Wireless Industry: We’re running out of spectrum!
Wireless Industry: We’ve got plenty to room for unlimited ESPN!

America is on the verge of a wireless traffic data jam so bad, it could bring America to its knees.

Or not.

Stop the Cap! notices with some interest that while wireless carriers continue to sound the alarm about a spectrum crisis so serious it necessitates further compressing the UHF television dial and forces other spectrum users to become closer neighbors, the same giant phone companies warning of impending doom are negotiating with online video producers to offer customers “toll-free,” all-you-cat-eat streaming video of major sports events that won’t count against your usage allowance.

ESPN is in talks with at least one major carrier (AT&T or Verizon Wireless) to subsidize some of the costs of its streamed video content so that customers can watch as much as they want without running into a provider’s usage limit. Both Verizon and AT&T have signaled their interest in allowing content producers to pay for subscribers’ data usage. In fact, they don’t seem to care who pays for the enormous bandwidth consumed by streaming video, so long as someone does.

At a recent investment bank conference Verizon Wireless chief executive Dan Mead explained the next chapter in monetizing data usage will allow the company to rake in more revenue from third parties instead of customers already struggling with high wireless bills.

“We are actively exploring those opportunities and looking at every way to bring value to our customers,” said Mead.

Content producers are increasingly frustrated with the stingy caps on offer at AT&T and Verizon Wireless because customers stop accessing that content once they near their monthly usage limit. One large provider admitted to ESPN that “significant numbers” of customers are already reaching their cap before the end of their billing cycle, after which their online usage plummets to limit the sting of overlimit charges.

Offering “toll-free” data could dramatically increase the use of high bandwidth applications and increase profits at wireless providers based on new fees they could collect from content producers. Customers would still be subject to usage limits for all non-preferred content, a clear violation of Net Neutrality principles.

The buffet is open.

But in case you forgot, wireless carriers won exemption from Net Neutrality, arguing their networks lack the capacity to sustain a Net Neutral Internet experience. These same companies claim without more frequencies to handle the massive, potentially unsustainable amount of wireless traffic, the wireless data apocalypse could be at hand in just a few years. It was also the most-cited reason AT&T and Verizon discontinued their unlimited use data plans.

But unlimiting ESPN video? No problem.

In January 2010, Verizon Wireless was singing a very different tune to the FCC about the need to control and manage high bandwidth applications like the “toll-free” streaming video service ESPN proposes (underlining ours):

Wireless broadband services face technological and operational constraints arising from the need to manage spectrum sharing by a dynamically varying number of mobile users at any time. Thus, unlike, for example, cable broadband networks, where a known and relatively fixed number of subscribers share capacity in a given area, the capacity demand at any given cell site is much more variable as the number and mix of subscribers constantly change in sometimes highly unpredictable ways.

Are wireless carriers now part of the problem?

For example, as a subscriber using a high-bandwidth application such as streaming video moves from range of one cell site to another, the network must immediately provide the needed capacity for that subscriber, while not disrupting other subscribers using that same cell site. Of course, the problem is magnified many times over as multiple subscribers can be moving in and out of range of a cell site at any given moment. Moreover, the available bandwidth can fluctuate due to variations in radio frequency signal strength and quality, which can be affected by changing factors such as weather, traffic, speed, and the nearby presence of interfering devices (e.g., wireless microphones).

These problems compound those resulting from limited spectrum. As the Commission has repeatedly recognized in proclaiming an upcoming spectrum crisis, “as wireless is increasingly used as a platform for broadband communications services, the demand for spectrum bandwidth will likely continue to increase significantly, and spectrum availability may become critical to ensuring further innovation.”

A wireless carrier cannot readily increase capacity once it has exhausted its spectrum capacity. Thus, wireless broadband providers are left to acquire additional spectrum (to the extent available) or take measures that use their existing spectrum as efficiently as possible, which they do through a combination of investing in additional cell sites and network management practices that optimize network usage and address congestion so as to provide consumers with the quality of service they expect.

Regulators need to ask why wireless companies are telling the FCC there is a bandwidth crisis of epic proportions that requires the Commission to exempt them from important Net Neutrality principles while telling investment banks, shareholders and content producers the more traffic the merrier, as long as someone pays. Customers also might ask why their unlimited use data plans were discontinued while carriers seek deals to allow unlimited viewing with their preferred content partners.

What is the real motivation? The Wall Street Journal suggests one:

“Creating a second revenue stream for mobile broadband is the holy grail for wireless operators but collecting fees from content companies would probably make the FCC take a close look into the policy implications,” said Paul Gallant, managing director at Guggenheim Securities. An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

The Wall Street Journal takes a closer look at a plan to manage an end run around Net Neutrality by allowing preferred content partners to offer streaming video services exempt from your usage cap. (4 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. What Spectrum Crisis: Verizon Wireless Tries to Monetize Video Usage With New App
2. Bulldozing Wireless Net Neutrality: Carriers Want “Toll-Free” Data for Their Partners
3. Proof Verizon’s Banishment of ‘Unlimited Data’ is a Money Grab, Not a Capacity Concern
4. AT&T’s Internet Overcharging Merry-go-Round — Billing App Makers for Your ‘Overusage’
5. AT&T’s ‘Data Tsunami’: Upselling Customers for Higher Profits During Spectrum ‘Crisis’

Phillip “I Shop Online” Dampier

Last week, JCPenney launched their nationwide redemption tour, apologizing to millions of ex-customers that fled the former retail giant, begging them to come back.

It took over a year for JCPenney to get the message that “disciplining” and “re-educating” customers to accept the wisdom of everyday higher prices with few sales and almost no coupons was hardly the door-busting success “miracle worker” CEO Ron Johnson originally had in mind. The ex-Apple executive was rewarded a $52.7 million signing bonus to take over JCPenney’s tired leadership and in return he dragged sales down 28.4% from the year before, with same store sales down 32%. Johnson’s new vision also steamrolled one-third of JCPenney’s online business.

The day those results became known, he confidently showed Wall Street he did not dwell in the reality-based community: “I’m completely convinced that our transformation is on track!” (For Kohl’s benefit anyway.)

Johnson also believed in a “less is more” philosophy in human resources, overseeing layoffs of 13 percent of the company’s workforce last April, with another 350 let go in July.

Despite the fact his all-new, rebooted vision of JCPenney was about as popular as bird flu, he stayed, even as customers and employees didn’t.

It wasn’t that the company didn’t know customers had a problem with all this. Many complained about the radical, unwanted changes at JCPenney, particularly middle-aged professional women representing one of the stores’ most important business segments. Company executives simply didn’t listen.

A year later, some of the same analysts that cheered JCPenney’s crackdown on discounting now wonder if the company will survive 2013. Many fretted about the real possibility the last customer to brave the “new era” of JCP might forget to turn the lights out when they left for good. Others were mostly furious the board let Johnson go.

Despite the tragic consequences, the conventional wisdom on Wall Street remains: Alienating customers with a revamp nobody asked for and “everyday pricing” designed to boost profits every day was not the problem, how Johnson implemented the strategy was. He just didn’t educate customers enough.

We see the same warped thinking in the broadband marketplace, particularly with usage caps, consumption billing, junk fees and the general ever-increasing price of broadband itself.

On providers’ quarterly results conference calls, the regular questions challenging leaders of the industry are not about providers charging too much for too little. The real concern is that your ISP is leaving too much ripe fruit on the tree:

• Where is the revenue-boosting usage caps and consumption billing, Time Warner Cable?
• Comcast: can’t you raise prices further on those recent speed increases to maximize additional revenue?
• Verizon: why are you spending so much on fiber broadband upgrades customers love when that money could have gone back to shareholders?
• AT&T: Is there anything else you can do to exploit your market share and make even more money from costly data plans?

The best ways a consumer can reward a good broadband provider include remaining a loyal customer, paying your bill on time and upgrading to faster speeds as needed. For Wall Street, the growing demand for broadband is a sign there is plenty of wiggle room for at-will rate increases, new fees and surcharges, contract tricks and traps, customer service cuts, and monetizing usage wherever possible. After all, you probably won’t cancel because the other guy in town is doing the same thing.

This is what sets the broadband marketplace of today apart from most retailers: consumers don’t have 10-20 other choices to take their business to if they are fed up.

Comcast or AT&T? Both charge a lot and have usage limits on their broadband service for no good reason. Your other alternatives? A wireless provider charging even more with an even lower usage cap. Or you can always go without.

While providers may tell you there is a healthy, competitive broadband marketplace, Wall Street knows better. When Time Warner Cable recently announced it would dramatically curtail new customer promotions and concentrate on delivering fewer services for more money, nobody bothered asking whether this would result in a stampede to the competition. What competition?

Although Google is delivering much-needed, game-changing competition in a tiny handful of cities, most Americans will not benefit because the best upgrades and lowest prices are only available where Google threatens the status quo. A larger number of municipalities are done putting their broadband (and economic) future in the hands of the phone and cable company and are building their own digital infrastructure for the good of their communities.

For everyone else, we can dream that one day, someday, the cable and phone company most Americans do business with will be forced to run their own JCPenney-like apology tour for years of abusive pricing and mediocre “good enough for you” broadband with unwarranted usage limits. Time Warner Cable went half way, but until competition or oversight forces some dramatic changes, we should not count on providers to actually listen to what customers want. They don’t believe they need to listen to earn or keep your business.

Other stories of interest:

1. Time Warner Cable’s Broadband Pricing Game: Special Wall-Street-At-Home Edition
2. Craig “Data Cap” Moffett Leaves Sanford Bernstein Wall Street Firm to Start His Own
3. Wall Street Journal’s Distorted Views on Broadband Only See the Industry’s Point of View
4. Time Warner Cable Loses 15% of Their Analog Cable Customers; News on Broadband Caps, Pricing
5. Time Warner Cable Pulling Back Hard on Promotions: New Customers Will Pay More for Less

The Heeley family have been Cox customers for over 15 years, buying cable television, broadband, and phone service that costs them nearly $200 a month.

With nearly $2,400 a year going into Cox’s bank accounts from their family alone, John Heeley was a little upset Cox sent him a warning message about his family’s “excessive Internet usage.”

“It seems we went over our usage cap by 40GB in April thanks to a rotten spring and a lot of Netflix viewing,” Heeley tells Stop the Cap! “I didn’t even understand the letter because I never knew there was a cap on the Internet.”

Cox, like certain other providers, have arbitrary usage limits on broadband accounts, with larger allowances granted to customers who upgrade to faster speeds for more money.

Heeley’s fiancé Shelley was angry after realizing just how much the couple already spends with Cox.

“I called them on the phone and the first thing they want to do is get you to upgrade and spend even more money with them,” she tells Stop the Cap! “They tried to vaguely threaten our service if we continued to ‘overuse the Internet’ and suggested we cut back or cancel Netflix which they think is the reason we went over the limit.”

Shelley says she was born at night, but not last night.

“How convenient they want you to stop using Netflix, Amazon, or other online video services that their cable TV competes with,” Shelley says. “It is unfair competition.”

Shelley requested a Cox supervisor and threatened the company right back, telling Cox if they sent one more letter like that, the Heeley family would take their business elsewhere.

“He told us quietly we could ignore the letter and any future letters and they will add a note on our account,” Shelley tells us. “He confided they have customers going over the limit all the time and the letter is really about educating customers about usage.”

It seems if Cox threatens you, threatening them back with account cancellation is usually the end of the story.

We found Broadband Reports‘ readers who exceed usage limits with Cox largely unafraid of any consequences:

• Rakeesh: I’ve gone everywhere from 300gb to 700gb over the cap for the last 19 months in a row. You’re fine.
• Skeechan: I have gone over too. The nastygrams seem to only be sent in selective markets. I am on Ultimate, perhaps that is why they haven’t sent me one since I have nowhere to go plan-wise. And being triple play since 1998 offers up a reliable and high ARPU. Of course that assumes they actually give a crap about common sense.
• Maltz: I went over my cap by about 30GB last month and got an email telling me that I was over. That was the end of it.

Other stories of interest:

1. AT&T Cracking Down on DSL/U-verse Usage While Promoting “No Bandwidth Limitations”
2. Cox Slams DSL in New Ads, But Cox Cable Customers Stuck With Usage Caps
3. Shaw Sneakiness: Company Lowers Usage Limits, Hopes Nobody Noticed
4. Cox’s 3 Steps to Fatter Profits With Internet Overcharging: Upgrade or Your Services Will Be Blocked
5. Netflix’s Reed Hastings Discovers Comcast’s Usage Cap: The End Run Around Net Neutrality

A freak spring snowstorm has stolen CenturyLink’s thunder.

A freak spring snowstorm has covered up much of the anticipated publicity for CenturyLink’s plans to launch a trial of gigabit fiber broadband for 48,000 customers in western Omaha.

The phone company announced the pilot project this week amid a historic spring storm that dumped several inches of heavy, wet snow on parts of Nebraska. The media devoted most of its attention to the weather.

CenturyLink admits its gigabit fiber service is a pilot project designed to test consumer demand and the tolerance of local officials for limiting upgrades to selected neighborhoods and customers most likely to buy the service. CenturyLink has priced the gigabit service comparably to Google Fiber — $79.95 a month if bundled with other CenturyLink products. Standalone broadband is nearly twice as expensive — $149.95 a month.

“CenturyLink is pleased to offer its Omaha customers ultra-fast broadband speeds up to 1Gbps to help keep pace with growing broadband demands,” said Karen Puckett, chief operating officer. “This demonstrates our commitment to deliver communications solutions that provide our customers with the technology they need to enhance their quality of life, now and into the future.”

CenturyLink will not be building the fiber network from scratch. The company already runs a 100Gbps middle-mile/institutional fiber network in Omaha that reaches certain business clients and serves as a conduit for CenturyLink customer traffic. CenturyLink will supplement that by using the remnants of its predecessor’s long-gone Qwest Choice TV service. The company will spend millions to run fiber connections to homes and businesses, but around 9,800 residents formerly served by Qwest’s television service will be able to sign up for CenturyLink Lightspeed Broadband as early as Monday. Others may have to wait until as late as October.

CenturyLink now sells up to 40Mbps speeds in Omaha, with a 300GB monthly usage cap. The company has not said if it intends to apply a usage limit on its fiber customers.

The phone company’s largest and fastest competitor is Cox Cable, which sells up to 150/20Mbps service for $99.99 a month.

Cox Cable cannot match CenturyLink’s speeds at the moment, but does not think most Omaha residents need or want gigabit fiber.

“It is important to note that our most popular Internet package remains the one that provides speeds of 25Mbps, which meets the needs of the majority of customers,” said Cox spokesman Todd Smith. “We will continue to talk with our customers and invest in product enhancements to provide an optimal broadband experience.”

Only around 12% of metropolitan Omaha will have access to the experimental fiber service, primarily those living in West Omaha. The network will bypass residents that live further east. The boundaries of the forthcoming fiber network are notable: West Omaha comprises mostly affluent middle and upper class professionals and is one of the wealthiest areas in the metropolitan region. Winning a right to offer service on a limited basis within Omaha is an important consideration for telecom companies like CenturyLink.

AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink and other telecommunications companies are seeking deregulation that would end universal service mandates that require companies to build their networks in every neighborhood, rich and poor.

Cable and telephone companies have taken careful note Google Fiber is being allowed to provide service only where demand can be found — a significant change in long-standing municipal policies that demand cable and phone companies provide access to nearly every resident.

CenturyLink delivered a “between the lines” message to local officials when it suggested it might expand its fiber network elsewhere in Omaha and beyond, but only after evaluating the project for “positive community support, competitive parity in the marketplace and the ability to earn a reasonable return on its investment.”

In other words, keeping zoning and permit battles (and residential complaints about construction projects) to a bare minimum, allowing the company the right to choose where it will (and won’t) deploy service, and making sure people will actually buy the service are all the key factors for fiber expansion.

AT&T said much the same thing when it vaguely promised a gigabit fiber network to compete with Google in Austin.

Google may have unintentionally handed their competitors a new carrot: deregulate us in return for fancy fiber upgrades that customers crave.

In perspective: CenturyLink’s fiber trial will only impact about 12% of the total population of metropolitan Omaha, primarily in and near affluent West Omaha.

WOWT in Omaha spent less than a minute reporting on CenturyLink’s forthcoming gigabit fiber trial. A spring snowstorm preoccupied most of Omaha’s media instead.  (1 minute)

Other stories of interest:

1. Breaking News: Provo, Utah the Next City Slated for Gigabit Google Fiber
2. AT&T Announces Its Own “Gigabit Fiber Network” for Austin; Details Leave Wiggle Room
3. Time Warner Cable, Verizon Insist You Don’t Want or Need Gigabit Broadband
4. AT&T, Time Warner Cable Claim They Are Ready for Google Fiber in Austin
5. Back to Kansas City: Google Fiber Now Going in the Ground; TV Service Also Announced

The German Internet is functionally broken.

Deutsche Telekom, the largest telecommunications company in Germany, has announced it will introduce a brazen Internet Overcharging scheme for customers signing up for its broadband DSL service, including a throttle that reduces speeds to just 384kbps after as little as 75GB of monthly broadband usage.

For now, only new Telekom Deutschland customers signing up after May 1 will be affected by the usage limits. Customers will be offered the option of upgrading their Call & Surf package to get a larger usage allowance, although many parts of Germany are still reliant on DSL and its variants that cannot deliver the advertised speeds that go with the larger allowances:

• Up to 16Mbps: 75GB per month
• Up to 50Mbps: 200GB per month
• Up to 100Mbps: 300GB per month
• Up to 200Mbps: 400GB per month

“We want to offer customers the best network in the future and we will continue to invest billions to make that happen,” said Michael Hagspihl, marketing director of Telekom Deutschland. “However we cannot continue to sustain higher usage demand while lowering our prices. Customers with very high data volumes will have to pay more in the future.”

Company officials argue German broadband usage demands are accelerating at an ever-increasing rate, putting strain on the company’s network resources.

But critics question if usage demands are the root of the problem, why is DT exempting itself and its “preferred partners” from the data cap, including certain services that offer very high bandwidth video?

The Net Neutrality activist group Netzpolitik.org says DT is “massively violating Net Neutrality while the federal government looks away dreaming that the free market will solve the problem somehow.”

The group points out DT has admitted the speed throttle only applies to content providers who have not partnered up with the German telecom giant.

DT is exempting all of its own in-house content providers, the private television service Entertain, and telephone services (when provided by DT). For everyone else: the speed throttle gets closer the more customers use services like Apple iTunes or Amazon’s Lovefilm service. But DT says those companies can also get special treatment for the right price.

DT’s preferred partner cooperating agreements let “high quality content producers” pay for a managed services contract that guarantees exemption from the speed throttle and prioritization of their traffic on DT’s network, even if it means slowing down non-preferred partner content.

A parody future offer from DT.

“You cannot thumb your nose at Net Neutrality principles any better if you tried,” said Rene Pedersen, an Internet activist in Köln. “DT will have their emasculated two-tier Internet and all of Germany will have to suffer the consequences. Their own arguments do not even make sense. If there is a capacity crisis, how can they exempt some video providers that now consume the most network resources?”

“Until a few years ago, providers – just like the post – were just deliverers of packages,” said Netzpolitik’s Andre Masters. “This principle is called Net Neutrality – the equal treatment of data packets on the Internet, regardless of sender, recipient, or content. Now providers want to have a direct influence on the content sent, because they want to earn more money.”

Technology publisher Heise Online says the new usage restricting tariff has “triggered a veritable sh**storm” among net users who consider a 75GB usage limit untenable, particularly for families with multiple Internet users.

Heise is also critical of claims DT has made in the press that suggests German Internet users must either accept the usage caps or understand the company will have to spend at least €80 billion ($108 billion) to build a national fiber network to manage growing traffic.

In contrast, Goldman Sachs last year estimated the cost of wiring every home in the United States with Google Fiber would cost $140 billion, a number now considered inflated. Verizon FiOS managed to get costs down for its own fiber network to a level that suggests Google would only need around $90 billion — $10 billion more than DT claims it needs.

“DT is being disingenuous when they suggest it will cost €80 billion to solve their capacity problem. For that amount every household in Germany would get their own fiber cable with 200Mbps speeds or more,” Heise writes in their editorial. “To avoid slowing users down with a speed throttle, only a small fraction of this amount is needed to extend the Internet backbone and peering agreements between providers. For years network traffic has grown exponentially and DT has kept up with demand. So why does DT suddenly need to reshuffle the cards now?”

DT has also received criticism for how it has depicted its heavy users — mostly as content thieves and software pirates using file swapping networks to steal copyrighted works. But instead of dealing with copyright violations, DT wants a sweeping usage cap system that punishes every customer that wants to use their broadband connection.

“Customers are not insatiable Gierschlünde who want everything for free,” writes Heise. “They already pay a lot of money to Telekom: 12.5 million DSL customers roughly translates into around a half billion euros in sales per month.”

Back to the future.

The German news magazine Spiegel writes DT’s usage limits strangle the Internet for millions of Germans, especially for competing video providers:

When throttled, customers will need more than 23 hours to watch a DVD-quality movie. At Blu-ray resolution, it will take about two weeks to watch just one film.

[...] The implications of the end of Net Neutrality in Germany represents a form of economic censorship, and German politicians are standing by to watch it happen.

The federal government sees the Internet as a political bargaining chip and not as the social, cultural and economic tool it represents. The government acts in the interests of certain lobbyists, not Germany’s digital future. This allows German telecommunications companies to focus on their economic self-interests without government policies that demand investment in digital infrastructure.

A number of German Internet users are expected to switch to a cable provider, where available, to escape DT’s impending speed caps.

According to the Frankfurter Rundschau, many German cable companies also reserve the right to limit speeds for customers. But in practice, most don’t impose limits until traffic exceeds 60GB daily, and the speed cap is lifted the next day. A cable industry official says its cap currently impacts about 0.1 percent of customers, almost all who use peer-to-peer file swapping networks. Exempt from measurements that bring customers closer to a speed cap: web browsing, video streaming, and video-on-demand.

For now, Germany’s cable operators facing the same traffic growth DT speaks about find no need to impose further limits, stating their networks are handling the traffic with network upgrades as a normal course of business.

“It calls out DT’s claims as fraudulent, because cable Internet users visit the same websites and do the same things DT’s customers do and there only seems to be an ‘urgent’ problem in need of a speed throttle solution on BT’s network,” says Pedersen. “What needs to be throttled are the financial expectations of DT management and shareholders. The Internet is not their personal vault waiting to be plundered.”

What if Net Neutrality did not exist?  [Subtitled] (1 minute)

Other stories of interest:

1. All You Can Eat: New Zealand ISP Reintroduces Unlimited Usage Internet Service
2. CNN Mistakes Internet Overcharging for Net Neutrality
3. AT&T’s New Speed Throttle Being Used as Talking Point for Merger With T-Mobile
4. New Evidence Suggests Comcast Prioritizing Its Own Streamed Content; Usage Cap Must Go
5. Netflix Finally Wakes Up to Net Neutrality, Internet Overcharging Threat

This looks good enough for us, says the American Cable Association

A lobbying group for small cable operators says the nation’s current broadband availability maps are flawed, but good enough for the FCC to rely on to veto funding for rural broadband projects that might compete with some of their members.

The American Cable Association submitted its comments to the FCC as part of discussions about the next phase of broadband subsidy funding from the Connect America Fund.

Most current broadband maps rely heavily on unverified data voluntarily submitted by existing broadband providers or by third-party groups that are funded or controlled by some of the nation’s largest phone companies. Both have a vested interest painting an optimistic map of solid broadband coverage as a tool in the ongoing public policy fight pitting broadband advocates clamoring for better access and speed against the cable and phone companies that offer the service.

ACA members are concerned that the government might subsidize new broadband start-ups that could eventually compete against existing cable companies. The group calls such “overbuilders” redundant and wasteful.

“The FCC should protect the public by ensuring that broadband deployment subsidies do not result in significant government-supported overbuilding, which would cause real harm to cable operators that have invested only private capital,” ACA President and CEO Matthew M. Polka said. “It would also mean that locations across the country that need support will not receive broadband because the program would not have additional funding.”

Don’t Surprise Us With Doubling the Minimum Speed Requirement When We Thought 3Mbps Service Was Good Enough

ACA member cable operators assumed they would be safe from the government-funded overbuilders if they provided at least 3Mbps broadband, but now the FCC is exploring doubling the minimum speed to 6Mbps, which threatens a number of smaller cable operators that have avoided upgrades to increase speeds.

Polka

“This is a huge burden on a smaller operator.  These operators assumed when they filed data through the State Broadband Initiatives (SBIs) in June, 2012, providing service with speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps service was enough to protect them,” Polka said.

The ACA also wants the agency to initially reject applicants for broadband funding if current broadband map data shows another provider operating in the area, even if that provider’s volunteered service coverage maps are exaggerated.

“The Commission should presume the National Broadband Map (“NBM”) is accurate and rely upon it in identifying eligible areas for Phase II support, even though it is a work in progress and contains inaccuracies. The reasons for this conclusion are many.

First, the NBM is the most accurate and most granular representation of national broadband deployment that currently exists. Second, the federal government has already made a significant investment in the NBM, is seeking to further perfect its data, and clearly intends for it to be a key tool upon which to base its policies.

The group also warned that if the FCC does not rely on its inaccurate map, providers might be hesitant to voluntarily supply more coverage data in the future.

Prove That We Don’t Already Provide Service If Your Broadband Operation Wants Funding

The ACA’s comments also urge the FCC to require would-be new broadband providers to have the burden of proof that a cable operator does not already offer service in an area before they can qualify for Connect America funding. How? By calling the cable company pretending to be a new customer and seeing if they can schedule an installation at each particular home a provider plans to serve.

“In the normal course of business to attract customers, small cable operators post their service areas and broadband service offerings,” writes the ACA. “All a [new entrant] needs to do is survey the operator’s website and advertisements and, if necessary, call customer service. In contrast, it would be a much greater hardship for small cable operators, who lack regulatory staff and have already made the effort to be designated on the [map], to bear the initial burden and start from the beginning to submit documents to ensure they are on the map.”

In short, the ACA wants the FCC to assume their cable operator members cover an area until proven otherwise.

“It would be far less burdensome for the [new entrant] to challenge [allegedly inaccurate coverage map data] first, in which instance only those operators who are challenged would need to reaffirm their presence,” writes the ACA.

Because We Are Cable Operators Running the “Robust DOCSIS Platform,” It Means We Already Provide Great Service

The ACA also called on the FCC to give cable operators a free pass from demonstrating they can meet the Commission’s quality of service standards regarding latency and the responsiveness of the customer’s broadband connection.

“For cable operators, the Commission should presume that because they employ the robust DOCSIS platform they meet the latency requirement,” the ACA wrote.

Committing to study and oversee the quality of cable broadband is also a really bad idea according to the cable lobbying group.

“Further exploration of a cable system’s latency performance without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary would be unproductive for the Commission in carrying out its public interest mandate and for cable operators,” the ACA argued.

Don’t Tell Us What We Can Charge and What Usage Limits We Can Impose; That Should Be Reserved for Wall Street and Our Investors

The ACA is also concerned that the FCC might consider the price consumers pay for rural broadband and what usage limits rural cable operators impose when deciding whether it is time to help fund the launch of a competing provider.

Captive rural customers can pay the same or higher prices for much slower broadband service than urban Americans pay, but the ACA advocates the FCC look the other way and avoid making any such comparisons:

“[...] There are many reasons for the Commission to refrain from establishing (even minimal) comparable rates and terms of service for the provision of broadband service by cable operators to be deemed as “serving” an area.

First, the Commission should recognize that cable operators as a rule build their networks and provide broadband service with no government support, only using private capital and based on a business case enabling them to receive a market return on that investment.

Any effort by the government to impose price or usage allowances – that is regulate the service – has great potential to lower that return and slow rural broadband deployment. With universal service funding limited, this would lessen the ability for the Commission to achieve its objective of bringing broadband to unserved areas.

Further, it would be almost impossible to establish a reasonably comparable rate and terms of service because, at least for cable operators, these change so often and are usually offered in bundles with other services. Most cable customers subscribe to either or both a package of services and some sort of promotional offering. Further, bundles are far from homogeneous and operators change frequently. All of this makes it virtually impossible to have valid urban-rural comparisons.

[...] Finally, if it were to establish a comparable rate and terms of service for broadband, the Commission would be acting in an area where it clearly lacks authority.

ACA past chairman Ben Hooks, CEO of Buford Media and operator of cable systems under the Alliance Communications brand, appeared on MSNBC to rail against federal cable broadband regulations and oversight requirements. Hooks operates several small cable systems in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama that are throwbacks to a much earlier era of cable. Many offer just a few dozen channels and deliver no broadband or cable phone service.

Hooks is upset because the federal government wants to help fund new start-up broadband providers in his backyard. He thinks this is unfair, because his cable operations, run with largely refurbished, cast-off cable equipment discarded years ago by larger cable operators, is funded with private capital and may have to compete with new providers partly funded by the Connect America Fund. In the middle of the dispute are rural Americans who cannot get broadband from Alliance Communications and would be prevented from getting it from anyone else if Hooks has his way.  (6 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. Kyle McSlarrow’s Wonderful World of Broadband – The Broadband Glass is 95 Percent Full, Cable Lobby Says
2. Cable Lobby Pays for Research Report That Miraculously Agrees With Them on Rural Broadband Reforms
3. Chief Cable Lobby Group Explores Dropping “Cable” from Its Name
4. Broadband Maptastrophe; FCC Ignores Its Own 4/1Mbps Standard, Relies On Faulty Map Data
5. Telecom Company-Influenced Broadband Availability Map Hurts Mississippi Broadband Expansion

AT&T suddenly announced it was ready to build its own gigabit fiber network in Austin.

AT&T and Time Warner Cable report they are ready to make more investments in their operations in Austin, Tex. to compete with Google Fiber when it arrives in the middle of next year.

Time Warner Cable says it already operates a multi-gigabit fiber optic network — one residential customers cannot easily access or afford. Residential broadband speeds at the cable operator top out at 50/5Mbps in Austin, at a cost higher than what Google plans to charge for 1,000/1,000Mbps service. AT&T’s U-verse network maxes out at 24/3Mbps, assuming customers have good copper wiring between AT&T’s fiber in the neighborhood and their home.

“The cable and phone company providers have purposely confused their networks’ maximum speed capacity with real end-user speeds for years, and when that fails to convince they simply claim customers don’t need or want those speeds anyway,” says Stop the Cap! reader and Austin resident Sam Knoll.

Knoll is enthusiastic about giving Time Warner Cable the boot, partly to pay them back for their aborted consumption billing trial attempted in Austin in 2009.

“I am not completely convinced Time Warner Cable understands just how much damage they did to their reputation when they pulled that stunt, and I’m certain they will attempt it again if they have a chance,” Knoll said. “The best thing customers can do is switch to a provider that believes usage caps and consumption billing are the fraudulent ripoff we know them to be. Google already knows this.”

Some Time Warner Cable customers in Austin never forgot the company tried to meter Internet usage in a failed experiment back in 2009. (Image: The Austinst)

Competition from deep-pocketed Google could eventually transform the broadband business model for American providers, assuming Google builds its fiber network in enough cities to challenge the conventional wisdom that prices have plenty of room to grow with faster Internet access. The more customers that sign up for Google’s already-super-fast broadband, the more providers will have to compete with better and faster service.

But AT&T is not convinced. The company announced yesterday it was prepared to build a gigabit fiber network not just in Austin, but also in surrounding Williamson County, with plenty of caveats.

“[We will only build the network if] the demand is there and if we get the same terms and conditions as Google received,” said AT&T spokeswoman Tracy King.

AT&T told the Austin American-Statesman the company wanted a faster regulatory approval process and permission to only build its faster fiber network in neighborhoods where there is proven demand for the service. Current franchise agreements often compel providers to offer service throughout the community and prohibits “cherry-picking” customers in high-income or low construction cost areas.

An AT&T official told KEYE-TV he had no idea how much AT&T would charge for gigabit broadband. Google charges $70 a month in Kansas City.

Austin has promised cooperation with Google, although it is not extending tax breaks or grants to the search engine giant. Google will get easy access to Austin Energy’s municipally owned infrastructure including utility poles and rights-of-way.

Google is speculated to be building showcase fiber networks to embarrass incumbent cable and phone providers who typically sell standard broadband service with speeds of 6-15Mbps in most larger communities. Rural areas are lucky to have 3Mbps service, and often much less.

But if Google intended to force major upgrades by cable and phone companies across the country, it might be disappointed with the response so far from AT&T and Time Warner Cable. Both companies indicate they will invest in and upgrade their networks to compete, but only in the service areas where Google-style competition exists. For the rest of the country, phone and cable companies are prepared to continue with the current “broadband scarcity” business model that delivers upgrades only occasionally, often accompanied by usage limits, consumption billing, and/or higher prices.

“Google has proved that there is a business model for selling abundant bandwidth as opposed to a business model for allocating scarce bandwidth,” said Blair Levin, a former chief of staff of the Federal Communications Commission.

“They are saying this is not an experiment. It is a business,” Levin told the newspaper. “In Kansas City, Google did the country an enormous favor. They said, give us regulatory flexibility to design the business and give us access to city property so we can build a network to lower the cost.”

KEYE in Austin talks with AT&T about their plans for a gigabit broadband network to compete with Google Fiber. The AT&T spokesman seemed more interested in pitching the company’s deregulation agenda and was short on specifics.  (3 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KXAN Austin What competition will Google Fiber face 4-9-13.mp4

KXAN in Austin talked with Google competitors Time Warner Cable and AT&T about how they will respond to the Google Fiber challenge.   (3 minutes)

KVUE in Austin called Google’s entry into the city the opening salvo of ‘Fiber Wars,’ as AT&T promises its own gigabit network. Austin residents intend to take advantage of the competition to force providers to give them better deals to keep their business.  (3 minutes)

KXAN explains the possibilities of gigabit fiber, but also asks a former Google insider why the search engine is getting into the broadband business.  (5 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTBC Austin Time Warner Cable Responds to Google 4-9-13.mp4

KTBC was skeptical of AT&T’s sudden interest in gigabit broadband. “Gee, what a coincidence,” commented the anchor of Austin’s Fox affiliate.  (2 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. Austin Media Gushing for Google Fiber
2. AT&T Announces Its Own “Gigabit Fiber Network” for Austin; Details Leave Wiggle Room
3. Back to Kansas City: Google Fiber Now Going in the Ground; TV Service Also Announced
4. Multiple Sources Confirm Austin As Next Google Fiber City; Here Are Some Clues Why
5. AT&T and Time Warner Cable: ‘We Can Compete With Google Fiber’

Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal’s not-living-in-the-real-world editorial page strikes again.

The commentary pages have always been the weakest part of the Journal, primarily because they screech pro-corporate talking points in contrast to the more balanced reporting in the rest of the newspaper.

Mr. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. decided to distort broadband reality (again) in yesterday’s edition with a glowing commentary on how wonderful broadband providers are in his piece, “Springtime for Broadband.” The only thing missing was a border in fine print labeled, “Sponsored by Verizon, AT&T, and your cable company.”

While your Internet bill is being hiked at the same time your provider is slapping usage limits on your connection, Jenkins dismisses consumer-fueled complaints about broadband price gouging, assaulting Net Neutrality, and overall poor customer service as part of Washington’s “broadband policy circus.”

Charges fly hourly that Google or some other company is guilty of gross insult to net neutrality (that sacred principle nobody can define). Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has introduced legislation to regulate data caps and Internet pricing. Law professor Susan Crawford, until recently a White House technology adviser, clearly craves to be America’s next go-to talking head on broadband. Lately she’s been everywhere calling for a crackdown on the competing “monopolists” who supply Internet access.

How dare they complain, decries Jenkins in a robust defense of the 21st century version of the railway robber barons.

Comfortably playing patty cake with provider-fed talking points from the industry echo chamber, Jenkins is ready for battle, facts or not.

But wireless providers have invested big money to deploy high-speed mobile networks, and fixed and mobile are inevitably beginning to compete. The latest evidence: Australia recently predicted that up to 30% of households will go the all-wireless route and won’t be customers for its vaunted national broadband project.

Jenkins

Not exactly. The basis for this 30% figure is the National Broadband Network’s own business plan, which warns -if- the company raised prices to a maximum theoretical level, up to 30 percent of its customers would rely on wireless instead… by the year 2039. That is 26 years from now. You have nothing better to do in the meantime, right?

In fact, conservative critics of the fiber network, some defending the big wireless cell phone industry in Australia, have suggested fiber optics is a big waste of money because “wireless is the future.”

That old chestnut again.

“Now you can present a bulletin without touching a typewriter … it’s just there on the computer system, you don’t need a reel to reel tape recorder. I’ve got a touchscreen in front of me. Back then I had a big cartridge deck,” said Ray Hadley on 2GB radio. “Can you imagine the advances in technology in the next 26 years? I can’t. I can’t comprehend it. By the time they finish the NBN, it could be superseded by something we don’t even know about.”

NBN Myths, a website set up to tackle the disinformation campaign from political and industry opponents has one simple fact to convey: “Despite what you may have read from certain clueless commentators, there is not a single country or telecommunications company anywhere in the world that is attempting to replace fixed networks with wireless in urban areas, or even planning to do so in the future.”

Which would you rather have?

Even Telstra, the biggest telecom company in Australia scoffs at such a notion, noting a growing number of its customers have both wired and wireless service, and they do not depend on one over the other.

Research firm Telsyte found that 85 per cent of Australians want speeds of 50Mbps or higher, speeds impossible for wireless to offer. In fact, when the NBN fiber network became available to Australians, almost half the current users as of October last year had chosen an even-faster 100Mbps plan option. But Australians also want mobile broadband, and they are signing up for that as well.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics notes the number of mobile broadband Internet connections also grew by around 40% in Australia between 2009 and 2010. But here is the Achilles heel of wireless: it cannot deliver the same speeds or capacity, and providers charge high prices and deliver low usage caps. As a result, the wireless industry has pulled off a coup: they earn enormous revenues from networks they have successfully rationed. The total amount of data downloaded over Australia’s wireless networks actually fell on a per user basis, despite the growth in customers.

Much of Jenkins’ commentary is spoon-fed by the industry-funded Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which produces industry-sponsored studies designed to tell America all is well in our broadband duopoly.

In the latest federal survey, the average broadband speed in America is up to 15.6 megabits per second, from 14.3 a year earlier. Nearly half of customers who six months ago made do with one megabit or less have now moved up to higher speeds. Since 2009, the U.S. has gone from 22nd fastest Internet to the eighth fastest.

The 15.6Mbps figure comes from the Federal Communications Commission. The statistics about our global speed ranking come from Akamai’s voluntary speed test program. Other studies rate America much lower. More importantly, while providers in the U.S. try to squeeze out more performance from their copper networks, other countries are laying speedier fiber networks that are destined to once again leapfrog over the United States. Most charge less for their broadband connections as well.

Jenkins also quotes the ITIF which touts 20 million miles of fiber were laid in America last year. But the ITIF, when pressed, will admit the majority of that fiber was “middle mile” connections, institutional or business network fiber you cannot access, or fiber to cell towers. Fiber to the home expansion has stalled, primarily because Verizon has suspended expansion of its FiOS network to new areas after Wall Street loudly complained about the cost.

Jenkins argues that if we leave providers alone and stop criticizing their growing prices, declining competition, and fat profits, the marketplace will suddenly decide to invest in network upgrades yet again.

“The day may come when even Verizon, which visibly soured on its $23 billion FiOS bet, rediscovers an urge to invest in fixed broadband infrastructure to meet growing consumer lust for hi-def services,” writes Jenkins.

Would Wall Street rather see providers invest in network upgrades or return profits to shareholders? Investment expansion in the broadband industry comes when a company senses if they do not spend the money, their business will be swept away by others that will. Cable broadband threatens telephone company DSL, so AT&T cherry-picked communities for investment in its half-measure U-verse fiber to the neighborhood network. Google Fiber, should it choose to expand, will be an even bigger threat to both cable and phone companies. Municipal fiber to the home networks upset the incumbent players so much, they spend millions of ratepayer dollars in efforts to legislate them out of existence.

Jenkins’ view that giving the industry carte blanche to do and charge as it pleases to stimulate a better broadband future is as fanciful as NBN critics in Australia suggesting fiber upgrades should be canceled in favor of waiting 20+ years for improved wireless to come along.

He even approves of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, calling it proper price discrimination in a “fiercely competitive” environment to defray a network’s fixed costs.

Do you think there is fierce competition for your broadband dollar?

Broadband’s fixed costs are so low and predictable, it literally calls out consumption pricing as just the latest overreach for enhanced profits. As Suddenlink’s CEO himself admitted, the era of big expensive cable upgrades are over. Incremental upgrades are cheap, the costs to offer broadband are declining, so it is time to reap the profits.

Jenkins closes with one recommendation we can agree with: “A low-tech way to stir up broadband competition would be to relax the regulatory obstacles to the actual physical provision of broadband.”

We can start by scrapping all the state laws the industry lobbied to enact that prohibit community-owned broadband competition. If big cable and phone companies won’t provide communities with the quality of broadband service they need to compete for 21st century jobs, let those communities do it themselves.

Other stories of interest:

1. Wall Street Journal Nonsense: Canada Just Ahead of U.S. in Introducing Internet Overcharging
2. How Australia Will Shame North America: Fiber Speeds for Them, Overpriced, Slow Cable/DSL for You
3. Wall Street Encourages Verizon to Get Completely Out Of Landline/FiOS Business
4. Wall Street Journal Does Hit Piece on Australia’s National Broadband Plan — Hint, Hint to American Policymakers
5. We’re in the Broadband Shortage Business: Big Telecom Attacks Providers That Can Do Better

Alex Dudley, a specialist in corporate crisis communications, has left Time Warner Cable after serving as the cable company’s group vice president of public relations, to take an executive position at Charter Communications.

Our readers will recall Dudley represented Time Warner during its 2009 experiment with usage caps and consumption billing. He tweeted company talking points from his @TWCAlex account. In the summer of 2010, more than a year after the experiment was shelved after customer protests, Dudley was still defending the need for broadband usage limits:

“As Internet use increases, TWC techs, engineers, and executives need to make adjustments such as DOCSIS upgrades at the cable company headend or “node splits” that divide a shared cable loop in two when bandwidth use hits certain metrics. Paying all of these people costs money, and those costs increase as the network is more heavily used.”

Unfortunately for him, Time Warner Cable’s own financial reports belied his claims. The DOCSIS 3 upgrade, now complete at Time Warner Cable, had no material impact on the company’s pre-planned capital expenses, and was undertaken at the same time the cable operator began increasing prices on broadband service.

Dudley will assume the role of senior vice president of communications at Charter on March 18. His high-profile status at Charter was reflected by a statement from Charter CEO Tom Rutledge welcoming him to the company:

“These appointments reflect a commitment to our customers, shareholders and employees to support and sustain the positive changes taking place at Charter,” Rutledge said. “Alex is a proven leader who brings with him a wealth of expertise in developing and managing compelling messaging and executing high-impact, strategic communications. He will be a valuable contributor to our organization.”

Other stories of interest:

1. Charter Cable Raids Cablevision for Executive Talent; Company Opens Office in N.Y.C.
2. Former Cablevision COO Hits Pay Powerball as New CEO of Charter: $90+ Million Salary
3. Charter Cable’s Los Angeles System Up for Bidding – Wisconsin/LA Cable Swap Falls Through
4. Charter Cable Increasing Broadband Speeds, But You’ll Hit Their Caps Faster
5. Charter Communications Adding $200 Upfront “Activation Fee” for 100Mbps Broadband

Shammo

Verizon’s vision of broadband economics depends on the technology used to provide the service, according to some insights shared by the company’s chief financial officer at yesterday’s Deutsche Bank Access Media, Internet & Telecom Conference.

Fran Shammo outlined two strategies the company is using to profit from its broadband services. For wireless, Verizon has “flipped the model” from the traditional voice plan that starts with a bucket of voice minutes towards monetizing broadband usage instead. Today, customers buy plans that focus on anticipated data usage with unlimited voice and texting thrown in. But marketing broadband on Verizon’s fiber optic FiOS network is markedly different because the company is focused on speed over consumption.

“We are now shifting into concentrating on the broadband piece of that product, and the speed that the fiber to the home can give you we believe can’t be matched with anyone,” Shammo told an audience primarily made up of Wall Street analysts and investors. “We have a superior product.”

Shammo explained Verizon intends to “monetize speeds” that fiber broadband is capable of providing. That is important because Verizon FiOS now represents 70 percent of Verizon’s wired business, as traditional landline revenue continues to decline.

That is welcome news to broadband advocates that prefer current pricing models based on broadband speeds, not usage. Verizon FiOS intends to capitalize on its superior speed to differentiate itself from the cable competition, especially when some of those competitors are slapping usage limits on their customers.

Another important new revenue source for Verizon comes from switching legacy DSL users to FiOS technology.

In 2012, Verizon commenced its copper-to-fiber migration in FiOS areas. At least 200,000 homes formerly served by copper-based DSL were transitioned to fiber. In 2013, Verizon plans to migrate another 300,000 customers. When customers are switched to the fiber network, their former DSL speeds remain the same, but now Verizon’s marketing department has an opportunity to target upgrade offers for faster speeds.

“We give them the choice to start upgrading that speed [to] 15, 25, or 50Mbps,” Shammo reports. “What we are seeing is people are willing to pay for that additional speed, so we can monetize that fiber network more.”

However, Shammo reiterated that beyond what Verizon has already committed to in FiOS agreements with local municipalities, Verizon plans no additional expansion of FiOS in 2013.

The foundation for future profits come from data usage.

Unintended Consequences of Share Everything: Customers do an end run around Verizon’s “device fee.”

The conference also provided new insights into Verizon’s Share Everything wireless plans and the company’s other strategies.

Shammo admitted customers have done an end run around the “device fee” for multiple add-on devices.

Verizon expected mobile wireless-enabled tablet sales would increase as the cost to add a tablet to a Verizon Wireless account no longer required a separate data plan. But Verizon’s “device fee,” charged for each device connected to a Share Everything plan, has backfired. Customers are instead adopting Verizon’s “Mi-Fi” wireless hotspot device or other tethering solutions. Customers can then connect up to five Wi-Fi enabled devices through the hotspot and bypass paying multiple device fees that range from $5-20 per device.

Living Off the Revenue from a 3G Network Verizon Has Stopped Expanding, Improving

Shammo also noted Verizon has stopped further investments in its 3G wireless network.

“We are not investing any more capital in that network other than to keep it up and running, so no more coverage [expansion] capital, no more capacity [expansion] capital,” Shammo said. “If I can keep that network up and running that just generates more [revenue] for us.”

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

Verizon’s Plans to Reduce Device Subsidies, Discounts

Customers have grown to expect a free or low-cost upgrade to a new smartphone every two years. But wireless companies find the costs of fronting device subsidies troubling because it affects the short-term bottom line. As wireless providers trim discounts, tighten upgrade policies, raise prices, and introduce new upgrade and activation fees, the $200-400 device subsidy recouped over the life of a two-year service contract remains a fat target for pruning.

But Verizon and other cell phone companies do not want to cut plan prices that are now inflated by $10-15 a month to cover paying back phone subsidies. The best of both worlds: eliminating device upgrade discounts -and- keeping prices the same for wireless service, banking the extra revenue as profit.

Verizon’s current solution is a middle-ground approach that gradually reduces device subsidies while hoping increased competition among device manufacturers will lower retail prices. For the consumer, that means prices will remain generally the same. But for Verizon, it means higher revenue from paying out lower subsidies while being able to maintain current pricing.

“I am a believer that over the next two to three years subsidies will start to decrease just because of the ecosystem,” said Shammo.

Verizon’s conversion to LTE means the day of a pure LTE-only smartphone is not far off. It will not include added-cost chips to support legacy technology, particularly older data networks and CDMA.

Wall Street Pressures Verizon to Talk Customers into Less-Costly (Anything but an iPhone) Smartphones

Brett Feldman, an analyst at Deutsche Bank who moderated the question and answer session with Shammo pointedly noted the Apple iPhone is the most-costly phone to subsidize.

“Are there things you can do with your sales force where you would proactively incentivize them to maybe sell different devices,” asked Feldman.

“It is critical that we don’t do that,” Shammo explained. “What is more important for us is a customer walks out with a phone that they will be happy with and not return under our 30-day guarantee. Because the worst thing that can happen for us is for me to incent a salesperson to get you into a phone thinking you are going to like and in three days you come back because you don’t. Now I’ve just subsidized two smartphones because that phone you used I can’t resell as a new phone.”

Other stories of interest:

1. Verizon Preparing to Kill Grandfathered Unlimited Data Plans, Hike Rates for FiOS
2. Time Warner Cable, Verizon Insist You Don’t Want or Need Gigabit Broadband
3. Verizon Cutting Costs, Raising Prices & Profits; Unlimited Data Customers Invited to Leave
4. Verizon Declares Copper Dead: Quietly Moving Copper Customers to FiOS Network
5. Verizon Accelerates Copper Landline Decommissioning; Ready or Not, Customers Moved to FiOS