Google Fiber may not be coming to a Kansas City apartment complex near you.

The coveted gigabit fiber to the home service is drawing criticism from owners of multi-dwelling units, condos, and apartment buildings because of its installation fee.

Google requires property owners to either go all-in or forget about getting the service. That means $300 for each apartment or condo, regardless of whether it is occupied or if an existing tenant wants the service or not. West Virginia background check can check renter’s credit score to see if they can afford the rent in the area.

Landlords tell the Kansas City Star the installation fee is just too much, especially when considering the phone and cable company wired their buildings for free. The newspaper notes that a 350-unit apartment complex opting in to Google Fiber will have to pay more than $100,000 upfront just to get the service.

Those living in one of nine CRES Management apartment complexes suspect they won’t be getting Google Fiber now or in the future — the property owners balked at an installation fee for their properties well into the six figures.

“I don’t know many apartment complexes that have $100,000 in the bank just waiting to be spent,” said Jon Gambill, CRES Management information technology director.

Google doesn’t offer volume discounts for multi-dwelling unit owners, but is willing to accept installment payments over 12 months. Google has also promised to refund the installation fees in $25 monthly increments for each paying customer until the $300 per unit fee is returned. But if a renter opts for the free, slower Internet service Google provides, the landlord will have to absorb the installation cost. Tenant screening questions include employment background and credit scores.

“If people can get free Internet, they’re not going to pay for premium,” Gambill told the newspaper. “If someone doesn’t want to pay for Internet, they really don’t have to, but then we’ve lost out on that reimbursement.”

Time Warner Cable won’t engage in an expensive bidding war for ownership of Hulu so it is trying to convince the online video venture’s current owners not to sell.

Sources tell Bloomberg News the cable company has offered to buy a minority stake in the online video streaming service alongside its current owners, which include Comcast-NBC, Fox Broadcasting, and Walt Disney-ABC.

If Hulu accepted the offer, the other bidders’ offers may not even be entertained.

Among those filing binding bids/proposals with Hulu as of the July 5 deadline:

• DirecTV, which reportedly wants to convert Hulu into an online companion to its satellite dish service for the benefit of its satellite subscribers;
• AT&T and investment firm Chernin Group, which submitted a  joint bid, presumably to beef up online video options for U-verse customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Plot Thickens in Bidding War for Hulu 7-9-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News discusses how the various bidders for Hulu would adapt the service for their own purposes. It’s all about bulking up online video offerings.  (4 minutes)

Hulu’s new owners could continue to offer the service much the same way it is provided today, with a free and pay version. But most expect the new owners will throw up a programming “pay wall,” requiring users to authenticate themselves as a pay television customer before they can watch Hulu programming. If Time Warner Cable acquired a minority interest and the current owners stayed in place, Time Warner Cable TV customers could benefit from free access to certain premium Hulu content, now sold to others for $8 a month. That premium content would presumably be available to U-verse customers if AT&T emerges the top bidder, or DirecTV could offer Hulu to satellite subscribers to better compete with cable companies’ on-demand offerings.

Hulu’s influence will be shifted away from broadcast networks and more towards pay television platforms regardless of who wins the bidding. That could end up harming the major television networks that provide Hulu’s most popular content. Many of Hulu’s viewers are cord-cutters who do not subscribe to cable or satellite television. Placing Hulu’s programming off-limits to non-paying customers could force a return to pirating shows from peer-to-peer networks or third-party, unauthorized website viewing.

Online video rights are so important to cable operators and upstarts like Intel, which wants to launch its own online cable-TV like service, providers are willing to pay a premium for streaming rights.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Why Hulu Is Attracting Billion Dollar Bids 7-8-13.flv[/flv]

Richard Greenfield, analyst at BTIG, and Scott Galloway, chairman and founder of Firebrand Partners, discuss Hulu and the ability to stream on multiple platforms. They speak on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg Surveillance.” (4 minutes)

The Los Angeles Times reports that pay TV distributors are in a rush to make deals, not only to offer more viewing options for customers, but to potentially get rid of expensive and cumbersome set-top boxes.

Interlopers like Intel, Apple, and Google who want to break into the business have not had an easy time dealing with programmers afraid of alienating their biggest customers. Even DirecTV, which has done business with some of the largest cable networks in the country for well over a decade still meets some resistance.

Acquiring Hulu could be an important part of DirecTV’s strategy to develop the types of services satellite TV has yet to manage well. On-demand programming is no easy task for satellite providers. But if DirecTV acquired Hulu, satellite customers could find DirecTV-branded on-demand viewing through the Internet. The Times speculates DirecTV could even build an online subscription service for subscribers who don’t want a satellite dish, receiving the same lineup of programming satellite customers now watch.

Distributors that acquire enough online streaming rights could even launch virtual cable systems in other companies’ territories, potentially pitting Comcast against Time Warner Cable, but few expect cable operators to compete against each other.

The general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission predicts your landline will stop working within the next ten years, abandoned by companies like AT&T and Verizon in favor of wireless service in rural America or fiber (if you are lucky) in the cities.

Phillip “Did you know your landline will be dead within ten years?” Dampier

Sean Lev, the FCC’s general counsel, said in a blog post that “we should do everything we can to speed the way while protecting consumers, competition, and public safety.”

But the FCC seems to be abdicating its responsibility to do exactly that by singing the same song some of America’s largest phone companies have hummed since they decided to get out of the copper landline business for fun and profit.

Traditional boring telephone service is regulated as a utility — a guaranteed-to-be-available service for any American who wants it. Hundreds of millions of Americans do, especially in rural areas where America’s cell phone love affair is tempered by dreadful reception, especially in mountainous areas. Oh, and the nearest cable company is ten miles away.

AT&T and Verizon — two of America’s direct descendants of the Bell System, just don’t want to pay to keep up a network most of urban America doesn’t seem to want or need anymore. In addition to a dwindling customer base, providing a regulated legacy service means having to answer to unions and government-types who make sure employees are fairly compensated and customers are given reasonable service at a fair price. The alternatives on offer from AT&T and Verizon carry no such regulatory (or union) baggage. Prices can change at will and customers have no guarantee they will receive service or have someone to complain to if that service is sub-standard.

While in the past regulators have taken the lead to make sure telephone companies meet their obligations, the new FCC seems to spend most of its time observing the business agendas of the companies themselves.

Lev implied to the Associated Press the FCC is not exactly leading the parade on the future of landlines. He seems more comfortable trying to analyze the intentions of AT&T and Verizon’s executives:

Most phone companies aren’t set to retire their landline equipment immediately. The equipment has been bought and paid for, and there’s no real incentive to shut down a working network. He thinks phone companies will continue to use landlines for five to 10 years, suggesting that regulators have some time to figure out how to tackle the issue.

Lev

AT&T is more direct: It wants to switch off all of its landline service, everywhere, by 2020. Customers will be given a choice of wireless or U-verse in urban areas and only wireless in rural ones. Where U-verse doesn’t serve, AT&T DSL customers will be in the same boat as Verizon customers on Fire Island: pick an expensive wireless data plan, satellite fraudband, or go without.

Verizon prefers a “gradual phase-out” according to Tom Maguire, Verizon’s senior vice president of operations support.

Verizon claims it has no plans to shut down working service for customers, but it does not want to spend millions to continue to support infrastructure fewer customers actually use. That means watching the gradual deterioration of Verizon’s copper-based facilities, kept in service until they inevitably fail, at which point Verizon will offer to “restore service” with its Voice Link wireless product instead.

For voice calls, that may suffice for some, especially those comfortable relying on cell technology already. But at a time when the United States is already struggling with a rural broadband problem, abandoning millions of rural DSL customers only makes rural broadband an even bigger challenge. The wireless alternative is too variable in reception quality, too expensive, and too usage capped.

Island residents are smoking hot about Voice Link

The New York Public Service Commission has extended the deadline for public comments about the Voice Link wireless landline replacement until Sept. 13, to give the growing number of customers on Fire Island with the service enough time to fully evaluate it over the summer months.

To date nearly 400 public comments have been filed with the Commission, every one of them negative.

Stop the Cap!’s comments are having an impact on the PSC’s exploration of the deployment of Voice Link in upstate New York. On our recommendation, the PSC has formally asked Verizon for more documentation about how Voice Link is being introduced in the Catskills:

Please provide the following information for all Voice Link devices/services that have been installed at any customer premises locations outside of the Western Fire Island area:

• The address of every Voice Link customer in upstate New York;
• Date Voice Link Installed;
• Reason Voice Link Installed;
• Was customer advised Voice Link service was optional or not;
• Voice Link Service Calls/Repairs identified by location, date, reason for service visit, repair action taken;
• If applicable to any locations, date Voice Link was uninstalled/disconnected and reason for termination;
• Please provide any marketing materials, scripts, and/or training materials in use by Verizon employees or contracted third-party workers to inform customers about Voice Link service;
• Please provide copies of any documentation provided to customers agreeing to accept Voice Link service outside of Western Fire Island, including Terms of Service Agreements. If there are any material differences between documentation and Terms of Service agreements for Western Fire Island customers, and customers in any other areas of New York State, please identify and explain those differences.

The PSC is also demonstrating that it is willing to go deep into the weeds with Verizon on this issue, a marked departure from the near-rubber stamp “light touch” regulation AT&T enjoys in several midwestern and southern states. At one point, the Commission found Verizon documentation indicating enough “spare pairs” — unused lines — were available that could be used to repair and reintroduce landline service on Fire Island, and wants to know why Verizon is not using them to bring back the service customers had before Hurricane Sandy did its damage:

The copper cable table shows that the spare cable pairs in the copper cable facilities serving the 11 identified communities is approximately 16% of the total available pairs in those cables. However, in specific communities such as Fair Harbor, Kismet, Robins Rest and Lonelyville, the percentage of spare pairs ranges from 21% to 66% of the total available pairs. Also, the number of working pairs in many locations is small compared to the total available pairs in the cables, despite the number of defective pairs reported by the company. Please explain why Verizon is not utilizing existing spare cable pairs, and performing routine cable maintenance in any communities, to restore wireline services to customers that do not request or desire Voice Link service.

The fiber cable table shows spare cable pairs in the fiber facilities serving the Ocean Beach, Lonelyville, Fair Harbor and Kismet communities is approximately 73% of the total available pairs in those fiber cables. By individual community, the percentage of spare pairs ranges from 62% to 94% of the total available pairs. Please explain why Verizon is not utilizing existing spare fiber pairs in any of the four named communities to restore wireline services to customers that do not request or desire Voice Link service.

Despite every effort by Verizon, Fire Island residents that lost landline service are increasingly opposed to Voice Link, if the public comments filed with the Commission are any indication.

The Point o’Woods Association on Fire Island, which represents more than 500 people who either seasonally or year round depend on Verizon’s landline network, is also highly critical of Voice Link’s performance and provided the Commission with very specific and detailed criticisms:

1. Verizon’s only cell site on Fire Island on the Ocean Beach water tower lacks reliable power backup contingencies;
2. Fire and medical first responders across Fire Island have declared Voice Link unsatisfactory for public safety;
3. Voice Link’s performance has been called unreliable. The sound is “plagued by echoes, connection delays, no connection at all, and frequent dropped calls;”
4. Voice Link only works with CDMA spectrum for voice calling, reducing the level of service (data) customers used to have with traditional landlines;
5. Customers cannot reach a live operator by dialing “0” and must dial all ten digits for all calls. The service also does not support collect calls, a feature “sometimes critical in emergency situations;”
6. The reception quality of Verizon’s data network varies widely across the island.

“Voice Link at its very best is a temporary solution suitable for deployment only while full communications infrastructure is in the process of restoration,” concludes D.R. Brown, vice president of the association.

The changes Verizon seeks for Fire Island are affecting even those who still have landline service. Customers regularly report that Verizon customer service is refusing repair requests in areas like Ocean Beach, pushing customers to the wireless replacement it wants them to accept.

Jean Ufer, a Fire Island resident, says Verizon is threatening the health of her husband by refusing to fix her service.

“They will not repair my landline, which my husband really needs, as he has a pacemaker which has to be monitored by a landline,” Ufer complained to the Commission. “They also refused to connect my DSL, even though they charged me  the monthly fee right through the winter.”

Moffett

A consolidated cable industry envisioned by Dr. John Malone, currently bidding for a merger between Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable, would feature widespread usage caps and usage billing and could obliterate competition from over-the-top online video providers, predicts a cable industry analyst.

Craig Moffett, now out on his own as co-head of independent Wall Street research firm MoffettNathanson, says broadband usage pricing is the sleeper issue of the last five years.

“I’ve written for years that [usage based pricing] is the single most important issue in all [the telecom sector],” Moffett said in an interview last week. “I’ve always been amazed by how little attention people have always paid to the issue.”

The Street reports that a unified cable cartel limiting consumer access to the Internet or more importantly monetizing that access would immediately devastate streaming video competitors including Netflix, Amazon, YouTube and Hulu.

If usage based pricing were implemented across the cable industry tomorrow, Moffett believes Netflix’s subscriber base would immediately fall from 30 million to 10 million. Nascent video players like Intel and Apple would likely find their business plans untenable, and some analysts believe the sweeping price changes would probably end the shift towards integrating streaming technology into large flat panel television sets.

Consumer backlash

Moffett says the impact would be broadly felt. Other analysts predict it could cause a national consumer uprising, especially at a time when other countries are swiftly moving to get rid of usage limits and consumption-based billing that have never been popular with customers.

“I think it will become clear that over the summer the window may have already closed for the cable operators to move to a usage based pricing theme,” Moffett said.

The Federal Communications Commission has done almost nothing about the issue of usage caps and usage pricing. Former FCC chairman Julius Genachowski even applauded the unpopular price scheme, calling it an important innovation.

Customers call it something else, and an uproar from consumers and competitors alike could overshadow the broadband successes of the Obama Administration. It would represent “a laughable setback for the nation’s communications infrastructure,” predict increasingly pessimistic Wall Street analysts concerned about the inevitable backlash.

The Street:

In a new broadband pricing regime, regulators would have to condone what consumers and competitors would immediately recognize as anti-competitive. Meanwhile, immensely popular content providers such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, YouTube and the like would have to lose a Washington lobbying battle to the interests of cable monopolies, their arcane billing and off shored customer service.

Hollywood and broadcast networks would lose marginal new content buyers such as Netflix. Tablet makers such as Apple, Google, Samsung and Amazon would see the value of their fastest growing products put at risk.

Most importantly, it would be an affront to one of the few clear consumer victories for the Department of Justice in the Obama administration.