Northern Minnesota's Paul Bunyan Communications is threatened by FCC reforms that they claim favor larger phone companies.

Northern Minnesotans will have to wait longer for broadband after a telephone co-op announced it was suspending its $19 million broadband expansion project because funding is being diverted to more powerful phone companies like AT&T and Verizon — neither of which have any concrete plans to improve rural wired broadband.

Bemidji-based Paul Bunyan Communications, which serves 28,000 hearty Minnesota customers, has been working on broadband expansion for several years, bringing broadband to customers who have known nothing except dial-up since the Internet age began. Only now the project is threatened because of well-intentioned plans by the Federal Communications Commission to expand rural broadband, but in ways that cater primarily to larger phone companies that lobbied heavily for the changes.

At issue is Universal Service Fund reform, which plans to divert an increasing share of the surcharge all telephone customers pay away from rural basic phone service and towards broadband expansion in rural America.

Paul Bunyan used their share of USF funding to scrap the company’s existing, antiquated copper-wire network in favor of fiber optics. Other phone companies have traditionally used the money to keep their existing networks running. Now the independent phone company says large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have successfully changed the rules in their favor, and will now benefit from a larger share of those funds, ostensibly to expand broadband to their rural customers.

Bissonette (Courtesy: MPR)

But neither AT&T or Verizon have shown much interest in rural broadband upgrades. AT&T, which recently announced it concluded its U-verse rollout in larger cities, has also thrown up its hands about how to deal with the “rural broadband problem” and plans no substantial expansion of the company’s DSL service.

Verizon also announced it had largely completed the expansion of FiOS, a fiber to the home service. Verizon has also been discouraging customers from considering its DSL service by limiting it only to customers who also subscribe to landline phone service.

Verizon Wireless has introduced a wireless home broadband replacement that costs considerably more than traditional DSL, starting at $60 a month for up to 10GB of usage.

As a result of the funding changes, Paul Bunyan is reconsidering plans to expand its broadband, phone and television services to Kjenaas and about 4,000 other residents in rural Park Rapids and a township near Grand Rapids.

It may also have to cut workers.

“It’s kind of ironic,” Paul Bunyan’s Brian Bissonette tells Minnesota Public Radio. “The mantra of these changes is to create jobs. It’s killing jobs.”

Minnesota Public Radio explores how rural Minnesota broadband is being threatened by a telecom industry-influenced plan to divert funding to larger companies like AT&T and Verizon for rural broadband expansion those companies have no plans to deliver. (May 23, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

No related stories.

Six college towns will benefit from the nation’s first multi-community broadband gigabit deployment, thanks to $200 million in capital funding to get the broadband networks off the ground.

The Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program leverages local government, universities, private capital, and the public to jointly support and foster the development of new fiber optic networks.

The new program claims it will offer competitively-priced super-fast broadband through projects that will cover neighborhoods of 5,000-10,000 people and communities up to 100,000 in size.  Selection of the six winning communities will be announced between this fall and next spring.

“Gigabit Squared created the Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program to help select Gig.U communities build and test gigabit speed broadband networks with speeds from 100 to 1000 times faster than what Americans have today,” the company said in a statement.

“The United States is behind in the world for Internet speed,” said Mark Ansboury, Gigabit’s president and co-founder. “The goal is to help get us out front for a platform of innovation.”

That platform is certainly not forthcoming from the country’s largest broadband providers, who according to Ansboury have been pulling back on wired infrastructure upgrades in recent years, shifting focus to more profitable wireless networks.

Gigabit Squared defines the next generation of broadband Internet in terms of speed, declaring 2,000Mbps (2Gbps) as the target to achieve.

The winning projects will be sponsored by Gig.U members, which include:

• Arizona State University
• California Institute of Technology
• Case Western Reserve University
• Colorado State University
• Duke University
• Florida State University
• George Mason University
• The Georgia Institute of Technology
• Howard University
• Indiana University
• Michigan State University
• North Carolina State University
• Penn State University
• University of Alaska – Fairbanks
• University of Arizona
• University of Chicago
• University of Colorado – Boulder
• University of Florida
• University of Hawaii
• University of Illinois
• University of Kentucky
• University of Louisville
• University of Maine
• University of Maryland
• University of Michigan
• University of Missouri
• University of Montana
• University of Nebraska – Lincoln
• University of New Mexico
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• University of Oklahoma
• University of South Florida
• University of Virginia
• University of Washington
• Virginia Tech
• Wake Forest University
• West Virginia University

Blair Levin, executive director at Gig.U, believes private American telecom companies will always be constrained from delivering world class broadband comparable to South Korea or Japan because of Wall Street opposition to the investment required to construct them. In the eyes of investors, today’s slower networks, in their estimation, do just fine.

Gig.U believes that they have a solution, at least for towns with a sizable university system that can serve as host of the next generation broadband network:

First, any community that wants its residents to have access to a network that delivers world-leading bandwidth can do so. The barrier is not technology or economics. The barrier is organization; specifically, organizing demand and improved use of underutilized assets, such as rights of way, dark fiber, or in more rural areas, spectrum. The responses identified a multitude of ways local communities can improve the private investment case by lowering investment and risk, and increasing revenues for private players willing to upgrade or build new networks without budget outlays from the local government.

Second, the responses confirmed that university communities have the easiest organizing task and greatest upside. Their density, demographics and demand make the current economics more favorable for an upgrade than other communities. For example, the high percentage of the population in university communities living in multiple dwelling units makes the economics of an upgrade far more favorable than for communities composed largely of single-family homes. With the growing importance of Big Data for the economy and the society, university communities are the natural havens for such enterprises to be born and prosper. Through the Gig.U process, our communities are already exploring more than a half-dozen paths to achieve an upgrade; paths that will be replicable for others and will deliver a major step forward in providing America a strategic broadband advantage.

Outside of a handful of upstart private competitors like California-based Sonic.net, most fiber broadband expansion come from private companies like Google — building an experimental fiber-to-the-home network in Kansas City, community-owned broadband services coordinated by local town or city government, co-op telecommunications companies owned by their subscribers, or municipal utilities.

While those efforts are typically committed to the concept of “universal service” — wiring their entire communities — the Gig.U project targets funding only for networks in and around university campuses.

The New America Foundation builds on Gig.U’s premise in its own recent report, “Universities as Hubs for Next Generation Networks,” which argues affordable expansion of broadband can win community support when the public has the right to also benefit from those networks. While Gig.U’s approach suggests the project will target fiber broadband directly to the homes qualified to receive it, the New America Foundation supports the construction of mesh wireless Wi-Fi networks to keep construction costs low for neighborhoods targeted for service.

An earlier project in Orono and Old Town, Maine may afford a preview of Gig.U’s vision, as that collaboration between the University of Maine and private fiber provider GWI is already in its construction phase. For those lucky enough to live within range of the fiber project, broadband speeds will far exceed what incumbents Time Warner Cable and FairPoint Communications deliver. FairPoint has fought similar projects (and GWI specifically) for years.

Will private providers object to the Gig.U effort to win local governments’ favor in the six cities eventually chosen for service? History suggests the answer will be yes, at least to the extent local cable and phone companies demand the same concessions for easy pole access, reduced pole attachment fees, and easing of zoning restrictions and procedures Gig.U project coordinators expect.

Levin has stressed Gig.U projects are based on university and private funding sources, not taxpayer dollars. That may also limit how much objection commercial providers may be able to raise against the projects.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WABI in Bangor previews the new gigabit broadband network being constructed in Orono and Old Town, Maine.  (2 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Bailiwick of Jersey Residents Getting 1Gbps Broadband; Private Providers Want Less
2. Leverett, Mass. Fed Up With Poor Broadband; Town Wants Its Own Gigabit Network
3. Publicly Owned LUS Fiber Launching Gigabit Broadband for Lafayette, Louisiana
4. Google Fiber Will Have to Wait Until 2011; Applications “Exceeded Our Expectations”
5. How Does Google Fiber’s Gigabit Broadband Change Kansas City?

Phillip "Is this 'innovation' or more 'alienation' from Big Cable" Dampier

While Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski pals around with his cable industry friends at this week’s Cable Show in Boston, observers could not miss the irony of the current FCC chairman nodding in repeated agreement with former FCC chairman Michael Powell, whose bread is now buttered by the industry he used to regulate.

The revolving door remains well-greased at the FCC, with Mr. Powell assuming the role of chief lobbyist for the cable industry’s National Cable and Telecommunications Association (and as convention host) and former commissioner Meredith Attwell-Baker enjoying her new office and high priced position at Comcast Corporation, just months after voting to approve its multi-billion dollar merger with NBC-Universal.

Genachowski’s announcement that he favors “usage-based pricing” as healthy and beneficial for broadband and high-tech industries reflects the view of a man who doesn’t worry about his monthly broadband bill. As long as he works for taxpayers, we’re covering most of those expenses for him.

Former FCC chairman Powell said cable providers want to be able to experiment with pricing broadband by usage. That represents the first step towards monetizing broadband usage, an alarming development for consumers and a welcome one for Wall Street who understands the increased earnings that will bring.

Unfortunately, the unspoken truth is the majority of consumers who endure these “experiments” are unwilling participants. The plan is to transform today’s broadband Internet ecosystem into one checked by usage gauges, rationing, bill shock, and reduced innovation.  The director of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, Blair Levin, recently warned the United States is on the verge of throwing away its leadership in online innovation, distracted trying to cope with a regime of usage limits that will force every developer and content producer to focus primarily on living within the usage allowances providers allow their customers.

“I’d rather be the country that developed fantastic applications that everyone in the world wants to use than the country that only invented data compression technology [to reduce usage],” Levin said.

Genachowski’s performance in Boston displayed a public servant primarily concerned about the business models of the companies he is supposed to oversee.

Genachowski: Abdicating his responsibility to protect the public in favor of the interests of the cable industry.

“Business model innovation is very important,” Genachowski said. “There was a point of view a couple years ago that there was only one permissible pricing model for broadband. I didn’t agree.”

We are still trying to determine what Genachowski is talking about. In fact, providers offer numerous pricing models for broadband service in the United States, almost uniformly around speed-based tiers, which offer customers both a choice in pricing and includes a worry-free usage cap defined by the maximum speed the connection supports.

Broadband providers experimenting with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, speed throttles, and usage-billing only layer an additional profit incentive or cost control measure on top of existing pricing models.  A usage cap limits a customer to a completely arbitrary level of usage a provider determines is sufficient. But such caps can also be used to control over-the-top streaming video by limiting its consumption — an important matter for companies witnessing a decline in cable television customers.  Speed throttles are a punishing reminder to customers who “use too much” they need to ration their usage to avoid being reduced to mind-numbing dial-up speeds until the next billing cycle begins. Usage billing discourages consumers from ever trying new and innovative services that could potentially chew up their allowance and deliver bill shock when overlimit fees appear on the bill.

The industry continues to justify these experiments with wild claims of congestion, which do not prevent companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cox from sponsoring their own online video streaming services which even they admit burn through bandwidth. Others claim customers should pay for what they use, which is exactly what they do today when they write a check to cover their growing monthly bill. Broadband pricing is not falling in the United States, it is rising — even in places where companies claim these pricing schemes are designed to save customers money. The only money saved is that not spent on network improvements companies can now delay by artificially reducing demand.

It’s having your cake and eating it too, and this is one expensive cake.

Comcast is selling broadband service for $40-50 that one research report found only costs them $8 a month to provide. That’s quite a markup, but it never seems to be enough. Now Comcast claims it is ditching its usage cap (it is not), raising usage allowances (by 50GB — four years after introducing a cap the company said it would regularly revisit), and testing a new Internet overlimit usage fee it literally stole from AT&T’s bean counters (a whopping $10 for an anti-granular 50GB).

In my life, all of the trials and experiments I have participated in have been voluntary. But the cable industry (outside of Time Warner Cable, for the moment) has a garlic-to-a-vampire reaction to the concept of “opting out,” and customers are told they will participate and they’ll like it.  Pay for what you use!* (*-at our inflated prices, with a usage limit that was not there yesterday, and an overlimit fee for transgressors that is here today. Does not, under any circumstances, apply to our cable television service.)

No wonder Americans despise cable companies.

Michael Powell, former FCC chairman, is now the host and chief lobbyist for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association's Cable Show in Boston. (Photo courtesy: NCTA)

For some reason, Chairman Genachowski cannot absorb the pocket-picking-potential usage billing offers an industry that is insatiable for enormous profits and faces little competition.

Should consumers be allowed to pay for broadband in different ways?  Sure. Must they be compelled into usage pricing schemes they want no part of? No, but that’s too far into the tall grass for the guy overseeing the FCC and the market players to demand.

Of course, we’ve been here and done this all before.

America’s dinosaur phone companies have been grappling with the mysterious concept of ‘flat-rate envy’ for more than 100 years, and they made billions from delivering it. While the propaganda department at the NCTA conflates broadband usage with water, gas, and electricity, they always avoid comparing broadband with its closest technological relative: the telephone. It gets hard to argue broadband is a precious, limited resource when your local phone company is pelting you with offers for unlimited local and long distance calling plans. Thankfully, a nuclear power plant or “clean coal” isn’t required to generate a high-powered dial tone and telephone call tsunamis are rarely a problem for companies that upgraded networks long ago to keep up with demand. Long distance rates went down and have now become as rare as a rotary dial phone.

In the 20th century, landline telephone companies grappled with how to price their service to consumers.  Businesses paid “tariff” rates which typically amount to 7-10 cents per minute for phone calls. But residential customers, particularly those outside of the largest cities, were offered the opportunity to choose flat-rate local calling service. Customers were also offered measured rate services that either charged a flat rate per call or offered one or two tiers of calling allowances, above which consumers paid for each additional local call.

Consumers given the choice overwhelmingly picked flat-rate service, even in cases where their calling patterns proved they would save money with a measured rate plan.

"All you can eat" pricing is increasingly common with phone service, the closest cousin to broadband.

The concept baffled the economic intelligentsia who wondered why consumers would purposefully pay more for a service than they had to. A series of studies were commissioned to explore the psychology of flat-rate pricing, and the results were consistent: customers wanted the peace of mind a predictable price for service would deliver, and did not want to think twice about using a service out of fear it would increase their monthly bill.

In most cases, flat rate service has delivered a gold mine of profits for companies that offer it. It makes billing simple and delivers consistent financial results. But there occasionally comes a time when the economics of flat-rate service increasingly does not make sense to the company or its shareholders. That typically happens when the costs to provide the service are increasing and the ability to raise flat rates to a new price point is constrained. Neither has been true in any respect for the cable broadband business, where costs to provide the service continue to decline on a per-customer basis and rates have continued to increase for consumers. The other warning sign is when economic projections show an even greater amount of revenue and profits can be earned by measuring and monetizing a service experiencing high growth in usage. Why leave money on the table, Wall Street asks.

That leaves us with companies that used to make plenty of profit charging $50 a month for flat rate broadband, now under pressure to still charge $50, but impose usage limits that reduce costs and set the stage for rapacious profit-taking when customers blow through their usage caps. It also delivers a useful fringe benefit by keeping high bandwidth content companies from entering the marketplace, as consumers fret about their impact on monthly usage allowances. Nothing eats a usage allowance like online video. Limit it and companies can also limit cable-TV cord-cutting.

Fabian Herweg and Konrad Mierendorff at the Department of Economics at the University of Zurich found the economics of flat rate pricing still work well for providers and customers, who clearly prefer unlimited-use pricing:

We developed a model of firm pricing and consumer choice, where consumers are loss averse and uncertain about their own future demand. We showed that loss-averse consumers are biased in favor of flat-rate contracts: a loss-averse consumer may prefer a flat-rate contract to a measured tariff before learning his preferences even though the expected consumption would be cheaper with the measured tariff than with the flat rate. Moreover, the optimal pricing strategy of a monopolistic supplier when consumers are loss averse is analyzed. The optimal two-part tariff is a flat-rate contract if marginal costs are low and if consumers value sufficiently the insurance provided by the flat-rate contract. A flat-rate contract insures a loss-averse consumer against fluctuations in his billing amounts and this insurance is particularly valuable when loss aversion is intense or demand is highly uncertain.

Applied to broadband, Herweg and Mierendorff’s conclusions fit almost perfectly:

1. Consumers often do not understand the measurement units of broadband usage and do not want to learn them (gigabytes, megabytes, etc.)
2. Consumers cannot predict a consistent level of usage demand, leading to disturbing wild fluctuations in billing under usage-based pricing;
3. The peace of mind, or “insurance” factor, gives consumers an expected stable bill for service, which they prefer over unstable usage fees, even if lower than flat rate;
4. Flat rate works in an industry with stable or declining marginal costs. Incremental technology upgrades and falling broadband delivery costs offer the cable industry exceptional profits even at flat-rate prices.

Time Warner Cable (for now) is proposing usage-based pricing as an option, while leaving flat rate broadband a choice on the service menu. But will it last?

Time Warner Cable (so far) is the only cable operator in the country that has announced a usage-based pricing experiment that it claims is completely optional, and will not impact on the broadband rates of current flat rate customers. If this remains the case, the cable operator will have taken the first step to successfully duplicate the pricing model of traditional phone company calling plans, offering price-sensitive light users a measured usage plan and risk-averse customers a flat-rate plan. The unfortunate pressure and temptation to eliminate the flat rate pricing plan remains, however. Company CEO Glenn Britt routinely talks of favoring usage-based pricing and Wall Street continues to pressure the company to exclusively adopt those metered plans to increase profits.

Other cable operators compel customers to adopt both speed and usage-based plans, which often require a customer to either ration usage to avoid an overlimit fee or compel an expensive service upgrade for a more generous allowance.  The result is customers are stuck with plans they do not want that deliver little or no savings and often cost much more.

Why wouldn’t a company sell you a plan you want? Either because they cannot afford to or because they can make a lot more selling you something else. Guess which is true here?

Broadband threatens to not be an American success story if current industry plans to further monetize usage come to fruition. The United States is already falling behind in global broadband rankings. In fact, the countries that lived under congestion and capacity-induced usage limits in the last decade are rapidly moving to discard them altogether, even as providers in this country seek to adopt them. That is an ominous sign that destroys this country’s lead role in online innovation. How will consumers react to tele-medicine, education, and entertainment services of the future that will eat away at your usage allowance?

Even worse, with no evidence of a broadband capacity problem in the United States, Mr. Genachowski’s apparent ignorance of the anti-competitive duopoly’s influence on pricing power is frankly disturbing. Why innovate prices down in a market where most Americans have just one or two choices for service? Economic theory tells us that in the absence of regulatory oversight or additional competition, prices have nowhere to go but up.

To believe otherwise is to consider your local cable operator the guardian angel of your wallet, and just about every American with a cable bill knows that is about as real as the tooth fairy.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Our Concerns About Time Warner Cable’s New Usage-Based Billing
2. Internet Overcharging: “The Best Thing That Ever Happened to the Cable Industry”
3. Wall Street: We Expect Time Warner’s Usage Based Billing to Become the Rule, Not the Exception
4. Shaw Sneakiness: Company Lowers Usage Limits, Hopes Nobody Noticed
5. Consumer Groups Question FCC Chairman’s Endorsement of Internet Overcharging Schemes

A bizarre allegation (and theft-of-service complaint filed with local police) that a Voice Over IP service provider was “stealing” access to its fiber network has triggered the nation’s first formal Net Neutrality complaint under new Federal Communications Commission rules.

The complaint was triggered after Albany (Ga.)’s Water, Gas, and Light Commission (WG&L) filed a report with Dougherty County Police accusing L2Networks of accessing its municipal fiber network without paying.

If the FCC finds the city was correct asserting its claims of theft of service, other broadband providers could begin assessing additional fees for consumers who wish to access Google, Facebook, and Netflix, according the VoIP provider.

The case could create an “irreversible ripple effect along with the creation of various legal challenges across nearly every national content and application provider,” L2Networks CEO Kraig Beahn said in a press release. “We are deeply concerned that the alleged claim could potentially change the landscape of the national Internet marketplace as residential and commercial consumers see it today.”

Beahn's booking photo

In the view of L2Networks, the incident represents a direct and indisputable violation of the Federal Communications Commission’s Net Neutrality policies, which forbids providers from blocking service or selectively charging competitors additional fees to reach customers.

But details about the background of the complaint remain murky and a series of past disputes between Beahn and other telecommunications companies in Albany may require further exploration by federal officials investigating the complaint.

L2Networks is a small Albany-based telecommunications company that provides service to area businesses. L2Networks CEO Kraig Beahn is, however, well-known to both WG&L and local cable operator Mediacom, both of which have previously raised questions about his business practices.

L2 counters WG&L has made life increasingly difficult for the company since the two entities had a falling out in 2011.  That year, WG&L dumped L2 from its plans to deliver a competitive cable television service for Albany residents after the utility’s general manager accused Beahn of not fulfilling the promises he made with WG&L.

In January 2012, Beahn was arrested and charged with felony theft of service after Mediacom discovered an illegal tap on their cable line, which investigators learned was being used to provide Internet and phone service to L2 customer Adtran Logistics. Beahn called the charges “frivolous” and were part of an ongoing dispute with WG&L.

Mediacom vice president of legal and public affairs Tom Larsen noted the company did learn about the suspicious connection from the local utility.

“When our local team went to investigate, they discovered a Mediacom modem connected to two car batteries that was wired into our cable plant and being used [allegedly by L2] to serve a nearby business,” Larsen said.

No related stories.

Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service except in areas where it has existing agreements to deliver service.

Virtually every mayor in the urban centers of upstate New York is accusing Verizon Communications of redlining poor and minority communities when deciding where to provide its fiber-to-the-home service FiOS.

Now they are telling the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice to become more closely involved in reviewing a proposed anti-competitive marketing partnership between the phone company and some of the nation’s largest cable operators.

The mayors are upset that Verizon has chosen to target its limited FiOS network primarily on affluent suburbs surrounding upstate New York city centers.

“Verizon has not built its all-fiber FiOS network in any of our densely-populated cities. Not in Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Binghamton, Kingston, Elmira or Troy,” the mayors say. “Yet, Verizon has expanded its FiOS network to the suburbs ringing Buffalo, Albany, Troy, and Syracuse, as well as many places in the Hudson Valley, and most of downstate New York. As a result, the residents and businesses in our cities are disadvantaged relative to their more affluent suburban neighbors who have access to Verizon’s FiOS, providing competitive choice in high-speed broadband and video services.”

The mayors fear the reduced competition that will come from the marketing partnership between the phone and cable industry will eliminate any pressure on Verizon to expand its fiber optic network into more New York cities. The agreement allows Verizon Wireless customers to received significant bundled discounts when they sign up for cell phone service and a cable package from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, or Bright House Networks. No corresponding discount is available to a Verizon Wireless customer choosing to bundle Verizon FiOS, putting the fiber service at a competitive disadvantage.

“These commercial agreements appear to eliminate any incentive that Verizon might have had to expand its all-fiber network to our high-density urban centers,” the mayors say. “After all, Verizon Wireless, a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, will now be able to sell Time Warner’s video and broadband service as part of their bundled package in our communities.”

That leaves most with Verizon’s DSL service, a product Verizon has been marketing less and less to its customers. The company recently announced it would no longer sell standalone DSL broadband, another point of contention for the mayors.

The mayors are concerned that Verizon’s deteriorating landline network will have profound implications for city centers, where tele-medicine, education, business, and entertainment services will all be left lacking if the fiber network is not extended.

“As you are well aware, high-speed broadband is critical to economic development and job creation, as well as improvements in health care, education, public safety, and civic discourse which is so essential to communal life,” say the mayors. “The economic health of our cities and our upstate region depends upon access to the same first-rate communications infrastructure available to the New York City metropolitan region and the suburban communities that ring our cities.”

The nine mayors are also questioning whether Verizon executives misled them when they claimed Verizon’s strong financial performance would allow the company to reinvest profits into further expansion of its FiOS network. Verizon executives have since admitted the company is indefinitely finished with FiOS expansion, except in areas where it already committed to build the fiber network.

Signing the letter were:

• Byron W. Brown – Mayor, City of Buffalo
• Stephanie A. Miner – Mayor, City of Syracuse
• Gerald D. Jennings – Mayor, City of Albany
• Matthew T. Ryan – Mayor, City of Binghamton
• Shayne R. Gallo – Mayor, City of Kingston
• Susan Skidmore – Mayor, City of Elmira
• Brian Tobin – Mayor, City of Cortland
• Robert Palmieri – Mayor, City of Utica
• Lou Rosamilla – Mayor, City of Troy

(The city of Rochester is served by Frontier Communications, which has no plans to deliver a fiber to the home network within its local service area.)

No related stories.

The southern tier city of Elmira, N.Y. is not too happy with Time Warner Cable’s lock on the local cable market.

“There’s no competition so their prices continue to go up, their offers continue to go down, and the people here with no other competition are just paying and paying and paying,” Elmira mayor Sue Skidmore told WETM News.

Skidmore and the city council intend to hold public hearings on the cable operator’s franchise renewal before they attempt to negotiate the next 10-year agreement with the cable company.

“This gives the public an opportunity to come and say anything good or bad pertaining to the cable franchise,” said city manager John Burin. The public meeting is scheduled for 7pm, June 4, on the second floor of Elmira City Hall.

Skidmore

The city’s ability to press Time Warner Cable for lower rates or service changes are extremely limited, however. Wholesale deregulation of the cable television industry has allowed most cable operators to manage their systems as they see fit, with no obligation to accept the recommendations of local government.

This fact of life was underscored when Time Warner mailed its own vision of what a renewal agreement with the city should look like, prior to any public discussion.

The city’s lawyer, John Ryan Jr., told the Ithaca Journal the company deleted several provisions in the proposed renewal agreement that are part of the current agreement. Ryan intends to speak with the operator about those changes, and wants to see changes in the city’s favor.

In most franchise renewal agreements, the only leverage a city typically has is to threaten not to renew a cable franchise. That is a very rare occurrence, however, because it is exceptionally rare for another major cable provider to agree to service a city that cancels a franchise renewal with another company. In the end, most renewal agreements come down to handshake agreements to correct any long-standing service issues, agree to wire certain unserved areas, and negotiate over public, educational, and government access channels and franchise fees payable to the city.

The local telephone company, Verizon Communications, has no plans to provide its FiOS fiber optic service in the city, leaving customers with the competitive option of landline phone service, DSL, and a contract with Verizon’s satellite TV partner, DirecTV.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WETM in Elmira reports city officials are preparing for franchise renewal discussions with Time Warner Cable. The cable company is already on that, preemptively sending the city a franchise renewal agreement it wrote itself. (1 minute)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. HissyFitWatch: Time Warner Franchise Negotiation in Troy Turns Into ‘Caught on Tape’ Shoutfest
2. WETM Elmira: Time Warner Plan Nixed, the Twin Tiers Can Relax
3. Lee, Mass. Resident Wins Battle With Time Warner – Gets $12,000 Install Fee Slashed to $35
4. New Yorkers: If the Cable Guy Arrives Late, You’ll Receive a Free Month of Cable Service
5. Local Governments Discover Cable Deregulation Leaves Them Powerless to Represent Consumers

Genachowski

On Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said that he generally supports data caps and tiered broadband pricing plans. The chairman’s comments came during an interview at the Cable Show with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, now the top lobbyist with the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

Genachowski has remained consistent in his cautious support for “industry innovation” that includes usage-based pricing, with a caveat providers should not exploit that at the expense of consumers.  But consumer groups like Free Press already believe usage caps, particularly on wired broadband services, are already bad for consumers, exploit a marketplace duopoly, and are worthy of investigation by the agency.

“All the evidence shows that caps on wired broadband platforms like cable make no sense. They don’t affect network congestion, even in the rare instances where congestion actually exists on these systems,” says Free Press policy director Matt Wood. “Cable companies use them to penalize their subscribers and discourage them from using innovative services that compete with cable TV.”

Free Press reminded Genachowski of Comcast’s recent actions which exempted its own video content from usage caps, while leaving them in place for competitors.

“Comcast’s recent actions show both the harms of these caps and the lack of any legitimate reason for them,” noted Wood. “[Now] Comcast changed course and suspended caps temporarily in all but a few markets — but promised to start overcharging any users there who exceeded these arbitrary limits.”

“The FCC has turned a blind eye to this competition problem. If it wants to see experimentation in pricing that actually benefits consumers, we need a competition policy that creates more experimenters.”

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. FCC Chairman Mouths Telecom Industry Talking Points on Usage Pricing, “Innovation”
2. Internet Overcharging: “The Best Thing That Ever Happened to the Cable Industry”
3. FCC Chairman’s Latest Non-Answer Answer on Internet Overcharging Schemes
4. Cable Stock Booster Predicts AT&T Provides ‘Safe Passage’ for Cable Internet Overcharging Schemes
5. Cloud Storage Hype Meets Internet Overcharging Realities As ISPs Feel Threatened (Again)

Foreshadowing Bill Shock?

T-Mobile is suspicious about the value of forthcoming family shared data plans likely to be introduced by its larger competitors AT&T and Verizon Wireless later this year.

Andrew Sherrard, senior vice president of marketing for T-Mobile announced the company would not jump on the family data bandwagon, preferring to leave the current model of individual data plans for each device in place:

Some of our competitors are backing away from simple, unlimited data and moving to family shared data plans. But would this approach actually deliver a better value to consumers?  Do families really want to keep track of each others’ data consumption? We don’t think so. Just imagine mom’s email is suddenly unavailable because her teenage son watched an HD movie on his phone, consuming the family’s data allotment.

T-Mobile believes that consumers today do not want a ‘one size fits all’ approach to shared family data plans, nor would they benefit from that model.  So, what is the right way to price data for customers who want affordable, unlimited access to what, unfortunately, is a limited resource?

Here’s how we see it:

Data plans should be flexible and affordable. At T-Mobile, customers have the option of only paying for the amount of data each member of the family believes they will need. Customers can choose affordable no-annual-contract data for tablets and other data-only products they share – paying every month or buying in daily or weekly installments.

Data should be worry-free. With our unlimited data plans, there is no surprise data cap or bill shock. Customers simply pay each month for the amount of high-speed data they select and (in contrast to our competitors) T-Mobile customers can continue to use mobile data on their device at reduced speeds after they reach their limit without incurring overage charges.

Customers who pay more, should get more. T-Mobile smartphone customers with 5GB or 10GB data plans also get our Smartphone Mobile Hotspot feature included. This means, with a capable T-Mobile smartphone (most are), customers can power up to five Wi-Fi enabled devices with fast, 4G data. So rather than needing to account for each device on a shared family data plan, customers can use their existing data plan to power multiple devices, while still saving hundreds of dollars annually.

T-Mobile has adopted a traditional usage cap model that provides a set usage allowance but imposes no overlimit fees. Subscribers who exceed their allowance have their wireless data speeds reduced to levels resembling dial-up for the remainder of their billing cycle.

Verizon Wireless’ recent announcement it would kick customers grandfathered on unlimited use wireless plans to tiered data plans with overlimit fees has created controversy and has angered some Verizon Wireless customers. T-Mobile’s marketing strategy could draw some disaffected customers from larger carriers.

T-Mobile ultimately believes a shared data plan can create havoc on families trying to control their shared allotment of data for each month. Without careful coordination, consumers may find substantial overlimit fees on their wireless phone bills when they exceed their allowance.

No related stories.

Click here to view the embedded video.

FCC Chariman Julius Genachowski spent the day hobnobbing with cable industry executives at the Boston Cable Show. In an interview with CNBC, Genachowski defended usage-based pricing, claiming it will bring lower prices to light users, spur “innovation” and enable consumer choice. Verizon Wireless customers on the cusp of being thrown off their grandfathered unlimited data plans may have a bone to pick with the FCC chairman about how innovative and enabling such policies have on them. Genachowski also suggests his controversial Net Neutrality policy is working, despite recent attempts by Comcast to exempt its content from the company’s usage cap and the wireless industry toying with toll-free data for preferred partners. Genachowski had little to offer consumers in the interview, instead suggesting his deregulatory stance on “innovation” will eventually benefit them.  (5 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. FCC Chairman Opens Wireless Industry Convention Mouthing AT&T Talking Points
2. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowki on Rate of Innovation in American Broadband: America Dead Last
3. FCC Chairman Calls for Cable Industry to Close Broadband Gap
4. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Roadshow: Now He’ll Headline the Cable Industry’s Big Splash
5. FCC Chairman’s Latest Non-Answer Answer on Internet Overcharging Schemes

Frontier Communications will not roll out a national IPTV service to compete with cable operators in all of its service areas, but is still exploring its options for providing pay-TV service in larger cities.

That decision, announced by executive vice president and chief financial officer Donald R. Shassian, came at last week’s Global Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference sponsored by Wall Street investment bank J.P. Morgan.

Shassian used the occasion to clarify remarks made during the company’s first-quarter results conference call, which caused some shareholders and analysts concern about the company’s lackluster performance, capital spending plans, and company debt that will come due early next year.

Shassian said Frontier will not deploy U-verse-like IPTV service across its entire national service area, but is considering the future option of delivering the service (and better broadband speeds) theoretically in selected markets.

Shassian also raised the prospect of modifying part of its acquired fiber-to-the-home FiOS network to fiber to the neighborhood technology that companies like AT&T are currently using. But for the foreseeable future, most Frontier customers will have to subscribe to satellite television if they want a video package with their home phone and broadband service.

Stop the Cap! was the first to report Frontier was considering licensing AT&T U-verse to use in selected larger markets where the company has lost considerable ground against cable competitors that deliver consistently faster broadband service.

Wall Street reaction to the proposal has been negative, with concerns Frontier will need to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, to deploy such a network.

Shassian sought to distance the company from any suggestion they will further increase spending on network improvements. In fact, Shassian says Frontier will end its broadband expansion program, and the extra spending to pay for it, by 2013.

“Our capital expenditure spending will decrease in 2013 as the geographic broadband expansion of our network concludes,” Shassian said. “We expect capital expenditures to drop by approximately $100 million in 2013.”

In lieu of national IPTV service, Frontier remains committed to its resale partnership with satellite TV provider Dish Network. But Shassian did admit U-verse technology is among the options the company is exploring to remain competitive.

Surprisingly, Shassian also said the company was considering partially modifying its acquired FiOS network in Indiana and the Pacific Northwest, because of the cost savings it could deliver.

“We have been evaluating alternative platforms which could generate savings from capital expenditures, video transport and even content costs that can be significant to the FiOS video market business,” Shassian said. “I want to be clear that we have no plans to deploy IPTV across our nationwide network and therefore do not see upward CapEx pressure from any potential changes in our facilities-based video strategy.”

Asked about the potential cost savings afforded by swapping out FiOS technology for IPTV fiber to the neighborhood service, Shassian said it could open the door to expanding service in areas where existing copper-based last mile network facilities can sustain a minimum of 20Mbps broadband service. Frontier claims 1.9 million homes in its service area can receive 20Mbps today, of which 600,000 are currently within a Frontier FiOS service area.

“If we changed, we may have to change out set top boxes on [existing FiOS customers],” Shassian said.

In this clip, Frontier Communications’ executive VP and chief financial officer Don Shassian speaks to a J.P. Morgan investor conference in Boston about the company’s broadband and IPTV plans. (May 15-17, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The implication of substantially altering the company’s existing fiber-to-the-home network baffled some analysts.

One, who talked with Stop the Cap! asking not to be attributed, suspects Shassian’s role as a financial officer at Frontier may explain part of the mystery.

“He’s not the chief technology officer, and I suspect he is partly confused about the different technologies,” the analyst explains. “I can’t see Frontier tearing down their current network, but it may make sense for them to switch technology strategies when considering if and where they can expand their network.”

“Frontier’s first quarter results were more than disappointing, and the company is being exceptionally cautious about anything that requires spending right now,” the analyst said. “The next shoe to drop is another dividend cut, which would kill the stock in the market, and if we think Frontier will spend a billion to improve its network, that dividend is going down.”

Our source says he does not have much confidence in Frontier’s current management.

“They talk a nice story, but the numbers never finally add up,” he says. “Rescuing wireline is expensive and companies always promise it will cost incrementally little to expand revenue-enhancing broadband to their rural customers, but if that were true, the companies would have already done it, and without significant spending they have not.”

No related stories.