A new report proves what Stop the Cap! has advocated for more than two years now — communities seeking the fastest, most-modern, and most aggressively priced broadband can get all of that and more… if they do it themselves.

The concept of community self-reliance for broadband has been dismissed and derided for years among small government conservatives and corporately-backed dollar-a-holler groups who claim government can’t manage anything, but when it comes to broadband in the state of North Carolina, the evidence is in and it is irrefutable — Tar Heel state residents are getting the most bang for their broadband buck from well-managed and smartly-run community-owned broadband networks.

Christopher Mitchell from the New Rules Project — part of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, gathered evidence from North Carolina’s different broadband providers and found the best broadband services come from local communities who decided to build their own fiber networks. instead of relying on a handful of cable and phone companies who have kept the state lower in broadband rankings than it deserves.

North Carolina is undergoing a transition from a manufacturing and agricultural-based economy that used to employ hundreds of thousands of workers in textile, tobacco, and furniture manufacturing businesses.  In the last quarter-century, the state has lost one in five jobs to Asian outsourcing and America kicking the tobacco habit.  Its future depends on meeting the challenges of transitioning to a new digital economy, and major cities like Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro have risen as well-recognized leaders in engineering, biotech, and finance.

But for rural and suburban North Carolina, success has been hindered by a lack of necessary infrastructure — particularly broadband for small businesses and entrepreneurs.  It becomes impossible to attract high tech jobs to areas that are forced to rely entirely on low speed DSL service, if that is even available.

In communities like Wilson and Salisbury, long frustrated by area providers not delivering needed services, a decision was reached to build their own broadband infrastructure — modern fiber to the home networks worthy of the 21st century.

Mitchell’s report charts the benefits available to every resident, as communities with state-of-the-art fiber networks consistently deliver the most robust service at the lowest prices, all without risk to local taxpayers.  Better still, when the network construction costs are paid back to bondholders, future profits generated by the community-owned systems will be plowed back into local communities to reduce tax burdens and keep service state-of-the-art.

“Comparing the tiers of residential service from Wilson or Salisbury against the providers in the Raleigh area shows that the communities have invested in a network that offers far faster speeds for less money than any of the private providers,” Mitchell concludes.  “Whether communities in North Carolina are competing against other states or internationally for jobs and quality of life, they are smart to consider investing in a community fiber network.”

Mitchell’s report arrives just a few weeks after voters handed North Carolina’s General Assembly to GOP control for the first time in more than a century.  Both cable and phone companies in the state modestly suggest that is good news for their legislative agenda, which is an understatement equal in proportion to the historic handover of control of both the House (67-52) and the Senate (31-19).  The top items on the agenda of incoming members is a checklist of conservative activist favorites, including a war on unions, mandatory ID cards for voting, opting the state out of recently enacted health care reform, an eminent domain constitutional amendment, sweeping deregulation reform to favor business interests, and redistricting to “restore fairness” in future elections.

The state’s big cable and phone companies are convinced with a list like that, they can come along for the legislative ride and get their agenda passed as “pro-business reform.”  That means a much larger fight in 2011 for the inevitable return of corporate protection legislation banning exactly the kinds of municipal networks that are delivering North Carolina better, faster, and cheaper broadband.

Verizon's Home Phone Connect base station

Verizon Communications has announced a new option for landline customers to ditch their local phone company with a new device that routes home phone calls over Verizon Wireless’ cellular network.

Verizon has chosen two test markets for its new Home Phone Connect service — Rochester, N.Y., serviced by Frontier Communications and Time Warner Cable and Connecticut, which is served by AT&T and Comcast.  (Thanks to our reader Bob for sharing the news with us.)

The service works with your existing home wired and cordless phones.  Customers signing up under a one or two year service contract will receive the base unit free of charge.  Installation is as easy: Just unplug the phone cord from the wall and plug it into the back of the Home Phone Connect device.  The unit supports up to two hard wired (non-cordless) phone lines and a cordless phone base station.  When you pick up any phone around the house, the base station will deliver a familiar dial tone, but all calls are made and received over the Verizon Wireless cell phone network.  You can download an read a copy of the installation manual here.

The service is priced at $9.99 per month for existing Verizon Wireless customers with any existing Family SharePlan that has two or more lines with at least a 700 minutes calling allowance per month.  Customers using Home Phone Connect under this plan will use minutes from their existing wireless service plan.  But since calls to and from Verizon customers and all calls placed during nights and weekends do not eat minutes, this may be a viable option for many customers.

For heavy talkers, or those without a qualifying Verizon Wireless service plan, an unlimited talk time plan is available for a flat $19.99 per month.

All local and domestic long distance calls are included, and the service also comes with these features:

• Call Waiting
• Call Forwarding
• Caller ID (not currently compatible with Caller ID + Name)
• International Dialing (charged at prevailing Verizon long distance rates)
• 3-Way Calling
• Basic Voice Mail (*86)
• Account Balance (*225)
• Device Provisioning, (*228)
• Account Payment (#786)
• 311, 411, 511, 611, 711 & 911 (some services not available in all areas)
• Last Number Callback (*69)
• National Domestic Hope Line (#4673)

The base unit includes a backup battery to power the unit for up to 36 hours idle time/2 hours talk time in the event of a power failure.  Customers relying on landline service that works with a monitored alarm system should check with their alarm company to ensure compatibility with cell network technology.

Michael Murphy, Verizon’s public relations manager for the New England Region, said consumers have the option of keeping their existing home phone number or requesting a new one.  Customers who do switch their current home phone number to Verizon will automatically cancel their existing landline service.  Frontier customers should carefully check their bills to make sure they are not on a Frontier “Peace of Mind” contract before switching.  Any expiration dates adjacent to the type of home phone service described on your bill likely means you are on a term contract.

Customers dumping Frontier before their contract expires could be exposed to early termination fees of up to $300 or more, which will appear on a customer’s final bill.  If you did not authorize a service contract, demand that Frontier drop it from your bill before you switch, and follow up with a complaint to the New York Attorney General’s office if the company fails to comply.

The device is intended to be portable, so you can take your “home phone” with you to any area served by a Verizon Wireless signal.  Just pack the Home Phone Connect base station and take it along.

Verizon carefully chose test markets outside of Verizon landline service areas.  That allows them to pick up new “landline” customers without harming their own landline business.

Verizon Wireless has a very large share of the Rochester, N.Y., market because of its ownership of the legacy Rochester Telephone cellular network.  Verizon delivers far more robust coverage than any other regional cellular provider in western New York.  With a built-in customer base wide open to Verizon’s marketing machine, the phone company could grab a significant number of Frontier landline customers who will see significant savings over Frontier’s comparable landline feature plans that run close to $50 a month after taxes and fees.  The company could also poach a number of Time Warner Cable’s Digital Phone customers, especially those whose first year promotional discount has expired.

In Connecticut, Verizon is challenging AT&T, which provides most of the state with its landline service.  Comcast is the dominant cable operator.

Comcast seemed unimpressed with the challenge being raised by Verizon in its service area.  The cable company hinted Verizon’s lack of a bundled service option including phone, cable, and broadband would hurt its chances of success.

Indeed, Verizon will have to develop some creative marketing to make its Home Phone Connect stand out.  Younger customers have no landlines to switch.  Most of those eager to cut their home phone line have already moved to cellular or Voice Over IP services from their local cable company or other providers like Vonage.  Existing Verizon Wireless customers may be hesitant about using a service that burns their wireless minutes away.  Older customers are unlikely to understand the product and have a built-in resistance to dropping traditional phone service.  Many may resist the notion of being stuck with at least a one year contract for an untested service.

T-Mobile attempted to market an almost identical service under its @Home brand, but judged it a failure and disconnected it earlier this year.

Because the service is being test marketed, its availability is limited to selected Verizon Wireless stores:

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Home Phone Connect 11-23-10.mp4[/flv]

The New Haven Register set up a video interview with a Verizon representative to demonstrate its new Home Phone Connect service. (1 minute)

Julius Genachowski

Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski signaled recognition he was outmaneuvered by some of America’s largest broadband companies when he told attendees at the Web 2.0 Summit last week that a Verizon-Google compromise on Net Neutrality did serious harm to the Commission’s own plans on the subject of a free and open Internet.

“I would have preferred if they didn’t do exactly what they did when they did. It slowed down some processes that were leading to a resolution,” Genachowski said.

Genachowski was referring to last summer’s sudden agreement between the two tech giants — former opposites on Net Neutrality — regarding a proposed compromise.  Under its terms, Verizon would guarantee free speech rights on the Internet, but Google would concede Verizon’s rights to use limits, throttles, and other “network management” techniques on its wireless networks, which are critically important to Verizon’s bottom line.  Genachowski had been advocating broad-based Net Neutrality protections for all technologies, including wireless.

When word of Verizon and Google’s proposal hit the New York Times, it caused a series of confidential talks among industry players and FCC staffers to collapse.  That wasn’t bad news for consumer groups, who were locked out of the discussions from the start.  But it also may have also taken the wind out of the sails of the regulatory body’s urgency to implement broadband reform policies, as members of Congress opposed to the concept used news of the voluntary agreement as cannon fodder against “unnecessary and intrusive” government regulations.

It also embarrassed the FCC, which Daily Finance calls the most ineffectual regulatory agency in Washington.

Ever since the talks collapsed, all sides have been frustrated by the Commission’s apparent ongoing inaction on Internet policy.  Genachowski had made speeches earlier this year that left many with the impression Net Neutrality was a front burner issue at the Commission.  But as 2010 draws nearer to a close, the Commission has made no progress on the issue.  The incoming Republican Congress will not make it any easier, and consumer groups continue to call on the Commission to act before the end of the year.

Free Press President and CEO Josh Silver issued this statement:

“We are heartened to hear Chairman Genachowski finally express his disappointment with the Verizon-Google proposal. The loud public backlash made it evident that consumers would not accept a deal that would have divided the Internet into fast and slow lanes and allowed Internet service providers to block and prioritize content accessed through wireless devices. Clearly, relying on backroom deals cut between giant industry players is not the way to make policies that protect the public interest.

“The American people are still waiting for the chairman to deliver on his promise to establish real Net Neutrality rules that would prevent AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from creating toll roads on the Web. There is only one Internet, and consumers need clear rules to ensure that they are protected from Internet service providers who are seeking to monetize and monopolize the Web to pad their bottom lines.”

Additional details about Time Warner Cable’s new TV Essentials package, which provides a more limited cable TV lineup to viewers are making their way to Stop the Cap!

So far, Wall Street appears generally unimpressed with Time Warner’s efforts to retain customers planning to depart the cable company over cost issues.  Richard Greenfield of BTIG says consumers have to give up too much to subscribe to a package that deletes many of America’s most popular basic cable networks and delivers no HD programming.

The package seems to alienate every age group.  Stop the Cap! confirmed Time Warner Cable made most of the decisions about the channel lineup themselves, and although some networks are insistent about not being excluded from such packages, many of the decisions about what channels to leave out were made by the cable company.  For example, younger viewers will miss Comedy Central despite the fact the network is hardly the most expensive basic cable channel around, and nothing prevented them from carrying it.  We’ve also learned the Essentials package deletes several more channels some consumers will consider deal-breakers to lose.  We’ve confirmed in Ohio, customers will have to give up Food Network and The Weather Channel.  No Ms. Palin’s Alaska either — TLC is also off the channel lineup.

We’ve learned from a few of our readers in Akron and Cleveland who inquired about the new package that Time Warner told them they cannot continue to get phone or Internet service with the Essentials package on their account.  We earlier heard customers were supposed to be excluded from promotional deals for these services, not banned from buying them at any price.  We’re trying to get a confirmation from Time Warner’s northeast Ohio division about this, and suspect there might be some mis-communication going on here.

Greenfield adds Time Warner is offering a lousy deal to budget-minded consumers.

“Cable subscribers looking to save money have already defected to Dish Network’s $40 package called America’s Top 120, which is better than TV Essentials,” he noted.

Meanwhile, residents in upstate New York — watch out.  Time Warner Cable is finalizing its decisions about 2011 rate increases which are likely to be announced in mailers sent just after the holidays.  A source tells Stop the Cap! the rate increases will echo the ones in North Carolina.  The biggest rate increases will hit customers only getting one or two services from the cable company.  Video customers can expect the largest increases.  Phone rates will likely remain unchanged for most.

Customers will be encouraged to avoid the rate increases by bundling services.  Time Warner Cable raised rates on western New York customers three times in 2010 for different services.  This rate increase, likely effective in February, will be similar in percentage to the one announced last winter.  The company will blame programming costs and also use the introduction of several new services, including Primetime on Demand, Look Back, and Remote DVR as  justification for the rate hikes.

We’ll have much more coverage on this in late December.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFMY Greensboro TWC Rate Hike 11-22-10.flv[/flv]

You can preview the excuses for forthcoming rate hikes from Time Warner Cable by listening to a company representative in North Carolina deliver them to customers there, who will see their rates increase Dec. 3rd (from WFMY-TV Greensboro).  (2 minutes)

Studies find few surprises for cable and phone companies that pay for them.

Internet plans with term contracts, usage limits, and other pricing tricks are good for consumers and save them money over comparable unlimited usage plans.

That is the conclusion of a new study from the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten and James Riso’s “study,”Residential and Business Broadband Prices, Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants,” claims to have taken a comprehensive look at 25,000 plans offered across North America, Europe and the Pacific to make their case that a residential service plan with a 10GB monthly usage cap would save consumers 27 percent over the price of a comparable unlimited plan, as long as data use stays below the cap.  They also suggest additional savings can be had if consumers lock themselves into term contracts with service providers (most of which carry hefty fees to exit early.)

These results suggest that the unlimited data plans typically offered by most U.S. wireline broadband providers may not be optimal for many consumers. The details of capped plans matter, and how an individual user is affected depends on the base price, allowed data usage, and consequences for exceeding the cap. Nevertheless, because capped plans are—all else equal—cheaper than unlimited plans, many consumers, particularly the low-volume users, are likely to pay less for broadband with data caps than they would for plans offering unlimited data transfer.

Wallsten and Riso make much of AT&T’s recent decision to end unlimited usage for wireless broadband, suggesting that consumers are saving money with new, low-use plans over the company’s old unlimited pricing.  The authors claim close to 70 percent of iPhone users consume less than 200 MB per month, which is the cap for AT&T’s cheaper data plan.

But the authors concede that usage is growing — rapidly in the case of online video, which sets the stage for consumers saving money today, but facing serious overlimit charges on their bills tomorrow:

Some analysts, however, remain concerned that these plans make video streaming impractical given the bandwidth it consumes, could eventually cost consumers more as they use their wireless devices more intensively, and generally make it less likely for wireless to become a viable substitute for wireline broadband. To be sure, while Figure 3 shows that the vast majority of users consume small amounts of data today, it also shows per user mobile data consumption growing quickly, so the number of people who exceed the caps could increase significantly in a relatively short period of time.

Major U.S. wireline providers have not yet introduced metered pricing successfully, though, as shown above, it is common in other countries. An experimental metered pricing plan by Time Warner Cable garnered strong reaction, prompting one group to demand that Congress ―investigate ongoing metered pricing practices to determine the impact on consumers. Some in Congress did, in fact, hold hearings on the plans. In response to this backlash, Time Warner Cable canceled its experiment.

Despite the political reaction, all consumers are not inherently worse off or better off with metered pricing. Low-volume users are likely to be better off under metered plans and high volume users worse off. The net effect on any given consumer depends on his data use, the base price, how much data the base price allows, the price of data when exceeding the cap, and how much he would have paid for an unlimited plan.

Wallsten and Riso also admit several parts of their study are “incomplete,” and “lack data.” We would also include the facts they ignored whether consumers prefer unlimited plans, how customers would feel about a bill with overlimit fees attached, or whether the usage cap levels the authors note in their study are adequate.  They also completely ignore the critical issue of bandwidth cost trends and their relationship to consumer pricing.

But of course they would, considering the same providers who want these pricing schemes are paying the costs for the study.

Welcome to the world of Hired Gun Research.

Wallsten, in particular, has been singing the same cap-happy tune for several years now, churning out the same industry-financed conclusions about broadband.  Back in 2007, he delivered a piece trumpeted by the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute — two groups notorious for parroting corporate-friendly talking points.  Back then it was about Internet overloads and supporting Internet toll booths for “congestion pricing” after Comcast got caught secretly throttling broadband customer speeds.

Dave Burstein of DSL Prime notes most consumers don’t like caps, lock-in contracts, or speed throttles.

“Policymakers should normally assume that imposing caps generally results in negative consumer welfare. The small efficiency gains don’t come close to making up for a second rate Internet,” Burstein writes. “Everyone is better off with a robust, unthrottled Internet. It allows for an important form of video competition and market access for innovative new net offerings. It’s a better experience for the user and hence more people will be connected, a good thing.”

In this latest study, the two authors completely ignore some very important facts:

• Who sets the pricing for unlimited and usage-capped broadband?  Providers.  Do consumers save money from usage limited plans because of decreased provider costs passed along to consumers or pricing schemes that artificially inflate unlimited broadband pricing to drive customers to “money-saving” limited plans that teach usage restraint or expose consumers to dramatic overlimit fees?

• What are the trends for wholesale bandwidth costs and how does that trend comport with industry pricing schemes that have increased broadband pricing in the United States?  An honest study would reflect these costs are dropping… dramatically, and would introduce the very real question of whether unlimited broadband is a problem in search of a revenue-generating solution that would come from further monetizing broadband with so-called “consumption pricing.”

• What is the consumer perception of usage-limited broadband?  An important part of this equation is whether consumers want unlimited broadband service to be discontinued.  Every study to date not paid for by the providers themselves shows consumers are willing to pay today’s prices for the peace of mind they receive in not being exposed to limits or overlimit fees.  Wallsten and Riso touched on the consumer backlash, to a considerable part coordinated by Stop the Cap!, over Time Warner’s pricing scheme which would have tripled broadband pricing for an equivalent level of service.  But the authors charge on with their pro-cap conclusions regardless.

• Wallsten and Riso’s study only casually mentions the dramatically different paradigms of wireless and wireline broadband.  The former is delivered using technology that is recognized to have limitations that can only be seriously addressed with additional spectrum allocation that could take years to address.  The latter is already being mitigated by cable broadband technology upgrades, fiber optics, and improved backbone connections that often deliver much better access at a fraction of the price providers paid just a few years earlier.  Drawing comparisons between AT&T’s wireless broadband pricing and wireline broadband is dubious at best, especially since two companies largely control pricing and service for the majority of wireless customers in the United States.

• To prove its contention limited broadband service is “common in other countries,” the authors cite a Frequently Asked Questions article by Comcast trying to justify that company’s own usage cap to its customers.  So because Comcast’s PR department says it, it must be true.  In fact, in countries where usage capped broadband has been a traditional problem, consumer demand and public policy efforts have moved providers towards offering unlimited service plans to meet popular demand.  In fact, in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, governments have cited usage caps as a serious disadvantage to growth of the digital economy.  Consumers certainly agree.

Burstein adds:

Caps or other throttling measures are almost never imposed because of actual congestion problems (on large, wired networks.)  The caps would be at far higher levels if they were, like Comcast’s 250 gigabytes. The usual explanation is bogus. The typical consumer advocate believes the caps are about preventing competition to the carriers’ own video package. That’s certainly common, but so is price discrimination to yield increased potential revenues. As Scott notes, price discrimination in a strongly competitive market can work out well for all concerned. With strong competition, the benefits flow through to consumers. Since competition in broadband is typically weak, I believe it far more often has little consumer benefit but is good for company profits.

The authors conclude that despite limitations on data available, “The policy implications, however, are clear.  Policymakers should not immediately conclude that data caps and other pricing schemes that differ from traditional unlimited plans are necessarily bad.”  Instead, the authors suggest pricing trends should be evaluated over time to identify the effects on prices, investment and usage.

Although that’s a point Burstein agrees with, we feel there is substantial evidence this debate is based not on experimental pricing to find new customers, but rather a defensive position to respond to an inevitable public backlash against Internet Overcharging schemes.  Providers are desperately looking for excuses to further monetize broadband, cut costs, and deliver an effective impediment to online video competitors using broadband networks to deliver alternative, less expensive services to consumers.

Policymakers should listen to their constituents, who are more than comfortable with today’s unlimited broadband experience.  Nobody objects to experimental low usage plans with discount pricing, but not at the expense of ending or repricing existing unlimited service into the stratosphere.  Today’s broadband industry earns billions in annual profits, even as their costs decline.  Providers have done considerable profit-taking in the last few years from their broadband divisions, slashing upgrades and other investments to keep pace with traffic demands.