as $600,000 per year.  

When CCPS approached Verizon about increasing bandwidth, Verizon’s proposal was extremely cost-prohibitive. Verizon wanted a long-term commitment that resulted in more than 10 times their current costs. Basically, Verizon would own the network but capital costs would be funded by CCPS and maintained with ridiculously high recurring fees. The return on investment for Verizon was just too low owing the the community demographics.

At that time, Davis met Robert Wack of the Westminster City Council and the two compared notes. Davis' vision for Carroll County Public Schools and Wack's ideas for Westminster and Carroll County were very similar. Both involved a high-speed network and Westminster is currently involved in its own municipal network project (to be covered in an upcoming post).

A 2003 feasibility study on telecommunications upgrades for the school and a second broader feasibility study for the entire county in 2005 resulted in a loose confederation between CCPS, Carroll County Government, Carroll Community College, and the Carroll County Public Library system. Davis is proud of the fact that the CCPN has broken through past silos. The public sector has worked together in Carroll County, preventing the rampant duplication of efforts that used to be the norm. 

Davis says the first focus was on improving educational opportunities with the network. The four entities were able to work together as the CCPN to secure better pricing by leveraging economies of scale. Carroll County applied $7.4 million from its capital project fund to get the project started, the original estimate in the 2005 feasibility study. CCPS also applied funds from its technology budget that had originally been earmarked for upgrades to phone switches.

Carroll County Schools Logo

Switching from the old telephone system to a VoIP system for the district's approximately 1,000 phone lines amounts to about 40% of today's savings at CCPS. Davis estimates annual savings to CCPS to be around $400,000, which also factors in costs associated with the network. Turning off old T1 connections and abandoning the pricey DS3 connection also contribute significantly to annual savings. Connections between district facilities now vary between 1 and 10 gigs.

Reducing spending is great, he says, but what really matters is the way the network improves the ability to educate. The old T1s and DS3 would not have been able to deliver the bandwidth for applications educators use today. For example, CCPS is experimenting by using the network to connect kids across the county who want to participate in Advanced Placement classes. These classes might not be offered otherwise because there may not be enough students at one location. In the pilot program, several students from schools across the county participate through video streaming, concentrating educator efforts and creating a more vibrant learning experience.

CCPS shares a 500 Mbps Internet connection with the local public library, ten times faster than the old DS3. The public library is also on a separate power grid, which makes it attractive as a secure back up data center for the school district, Carroll County Government, and Carroll Community College.

As the network has expanded, the CCPN has used a variety of funding. A state awarded BTOP grant, with matching funds from the county economic development fund, added to the original school district and county investment. Davis estimates that the county has invested about $12 million over the course of 10 years.

The network now consists of three rings with the fourth central ring in Westminster, the county seat. "Spokes" lead out to the southern end of the county, where community leaders hope to connect with Frederick or Baltimore County. Eight municipalities use the network's 110 miles of fiber over 450 square miles in Carroll County. There is one school in the northern part of the county that is not connected with fiber but uses high speed wireless supported by the fiber.

The network has changed education in Carroll County and done so with significant savings. Davis acknowledges that the change came about through the work of the CCPN Administration, which he describes as an ideal model. "Each member organization contributes its leaders' expertise and what all members CAN do together, they DO do together," says Davis.

For CCPS, the results speak for themselves.

Susan Crawford on Bloomberg TV

Six minute interview from Susan talking about the failure of policy in America to expand access to fast, affordable, and reliable networks.

Verizon Begs Regulators for Protection While Demanding Deregulation

From the "A Pox on Both Your Houses" files, Verizon is squaring off against greedy landlords in New York City as it tries to fix lines damaged by Superstorm Sandy.

In short, Verizon needs access to the common areas of the multi-dwelling units (MDU or industry-speak for apartments) to fix or upgrade the lines. Verizon is using these repairs as an opportunity to transition connections from copper to its fiber optic FiOS system.

AT&T and Verizon have been arguing that once a household transitions from a copper connection to FiOS (in the case of Verizon) or U-Verse (in the case of AT&T, which actually hasn't even changed the copper connection), they are using a fundamentally different, less regulated service. My conversation with Bruce Kushnick delved into some of these claims.

Verizon's copper to fiber upgrade could actually therefore be an accountability downgrade if regulators agree that households deserve fewer protections on connections over fiber than over copper. This appears to be a major fight brewing -- how to regulate the same services over different types of connections.

And this is where it gets interesting. Verizon, AT&T, and the other big cable/telcos are constantly arguing for deregulation, saying that the market is so competitive that the government should just get lost.

But then Sandy rips through and landlords (that I have ZERO sympathy for) see an opportunity to shakedown Verizon. After all, Verizon is going to use the new connections to increase revenues from these households by selling more services (triple play over fiber). This seems a perfectly reasonable deregulated market showdown.

Crying Verizon

But Verizon immediately goes crying to the state regulators: "The landlords aren't playing nice, force them to let us into their buildings!"

Anyone who still believes competitive or free markets are synonymous with unregulated markets is fooling themselves. Big firms use deregulation or regulation in their attempts to corner and monopolize markets. They only favor less regulation when they perceive an immediate benefit to the bottom line.

We need a government that is sufficiently wise to decide when more regulation or less regulation will create the best outcomes for all of us. In some cases, regulation is essential to preserve a competitive market and in others, some deregulation may be in order. Unfortunately, we have a government that tends to act based on what is best for those employing the best lobbyists and making the most campaign contributions.

To be clear, I don't think landlords should be able to hold tenants hostage until they get paid off. However, that is in large part because I view access to the Internet as an essential infrastructure that requires accountability. Being a natural monopoly, the market will not provide those protections, which is why the government has long protected the public interest in telecommunications with regulations.

Fire Guts His Apartment, Verizon Demands $2,300 NOW

When we hear the news of a tornado, fire, flood or other natural disaster, most of us feel empathy for victims whose lives are disrupted by loss and upheaval.  But AT&T, Comcast, Charter, and CableOne have all been criticized for their callous behavior in the wake of disasters. Now we can add Verizon to the list.

In a recent DSLReports story, Karl Bode shares the story of Jarrett Seltzer, whose apartment and possessions were destroyed by a fire. Seltzer was a FiOS customer and, even though he called to cancel service and explain the situation, Verizon demanded he hand over $2,300 to cover the price of four cable boxes (each 6 years old) and an old FiOS router. Karl writes:

Seltzer notes that Verizon continued to bill him after learning about the fire, and his attempt to resolve this with Verizon has involved being on hold for several hours, being transferred fourteen times, while speaking to fifteen different Verizon support representatives.

We would like to report that Verizon had a change of heart, realized their callousness, and reached out to be more cooperative with Mr. Seltzer. Unfortunately, Verizon only eased up after Jarrett's video on YouTube began to get noticed.

As part of a longer response to DSLReports' request for comment, Verizon said this:

Even though this (customers are responsible for maintaining the equipment in good condition while in their possession) is a part of the terms of service with all of our customers, we need to be empathetic with our customers in such difficult situations.

So far, it sounds like we could have done a better job of communicating with him and been more helpful in addressing next steps. At the same time we are reviewing our internal processes to ensure we are providing appropriate consideration for customers in situations like these.

Jarrett's video sums up the situation:

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.

More Evidence for Looming Broadband Monopoly

DSLReports has accurately noted the continued decline of competition between DSL and cable providers. Heck, it seems like no large company wants to invest in the future of broadband in this country. Verizon and AT&T have chosen to focus on wireless technology, resulting in less true competition. Cable (or FTTH if you are lucky to have that option) tends to offer faster, more expensive connections and DSL is the slower, less expensive option for many.

As we noted in an earlier post, Verizon no longer offers stand alone DSL and is voluntarily losing customers to focus on their more profitable (and more expensive) fixed LTE service. Many of the companies providing DSL service simply lack the interest or capacity to invest in modern networks.

Windstream lost broadband subscribers last quarter for the first time ever losing 2,200 subscribers for a 1.36 million total. Verizon added just 2,000 net broadband users last quarter, the worst quarterly result in four years. The AP quotes Verizon as saying that the hit was due to Verizon's decision to stop selling standalone DSL.

...

Meanwhile, smaller telcos like Windstream, Frontier, Fairpoint and CenturyLink find themselves unable or unwilling to upgrade their networks to keep pace with faster cable speeds. That's going to result in considerably more bloodshed for the telcos as additional subscribers jump ship (assuming they have the choice), resulting in cable's domination of the U.S. residential broadband market.

Continued reliance on these companies to build the essential infrastructure our economy and citizens need is foolish. The incentives are all wrong for their model and the amount of public money it will take to bribe them into building better infrastructure would offer far higher returns when invested in models that are democratically accountable to the community -- networks owned by local governments, cooperatives, or other nonprofit organizations.

Unions and DSL Customers: Verizon Knocks Out Two Birds With One Stone

If you are a current or potential Verizon customer, by now you know that you no longer have the option to order stand alone DSL. When the business decision became public knowledge in April, DSL Reports.com looked into the apparent step backward and found existing customers were grandfathered in but:

However, if you disconnect and reconnect, or move to a new address -- you'll have to add voice service. Users are also being told that if they make any changes to their existing DSL service (increase/decrease speed) they'll also be forced to add local phone service. One customer was actually told that he needed to call every six months just to ensure they didn't change his plan and auto-enroll him in voice service.

By alienating customers from DSL, Verizon can begin shifting more customers to its LTE service, which is more expensive. Susie Madrak, from Crooks and Liars, speculated on possible repercussions for rural America:

Rural areas could see the biggest impact from the shift, as Verizon pulls DSL and instead sells those users LTE services with at a high price point ($15 per gigabyte overages). Verizon then hopes to sell those users cap-gobbling video services via their upcoming Redbox streaming video joint venture. Expect there to be plenty of gaps where rural users suddenly lose landline and DSL connectivity but can't get LTE. With Verizon and AT&T having killed off regulatory oversight in most states -- you can expect nothing to be done about it, despite both companies having been given billions in subsidies over the years to get those users online.

The belief is that current DSL customers who don't want (or can't afford) the switch to the LTE service will move to Verizon's cable competition. Normally, losing customers to the competition is to be avoided, but when your new marketing partners ARE the competition, it's no big deal.

Recall that Verizon entered into an agreement with Time Warner Cable, Cox, Bright House (collectively SpectrumCo) to a purchase spectrum. A related agreement, wherein Verizon and the cable companies cross-market each others' services, received approval from FCC and the DOJ. The deal appears inevitable, regardless of concerns from consumer groups, economic and telecommunications policy leaders, and labor.

Madrak makes another critical observation: Verizon Wireless is a non union company, while Verizon Wireline employees belong the the Communicatons Workers of America (CWA).

The CWA has engaged Maryland Senators Barbara Milkulski and Benjamin Cardin to press the FCC and DOJ to move carefully. The pair recent sent a letter to both agencies citing major job loss concerns from CWA and lack of competition concerns from consitutents. From the letter [pdf]:

Our concern is that we are turning former competitors into business allies, that may be violating the concept of open and fair competition.We also are very concerned… [that] it appears to limit Verizon’s incentive to invest in its all fiber FiOS network, potentially depriving consumers of the competitive alternative to cable, broadband and, video services. What this means is that you...could be impacting [72,000] middle class jobs.

Eliminating unions and forcing DSL customers to switch to a more expensive service translates into even more profits for Verizon. How will this strategy affect the broadband situation in America? Madrak summed it up in her coverage:

It's all a very ingenious play by Verizon, though it will have a massive competitive and connectivity impact on the U.S. broadband market that will be studied for decades. What's most amazing is that nobody (analysts, regulators or the press) seems to have really noticed what Verizon's up to: turning a massive swath of the country from a marginally-competitive duopoly with union labor, into an even less competitive and more expensive cable and telco un-unionized cooperative monopoly.

Absent action from communities, the future will be one with less competition to deliver broadband services, not more. Community networks can create jobs, competition, and savings -- a far better alternative than watching Verizon's plans come to fruition.

Community Broadband Bits 8 - Jim Moorehead of Mendocino County, California

The eighth podcast in our Community Broadband Bits series is a discussion with Jim Moorehead, the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Broadband Alliance of Mendocino County in California. Mendocino is a large, rural county in the northern part of the state that has been left behind by major incumbent providers including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon.

We talk about what steps they have taken to solve their problems and discuss the frustrating state of broadband mapping -- state and federal officials readily accept the dramatic exaggeration of incumbent footprints where broadband is available.

We want your feedback and suggestions for the show - please e-mail us or leave a comment below. Also, feel free to suggest other guests, topics, or questions you want us to address.

This show is 26 minutes long and can be played below on this page or subscribe via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed. Search for us in iTunes and leave a positive comment!

Listen to previous episodes here.

Thanks to Fit and the Conniptions for the music, licensed using Creative Commons.

Five Cities Denounce Verizon/Comcast Spectrum Deal

If you live in Boston, Baltimore, Albany, Syracuse, or Buffalo, you won't be getting FiOS from Verizon. Absent any public investment, you will likely be stuck with DSL and cable... like 80% of the rest of us.

Not long after Verizon announced it would cease expanding FiOS, we learned that Verizon was coming to an arrangement with the cable companies that would essentially divide the broadband market. Verizon won't challenge cable companies with FiOS and the cable companies won't challenge Verizon's "Rule the Air" wireless domain.

For a while now, the FCC has reviewed a potential deal for a Verizon purchase of Comcast's wireless spectrum. The possible deal involves multi-layered questions of anti-competitive behavior, collusion, and corporate responsibility. 

Along with many other interested parties, such as the Communications Workers of America, Free Press, Public Knowledge, and  the five towns are publicly opposing the deal. They have expressed their derision to the FCC but whether or not they will influence the result remains to be seen.

From a FierceTelecom article by Sean Buckley:

Curt Anderson, chair of the Baltimore City Delegation to the Maryland House of Delegates, expressed...outrage on the agreement the telco made.

"Under this transaction, Baltimore will never get a fiber-optic network, and the city will be at a disadvantage," he said. "The direct job loss will be the hundreds of technicians that would be employed building, installing and maintaining FiOS in the area. The indirect costs of this deal are even higher: the lack of competition in telecommunications will raise prices and reduce service quality.

And:

The deal, said Albany Common Council President Carolyn McLaughlin, "is not in the best interest of those who need to get and stay connected the most and is "a step backwards in bridging the digital divide."

Though these five cities would indeed be better off with FiOS than under the status quo, they would be much better off if they considered building a fiber-optic network owned by the community. Think of it like FiOS, with faster speeds, lower prices, better customer service, and an actual responsibility to put local needs first.

Regardless, the federal government needs to take action against anti-competitive collusion that drives prices up and investment down.

Video: 
See video

Leverett Approves Broadband Initiative in Small New England Town

Not long ago, we told you about Leverett, Massachusetts, the small town of 1,851, that has been discussing the possibility of building a community network. Residents and businesses currently use a combination of satellite, dial-up, DSL, and wireless, and about 6% of the population has no Internet access at all. People are tired of lost opportunities in a town strategically situated near several colleges. The town just approved the proposal to invest in a municipal network.

Last Saturday, April 28th, the measure to build the network was approved at Leverett's Annual Town Meeting. The needed two-thirds vote came easily, with 306-33 in favor, at the packed meeting at the Leverett Elementary School auditorium. Enthusiasm and expectations are high. From a Fran Ryan article in the Gazettenet.com:

For many, the lack of adequate Internet access has created problems with work, school and even the ability to sell their homes.

"Right now we have hopeless telephone service, useless cellphone service, and no internet service," said resident Raymond Bradley. "This will completely change our lives,"

The current plan is to borrow $3.6 million to create a fiber-optic network that will connect every home and provide triple play services across town. As you may recall from our earlier article, Internet access is only part of the problem - Leverett has had longstanding difficulties with telephone service due to decaying infrastructure. The situation is so bad, the State Department of Communications ordered Verizon to make repairs in over 100 towns in western Massachusetts. With this vote, however, Leverett has decided to take control of its own fate.

Leverett received a $40,000.00 planning grant from the Massachussetts Broadband Institute and benefited from the expertise and efforts of the Wired West group. Leverett's last mile project will connect with MBI's middle mile project.

According to the Leverett Broadband Committee, the investment will pay off rather quickly. This from an April 18th Ben Storrow GazetteNet.com article:

Savings on monthly phone and Internet bills would exceed the increase in taxes needed to build a high-speed network, according to the committee's projections released this week. A homeowner with the median property value of $278,000, would annually pay $300 more in taxes under the plan.

But residents who receive Internet and phone service via satellite would pay $888 less annually by switching from private to town telecommunication service, according to the committee. A Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) customer would save $426 annually on their service, and those who receive wireless Internet service via a signal transmitted by a telecommunication tower would save $768, according to the committee's figures.

No doubt, cost and cost savings were an important factor in the town's decision. The next step will be taking it to the people for their decisions on funding, addressed in the article:

Peter d'Errico, a member of the Select Board, said, "The next big piece for this will be the debt exclusion override which is on June 2. For that we will need a majority vote" to exclude the cost of a broadband network from the restrictions of Proposition 2½. "We will be holding one or two more informational sessions to continue talking with the community about the issue," he added.

The vote to borrow the money to build the system was overwhelmingly popular but the town now has to vote to increase property taxes by more than the 2.5% maximum allowed by law per year to make sure it can pay the debt incurred by the system under their preferred approach.