Google plans to offer up to 1Gbps service on its direct to the home fiber network

Google has announced it is doing something about anemic, overpriced, and poorly supported broadband service in the United States.  It’s going to start providing service itself.

In a move that is sure to drive providers crazy, Google is looking for your nominations for communities that are stuck in broadband backwaters, desperate for an upgrade.  With so many suffering from “good enough for you” broadband speeds, threats of “inevitable” Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits and consumption billing, or customer support that involves reaching more busy signals than helpful assistance, they won’t have to beg for nominations.

Google is planning to launch an experiment that we hope will make Internet access better and faster for everyone. We plan to test ultra-high speed broadband networks in one or more trial locations across the country. Our networks will deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today over 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections. We’ll offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people.

From now until March 26th, we’re asking interested municipalities to provide us with information about their communities through a Request for information (RFI), which we’ll use to determine where to build our network.

I can think of a few cities that were victimized by providers in 2009 who have little chance of seeing true fiber optic service any other way.  Rochester, New York, the Triad region of North Carolina, parts of San Antonio and Austin bypassed by Grande Communications’ fiber network, are all among them.  Rochester has the dubious distinction of being stuck with two providers itching to slap usage limits and consumption billing on their customers – Frontier and Time Warner Cable.  Since Verizon FiOS is popping up all over the rest of New York State, residents in the Flower City concerned about being left behind might want to make their voices heard.

Google plans to deliver 1Gbps… that’s a Gigabit — 1,000Mbps service to its fiber customers at a “competitive price.”

While some in the industry consider such speeds irrelevant to the majority of consumers, Google thinks otherwise:

In the same way that the transition from dial-up to broadband made possible the emergence of online video and countless other applications, ultra high-speed bandwidth will drive more innovation – in high-definition video, remote data storage, real-time multimedia collaboration, and others that we cannot yet imagine. It will enable new consumer applications, as well as medical, educational, and other services that can benefit communities. If the Internet has taught us anything, it’s that the most important innovations are often those we least expect.

What’s in it for Google?  Targeted advertising, guaranteed open networks, an improved broadband platform on which Google can develop new broadband applications, and calling out providers’ high profit, slow speed broadband schemes are all part of the fringe benefits.

For providers and their friends who have regularly attacked Google for “using their networks for free,” Google’s fiber experiment deflates providers’ hollow rhetoric, and could finally provide a warning shot on behalf of overcharged, frustrated consumers that the days of rationed broadband service at top dollar pricing may soon be over.

Google released this video announcing their Think Big With a Gig campaign (1 minute)

This isn’t Google’s first experience with being an Internet Service Provider.  The company has experimented with free Google Wi-Fi service in its hometown of Mountain View, California since 2006.

[Update 2:30pm EST: FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski applauded Google's experiment: "Big broadband creates big opportunities," he said in a statement. "This significant trial will provide an American testbed for the next generation of innovative, high-speed Internet apps, devices and services."

The Washington Post has a source that claims Google "doesn't currently have plans to expand beyond the initial tests but will evaluate as the tests progress."  That could mean the experiment also serves a public policy purpose to re-emphasize Google's support for Net Neutrality, and to deflate lobbyist rhetoric about Google's support for those policies being more a case of their own self-interest and less about the public good.  If Google can run its networks with open access, they essentially put their money where their public policy mouth is.]

Time Warner Cable and Fox are now into their final day of negotiations before the agreement expires governing Fox-owned affiliate stations and cable networks.

One thing that the dispute has accomplished is increasing media attention on both companies and a spotlight on the business models of television programming and distribution.  It used to be so simple – television programming would air on broadcast television, enjoy massive audiences and the lucrative ad revenue that comes from having top-rated programming.  Cable networks couldn’t survive on the much smaller ad revenue they earn from their smaller audiences, so they charged cable operators a small fee for every subscriber who could watch their channels.

With the advent of TiVo and other digital video recorders, online viewing, and the audience erosion that comes from both, what worked for more than 50 years didn’t work so well anymore.  Time-shifting viewers no longer felt committed to watching live television, satisfied with being able to watch when they want and fast forward past the increasing amount of advertising television stations crammed into programming.  With broadband, viewers could download or stream their favorite programs online, often for free and with limited (if any) commercials.  Cable networks that used to be content running older syndicated programming, movies, and low budget documentaries and specials began creating their own original programming, often just as good as anything the networks produced.  Subscription fees charged programmers increased accordingly to help finance these shows.

Today, some cable networks are coming close to rivaling the viewership of broadcast networks’ lesser-watched programming.  If the economic downturn didn’t challenge the advertising industry, the ongoing loss of network television viewers would have accomplished the same thing – lower ad rates for ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox.

At the heart of the debate is a new discussion about whether “free over the air television” is a sustainable business model.  Networks like Fox evidently don’t think so, which is why they seek payment from the pay television industry, be it cable, FiOS, U-verse, or satellite.  Since the majority of Americans now watch television through one of these services or through their broadband connection, there is plenty to be made from such payments.  Of course, those costs are passed on to you.

The result?  You are now paying for “free television.”

The hardball game between Fox and Time Warner Cable will be replayed often between the other networks and programmers and pay television companies.

Today’s video reports include another update from the business side of the story, several additional reports from impacted Fox stations, and basic education about what television antennas are all about.

New York Times reporter Brian Stelter reports the two parties remain “pretty far apart” from an agreement in this report from Bloomberg News. (2 minutes)

CNBC discusses the business side of the Time Warner Cable-Fox dispute, and now Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has put himself in the middle of the dispute as well. (1 minute)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KXAN Austin Cable dispute could turn off bowl games 12-31-09.flv

In Austin, KXAN-TV reports Time Warner Cable has been telling Texas viewers they can watch most of the Fox Network programming on Hulu for free.  Some Austin residents are sick of hearing about the dispute and are abandoning Time Warner Cable for DirecTV.  “Football is everything in Texas,” say some who are watching the dispute with concern. (3 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDFW Dallas Watch FOX 4 without Time Warner 12-31-09.flv

Some local Fox stations are teaching their viewers how to receive their stations if Time Warner Cable no longer carries them on their lineup.  KDFW-TV in Dallas went to Best Buy where they’re only too happy to sell antennas and digital converter boxes to Metroplex residents. (2 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOFL Orlando Fox Orlando Affiliate Teaches Viewers About Antennas 12-30-09.flv

WOFL-TV in Orlando spent part of the newscast teaching people what a TV antenna is.  For many under 30, television viewing has always been through cable or satellite, never over-the-air, so the concept of rabbit ears is a new one for some. (1 minute)

Lots more to watch below the page break.  Click the link below to continue!

… Continue Reading

AT&T’s hybrid fiber-copper wire U-verse system added its 2,000,000th customer today and has announced a new speed tier in three of the company’s markets: Austin and San Antonio in Texas and St. Louis, Missouri.

The new High Speed Internet Max Turbo plan signals two things about AT&T’s broadband service — it can squeeze a bit more speed out of its more advanced VDSL network and it’s running out of clever names for its premium speed tiers.  The new plan is capable of achieving up to 24Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream, which is still not enough to compete with Time Warner Cable and Charter Cable’s DOCSIS 3 cable modem technology, but could be enough for many consumers.  The new plan is priced at $65 a month for residential customers who also receive other AT&T services, and $95 a month for business customers.  Many small business customers choose DSL service over cable modem technology because of installation costs, which can be prohibitive if an office park is not already wired for cable service.

AT&T added one million new customers in 2009 across 22 states where it provides service.  U-verse is still a work in progress in many areas where AT&T is slowly upgrading its facilities to deliver service. U-verse competes primarily with cable televisi0n, using a “bundled service” approach that tries to sign up customers for a complete line of telecommunications products.

Besides the alternative cable television service AT&T provides, more than 90% of customers also take U-verse’s broadband service.  It’s a major improvement over AT&T’s traditional DSL service, which is much slower and less reliable in providing promised speeds.

A U-verse installer wires up a new customer's home for service

AT&T counts these milestones for 2009:

• Launched 13 U-verse TV apps, bringing the total number of TV apps to 21 and giving U-verse TV customers control and interactivity with their favorite content. Two of the most recent app additions include Multiview, which lets you watch up to four channels at one time on your TV screen; and Santa Tracker, which lets families visit the North Pole to play holiday games, listen to sing-a-longs, follow Santa around the globe on Christmas Eve and more.
• Added more than 25 High Definition (HD) channels, bringing the U-verse TV HD channel lineup to more than 110 HD channels in every U-verse TV market. AT&T claims U-verse offers more HD channels than major cable providers in every U-verse TV market.
• Enhanced the company’s Digital Video Recorder to include Mobile Remote Access for the iPhone, an app that allows you to schedule and manage DVR recordings and search U-verse TV program listings from your iPhone. AT&T also added the capability to schedule and delete recordings from any U-verse connected TV in the home.
• Improved speeds on its broadband service by launching Max Turbo. AT&T also upgraded U-verse High Speed Internet Max customers by increasing speeds from up to 10 Mbps to up to 12 Mbps — a 20 percent speed increase at no extra charge.
• Expanded U-verse availability in the Southeast region. U-verse TV is now available in all 22 states of AT&T’s traditional footprint, and the advanced fiber network passes more than 20 million living units.
• Ramped U-verse Voice availability. U-verse Voice is now available in all 120 markets that offer U-verse TV, giving consumers another option for their home phone services and more quad-play integrated features.

Phillip Dampier

Today is Stop the Cap!’s first anniversary.  One year ago today, this website was launched with the news that Frontier Communications, the local telephone company in Rochester, New York and in dozens of mostly rural communities nationwide, had quietly changed its Acceptable Use Policy to define appropriate maximum usage of their DSL service at a measly 5GB per month.

The  boneheaded, out of touch decision was called out for what it was: a profiteering provider pilfering wallets of their broadband customers.

All the signs of a Money Party among cable and DSL providers at consumer expense were apparent last summer.  Time Warner Cable was experimenting with a consumption billing plan in Beaumont, Texas.  In Canada, rhetoric about “bit caps” was already being circulated, trying to convince Canadians that broadband service was somehow as difficult to provide there as it is in Australia and New Zealand, where such caps were already in place.

To bring limits, rationing quotas, and consumption based billing to the United States would require consumers to ignore massive profits broadband providers were harvesting quarter after quarter at existing prices.  But demands for big profits from Wall Street meant they had to come from somewhere, and for cable companies with eroding profits from their cable TV divisions, and telephone companies dealing with disconnect requests for wired telephone lines, broadband was their choice.

It seems that what was insanely profitable a decade ago, when cable modem and DSL service started to introduce Americans to broadband, would now simply be ‘piles of  cash stacked like cord wood’-profitable as traffic increased. As the broadband adoption rate increased, bandwidth costs plummeted, and several providers also proudly trumpeted their reduced investments in their networks as a hallmark of keeping “costs under control.”

Consumers began actually using their service for… broadband-specific services, at the encouragement of providers’ marketing departments, touting their “always on” connection at “blazing fast speeds” to download music, movies, play games, and more.  Network utilization increased, and providers want someone to pay for a “bandwidth crisis” that isn’t a crisis at all.  Responsible investment in network infrastructure should be a given, in recognition that at least a small portion of those growing profits must be spent on maintaining and improving service.

One year ago, I laid out what was before us:

Cable operators have been discussing implementing usage caps in several markets to control what they refer to as a “broadband crisis.” The industry has embarked on a lobbying campaign to convince Americans, with scant evidence and absolutely no independent analysis of their numbers, that the country is headed to a massive shortage in bandwidth in just a few short years, and that a tiny percentage of customers are hogging your bandwidth.

Frontier, ever the rascally competitor, has decided to one-up Time Warner’s Road Runner product by slapping on a usage cap now for DSL customers before Road Runner considers doing the same. And in a spectacularly stupid move competitively, they have implemented a draconian cap that even the cable industry wouldn’t try to implement.

Time Warner Cable “took one for the team,” according to industry-friendly Multichannel News, when it introduced a ludicrous Internet Overcharging experiment of its own announced this past April, which would have “saved” customers money by getting them to “pay for what they use.”  In fact, their plan proved my point last summer, following the same roadmap of “bandwidth crisis” to “heavy downloaders” to trying to squeeze customers for more money for upgrades they could easily have done with the enormous profits they already earn.

Their proposal would have made a deliciously profitable $50 a month Internet service now cost consumers $150 a month with absolutely zero improvement in service, speed, or performance.  But Wall Street would have been happy with the higher returns.

Some 400+ articles later, we’ve educated consumers across North America about the reality of Internet Overcharging.  Despite industry propaganda “education” efforts, astroturfing groups we’ve exposed as having direct connections with the telecommunications providers paying them to produce worthless studies, fear-mongering about Internet brownouts by equipment vendors with solutions to sell, and a hack-a-thon of formerly respectable broadband pioneers and ex-government officials who sold their credentials for a paycheck to lobby and spout industry propaganda, most consumers continue to reject overcharging for their broadband service.  Consumers instinctively know a cable company with a rate change always means a rate increase, and plans to “save people money” actually means they will “protect industry profits.”

We have achieved victory after victory in 2008-2009:

• Fought back against Frontier’s boneheaded plan, and convinced them that DSL can compete best on price and flexibility — no usage cap has ever been enforced at Frontier, and today they are using Time Warner Cable’s blundering profiteering experiment against them in their marketing materials.  For rural Frontier customers with no other broadband provider, that’s a major relief from being stuck with one broadband option that rations their usage to ludicrously low levels.
• Stopped Time Warner Cable’s experiment before it got off the ground in several “test cities.”  The people of Austin, San Antonio, Rochester, and the Triad region of North Carolina did Time Warner Cable customers nationwide a tremendous service in halting this experiment before it spread.  Our efforts even brought a United States Senator, Charles Schumer, to the front lawn of Time Warner Cable in Rochester to announce the nightmare was, at least for now, over.  We managed to even see an end to the overcharging of customers in Beaumont, Texas who lived through a summer, winter, and spring, overpaying for their broadband service.
• We raised hell in the North Carolina state legislature, coming to the aid of Wilson and other communities in the state trying to get municipal broadband projects off the ground.  Communities across the state faced anti-consumer corporate protectionist legislation written by the telecommunications industry, introduced by willing elected officials who took big telecom money, and sold out their constituents.  We killed two bills, forced a sponsor of one such measure to repudiate his own bill, and gave major headaches to legislators that thought they could just cash those big checks, vote against your interests, and you’d never know.  Those days are over.
• We helped bring legislation up in Congress to draw attention to the issue of Internet Overcharging, and have called out providers who want to use their marketing departments to lie to customers about their broadband costs and profits, while being considerably more honest with their shareholders in their quarterly financial reports.  Congressman Eric Massa’s legislation would demand companies show proof of the need to implement consumption based billing.  Indeed, as consumers find out how profitable broadband service is at today’s prices, they’ll never tolerate the profit padding providers seek with tomorrow’s caps/limits, penalties and fees, and unjustified tiers.

As you can see, Internet Overcharging is not a dead concept.  An educated consumer will recognize a swindle when they see one, and providers continue to test overcharging schemes in focus groups in different parts of the country.  They’ll use any analogy, from a buffet lunch to a toll road traveled by big trucks and little cars.  They’re looking for anything they can find to sucker you into believing paying more for your broadband service is fair.

Broadband service must be fast, affordable, and competitive.  In too many communities in Canada and the United States, a monopoly or duopoly marketplace has guaranteed none of those things.  In our second year, we must remain vigilant in our core mission to fight Internet Overcharging, but we also need to fight for more competition, regulation where competition does not exist, oversight over providers, and support for projects that will enhance broadband and make it more affordable than ever.  With your help, we can stand toe to toe with any provider, because the facts are on our side, not theirs, when it comes to Internet Overcharging schemes.

Welcome to Year Two!

If cable operators intend to impose Internet Overcharging schemes to measure and cap residential broadband accounts, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must impose equal treatment on traditional video cable television packages to allow customers to subscribe to only the channels they want.

The Austin Broadband Interest Group, a not-for-profit broadband advocacy organization, calls out the cable television industry for advocating an end to flat rate broadband service at the same time they continue to resist a-la-carte pricing for cable television packages.

In a filing with the FCC as part of a nationwide broadband policy inquiry, the Texas group recites the history of Time Warner Cable’s recent proposed experiment curtailing current flat rate Internet service.  Time Warner Cable planned to expand its Internet Overcharging market test conducted in Beaumont, Texas into four additional cities: Austin and San Antonio in Texas, Rochester in western New York, and the Triad region of North Carolina.  Customers in the test would have faced the prospect of paying 300% more for an equivalent level of flat rate service, with bills increasing from $40-50 a month to a staggering $150 a month, with no increase in speed or immediate improvement in service.

The Austin group claims that such Internet Overcharging efforts are designed to protect Time Warner Cable’s video business model, which includes the packaging of flat rate video cable TV packages to customers across the country.  Time Warner Cable, among other cable providers, have grown increasingly concerned about free online video potentially discouraging customers from subscribing to a cable television package.  Industry executives fear that new generations of Internet users will dispense with traditional cable TV service, obtaining video entertainment online, instead.

The group advocates the FCC enforce a rule that any broadband provider that wants to implement limits or consumption-based service tiers must also offer the same pricing model for video programming.  Matthew A. Henry and Chip Rosenthal, authors of the filing, include other competing video providers in their comments.  Telephone companies, including AT&T and Verizon, have begun offering video services to customers in addition to broadband packages.  AT&T is testing an Internet Overcharging scheme to limit consumption in two cities — Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.

The cable industry has struggled with Congress and the Commission for years to prevent the imposition of a-la-carte video programming pricing, permitting customers to pay for only the channels they want to watch.  The industry claims it would destroy the business model of cable television, where cable programmers like CNN, The Weather Channel, A&E, and most others impose a subscription fee based on the number of “basic cable” subscribers that have access to those channels.  Most networks charge between 10-80 cents per subscriber, with some sports-related channels charging considerably more.  By dividing the costs among every subscriber, the industry argues, it can deliver a robust video package to everyone for the same price.

Unfortunately, cable programmers continually increase the rates they charge for their cable networks, often well above the rate of inflation, and many broadcast networks and stations also demand cable companies take on new networks they may not necessarily want, to obtain continued permission to carry local stations on the cable dial. The result: relentless annual rate increases for cable television packages.

The inequity of cable’s argument that it must be allowed to continue providing flat rate television programming packages (and disallow a-la-carte) while programming costs increase, while demanding an end to flat rate Internet pricing, despite a decrease in the costs to provide it, suggests “fairness” is not the motivation for proposing such Internet Overcharging schemes:

In May of 2009, Time Warner Chief Executive Officer Glenn Britt essentially admitted that the competitive threat of online video to traditional cable is the driving force behind the company’s capped and metered pricing model. Mr. Britt told investors, “If, at an extreme, you could get all of the programming you get over cable for free on the Internet, over time people will stop buying (TV).”  Unfortunately, Time Warner has chosen to protect its cable revenues through unfairly restricting usage of its broadband service. This clearly demonstrates the need regulatory ground rules aimed at dissuading such anti-consumer and anti-broadband business practices.

Rather than representing a “fair” method of billing, metered pricing plans and usage caps are a strategy intended to salvage diminishing cable revenues by forcing users to use less Internet. Users have been watching increasing amounts of video online, with some abandoning their cable service altogether in favor of broadband (an effect that has been sped by the struggling economy). This presents an obvious dilemma for broadband providers that also offer a cable product, like Time Warner: as online video watching goes up, the revenue-generating cable usage goes down. Online video is bad for business because a cable company directly profits from its cable content through advertising, pay-per-view and video-on-demand, but can’t profit off Internet content. The fact is that Time Warner is offering competing products and the company has a vested interest in cable video prevailing over Internet video. Time Warner introduced metered pricing and usage caps to make its customers turn off their computers and pick up the remote.