U-Verse won't bail AT&T out of its residential wireline woes

Here's a notable report by Todd Spangler of Multichannel News on AT&T's revenues from its hybrid fiber/copper VDSL triple play U-Verse service that suggests while posting increases in customers and revenue, they may be too little and too late to offset a dramatic decline in AT&T's residential wireline market segment. In a Dec. 21, 2009 filing with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, AT&T in unusually blunt language called the downward trend a "death spiral."

Spangler reports that while AT&T's U-verse revenue nearly tripled over 2009 (despite a sharp economic downturn) and is approaching an annualized rate of $3 billion, it nevertheless represents less than five percent of total wireline segment revenue. Spangler notes even that strong growth isn't sufficient to offset flagging wireline segment revenues, which fell six percent in 2009 to $65.7 billion.

Meanwhile, AT&T disclosed this week it would spend $2 billion on its wireless infrastructure -- money that won't be going into wireline CAPEX to build out the U-Verse footprint. Doing that is a costly proposition given U-Verse involves expensive field distribution equipment that can deliver service only 3,000 feet over existing copper cable plant -- plant that often requires even more money to bring it up to technical standards to reliably carry VDSL signals. That's not an issue in new neighborhoods, where U-Verse is delivered over fiber to the premises. But few such locales are being developed with new home construction at its lowest level in decades.

In sum, U-Verse isn't likely going to bail AT&T out of its troubles in residential wireline and may ultimately lead to the big telco pulling out of the market segment to concentrate on wireless in the retail market as I predicted in September 2008.

App-Rising: As U.S. copper telecom infrastructure ages, no national consensus on next step

Check out this dreary assessment of the state of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure from App-Rising:

In particular, look at Kentucky. They showed a 40% decrease in measured connection speeds just in the last quarter. Numbers like this have me worried that perhaps the century-old copper telephone wire is rapidly deteriorating and impacting DSL performance, or perhaps the cable providers' shared networks are overwhelmed with demand, or maybe wireless broadband is constrained by insufficient backhaul.

What makes Kentucky even more troubling is that they're supposed to be a leader in encouraging the deployment and adoption of broadband. What does that say about the health of the country if a state that's been seen as a leader is falling off this badly.

It makes me start to wonder if we might have a national emergency on our hands in states like Kentucky and others where broadband speeds are dropping. It leads me to think that perhaps we need a national commission to study these issues in depth and get to the bottom of what's happening as no state should be slowing down ten years into the 21st century.

California PUC approves $7.9 million supplemental broadband stimulus funding for 9,000 square mile Central Valley wireless project

The California Public Utilities Commission today conditionally approved a resolution providing $7.9 million in supplemental funding for a major wireless broadband project requesting federal funding via broadband infrastructure subsidies allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The supplemental funding allocated from California PUCs' California Advanced Services Fund covers half of a 20 percent recipient match required under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program and is contingent on federal funding approval.

The California Valley Broadband (CVB) project, proposed by a the consortium of Moreno Trenching Ltd, Mika Telecom Group and MT2 Telecom, LP, plans to build wireless infrastructure that will serve about 77,195 households in Fresno, Madera, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Stanislaus counties. The consortium claims it will deliver Internet connectivity and VoIP over nearly 9,000 square miles at speeds of up to 20 Mbs on the download side and up to 6 Mbs uploads using two unregulated (WiFi) frequencies and one licensed (WiMAX) frequency "to accommodate range, terrain, tree and other interference issues."

The CVB project faced multiple challenges from incumbent telco and cable companies who claimed they already serve census block groups in the proposed CVB footprint. But PUC staff rejected the bulk of the challenged census block groups finding the incumbents didn't offer broadband as the California PUC defines it: at least 3 Mbs for downloads and 1 Mbs on the upload side.

It remains to be seen however how the NTIA will respond to protests the incumbents lodged against CVB's proposed project that is pending approval for the 80 percent BTOP subsidy.

In allowing incumbents to contest proposed broadband infrastructure projects in the first round of stimulus funding that closed last summer, both the NTIA and the Rural Utilities Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- which is also distributing a portion of the broadband stimulus funds -- set the stage for an adversarial process that by implication would require the agencies to adjudicate contested applications. However, it's likely they are less able than the California PUC to carry out that function since the PUC can reference the state's broadband availability maps and has dedicated staff evaluating comparatively far fewer proposed projects.

Since putting in place a process to resolve applications contested by the incumbents and make findings of fact regarding whether the area of a proposed infrastructure project is underserved or unserved requires substantial time and resources, my guess is the two federal agencies simply put contested applications into a "hold" file while trying to figure out how to square the applications with incumbent telco/cable objections. That would explain why so many now impatient applicants haven't heard anything whatsoever after rushing to get their applications in by the first round funding deadline in mid-August of 2009 after having been initially led to believe they'd know by the year end holidays at the latest whether their projects were approved for funding.

This sets the stage for political blow back from federal and state representatives in areas where broadband stimulus projects in their districts are stuck in limbo after hearing from frustrated constituents asking them to expedite approval of their applications. The incumbents couldn't stop the broadband stimulus provisions from becoming law in the rush to enact ARRA one year ago. So they may instead opted to fend off threats to their territorial hegemony (remember, an incumbent telco/cable "service territory" doesn't mean everyone is served) in a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy to vector and shoot down stimulus applications one by one.

Yet another flawed analysis of forthcoming U.S. broadband plan

Here's another in an ongoing series of flawed analyses in the mainstream media lately on the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's statutorily mandated task to develop a plan to ensure build out of advanced telecommunications infrastructure accessible to all Americans.

The problem with them is they incorrectly conflate lack of competition with market failure to suggest why this infrastructure isn't fully built out. It's the latter and not the former that's the cause. There isn't robust competition in a failed market because the business economics and externalities keep vendors out, leading to the formation of broadband black holes. The lack of competition is the symptom, not the underlying disease. Why is it that no one seems to get this simple, basic reality in the current coverage of the FCC's forthcoming broadband plan?

Second and final broadband stimulus funding rules issued

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today issued guidelines for the second and last funding round to disburse $7.2 billion allocated for broadband infrastructure and adoption in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.

Here's a news release on the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) as well as links to the NOFAs for the NTIA's Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and the USDA/RUS Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP).

Given the delays in awarding funds from the first broadband stimulus round that closed last August, I expected this NOFA might not appear until mid-March at the earliest. Particularly given the NTIA and USDA solicited comments late last year on the funding requirements that elicited plenty of complaints and suggestions to digest.

I suspect the delays in making first round broadband infrastructure awards -- in large part likely due to numerous incumbent challenges -- prompted the NTIA and USDA accelerate the timetable in order to meet the ARRA requirement the broadband stimulus funds be fully disbursed by Sept. 30 of this year.

Unlike the first round, the latest NOFA calls for separate applications to each agency, with the NTIA concentrating on middle mile telecommunications infrastructure. I suspect by putting last mile far down on the list of funding priorities, the NTIA is hoping to cut down on the number of incumbent challenges tying up infrastructure awards in non-rural areas.

The RUS/BIP NOFA covers both middle mile and last mile infrastructure with an emphasis on the latter in unserved rural areas. Any area in which at least 50 percent of premises lack access to broadband of 5 Mbps combined for upstream and downstream throughput and is at least 75 percent rural combined is eligible under the BIP guidelines.

If a proposed BIP project area includes premises with no access to wireline -- or fixed or mobile wireless service -- offering throughput at the now obsolete Federal Communications Commission definition of broadband of at least 768 Kbs down 200 Kbs up, it is deemed "unserved" under BIP.

Unfortunately, the BIP squanders precious funds with a new separate category to underwrite discounted satellite Internet service, which in the view of this blogger is contrary to the ARRA's intent to fund advanced telecommunications infrastructure and not stopgap, substandard substitutes such as satellite.

Unlike in the first funding round, applicants no longer need define their projects based on contiguous census blocks. BTOP applicants must now use census block groups or tracts. BIP applicants can define their proposed service area boundaries as they wish using an mapping tool included in the online funding application.

Like the first round, the window for applications opens on short notice and remains open only briefly: from Feb. 16 to March 15. That means applicants will once again have to scramble which could like the first round in 2009 produce hastily developed and inferior quality applications.

Broadband expansion positively correlates with local economic growth, study finds

The Public Policy Institute of California has issued a new study finding a positive relationship between broadband expansion and economic growth, particularly among information-based industries and in areas with lower population densities.

The study is based on a comparison of Federal Communications Commission data on the number of broadband providers by ZIP code and employment data for the period 1999 to 2006.

Study author Jed Kolko however qualifies the findings given the shortcomings of the FCC data that overstate broadband availability and define broadband at throughput speeds most observers today consider outdated.

Kolko also cautions that the availability of broadband is a relatively recent phenom making it difficult to reach firm conclusions on its impact on economic activity. (Not to mention that data from the years 2007-09 were not included in the study)

In addition, the PPIC report notes increased deployment of fiber to the home infrastructure could lead to different findings. If combined with low cost videoconferencing equipment, fiber could also boost telecommuting -- for which Kolko found no demonstrable increase with the most widely available premises technologies during the study period, i.e. DSL and cable.

FCC chief: Formulating U.S. broadband deployment policy "really hard"

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski offered some perspective this week on why the FCC has asked Congress for another month to complete its policy recommendations on expanding advanced telecommunications infrastructure to all Americans.

"I can't tell you that we've figured out the solution completely and I can't tell you that we'll figure out the solution to this perfectly by the time we do the National Broadband Plan," he told GigaOM, according to this Reuters dispatch. "This is really hard."

Indeed it is, because this isn't about simply tweaking the existing, incomplete infrastructure -- or "ecosystem" as some federal officials have termed it -- that leaves lots of Americans reliant on the outdated copper-based infrastructure put in place decades ago to deliver plain old telephone service (POTS).

As AT&T noted in a recent FCC filing, that system is on the verge of obsolescence. The United States now needs a new infrastructure for a new Internet-protocol based range of telecom services that go far beyond standard voice service. Genachowski has described it as "the critical infrastructure challenge of our generation."

Getting there won't be a natural extension of the old infrastructure but instead a radical overhaul calling for new business models, particularly among the last and middle mile segments. It's as much of a business model challenge as an infrastructure challenge. That scope forces the FCC to engage in original, outside the box thinking -- which as Genachowski aptly noted is hard -- but necessary -- work.

NTIA director downplays enhanced infrastructure competition, wireless as U.S. universal broadband access strategy

Here are National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Director Lawrence E. Strickling's comments to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on the FCC's incubating policy recommendation due to Congress next month on how to best achieve broadband access for all Americans.

The notable points of Strickling's letter: neither competitive market forces nor emerging wireless technologies will necessarily get us there. While not stating so directly, Strickling implicitly acknowledges that wireline telecommunications infrastructure like electric power and water distribution is a natural monopoly due to the high cost of building it. Hence, more competition isn't going to be the answer, Strickling suggests, noting however there should be more competition among broadband Internet access services sold over that infrastructure. That means open access networks, although Strickling didn't use that term explicitly in his letter to the FCC.

As for wireless, Strickling writes, it remains unclear that it could provide a viable "third pipe" to deliver advanced telecommunications (IP-based) services to residences and small businesses. Strickling's doubts are well founded. Tim Nulty, who believes fiber to the premises can pencil out even in rural areas, explains why with an aeronautical metaphor. While wireless may offer mobility, he says, a fiber-optic network connected directly to homes boasts nearly unlimited capacity. "Think about 747s and helicopters,” Nulty told The Progressive magazine. “Helicopters are marvelous when they’re used for what they’re good at. But you don’t use them to fly thousands of people between Boston and Chicago. For that you need 747s.”

Nulty made that observation in August 2008 and it's even more relevant today as bandwidth demand has mushroomed with the proliferation of IP-based video content. It would be a mistake for policymakers to punt on wireline, betting on the come that commercial wireless providers will fill in broadband black holes given the many technological, backhaul, terrain and business model challenges they face. In some areas, they have. But it's only a temporary bridge on the road toward fiber to the premises.

USF reform alone won't achieve universal U.S. broadband

Just as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission set a date for the end of analog broadcast television earlier this year as TV signals went digital, it should also establish a sunset date for the legacy Publicly Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), AT&T asserted in a December 21 filing with the FCC.

The business model for the PSTN -- a proprietary network comprised of central office switches, amplifiers and copper cable plant designed to deliver what's known as plain old telephone service -- POTS -- is in a death spiral as the number of people shutting off their landline voice service in favor of wireless and Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) services has accelerated in recent years, AT&T notes. In the meantime, the telco stated, the FCC should modernize its regulations to ensure an orderly transition from the PSTN to an Internet Protocol (IP) based system, taking full regulatory control and ending state oversight authority originally established for regulating POTS.

However, legacy PSTN/POTS isn't alone in suffering from serious business model problems. So does the IP-based model that is the future of telecommunications. The reason: what AT&T describes as the "enormous" amount of capital necessary to complete the build out of required infrastructure to ensure all Americans have access to IP-based services just as basic telephone service is nearly universal. In its filing, AT&T concedes eight to ten percent of American households lack access to broadband, although another estimate released in October placed the figure higher at 12 percent, including even spotty access in major metropolitan areas.

In order to allow telcos to direct more capital investment to building out broadband infrastructure, AT&T proposes the FCC scrap rules requiring telcos to provide POTS so they can redirect funds to upgraded infrastructure capable of delivering IP-based services. "The legacy PSTN network – which is rapidly hemorrhaging customers and revenue – is now diverting much needed funds from investments in broadband networks," AT&T states in its filing.

AT&T also wants the Universal Service Fund (USF) -- created to subsidize the cost of providing POTS in high cost areas -- retasked to do the same for IP-based services. Doing so would help achieve the Obama administration's goal of broadband access for all Americans, according to AT&T.

But there's a difference between USF subsidies for voice telephone service and IP-based services. Deployment and adoption of basic phone service played out over decades. By contrast, there's a huge reservoir of pent up demand for broadband AT&T and other big telcos assured would be offered to all U.S. households when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted providing telcos tax breaks and other incentives intended to pave the way for them to universally deploy fiber-delivered telecommunications services by 2006. Didn't happen, obviously.

The FCC and other policymakers should keep this history and differences in demand between POTS and IP-based services in mind. Reforming the USF isn't likely to be the sole solution to remedy market failure for IP-based services. They must also encourage alternative business models such as open access fiber networks owned by local governments and telecom cooperatives through subsidies, low cost loans and tax incentives.

FCC draft broadband plan: Incorrect diagnosis, wrong prescription

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission today unveiled the underlying policy principles that will frame the plan it must present to Congress in February to expand advanced telecommunications infrastructure to ensure all Americans have broadband access. The FCC was charged with developing the plan under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed into law by President Barack Obama in February.

A basic principle is encouraging competition to "build on the attributes of the American broadband ecosystem." That's something of a head scratcher as Tim Nulty and other experts have accurately pointed out that telecommunications infrastructure is a natural and not market-created monopoly. It's a lack of adequate infrastructure -- and not vendors who want to offer services over it -- that has brought about the large gaps in broadband availability in the United States.

Given that, it's not apparent how encouraging competition will even begin to fulfill the Obama administration's goal of universal broadband access. The problem isn't lack of competitors. It's lack of any providers because their for profit business models simply don't allow them to profitably deploy infrastructure within broadband black holes. No amount of enhanced competition can alter that business reality.

If the FCC accepts that reality, then its final recommendation to Congress in February must by implication call for alternative ownership and business models for last mile -- and some middle mile -- telecom infrastructure.

Report recognizes lack of broadband access in "non urban" areas of U.S.

When it comes to discussing advanced telecommunications infrastructure, one of my major peeves is the frequent over generalization of the United States into just two categories -- urban and rural -- as if it were still the early 20th century when electric power or other utilities bypassed entire rural counties and regions before they were built out.

In the case of advanced telecom infrastructure, it's far more granular than that. It can be available on one street or road -- even in the burbs -- but not on the next. Indeed, many visitors find this blog after a search query on the vexing question of why they're stuck on dialup while a nearby neighbor can get wireline broadband.

So it's heartening to see that this recently issued forecast by The Insight Research Corporation despite its "urban vs. rural" dichotomy gives some degree of recognition that of an estimated 12 million households in the U.S. that lack access to broadband, not all are confined to rural areas. Some are situated in "non urban" areas, i.e. outlying suburbs, exurbs and less densely populated portions of metropolitan regions.

Here's the relevant excerpt:

While the exact number of households that do not have access to broadband service is unknown, even to the government, INSIGHT estimates that at least 12 million rural and non-urban market households do not have access to any broadband service due to the lack of supporting terrestrial infrastructure.

Insight estimates that with a minimum cost of $1,500 per household, it would cost in excess of $18 billion to build out advanced telecom infrastructure to serve them.

Reducing demand for California state office space through telework

As deficit plagued California continues to grapple with red ink and sells off state owned office buildings to help bring in much needed cash, California Assembly consultant and Auburn, Calif. councilmember Kevin Hanley believes California can reduce the cost of office space to house state workers Monday through Friday.

Here's how, according to Hanley: state managers should shrink the cubicle jungle by allowing state workers to work remotely from home part of the work week. In his Sacramento Bee op-ed piece, Hanley notes the information technology is there. The problem is outdated supervisory technique that relies too much eyeballing workers rather than measuring job performance based on their work product.

I would add that for some California state workers -- particularly those living in outlying areas and who generate the most carbon emissions to get to work -- telecommunications infrastructure also needs updating from early 1990s era dial up to provide robust Internet connectivity options.

California PUC conditionally funds start up cooperative's middle mile project

The California Public Utilities Commission has demonstrated its support of start up telecom cooperatives -- entities this blogger believes play a crucial role in the rapid expansion of advanced telecommunications infrastructure in areas that are not sufficiently profitable for incumbent providers.

In a resolution adopted earlier this week, the CPUC agreed to fund 19 percent of the California Broadband Cooperative's planned open access wholesale middle fiber project along 448 miles of Highway 395 in the Golden State's Eastern Sierra area including the counties of Mono, Inyo, Eastern Kern and San Bernardino. Coop membership is open to local governments, institutions and Internet Service Providers.

The 19 percent funding level is beyond the 10 percent level the CPUC established in July in an effort to utilize its $100 million California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to leverage $7.2 billion in federal subsidies for broadband telecommunications infrastructure allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The CASF funding is contingent on the project being approved for ARRA funding.

In the initial round of ARRA broadband funding that closed in August, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) generally required project grant applicants to put up a 20 percent funding match. In an effort to get more California projects funded, CASF kicked in half the match amount, bringing total project funding up to 90 percent. That left it to applicants to come up with the remaining a 10 percent match.

However, the California Broadband Cooperative noted as a start up nonprofit with no financial history it would find it all but impossible to come up with the 10 percent match for its proposed $101.4 million project under grant and loan subsidies for broadband infrastructure construction under the BTOP and the USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) program.

Kudos to the California PUC for recognizing that alternative, nonprofit business models like cooperatives are needed in the quest to close the digital divide in California and that these entities face unique and substantial start up funding challenges. As the NTIA and USDA draw up new rules governing an upcoming and final round of funding for broadband infrastructure projects early next year, the agencies should keep the California PUC's action in mind.

Obama proposes additional funds for broadband infrastructure

President Barack Obama said in a speech today at the Brookings Institution that more federal subsidies are forthcoming for broadband infrastructure as part of a renewed effort to create badly needed jobs. Whatever the amount, it will supplement the $7.2 billion already allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Obama signed into law in February.

Here's the relevant excerpt from a transcript of the president's remarks posted on the White House Web site:

Second, we're proposing a boost in investment in the nation's infrastructure beyond what was included in the Recovery Act, to continue modernizing our transportation and communications networks. These are needed public works that engage private sector companies, spurring hiring all across the country.

Already, more than 10,000 of these projects have been funded through the Recovery Act. And by design, Recovery Act work on roads, bridges, water systems, Superfund sites, broadband networks, and clean energy projects will all be ramping up in the months ahead.

Whatever the additional amount agreed to by the president and Congress, there's still a long way to go given the consensus view that the $7.2 billion in the economic stimulus package represents a mere down payment on what the U.S. needs to invest to modernize its outmoded and incomplete telecommunications infrastructure as Blair Levin, the Federal Communications Commission's broadband czar, generally described the amount as the Obama administration prepared to take office one year ago.

Kiplinger predicts U.S. tax to bolster telecom infrastructure

The Kiplinger Letter is predicting the U.S. Federal Communications Commission will propose a tax next year to subsidize private telcos and cable companies' cost to build out broadband to serve all Americans. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 tasked the FCC with providing Congress a plan for universal broadband access by Feb. 17, 2010. Kiplinger Senior Associate Editor Richard Sammon forecasts the tax will be part of the plan.

But at the same time, Sammon says enacting such a tax will prove politically difficult. The take away is the FCC should be considering alternative entities that can roll out advanced telecommunications infrastructure for less money than the big telcos and cable companies that must produce hefty profits and pay fat dividends to satisfy shareholders.

That means turning to the nonprofit sector and specifically local governments and consumer-owned telecom cooperatives. There, taxpayer dollars can go farther and these smaller, more nimble entities can move more rapidly to deploy broadband infrastructure to fill in the areas where the business models of the large telcos and cable companies don't pencil out. Instead of new taxes, policymakers should enact tax breaks to encourage homeowners and small businesses to buy their own last mile fiber connections through cooperative ventures and public/private partnerships.

The need for alternative business models is underscored in a report prepared for the FCC by the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information and released last month.

A key conclusion: a significant number of homes -- 5 to 10 million representing 4.5 to 9 percent of U.S. households -- will continue to have "significantly inferior choices in broadband" between now and 2015. "Most of these homes will have wireless or wired service broadband available only at speeds substantially lower than the speeds available to the rest of the country," the report notes, adding that some homes "will have no choice except satellite broadband, which has some performance attributes that make it less satisfactory for many applications than a terrestrial broadband service."

FCC puts broadband in proper perspective

The term broadband -- generally used to refer to Internet connectivity beyond first generation dial up access -- is a component of the larger transformation of the telecommunications infrastructure. The legacy Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) system that relies on copper cables and central office switches owned by the phone companies is of the pre Internet period. In the post Internet age, the Internet itself is becoming the phone system. Routers take the place of telephone switches and fiber optics supersede copper cable.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) put broadband into its proper perspective in a public notice issued Dec. 1 calling for public comment on this conversion of telecommunications infrastructure from a "circuit switched network to an all-IP (Internet Protocol) network."

The notice describes broadband as "a leading indicator of the major transitions in communications technology and services" and "a growing platform over which the consumer accesses a multitude of services, including voice, data, and video in an integrated way across applications and providers."

The FCC notice shows the agency -- charged under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with developing recommendations for Congress by next February on how to best achieve universal broadband access -- is thinking beyond broadband and of the larger regulatory scheme in "the spirit of understanding the scope and breadth of the policy issues associated with this transition" and the "appropriate policy framework to facilitate and respond to" this shift.

Incumbents v. Illinois over proposed broadband stimulus projects

The telco/cable duopoly has gone to battle stations in Illinois, where according to this report in Crain's Chicago Business it's opposing five dozen applications for federal subsidies for broadband telecommunications infrastructure build out including projects proposed by the state of Illinois, Chicago and Cook County. The subsidies are contained in $7.2 billion allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed into law in February.

According to the story, the incumbents contend the projects would overbuild their proprietary cable plants that already provide adequate broadband access. But the Illinois Department of Central Management Services counters that the proposed project areas must rely on leased circuits costing hundreds of dollars per month (such as 1970s era T-1 lines) that are "too costly to achieve statewide 21st-century information and communication capabilities."

Playing the T-1 card? If the state of Illinois has the facts right, this story sheds light on what might be the incumbent telcos' strategy for challenging proposed broadband stimulus projects: simply contending broadband is available most everywhere in developed areas of the United States since anyone can order up a T-1 or higher bandwidth leased line. That's hardly the case when price is taken into account. If this is the linchpin of the incumbent telcos' strategy to shoot down proposed broadband stimulus projects, it's not likely to go over well and will earn the incumbents even greater enmity.