[Vision2020] Verizon: We're Not Setting Broadband Definition Bar Low

[Kenneth Marcy]

The following article is from the on-line site DSLReports.com, which is 
interested in the state of Internet communications from various Internet 
Service Providers. In this case, the interest centers on Verizon. After the 
article, in the questions area, there is a discussion of high speed Internet 
in rural areas, which is what prompted me to post this in the first place.

This article is one of a focus series, so getting back to a nearby beginning 
will require some drill-down on the links, and further reading.


Ken


http://tinyurl.com/kmtnx9 

Verizon: We're Not Setting Broadband Definition Bar Low
We're just, well, setting the broadband definition bar low
01:31PM Friday Sep 04 2009 by Karl Bode

As noted earlier this week, http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/104272 a number 
of carriers have responded to the FCC's request for a concrete definition of 
broadband with the suggestion that the FCC stick to their current definition 
of broadband as 768 kbps downstream and 200 kbps upstream. Consumer advocates 
want the definition set higher, given this is about setting a goal for 
ourselves as a nation as we craft our first national broadband plan. Verizon, 
in a post over at their regulatory affairs (read: lobbying) blog, 
http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/661/title.aspx 
apparently took some offense to our suggestion they're setting the bar low:

"The implication here is that we want to keep the speed set low so we won't 
have to upgrade our networks. From where we stand, this is clearly absurd. 
Verizon is deploying the country's most advanced wireline and wireless 
broadband services. Our FiOS Internet service is delivering speeds up to 50 
Mbps down and 20 Mbps up over fiber to the home today and will be able to 
provide 100 Mbps, 200 Mbps, and beyond as customer demand continues to grow."

Of course this ignores the fact that Verizon has a long history of leaving 
rural states horribly under-served, and is selling off huge chunks of their 
network they don't want to upgrade. While these deals net Verizon huge debt 
and tax relief, the sales have had a disastrous impact on consumers. After 
claiming they're not setting a low bar for broadband, the company goes on to 
admit they're, well, setting a low bar for broadband, because they're 
constrained by the laws of physics:

"After all, we live in a mostly rural nation with a population density very 
different than most of the developed world.. If we set a baseline definition 
too high as we aim to wire the unwired in remote areas, we may have made that 
goal much harder to achieve due -- not to will or policy -- but the laws of 
physics."

In reality, refusing to provide DSL, LTE or FiOS to rural America isn't so 
much about physics as it is about lower profits, which is the whole reason 
Uncle Sam is doling out broadband stimulus funds Verizon didn't bother to 
apply for. Why? Because the money has to be spent on unserved, rural markets 
Verizon wants nothing to do with, and Verizon has grown used to getting their 
taxpayer dollars with zero accountability. Verizon seems to want to have 
their cake and eat it too here, highlighting that their filing (pdf) actually 
sets "aspirational" goals of 50 Mbps for landline broadband and 5 Mbps for 
wireless broadband. What their filing actually says is considerably more 
wimpy:

"For example, setting a broad objective of moving toward a downstream target 
of 50 Mbps for fixed services and 5 Mbps for mobile services would be an 
aggressive longer term goal, recognizing that as the marketplace continues to 
develop there will continue to be variability in the levels of service 
available in particular areas for the foreseeable future based on a range of 
technological, geographic, economic and other factors."

In other words, Verizon doesn't mind a floating, vague goal of 50Mbps -- 
provided nobody really holds their feet to the fire, and it's understood that 
they can wimp out of these demands at any time, because deploying broadband 
is just too damn hard. But for any decision that actually matters, Verizon 
thinks 768kbps is just fine. The lower the base standard, the less work 
Verizon has to do in upgrading networks in the still significant number of 
markets where they don't think FiOS is profitable.

Verizon continues by arguing that setting the base bar any higher will usher 
forth some kind of confusion apocalypse, given the broadband stimulus funds 
(which again, they didn't apply for) define broadband as 768 kbps/ 200 kbps. 
Of course this discussion is about our national goals, not the stimulus 
funds, and it seems fairly obvious to everybody but the carriers that this 
baseline goal (immediate or long term) should be higher than 200 kbps 
upstream.

How about symmetrical 2Mbps? Symmetrical 1Mbps? 1 Mbps / 768 kbps and a ham 
sandwich? I'm no physicist, but I'm fairly certain the wealthiest nation on 
the planet can set its broadband infrastructure baseline at something a 
little higher.