Comcast Monday announced it was exempting its new Xbox streaming video service from the company’s long standing 250GB monthly usage cap, claiming since the network doesn’t exist on the public Internet, there is no reason to cap its usage.

Net Neutrality advocates immediately denounced the cable operator for violating Net Neutrality, giving favorable treatment to its own video service while leaving Netflix, Amazon, and others under its usage cap regime.

Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn:

“The Xbox 360 provides a number of video services to compete for customer dollars, yet only one service is not counted against the data cap—the one provided by Comcast.” Sohn said. “This is nothing less than a wake-up call to the Commission to show it is serious about protecting the Open Internet.”

Stop the Cap! believes Comcast also inadvertently undercut its prime argument for the company’s 250GB usage cap — that it assures “heavy users” don’t negatively impact the online experience of other customers:

We work hard to manage our network resources effectively and fairly to ensure a high-quality online experience for all of our customers. But XFINITY Internet service runs on a shared network, so every user’s experience is potentially affected by his or her neighbors’ Internet usage.

Our number one priority is to ensure that every customer has a superior Internet service experience. Consistent with that goal, the threshold is intended to protect the online experience of the vast majority of our customers whose Internet speeds could be degraded because one or more of their neighbors engages in consistent high-volume Internet downloads and uploads.

The threshold also addresses potential problems that can be caused by the exceedingly small percentage of subscribers who may engage in very high-volume data consumption (over 250 GB in a calendar month). By applying a very high threshold on monthly consumption, we can help preserve a good online experience for everyone.

Comcast argues around the exemption of the Xbox service by reclassifying it as somehow separate from the public Internet.  The company then tries to claim the Xbox app functions more like an extra set top box, not as a data service.  But, in fact, it -is- a data service delivered over the same cable lines as Comcast’s broadband service, subject to the same “last-mile congestion problem” Comcast dubiously uses as the primary justification for placing limits on customers.

Cable providers who limit broadband use routinely use the “shared network experience” excuse as a justification for usage control measures.  Since cable broadband delivers a fixed amount of bandwidth into individual neighborhoods which everyone shares, a single user or small group of users can theoretically create congestion-related slowdowns during peak usage times.  Cable operators have successfully addressed this problem with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which supports a considerably larger pipeline unlikely to be congested by a few “heavy users.”

Comcast’s argument the Xbox service doesn’t deserve to be capped because it is delivered over Comcast’s own internal network misses the point.  That content reaches customers over the same infrastructure Comcast uses to reach every customer.  If too many customers access the service at the same time, it is subject to precisely the same congestion-related slowdowns as their broadband service.  Data is data — only the cable company decides whether to treat it equally with its other services or give it special, privileged attention.

Even if Comcast argues the Xbox streaming service exists on its own segregated, exclusive “data channel,” that represents part of a broader data pipeline that could have been dedicated to general Internet use.  The fact that special pipeline is available exclusively for Comcast’s chosen favorites, while keeping usage limits on immediate competitors, is discriminatory.

Comcast customers who have lived under an inflexible 250GB usage limit since 2008 should be wondering why the company can suddenly open unlimited access to some services while refusing to adjust its own usage limits on general broadband service.

Stop the Cap! believes Comcast has forfeit its own justification for usage caps and network management techniques that can slow customer Internet speeds.  We have no problem with the company offering unlimited access to the Xbox streaming service. But the company must treat general Internet access with equal generosity, removing the unjustified and arbitrary usage cap it imposed on customers in 2008.  After all, if the company can find vast, unlimited resources for a service it launched only this year, it should be able to find equal resources for a service it has sold customers (at a remarkable profit) for more than a decade.

Anything less makes us believe Comcast’s usage caps are more about giving some services an unfair advantage — violating the very Net Neutrality guidelines Comcast claimed it would voluntarily honor.

Stop the Cap! strongly believes usage caps are increasingly less about good network management and more about controlling and monetizing the online experience, seeking marketplace advantages and new revenue streams from consumers who already pay some of the world’s highest prices for broadband service.  As we’ve argued since 2008, Internet Overcharging through usage caps and usage based billing is also an end run around Net Neutrality.  The evidence is now apparent for all to see.

[Thanks to our readers Scott and Yannio for sharing developments.]

Phillip "The Mayans Never Met AT&T" Dampier

AT&T has used the specter of a nationwide wireless bandwidth crisis to pressure Washington to adopt its agenda for additional mobile spectrum.  But talk of a looming “data tsunami” has done nothing to stop AT&T from heavily marketing their most data-hungry devices — smartphones and tablets to customers.

In fact, the “broadband shortage business” has become enormously profitable for the former Ma Bell.

Switch to a Smartphone

Wireless carriers like AT&T aggressively market smartphones because they drive the highest average monthly revenue earned from customers.  So far, the marketing push has been an unparalleled success.  PricewaterhouseCoopers reported smartphones accounted for 48% of all wireless phone sales in 2011, up from 30% in 2010.  More than half of customers upgrading their old phones chose smartphones to replace them — an enormous increase over just 36% of upgrades in 2010.  Because smartphones are designed for an online experience, most companies mandate customers subscribe to a data plan, often adding $30 or more per phone, per month to a wireless phone bill.

AT&T’s 4th quarter results told the story, and it was all smiles.  AT&T celebrated customer enthusiasm for smartphones and the data they consume with no worries about “data tsunamis” or “bandwidth crises”:

• In 2011, AT&T’s growth engines — wireless, wireline data and managed services — represented 76 percent of total revenues and grew 7.5 percent versus 2010, led in the fourth quarter by:
  • 10.0 percent growth in wireless revenues
  • 19.4 percent growth in wireless data revenues, up $956 million versus the year-earlier quarter
• 9.4 million smartphone sales, best-ever quarter and 50 percent more than previous quarterly record and nearly double 3Q11 sales; 82 percent of postpaid sales were smartphones
• Best-ever quarter for Android and Apple smartphones, including 7.6 million iPhone activations

Double-Digit Growth for Wireless Revenues. Total wireless revenues, which include equipment sales, were up 10.0 percent year over year to $16.7 billion. Wireless service revenues increased 4.0 percent, to $14.3 billion, in the fourth quarter.

Wireless Data Revenues Increase 19.4 Percent. Wireless data revenues — driven by Internet access, access to applications, messaging and related services — increased by $956 million, or 19.4 percent, from the year-earlier quarter to $5.9 billion. AT&T’s postpaid wireless subscribers on monthly data plans increased by 16.4 percent over the past year. The number of subscribers on tiered data plans also continues to increase. About 22 million, or 56 percent, of all smartphone subscribers are on tiered data plans, and about 70 percent have chosen the higher-tier plans.

Wireless Margins Reflect Record Sales. Fourth-quarter wireless margins reflect record-setting smartphone sales and customer upgrade levels. This was offset in part by improved operating efficiencies and further revenue gains from the company’s growing base of high-quality smartphone subscribers.

Forcing Customers to Upgrade… Or Else

AT&T's 2G Exit Strategy Started in 2009 (Courtesy: Blackberry News)

Back in 2009, AT&T decided it was inventory clearance time, released a memo entitled “2G Exit Strategy,” and slashed prices on 2G “feature” or “messaging phones” to attract customers looking for a bargain.  A few years later, the company is now sending letters to some of them strongly recommending they upgrade to a new, potentially more expensive phone.  If they don’t, AT&T writes, “your current, older-model 2G phone might not be able to make or receive calls and you may experience degradation of your wireless service in certain areas.”

AT&T hopes many customers will adopt smartphones, because the plans that accompany them are far more expensive than the 2G “messaging” plans they replace. AT&T wants to repurpose 1900MHz 2G spectrum for other services, but sometimes customers are left holding the bag if they don’t want the designated replacement phone(s) AT&T is willing to provide.

In Grand Valley, Col. last fall, AT&T created lines outside its stores as customers were compelled to upgrade phones and service plans to continue reliable AT&T service:

AT&T isn’t actually discontinuing the 2G network — it is moving 2G service to less-favorable spectrum it owns in order to make room for improved 3G coverage.  That might work fine in areas less expansive and rugged than western Colorado, but in the Grand Valley, it means many customers will find they no longer have data service at all.

The ongoing tower upgrades have also disrupted cell service generally, and when customers arrive at AT&T’s stores to complain, the employees on hand attempt to upsell them more expensive phones to “fix” the problem.

“There is significant pressure on carriers to migrate to the most efficient networks while needing to address the issue of spectrum scarcity,” explains PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Dan Hays. “We are beginning to see carriers shut off legacy networks and force customers to migrate to new technologies.”

Internet Overcharging for Profit Without Raising Company Costs

AT&T has no worries about data tsunamis and "exafloods" when app makers or consumers are willing to pay more.

With customers seeking to get the most out of expensive wireless data plans, data usage naturally goes up. But so do prices, meaning the “data tsunami” carriers warn about is not bad for their bottom line at all.

In 2011, consumer research group Validas found average data consumption was up 34.7% for all users, from 448.8MB in January to 604.8MB by December.  AT&T responded with a price increase and an allowance boost that will benefit only a tiny minority of customers.  The most popular data plans now cost $5 a month more: $30 for 3 gigabytes, up from $25 for 2GB and $50 for 5GB, up from $45 for 4GB.  But Validas found only 5% of wireless customers use more than 2GB of data per month, with only 2.7% using more than 3GB.

That translates into higher AT&T bills for the 97% of customers who don’t come close to using even 2GB a month.  Although the price hike delivers no tangible benefit to the overwhelming majority of customers, it does deliver an extra $5 a month from their bank account to AT&T’s.

The “Anyone Pays But Us” Model for “Heavy Traffic”

With online video “clogging” the wireless airwaves, companies like AT&T should be interested in offloading as much video to wired or Wi-Fi service. But late last month, the company suggested a way customers could bypass its stringent data caps by allowing content companies to pay for the wireless traffic their customers generate.

“A feature that we’re hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivalent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage,” said John Donovan, who oversees AT&T’s network and technology. “What they’re saying is, why don’t we go create new revenue streams that don’t exist today and find a way to split them … “It’d be like freight included.”

Only wasn’t the railroad already overburdened with traffic, threatened with a nationwide slowdown?  If one is willing to flash enough money, it’s remarkable how quickly the tidal wave of wireless congestion and despair can be pushed back out to sea.  Just don’t tell Washington lawmakers.  This is a crisis of epic proportions after all.

Derek Kerton, principal analyst at Kerton Group, talks about increased demand for data and the impact on wireless carriers. Kerton compares it to today’s gasoline prices. Demand=higher prices.  Wall Street folks like Kerton thinks more spectrum isn’t the total answer.  Smaller cell sites and more Wi-Fi might be.  Otherwise, prepare for bill shock.  (4 minutes)

Netflix continues to step up its attacks on providers who implement Internet Overcharging schemes on their wired broadband customers.

That concern is understandable as Netflix increasingly transitions to broadband streaming instead of mailing DVD’s to customers.

Getting in the way are five of the nation’s seven largest broadband providers, all imposing limits on customers just as they discover they might be able to do without cable television.

Netflix’s streamed HD shows now consume around 2GB per hour, according to Netflix general counsel David Hyman.  That can eat through usage allowances quickly.  Hyman penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year blasting the practices of usage caps and consumption billing.

Hyman

“Wireline bandwidth is an almost unlimited resource due to advances in Internet architecture,” Hyman wrote. “The marginal cost of providing an extra gigabyte of data—enough to deliver one episode of 30 Rock from Netflix—is less than one cent, and falling.”

That doesn’t seem to matter much to Comcast, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, and Cox.  All four providers have introduced hard usage limits on customers — a usage cap.  Exceeding it gives any of those providers the right to cut off your broadband service.  AT&T, always one to see a financial angle, charges for excess use of their DSL and U-verse service — $10 for every 50GB. Time Warner Cable recently announced its own experimental “optional” usage pricing package for very light users who consume fewer than 5GB per month.  It will slap overlimit fees on those participating customers who break through the 5GB ceiling at a rate of $1/GB, an enormous markup.

Providers with strict caps usually argue they come as a result of their own network’s capacity problems.  Cable operators who do not consistently manage their network traffic can experience traffic clogs by overselling service without upgrading capacity to sustain user demand.  But providers like Comcast, Cox, and Charter resolved those capacity problems with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which offer operators an exponentially bigger pipeline for Internet traffic.

Although Comcast promised to regularly review and adjust usage caps since implementing them four years ago, the nation’s largest cable operator has thus far seen no need to raise them.

“We feel that that is an extraordinarily large amount of data,” says Comcast’s Charlie Davis. “That limit is there to make sure we provide a great online experience for every single paying customer.”

Wall Street bankers have closely monitored the industry’s early results from Internet Overcharging, and have been encouraged, so long as operators implement it carefully.

Credit Suisse in a 2011 report to its investor clients suggested the key for successful usage-based pricing is to introduce it slowly and keep “sticker shock to a minimum in the early days” to reduce backlash by consumers and lawmakers.

Once established, the sky is the limit.

Netflix itself is also battling an Internet Overcharging scheme it faces — double-dipping by cable operators like Comcast.  In addition to the fees Comcast collects from customers for its broadband service, the cable operator also wants to be paid directly by Netflix to allow the movie service’s traffic on its network.

That’s an Internet toll booth, charges Netflix and consumer groups.  It’s also uncompetitive, says Hyman.

This month Comcast unveiled its own movie and TV show streaming service — Xfinity Streampix — from which, unsurprisingly, the cable company has not sought extra traffic payments from itself.

Opposed to Internet Overcharging

Three providers which don’t cap customers don’t see a reason to try.

Verizon Communications says its fiber network FiOS has plenty of capacity and has no plans to restrict customers’ enjoyment of the service.  In 2009, Cablevision’s Jim Blackley told one panel discussion usage caps are not in the cards.

“We don’t want customers to think about byte caps so that’s not on our horizon,” Blackley said. “We literally don’t want consumers to think about how they’re consuming high-speed services. It’s a pretty powerful drug and we want people to use more and more of it.”

California’s Sonic.net Inc., goes even further.  Its CEO, Dane Jasper, believes the Federal Communications Commission needs to be more assertive about protecting America’s broadband revolution and the customers that depend on the service.

The fact different operators can take radically different positions on the subject, despite running similar networks, suggests technical necessity is not the reason providers are implementing usage restrictions and extra fees on customers.

As Hyman writes:

Bandwidth caps with fees piled on top are a lousy way to manage traffic. All of the costs of supplying residential broadband are for supporting peak usage. Bandwidth consumed off-peak is completely free. If Internet service providers really wanted to manage traffic efficiently, they would limit speeds at peak times. If their goal is instead to increase revenues or lessen competition, getting consumers to pay per gigabyte is an excellent strategy.

Consumer access to unlimited bandwidth is good for society. It fosters innovation, drives commerce, and advances political and social discourse. Given that bandwidth is cheap and plentiful and will only grow more so with time, there is no good reason for bandwidth caps and fees to take root.

Consumers and regulators need to take heed of what is happening and avoid winding up like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water. It’s time to jump before it’s too late.

AT&T’s march towards monetizing data usage has just gotten a twist with a new idea from the company to develop “a toll-free wireless Internet” where app makers foot the bill for your data usage.

First appearing in a Wall Street Journal article, John Donovan, AT&T’s executive for network and technology, suggested the new “app maker pays”-option will ease consumers’ fears about using high bandwidth apps that eat into AT&T’s data allowances.

“A feature that we’re hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivalent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage,” Donovan said at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. “It’d be like freight included.”

Critics of the idea pounced immediately, calling AT&T’s latest plan the realization of former CEO Ed Whitacre’s dream that content producers “can’t use [AT&T's] pipes for free.”

Harold Feld, legal director at consumer group Public Knowledge thinks he’s got AT&T’s number:

Just to be clear, here is what AT&T Wireless is doing:

1. Create an artificial scarcity with an arbitrary bandwidth cap for its wireless services;

2. Charge users who exceed this arbitrary bandwidth cap;

3. Claim to do consumers a favor by letting the ap developer pay for exceeding the arbitrary bandwidth cap.

Which cuts to the heart of the problem in wireless, IMO. The argument in favor of a wireless capacity cap is, in a nutshell, “wireless is different from wireline because the physics imposes bandwidth limitations.” In the presence of these bandwidth limitations, we need a rationing scheme of some kind. Bandwidth caps are a neutral way of rationing and encourage app developers to write more efficient applications — thus improving the system overall.

The problem with this argument is it is impossible at present to determine just how true or false it actually is. I referred above to AT&T’s bandwidth cap as arbitrary. As far as I (or any outside observer) can tell, AT&T just selected a number and said “this is where we impose a cap.” You can buy a higher cap on a monthly basis, or can pay as you go above the cap in the form of overages.

AT&T has no worries about data tsunamis and "exafloods" when app makers or consumers are willing to pay more.

In fact, AT&T’s journey away from unlimited access to their wireless network is well underway.  Just two years ago, customers paid $30 a month for unlimited data on a smartphone.  Then AT&T ended “unlimited” access, imposing a 2GB usage cap on their most popular wireless data plan.  Now AT&T is looking to monetize its wireless traffic even further as customers grow more reticent about using high volume applications that could threaten one’s usage allowance.

Despite AT&T’s ongoing drumbeat America is in the midst of a wireless bandwidth crisis, the ‘national emergency’ is over as soon as someone — anyone other than AT&T — opens their wallet and agrees to pay more for data traffic.  Then the sky is the limit.

The logical inconsistencies of a company crying for more mobile spectrum concurrently envisioning new ways to monetize high volume wireless traffic (eg. large file downloads, online video, etc.) exposes the hollow center of  Internet Overcharging.  The “exaflood”/data tsunami only seems to threaten AT&T’s network when content producers and/or consumers are not paying extra for every kilobyte.

As Stop the Cap! has argued before, AT&T is increasingly  in the bandwidth shortage/rationing business.

The company underspent on its network, balked at the price tag to upgrade capacity (but had no trouble planning to pay substantially more to acquire T-Mobile), and now complains it has to charge higher prices because the federal government blocked its merger and the FCC won’t hand over additional spectrum.

There are two approaches to fat profits in the broadband business these days:

1. 

   A Proud Member of: Team Rationing for Profit

   Team Innovation: Believe in your product and nurture its growth with upgrades, innovation, and pricing that guarantees an enthusiastic and loyal customer base;

2. Team Rationing for Profit: Leverage your dominant market power by rationing your product, charging higher prices for less service.  Monetizing usage controls traffic growth, reducing the expense of upgrading your network. With limited competition, even alienated customers face few alternative choices and a steep early termination exit fee.

Based on statements from AT&T’s Donovan, AT&T is a firm believer in the latter.

“There’s a view of an entitlement that says that any impediment to riding over the top of our network is inherently wrong, is un-American,” Donovan said, adding AT&T needed to find creative ways to deal with and profit from surging mobile-data use.

Feld thinks it says something else.

“This new plan is unfortunate because it shows how fraudulent the AT&T data cap is, and calls into question the whole rationale of the data caps,” Feld said. “Apparently it has nothing to do with network management.  It’s a tool to get more revenue from developers and customers.”

CNN's Scare Stories on Wireless

As part of our ongoing coverage of the telecommunications industry, I talk with a variety of reporters in both Canada and the United States.  We have educated local newspapers, national wire services, local TV news, and even big national consumer magazines about the problems consumers have with the North American telecommunications industry.  Whether you are a wireless customer facing eroding usage caps and increasing prices, or a wired broadband customer now being slapped with Internet Overcharging schemes that monetize your usage, the truth about why your bill has gone up isn’t too hard to find, if you bother to look.

Unfortunately, CNN-Money just published a “week-long” series on the wireless mobile phone market that might as well have been written by the CTIA, the nation’s cell phone lobby.

“The Spectrum Crunch” was supposed to be a sober and objective report about the state of congestion on America’s cell phone networks. Instead, the reporter decided industry press releases and lobbyist talking points were good enough to form the premise that America is deep in a cell phone crisis.

Sorry America, Your Airwaves Are Full

Part one of CNN’s special report is a laundry list of disaster predictions, explaining away rate increases and usage caps, and an industry-skewed view that the answer to the “crisis” is to give wireless carriers all the frequencies they want.

The spectrum crunch is not an inherently American problem, but its effects are magnified here, since the United States has an enormous population of connected users. This country serves more than twice as many customers per megahertz of spectrum as the next nearest spectrum-constrained nations, Japan and Mexico.

When spectrum runs short, service degrades sharply: calls get dropped and data speeds slow down.

That’s a nightmare scenario for the wireless carriers. To stave it off, they’re turning over rocks and searching the couch cushions for excess spectrum.

They have tried to limit customers’ data usage by putting caps in place, throttling speeds and raising prices. Carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, MetroPCS and Leap have been spending billions to make more efficient use of the spectrum they do hold and billions more to get their hands on new spectrum. And they have tried to merge with one another to consolidate resources.

The FCC has also been working to free up more spectrum for wireless operators. Congress reached a tentative deal last week, approving voluntary auctions that would let TV broadcasters’ spectrum licenses be repurposed for wireless broadband use.

[...] The bad news is that none of the fixes are quick, and all are expensive. For the situation to improve, carriers — and, therefore, their customers — will have to pay more.

The United States also covers more ground, with lots of wide open spaces where frequencies can be used and re-used without interference problems.  As AT&T keeps illustrating, how you run your business has a lot to do with the quality of your service, spectrum crisis or not.  AT&T customers in heavily-populated urban markets cope with dropped calls and slow data not because the company has run out of frequencies, but because AT&T has failed to appropriately invest in its own network.  AT&T’s problems are generally not shared by customers of other carriers.  Even T-Mobile, which has the least spectrum of all major carriers, does not share AT&T’s capacity issues.

CNN reporter David Goldman suggests mergers and consolidation have been a solution for ‘wireless shortages’ of the past.  But are mergers about consolidating resources or leveraging profits?

The spectrum war’s winners and losers

AT&T’s failed $39 billion bid for T-Mobile was largely aimed at getting its rival’s spectrum. The Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission killed the deal, saying it would be too damaging to wireless competition.

That put the entire industry on notice: The carriers will have to solve their problems without any blockbuster takeovers.

The regulators’ main concern was that the deal would take the ranks of national carriers down from four to three. That’s why experts now expect the big players to focus instead on acquiring smaller, low-cost carriers like MetroPCS and Leap Wireless. Their spectrum could relieve capacity issues in large metro areas, which are the places most crippled by the crunch.

Industry analysts also think that Sprint and T-Mobile could gain approval to merge, though that’s a bit like two drowning victims clinging together. Sprint is losing piles of money every quarter, while T-Mobile is hemorrhaging customers with contracts.

Another possibility is that several carriers could partner in a spectrum-sharing joint venture.

But the most likely scenario is that the carriers continue fighting each other to snap up the last remaining large swaths of high-quality spectrum.

Stephenson

The claim that AT&T sought the purchase of T-Mobile USA for spectrum acquisition falls apart when you examine the record.  For instance, during AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson’s presentation at the merger announcement, shareholders were told the buyout would deliver cost synergies and savings, would stabilize earnings from a more predictable mobile market (with T-Mobile’s ‘market disruptive’ pricing out of the way), and would allow the company to secure additional frequencies.  However, as Stop the Cap! reported back in August, documents released by the FCC showed AT&T unprepared to specify what T-Mobile spectrum it expected to acquire, much less how the company intended to use it.

The “problem” AT&T sought to solve, in the eyes of both the Justice Department and the FCC, was pesky competition from T-Mobile and the reduced profits AT&T endured as T-Mobile forced competitors to deliver better service at lower prices.

Even Goldman admits T-Mobile had the smallest inventory of wireless spectrum among the major carriers — scant reason for AT&T to court a merger for spectrum purposes.

The spectrum winners continue to be AT&T and Verizon, who have the largest inventory of favorable frequencies, and both continue to warehouse spectrum they are not using for anything.

Your Cell Phone Bill is Going Up

Has your mobile phone bill jumped this past year?

Get used to it.

Demand for wireless data services is soaring, forcing carriers to invest massively to keep up. They have two main options: Upgrade their network technology or acquire more wireless spectrum to give them more bandwidth.

“Massively” is in the eye of the beholder.  Verizon outspent AT&T on network upgrades and continues to enjoy enormous returns on that investment.  Most major cell companies spend billions on network improvements, but also earn tens of billions from their customers.  Yet in the midst of the “spectrum crisis,” AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson told investors revenue was up — way up:

“We’ll expand wireless and consolidated margins. We’ll achieve mid-single-digit EPS growth or better. Cash generation continues to look very strong again next year. And given the operational momentum we have in the business, all of this appears very achievable and probably at the conservative end of our expectations.”

AT&T’s chief financial officer John J. Stephens put a spotlight on it:

In 2011, 76% of our revenues came from wireless and wireline data and managed services. That’s up from 68% or more than $10 billion from just 2 years ago. And revenues from these areas grew about $7 billion last year or more than 7% for 2011. We’re confident this mix shift will continue. In fact, in 2012 we expect consolidated revenues to continue to grow, thanks to strength in these growth drivers with little expected lift from the economy.

[...] We also continue to bring more subscribers onto our network with tiered data plans, more than 22 million at the end of the quarter, with most choosing the higher-priced plan. As more of our base moves to tiered plans and as data use increases, we expect our compelling [average revenue per subscriber] growth story to continue.

That’s a story AT&T has avoided sharing with customers, because more than a few might take exception that the past year’s rate increases have more to do with the company’s “compelling growth story” than a spectrum shortage.

CNN could have reported this themselves, had they bothered to look beyond the press releases and talking points from the wireless industry. The reporter even conflated recent increases in early termination fees as part of the “spectrum shortage.”

Readers have to glean the real story by reading between the lines.  Here is an example:

As Suraj Shetty, Cisco’s marketing chief, puts it: “Data caps are curbing the top 1% of users, but not the top 20%.”

For carriers, finding the sweet spot is a delicate balancing act. Heavy data consumption is costly for them. On the flip side, smartphone users, who are typically required to buy pricey monthly data plans, are their most lucrative customers.

The ideal customer is someone with a smartphone they use sparingly.

That reality could eventually be reflected in your monthly bill. All four of the major carriers declined to comment about their future pricing strategies, but analysts expect them to start experimenting with new “pay for what you consume” approaches.

The real agenda is finding customers who buy the most service and use it the least.  Usage caps and throttles don’t even work, if one believes Mr. Shetty.  Curbing one percent of your heaviest users does little to curtail congestion when the top 20% remain within plan limits and create an even greater strain on the network.

It’s another hallmark of Internet Overcharging — monetizing broadband usage while using “congestion” as an excuse.  If a customer uses 10GB on an unlimited usage plan or 10GB on a limited use plan, the impact on the network is precisely the same.  Only the profit-taking is different.

There Are Solutions

Only in the last part of the series does CNN’s reporter discover there are some practical solutions to the spectrum crunch.  They include:

• Splitting cell phone traffic to reduce tower load.  Adding additional towers is one solution, but not all have to be huge, unsightly monstrosities.  In parts of Canada and Europe, new “micro-cells” on top of traditional power poles or buildings can reduce tower load, especially in urban areas.  These units, which can fit in the palm of your hand, are especially good at serving fixed location users, such as those sitting at home, work, or in a shopping center.  They don’t create eyesores, are relatively inexpensive, and are effective.
• Allocation of spectrum.  The FCC is working on making additional wireless spectrum available.  Some carriers are cooperating to alleviate capacity issues, share towers, and collaborate on new tower planning.
• Consider Wi-Fi.  AT&T found offloading traffic to Wi-Fi and even home-based “femtocells” — mini in-home cell towers have effectively reduced demand on their wireless 3G/4G networks.  There is still room to expand.

Alcatel-Lucent has a solution to the capacity crunch — a microcell cube that can be attached to a building or phone pole.  (3 minutes)

Not a problem

Who knew America’s largest cable and phone companies were in the broadband shortage business?

Broadband evangelist Craig Settles has been as outraged about this year’s crop of anti-broadband legislation as we have here at Stop the Cap!

He wrote about the implications of allowing state laws to be changed in favor of the big cable and phone companies in a piece published by GigaOM that details where these anti-community Internet bills are coming from:

This push is brought to you by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group of corporate lobbyists who ghostwrite state bills behind closed doors that their pocket legislators then push on the floor. This “model” of anti-muni broadband legislation contains wording that is replicated in these latest bills and newspaper op-eds that attack community broadband.

Many of the nation’s largest phone and cable companies funnel funds into ALEC, and even sponsor wine-and-dine trips for state legislators and their families as part of a comprehensive effort to get their foot (and later proposed legislation) in the door.

Download this archive of ALEC-written and sponsored state legislation/policies affecting telecommunications and IT.  (16mb .zip file)

Few state legislators fully realize the implications of some of these measures, which can hamstring their state’s broadband networks into “good enough for you” broadband, as determined by Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and others.

ALEC’s dog-and-pony show opens with its corporate backers enhancing their campaign contributions to legislators likely to support their agenda.  ALEC’s lobbyists can then provide “boilerplate” templates for legislation that can be slightly modified and introduced at the state level for consideration.

With a significant increase in campaign contributions targeting friendly legislators, community broadband suddenly becomes a hot topic at the statehouse.

Legislators do not work alone to pass these measures.  As we’ve seen in other states, industry-backed lobbying firms deliver a comprehensive set of support services for the campaign to stop community broadband competition:

1. Talking points for legislators and others opposed to municipal Internet;
2. Professionally produced mailers that can be distributed to every home in a community bashing community networks;
3. Sample letters to the editor intended for local newspapers and easy-to-send letters to legislators asking them to support anti-broadband legislation;
4. Help from seemingly “independent” outside groups that criticize such networks, without disclosing their funding comes, in part or whole, from the cable or phone company.

Settles

Being hoodwinked by the companies that want these kinds of bills passed leave your community’s broadband needs entirely in the hands of providers that have performed so poorly in some cities, local governments have decided they have to provide the service themselves.  Settles illustrates the obvious:

This isn’t about unfair competition by local government. When Wilson’s 12-person IT department can plan, build and manage a network that can deliver speeds (up to a gig) 20 times faster than the best Time Warner Cable offers, that’s competing with superior technology. When Comcast customers switch to Chattanooga’s gig network because of their public utility’s better customer service, that’s competent competition. When tiny Reedsburg, Wis. refuses to compete against the large cable company on price, but beats competitors by offering greater value such as a better selection of Internet services, they compete based on local credibility.

So U.S. communities have to ask themselves, are they going to stay stuck on the train or will they be zipping along at warp speed?

Providers and their industry friends will always argue that you don’t need gigabit broadband speed — what you get from your cable or phone company today is “fast enough.”  Some go as far as to argue current providers are equipped to deliver whatever service customers need, but the demand “just is not there.”

Big Problem.

But as we argued on GigaOM ourselves, the nation’s largest telecom companies have already proven they apparently cannot meet the demand that exists today.  That is because an increasing number of them have started to slap arbitrary usage caps and other limits on their customers’ broadband usage.  Customers don’t want these Internet Overcharging schemes, yet they persist because of what providers effectively admit is a broadband shortage on their networks.

So for a city like Chattanooga, Tenn., which of the following providers should be punished (and potentially even banned) for being in the broadband business:

1. AT&T, which delivers around 6-7Mbps DSL in suburban Chattanooga or up to 24Mbps on its U-verse platform with 150GB/250GB usage limits respectively;
2. Comcast, which delivers up to 50Mbps over cable broadband with a 250GB usage cap;
3. EPB Fiber, which delivers up to 1,000Mbps over fiber optics with no usage cap.

If you are AT&T or Comcast, clearly the provider that must be stopped is #3 — EPB Fiber.  After all, you can’t be in the broadband shortage business when the competitor next door offers a broadband free-for-all made possible from an investment in a superior network that exists to serve customers, not shareholders and investment banks.

An increasing number of wireless data users are getting some tough love courtesy of AT&T.

“Your data use this month places you in the top 5% of users,” the text message reads. “Use Wi-Fi to avoid reduced speeds.”  Our regular reader Earl hopes we’ll keep spreading the word.

AT&T’s speed throttle has now moved beyond the pages of tech blogs and into USA Today, where the newspaper explores the trials and tribulations of wireless data management policies at the nation’s largest wireless companies.

Mike Trang, along with at least 200,000 other AT&T customers, has been caught in AT&T’s wireless speed trap.  The result can be speeds punitively reduced to dial-up for the remainder of a billing cycle, leaving customers on AT&T’s “unlimited use” plan waiting up to two minutes for a single web page to load.

While AT&T tells the newspaper it only throttles the speeds of unlimited customers who use an average of 2GB or more per month to ease congestion (if that), the company’s “congestion problems” seem to disappear when customers switch to a usage-billing plan that charges fees based on different usage allowances:

Trang’s iPhone was throttled just two weeks into his billing cycle, after he’d consumed 2.3 gigabytes of data. He pays $30 per month for “unlimited” data. Meanwhile, Dallas-based AT&T now sells a limited, or “tiered,” plan that provides 3 gigabytes of data for the same price.

Users report that if they call the company to ask or complain about the throttling, AT&T customer support representatives suggest they switch to the limited plan.

“They’re coaxing you toward the tiered plan,” said Gregory Tallman in Hopatcong, N.J. He hasn’t had his iPhone 4S throttled yet, but he’s gotten text-messages from AT&T, warning that he’s approaching the limit. This came after he had used just 1.5 gigabytes of data in that billing cycle.

Many customers who have received the text message warning about their usage now think twice about everything they do with their phone, which may be part of what AT&T intended for its remaining customers grandfathered on a now-discontinued unlimited use plan.

John Cozen, a Web and mobile applications designer in San Diego, told USA Today he’s now “almost scared to use the phone.”

Cozen’s complaints to AT&T have been ignored and now he’s shopping for a new carrier.

AT&T’s warning-and-throttle system is the strictest among America’s largest wireless carriers. When customers exceed AT&T’s arbitrary declaration of being among the “top 5% of users,” their speeds are subject to severe slowdowns until their next bill is issued. This leaves customers who may have needed their phone at the beginning of the month for a business trip or vacation suddenly throttled for weeks because of what AT&T calls “congestion,” even if nobody else is using the cell tower.  Even worse, customers not yet deemed to be offending AT&Ts usage manners, or who pay per gigabyte, can overload a cell tower and create the very congestion AT&T claims it hopes to manage.  But only “unlimited use” customers get “time out” in the usage penalty corner.

Among other carriers:

• Verizon Wireless also uses a network management system that can throttle speeds for exceptionally heavy users, but their speed throttle is engaged only when individual cell towers are overloaded with traffic, and the speed reduction level will vary with the amount of traffic on that tower.  When congestion eases, speeds return to normal for everyone;
• T-Mobile throttles customers after a maximum of 5GB of usage per month, unless other arrangements are made with the company;
• Sprint Nextel does not have usage limits or a throttle on smartphone data plans at this time.

Georgia's broadband map shows just a smattering of 50Mbps broadband. That is half the speed required to attract new businesses, says the IEDC.

Suffering the Great Recession blues?  As communities continue to face the loss of manufacturing, heavy industry, and textile jobs to overseas outsourcing, local economic development specialists have discovered one of the most effective ways to lure new high-tech industry into areas hard-hit with job losses is the availability of cheap, plentiful, and fast broadband.

• 42% believe that that 1Gbps is the minimum speed needed to lure new businesses.
• 35% believe the minimum must be at least 100Mbps.
• Rural economic developers appear to be well ahead their urban counterparts in the area of planning. 58% of rural respondents either have broadband strategies and tactics worked into their economic development plans or are writing plans with these elements. Only 39% of urban respondents have done the same.
• 92% see no benefit from the FCC’s minimum broadband standard of 4Mbps, defined largely to suit telephone company DSL service common in rural areas.

Why are rural economies benefiting from better broadband planning? Because in the absence of commercial providers willing to provide the service, an increasing number of small towns and cities are building their own municipal networks to get the job done themselves.  Those networks are routinely superior to the facilities provided by most cable and phone companies serving less populated areas.

Community broadband is working in Wilson and Salisbury, N.C., where a transition from a textile/tobacco-based economy into higher-tech knowledge economy jobs required state-of-the-art broadband as a foundation.  Chattanooga, Tenn.-based EPB Fiber has already attracted dot.com giants like Amazon.com, creating hundreds of millions in local investment and thousands of new jobs.  Why Chattanooga?  Gigabit broadband for just a few hundred dollars a month is just one phone call away.

Relying on commercial providers to build 21st century broadband as a platform for economic transformation has delivered uneven results, especially outside of the largest cities. Large cities traditionally get most of the provider’s time, attention, and upgrades.  Smaller, more out of the way places often see little or nothing.

That is why this year’s latest push in Georgia and South Carolina to tie the hands of communities trying to remake themselves with modern broadband is so risky. While AT&T and the cable companies may position their argument as “protecting consumers,” in fact they are only protecting their own interests, even if it means the next Amazon.com distribution facility or Google data center finds a better home somewhere else.

Updated 3:55pm ET: We added a link to the full report, with appreciation to the author.

HissyFitWatch: Damn you FCC!

For the first time in a long time, AT&T did not get what it wanted from Washington regulators and legislators. The repercussions of the company’s failure to secure its controversial merger with Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA has been one HissyFit after another, including the resignation-retirement of Forrest Miller, a 30-year veteran who was the company’s head of corporate strategy and mergers and acquisitions. After heads rolled, there was the small matter of the multi-billion dollar “breakup fee” payable to T-Mobile. Now someone has to pay:  You.

At Stop the Cap!, we scrutinize quarterly conference calls at major telecommunications companies so you don’t have to. We’ve sat through renditions of “we’re sorry” when Charter Communications’ executive management allowed the company to be flushed into bankruptcy, we’ve heard the Excuse-o-Matic from Frontier Communications about why their broadband service is woefully overloaded with promises of better days ahead, and a whole lot of creative spin to emphasize cord-cutting-bad-news at the nation’s largest cable companies isn’t really a problem all — it’s the housing market, it’s the ‘seasonal residences’ or ‘college students going home’ problem… or sunspots.  Who really knows?  It’s definitely not that they’re charging too much.

Whether it has been Time Warner Cable’s Glenn Britt, or Verizon’s Ivan Seidenberg, chief executives always project a cool, calm, steady authority that leaves shareholders and financial analysts with an impression the adults are in charge, even if they tell little white lies to keep the stock price up.

And then there is AT&T’s chief executive — Chairman Emperor Randolph Stephenson, who used the occasion of AT&T’s 4th Quarter earning results conference call to become a spectacle that brought the house down.

As we look ahead, the issue that gives me the most concern, quite frankly, isn’t our ability to execute. The #1 issue for us as we move forward, and for the industry, I believe, it continues to be spectrum. This industry continues to see just explosive mobile broadband growth and is providing one of the few bright spots in the U.S. economy, but I think we all understand this growth cannot continue without more spectrum being cleared and brought to market. And despite all the speeches from the FCC, we’re all still waiting.

He didn’t stop there.  In an impromptu rant, Stephenson lectured Washington from afar, excoriating all-concerned for failing to agree with their multi-million dollar propaganda campaign that merging America’s second and fourth largest wireless carriers in a market with just four national providers was good for consumers and would bring wireless nirvana to the heartland and lower prices for all.  Evidently America was not ready to accept the word of AT&T-compensated telecommunications experts at the NAACP, the Special Dream Farm, the Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission and cattle ranchers a combination of T-Mobile’s spectrum and AT&T’s would ease the capacity crunch, bring 4G to Beaver, Oklahoma, and stop driving AT&T customers nuts with dropped calls and reception black holes.

How it usually works in Washington.

AT&T would have gotten away with their merger if it weren’t for those darned kids (consumers), the FCC and Justice Department ruining everything.

“The last significant spectrum auction was nearly 5 years ago now. And this FCC has made it abundantly clear that they’ll not allow significant [mergers and acquisitions] to help bridge their delays in freeing up new spectrum,” Stephenson complained. “So in the absence of auctions, our company and others in the industry have taken the logical step of entering into smaller transactions to acquire the spectrum we need to meet this demand. But even here, we need the FCC’s action and leadership, and unfortunately, even the smallest and most routine spectrum deals are receiving intense scrutiny from this FCC, oftentimes taking up to a year and sometimes longer before these are approved.”

Stephenson ignores the fact the FCC has rubber-stamped a number of wireless mergers over the past several years, which is why consumers no longer buy competitive service from Cingular, Alltel, Dobson Communications, Centennial Wireless, West Virginia Wireless, Unicel, Ramcell, or SureWest Wireless.  All of these former competitors are now a part of the nation’s two largest carriers AT&T and Verizon Wireless.  Even more impressively for the man in full denial, the FCC just quickly and quietly approved AT&T’s spectrum transfer purchase from Qualcomm.

“Now I hope I’m wrong, but it appears the FCC is intent on picking winners and losers rather than letting these markets work,” the chief executive said.

In other words, AT&T’s definition of letting markets “work” means letting them write their own laws governing the pesky concepts of antitrust, monopoly/duopoly market power, anti-competitive activity, etc.  AT&T has no problem picking winners and losers in the community-owned broadband front, lobbying its way through state legislatures trying to block new networks from being built, even while slapping usage limits on their own customers’ DSL and U-verse accounts because of “capacity” concerns.

In the wireless marketplace, Charlie Sheen would declare AT&T “winning,” considering it has achieved 1/3rd of the U.S. wireless market.  It wants more of course, even though Trefis, a market research firm, noted that had the FCC granted Stephenson’s wishes for three national carriers, AT&T, Verizon Wireless and Sprint “will control more than 90% of the U.S. wireless market, resulting in lower competition and higher prices for consumers.”

No problem there.

Stephenson also noted a lot of the company’s close friends were on their side (and handsomely compensated along the way we might add):

A lot of recent comments and speeches about certain members of this FCC suggest that they and not Congress should decide how spectrum auctions are conducted, including who can participate and what the conditions should be for participating. Meanwhile, we pile more and more regulatory uncertainty on top of an industry that is a foundation for a lot of today’s innovation*, making it difficult for all of us to allocate and commit capital. And in this industry, we all know capital investment equals jobs*. So the end result of this is we have a industry that is just really stuck in terms of creating real capacity*.

(*- except when community-based, publicly-owned networks are involved. They must be stopped at all costs.)

No matter that AT&T continues to sit on earlier spectrum acquisitions it continues not to use.  It only grudgingly agreed to roaming agreements with the company it preferred to dismantle altogether: T-Mobile.  In earlier, accidental disclosures, it was clear even before the merger and the newly-reticent FCC, AT&T preferred to raise prices, restrict service, and hang onto its profits instead of sufficiently investing them back into its network.  Verizon Wireless has a 4G network, no dropped-call-syndrome, fewer signal black holes, and no apparent spectrum panic attacks.

Part of Sprint's fact sheet opposing the merger deal.

AT&T bit off more than they could chew through, and now faces the humiliating prospect of paying off its gambling debts.  Only now, AT&T has effectively declared they are not going to pay for their costly mistake. Customers are.

Stephenson: Payback time.

The company introduced new, higher prices for its smartphone data plans this month, and intends to continue to increase prices and crack down on data use with speed throttles in 2012 and blame it on the “spectrum crunch”:

“In a capacity-constrained environment, usage-based data plans, increased pricing, managing the speeds of the highest volume users, these are all logical and necessary steps to manage utilization,” Stephenson said.

But AT&T’s chief executive also told shareholders repeatedly those increased prices were key to boosting company revenue and profits:

“We’ll expand wireless and consolidated margins. We’ll achieve mid-single-digit EPS growth or better. Cash generation continues to look very strong again next year. And given the operational momentum we have in the business, all of this appears very achievable and probably at the conservative end of our expectations.”

AT&T’s chief financial officer John J. Stephens put a spotlight on it:

In 2011, 76% of our revenues came from wireless and wireline data and managed services. That’s up from 68% or more than $10 billion from just 2 years ago. And revenues from these areas grew about $7 billion last year or more than 7% for 2011. We’re confident this mix shift will continue. In fact, in 2012 we expect consolidated revenues to continue to grow, thanks to strength in these growth drivers with little expected lift from the economy.

[...] We also continue to bring more subscribers onto our network with tiered data plans, more than 22 million at the end of the quarter, with most choosing the higher-priced plan. As more of our base moves to tiered plans and as data use increases, we expect our compelling [average revenue per subscriber] growth story to continue.