North America’s broadband rankings continue to take a beating at the expense of countries deploying fiber optic broadband.  While the United States and Canada cope with aging landline technology and an uncompetitive marketplace that tells consumers they don’t need fiber-fast broadband speed, countries like Bulgaria, Lithuania and Estonia are lighting up 50-100Mbps networks that often charge lower prices than North Americans pay for 1-3Mbps DSL.

Ookla, a global leader in broadband testing and web-based network diagnostic applications, reports that the best performing broadband networks for speed, value, and performance are increasingly in Europe and Asia.  While both the United States and Canada used to be among the world leaders in broadband infrastructure, that is no longer true.

Some examples:

• The United States now scores 31st in average download speed, Canada is 33rd;
• In upload speed, America now ranks 37th, Canada a woeful 69th;
• Ookla’s Household Quality Index, which ranks packet loss and general reliability of home connections found Canada scoring 27th place, the United States 38th;
• At a cost per megabit, neither the US or Canada offers very good value.  The USA ranked 29th ($4.95 per megabit), Canada 33rd ($5.85 per megabit);
• Neither country does a great job delivering the speeds and service promised either.  The USA ranked 25th, Canada 32nd.

Ookla found that while speeds are rising in North America, they are not increasing nearly as fast as in other, higher-ranked countries.  Most of the speed gains in North America come from cable or limited fiber-broadband deployments like Verizon FiOS or community-owned fiber to the home networks.  Wireline ADSL service, which represented a larger proportion of home Internet connections in 2008, continues to lose ground to faster options from cable companies, community-owned broadband, and phone company fiber upgrades.  In eastern Europe, the Baltics, Russia and Ukraine, many of the dramatic boosts in broadband speed and quality come as a result of national fiber network upgrade projects.

While speeds in North America are gradually increasing, both the U.S. and Canada are being outpaced by many countries in Europe and Asia.

While providers in the United States and Canada often dismiss fiber as too costly, Ookla found fiber-based networks delivering some of the world’s best values in broadband.

For example, on a cost-per-megabit basis, Bulgaria’s new fiber networks deliver the world’s cheapest Internet service, at an average of just $0.64 per megabit.  The average broadband speeds in the country are now higher than 21/11Mbps.

Elion headquarters in Tallinn. Elion delivers fiber broadband to homes across Estonia.

Contrast that with average speeds in the United States (12.41/2.97Mbps) and Canada (11.95/1.70Mbps).  Other top scoring countries for cost-per-megabit include:

• Romania $0.97 USD
• Lithuania $1.11 USD
• Ukraine $1.17 USD
• Republic of Moldova $1.41 USD
• Latvia $1.80 USD
• Hungary $2.00 USD
• Slovakia $2.04 USD
• Hong Kong $2.26 USD
• Russia $2.51 USD

In terms of download speed, Estonia’s investment in a national fiber network is now paying dividends, with a dramatic increase in national average broadband speeds to 50/28Mbps.  As new cities join Estonia’s fiber network, speeds take a dramatic upswing.  Contrast average speeds in Saue (101.03Mbps), Viimsi (98.98Mbps), Tallinn (69.80Mbps), and Võru (65.58Mbps) with ADSL-rich Pärnu (12.55Mbps), Paide (12.40Mbps), Rapla (8.93Mbps), and Valga (7.71Mbps).

It is much the same story in other fiber-rich countries, where broadband speeds far exceed the averages in the United States and Canada:

Look what happens to Estonia's broadband speed rankings when it switched on its national fiber broadband network.

• Lithuania 31.65 Mbps
• South Korea 31.44 Mbps
• Latvia 25.42 Mbps
• Sweden 24.62 Mbps
• Romania 24.47 Mbps
• Netherlands 24.36 Mbps
• Singapore 22.94 Mbps
• Bulgaria 21.12 Mbps
• Iceland 20.53 Mbps

Despite all of the bad news, the cable industry’s trade publication Multichannel News tried to find victory in the jaws of defeat, noting things could be worse… if they ran traditional phone companies.

Cable operators delivered the fastest average broadband download speeds in 2011 — with major MSOs easily blasting by rival telco and satellite Internet services — according to data from independent testing firm Ookla.

For the full year, the six fastest residential Internet service providers in the U.S. based on average download speed were Comcast, Charter Communications, Cablevision Systems, Time Warner Cable and Insight Communications.

[…] Comcast and Charter delivered average download speeds of 17.19 Megabits per second, followed by Cablevision at 16.40 Mbps, Cox at 15.76 Mbps, TWC at 14.41 Mbps and Insight at 14.22 Mbps.

Verizon Communications fared better than its telco peers with an average download speed of 12.94 Mbps, thanks to FiOS Internet, its fiber-to-the-home service that provides up to 150 Mbps downstream. And overall, Verizon had the highest upstream speeds with an average of 7.41 Mbps. Still, the company’s legacy DSL services dragged down overall speeds.

Behind DSL were woefully slower speeds from the nation’s wireless ISPs (which include 3G broadband from large companies like Verizon Wireless and AT&T), and perennially last place satellite Internet.

Moffett

Despite repeated claims by providers that consumers don’t need fiber-fast broadband speeds, industry analyst Craig Moffett at Sanford Bernstein tells a different story:

“Technology adoption is creating a feedback loop that increasingly favors cable’s physical infrastructure,” Moffett wrote in a research note last month. “As more people are served by higher-speed connections, more and more applications are evolving to take advantage of them. Customers with lower-speed connections are increasingly being forced to upgrade to higher speed connections… or be left behind.”

The conclusion reached by Multichannel News columnist Todd Spangler:

“The relative broadband speeds of cable vs. telco isn’t merely an academic curiosity: Major providers are increasingly touting Internet performance in their marketing as they fight for consumers’ dollars.”

Unfortunately for the cable industry, although DOCSIS 3 upgrades have afforded dramatic increases in broadband download speeds, upload speeds lag behind.  Fiber to the home networks are best positioned to achieve victory in the global broadband race.  That is important not only because it delivers consumer dollars to the best provider in town, but fuels the further development of the digital, knowledge-based economy North America increasingly seeks to lead.

Phillip "Try the Gouda" Dampier

Welcome to the Broadband Usage Whine & Cheese Festival

Midcontinent Communications earlier this month announced a big boost in broadband speeds for more than 250,000 customers in the Dakotas and Minnesota, bringing up to 100/15Mbps service to customers who wanted or needed that speed.

MidcoNet Xstream Wideband, made possible with a DOCSIS 3 upgrade, delivers 1/1Mbps ($30.95), 30/5Mbps ($44.95), 50/10Mbps ($64.95), or 100/15Mbps ($104.95) service.  Those are mighty fast speeds for an upper midwestern cable company, especially in states where 1-3Mbps DSL is much more common.

The cable provider was excited to introduce the speed upgrades earlier this month, telling customers:

At up to 100 Mbps, MidcoNet Xstream^® Wideband is fast. But today’s online experience is about more than speed. It’s about the power and capacity to run every streaming, blogging, downloading, surfing, gaming, chatting, working, playing, connected device in the house. All at the same time. MidcoNet Xstream Wideband delivers…it’s everyone in your entire family online at once, doing the most intense online activities, no problem.

But now there is a problem.  Customers spending upwards of $105 a month for the fastest Internet speeds are actually using them to leverage the Internet’s most bandwidth-intensive services, and evidently Midco isn’t too happy about that.  Todd Spangler, a columnist for cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News, was given a usage chart by Midco, and used it to lecture readers about the need for usage caps: “One thing is clear: Broadband service providers will all need to do something to contain the rapidly rising flood of Internet data.”  The implication left with readers is that limiting broadband usage is the only way to stem the tide.

Midco's not-so-useful chart looks mighty scary, showing usage growth on their 100Gbps backbone network, but leaves an enormous amount of information out of the equation. (Source: Midcontinent Communications via Multichannel News)

Spangler quotes Midco’s vice president of technology Jon Pederson: “Like most network providers we have evaluated this possibility, but have no immediate plans to implement bandwidth-usage caps,” he said.

So Midco is more than happy to pocket up to $105 a month from their customers, so long as they don’t actually use the broadband service they are paying top dollar to receive.  It’s an ironic case of a provider desiring to improve service, but then getting upset when customers actually use it.

We say ironic because, from all outward appearances, Midco is well-aware of the transformational usage of broadband service in the United States these days:

If you have ever once said “my Internet is too slow,” then you need MidcoNet Xstream Wideband. With it, you can do all the cool things you’ve heard people are doing online. Explore all the great stuff your online world has to offer. Play the most intense games. Try things you could never do before, from entertainment to finance, video chat or video streaming. Like we said, MidcoNet Xstream Wideband is all about speed, capacity, choice and control.

What this means for you is that you’ll be able to do things like:

• Download and start enjoying entire HD movies in seconds, not minutes.
• Stream video and music without a hitch while you simultaneously perform other intense online tasks.
• Choose from three different pipelines, from 3.0 to 1.0, for the capacity and price your family needs.
• Monitor your bandwidth use to determine if you need more capacity or can do what you want with less.
• Upload files or signals, such as webcam footage, faster than ever before possible for a better online experience.
• Watch ESPN3.com. Your Favorite Sports. Live. Online.

Just don’t do any of these things too much.  Indeed, when providers start toying with usage caps, it’s clear they want you to use your service the same way you did in 2004 — reading your e-mail and browsing web pages.  Real Audio stream anyone?

Let’s ponder the facts Mr. Spangler didn’t entertain in his piece.

Midco upgraded their network to DOCSIS 3 technology to deliver faster speeds and provide more broadband capacity to customers who are using the Internet much differently than a decade ago, when cable modems first became common.  Some providers and their trade press friends seem to think it’s perfectly reasonable to collect the proceeds of premium-priced broadband service while claiming shock over the reality that someone prepared to spend $100 a month for that product will use it far more than the average user.

Part of the price premium charged for faster service is supposed to cover whatever broadband usage growth comes as a result.  That’s why Comcast’s 250GB usage cap never made any sense.  Why would someone pay the company a premium for 50Mbps service that has precisely the same limit someone paying for standard service has to endure?

Cringely

Midcontinent Communications is a private company so we do not have access to their financial reports, but among larger providers the trend is quite clear: revenues from premium speed accounts are being pocketed without a corresponding increase in investment to upgrade their networks to meet demand.  Inevitably that brings the kind of complaining about usage that leads to calls for usage caps or speed throttles to control the growth.

We’re uncertain if Midco is making the case for usage caps, or simply Mr. Spangler.  We’ll explain that in a moment.  But if we are to fully grasp Midco’s broadband challenges, we need much more than a single usage growth chart.  A “shocking” usage graph is no more impressive than those showing an exponential increase in hard drive capacity over the same period.  The only difference is consumers are paying about the same for hard drives today and getting a lot more capacity, while broadband users are paying much more and now being told to use less.  Here is what we’d like to see to assemble a true picture of Midco’s usage “dilemma:”

1. How much average revenue per customer does Midco collect from broadband customers.  Traditional evidence shows ARPU for broadband is growing at a rapid rate, as consumers upgrade to faster speeds at higher prices.  We’d like to compare numbers over the last five years;
2. How much does Midco spend on capital improvements to their network, and plot that spending over the last 10 years to see whether it has increased, remained level, or decreased.  The latter is most common for cable operators, as the percentage spent in relation to revenue is dropping fast;
3. How many subscribers have adopted broadband service over the period their usage chart illustrates, and at what rate of growth?
4. What does Midco pay for upstream connectivity and has that amount gone up, down, or stayed the same over the past few years.  Traditionally, those costs are plummeting.
5. If the expenses for broadband upgrades and connectivity have decreased, what has Midco done with the savings and why are they not prepared to spend that money now to improve their network?

While Midco expresses concern about the costs of connectivity and ponders usage caps, there was plenty of money available for their recent purchase of U.S. Cable, a state-of-the-art fiber system serving 33,000 customers — a significant addition for a cable company that serves around 250,000 customers.

A journey through Midco’s own website seems to tell a very different story from the one Mr. Spangler is promoting.  The aforementioned Mr. Pederson is all over the website with YouTube videos which cast doubt on all of Spangler’s arguments.  Midco has plentiful bandwidth, Mr. Pederson declares — both to neighborhoods and to the Internet backbone.  Their network upgrades were designed precisely to handle today’s realistic use of the Internet.  They are marketing content add-ons that include bandwidth-heavy multimedia.  Why would a provider sell customers on using their broadband service for high-bandwidth applications and then ponder limiting their use?  Mr. Pederson seems well-aware of the implications of an increasingly connected world, and higher usage comes along with that.

That’s why we’d prefer to attack Mr. Spangler’s “evidence” used to favor usage caps instead of simply vilifying Midco — they have so far rejected usage limits for their customers, and should be applauded for that.

Robert X. Cringely approached Midco’s usage chart from a different angle on his blog, delivering facts our readers already know: Americans are overpaying for their broadband service, and the threat of usage caps simply disguises a big fat rate hike.  He found Midco’s chart the same place we did — on Multichannel News’ website.  He dismisses its relevance in the usage cap debate.  Cringley’s article explores the costs of broadband connectivity, which we have repeatedly documented are dropping, and he has several charts to illustrate that fact.

You’ll notice for example that backbone costs in Tokyo, where broadband connections typically run at 100 megabits-per-second, are about four times higher than they are in New York or London. Yet broadband connections in Tokyo cost halfwhat they do in New York, and that’s for a connection at least four times a fast!

So Softbank BB in Tokyo pays four times as much per megabit for backbone capacity and offers four times the speed for half the price of Verizon in New York. Yet Softbank BB is profitable.

No matter what your ISP says, their backbone costs are inconsequential and to argue otherwise is probably a lie.

Cue up Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, who said precisely as much Thursday morning when he admitted bandwidth costs are not terribly relevant to broadband pricing.

We knew that, but it’s great to hear him say it.

Cringely’s excellent analysis puts a price tag on what ISP’s want to cap for their own benefit — their maximum cost to deliver the service:

That 250 gigabytes-per-month works out to about one megabit-per-second, which costs $8 in New York. So your American ISP, who has been spending $0.40 per month to buy the bandwidth they’ve been selling to you for $30, wants to cap their maximum backbone cost per-subscriber at $8.

[…] IP Transit costs will continue to drop. That $8 price will most likely continue to fall at the historical annual rate of 22 percent. So what’s presented as an ISP insurance policy is really a guaranteed profit increase of 22 percent that will be compounded over time because consumption will continue to rise and customers will be for the first time charged for that increased consumption.

This isn’t about capping ISP losses, but are about increasing ISP profits. The caps are a built-in revenue bump that will kick-in 2-3 years from now, circumventing any existing regulatory structure for setting rates. The regulators just haven’t realized it yet. By the time they do it may be too late.

Unfortunately, even if they knew, we have legislators in Washington who are well-paid in campaign money to look the other way unless consumers launch a revolution against duopoly broadband pricing.

Cringely believes usage caps will be the form of your provider’s next rate increase for broadband, but he need not wait that long.  As the aforementioned CEO of Time Warner Cable has already admitted, the pricing power of broadband is such that the cable and phone companies are already increasing rates — repeatedly — for a service many still want to cap.  Why?  Because they can.

Consumers who have educated themselves with actual facts instead of succumbing to ISP “re-education” efforts designed to sell usage limits under the guise of “fairness” are well-equipped to answer Mr. Spangler’s question about whether bandwidth caps are necessary.

The answer was no, is no, and will always be no.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Midco D3 Upgrade Promo 7-11.flv[/flv]

Jon Pederson’s comments on Midcontinent’s own website promoting its new faster broadband speeds can’t be missed.  He counts the number of devices in his own home that connect to the Internet, explains how our use of the Internet has been transformed in the past several years, and declares Midco well-prepared to deliver customers the capacity they need.  Perhaps Mr. Spangler used the wrong company to promote his desire for Internet usage caps.  Pederson handily, albeit indirectly, obliterates Spangler’s own talking points, which makes us wonder why this company even pondered Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps in the first place.  (10 minutes)

Spangler

While the mainstream media and some of AT&T’s apologists tell consumers AT&T’s 2 GB monthly usage limit will impact only a handful of “abusers,” the cable trade press is telling its readers the industry insider’s secret — consumers will blow right through those caps.

Todd Spangler, who is an Internet Overcharging advocate and columnist for Multichannel News, a cable industry trade magazine, writes the implications of AT&T’s usage cap couldn’t be clearer to him.

The new iPhone 4, introduced yesterday to the predictable media crush, provides 10 hours of battery life for playing video, among other features.

But now that AT&T has eliminated its all-you-can-eat plan for smartphones, you will blow through the maximum 3G usage for the entry-level 200 MB plan if you watched just 4 minutes of streaming video per day. That would include commercials.

Even AT&T’s more generous DataPro 2-GB plan would allow just 35 minutes per day of streaming video (assuming you used your iPhone for nothing else), according to the carrier’s online data calculator.

Like a stopped watch, at least he’s right twice a day.

Spangler celebrates the opportunity AT&T’s overcharging scheme provides the cable industry to “grease the skids” for data caps and overpriced consumption billing on cable modem service.

In Spangler’s “Cable companies pay my salary”-world-view, it wasn’t that Time Warner Cable did the wrong thing when it tried to triple broadband pricing — to $150 a month — for the exact same level of service customers previously enjoyed.  It was all about its execution.

Spangler characterizes Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt as a victim, burned over the company’s failed overcharging experiment in 2009.  When one plays with matches, is it any surprise there are consequences?

Consumers will respond to more overcharging schemes the same way they did a year before — with overwhelming condemnation and opposition.  It’s hard to convince consumers to pay a higher price for limits on usage while telling shareholders you’ve invested less to expand your network, charged more to access it, all while the costs to provide the service have dropped dramatically.  Consumers call that out for what it is: greed.

Make no mistake, consumers hate usage caps and overpriced consumption billing and Time Warner Cable has no justification to introduce either.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC ATT Cuts Unlimited Data 6-2-10.flv[/flv]

Normally business-friendly CNBC covers the introduction of the 2 GB usage cap on AT&T smartphone data usage.  Then the CNBC anchor got skeptical about AT&T’s claims this was good news for consumers, admitting she hates overcharging schemes that deliver a surprise on the bill at the end of the month.  Lance Ulanoff, editor of PC Magazine expressed some doubts himself.  (8 minutes)

Phillip "He Who Shall Not Be Named" Dampier

I’ve tangled with Todd Spangler, a columnist at cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News before.  This morning, I noticed Todd suddenly added me to the list of people he follows on Twitter.  Now I see why.

Todd is back with another one of his cheerleading sessions for Internet Overcharging schemes, promoting consumption-based billing schemes as inevitable, backed up by his industry friends who subscribe and help pay his salary and a guy from a company whose bread is buttered selling the equipment to “manage” the Money Party.

GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham and Broadband Reports’ Karl Bode don’t pay his salary, so it’s no surprise he disagrees them.  Oh, and I’m in the mix as well, but not by name.  Amusingly, I’m “the StoptheCap! guy, who’s making a career directing his bloggravation at The Man.”

Todd doesn’t consider himself “an edgy blogger type because, as everyone knows, I am The Man,” he writes.

Actually, Todd, you are Big Telecom’s Man, paid by an industry trade magazine to write industry-friendly cozy warm and fuzzies that don’t rock the boat too much and threaten those yearly subscription fees, as well as your paid position there.  I’ve yet to read a trade publication that succeeds by disagreeing with industry positions, and I still haven’t after today.

Unlike Todd, I am not paid one cent to write any of what appears here.  This site is entirely consumer-oriented and financed with no telecom industry involvement, no careers to make or break, and this fight is not about me.  I’m just a paying customer like most of our readers.

This site is about good players in the broadband industry who deserve to make good profits and enjoy success providing an important service to subscribers at a fair price, and about those bad players who increasingly seek to further monetize their broadband offerings by charging consumers more for the same service.  As one of the few telecom products nearly immune from the economic downturn, some providers are willing to leverage their barely-competitive marketplace position to cash in.

It’s about who has control over our broadband future – certain corporate entities and individuals who openly admit their desire to act as a controlling gatekeeper, or consumers who pay for the service.  It’s also about organizing consumers to push back when industry propaganda predominates in discussions about broadband issues, and we know where we can find plenty of that.  Finally it’s about evangelizing broadband, not in a religious sense, but promoting its availability even if it means finding alternatives to private providers who leave parts of urban and rural America unserved because it just doesn’t produce enough profit.

Let’s derail Todd’s latest choo-choo arguments.

“The idea of charging broadband customers based on what they use is still in play.” — That’s never been in play.  True consumption billing would mean consumers pay exactly for what they use.  If a consumer doesn’t turn on their computer that month, there would be no charge.  That’s not what is on offer.  Instead, providers want to overcharge consumers with speed –and– usage-based tiers that, in the case of Time Warner Cable, were priced enormously higher than current flat-rate plans.  Customers would be threatened with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding a paltry tier proposed by the company last April.  The ‘Stop the Cap! guy’ didn’t generate thousands of calls and involvement by a congressman and United States senator writing blog entries.  Impacted consumers instinctively recognized a Money Party when they saw one, and drove the company back.  A certain someone at Multichannel News said Time Warner Cable was “taking one for the team.”  At least then you were open about whose side you were on.

“Verizon just wants to make more money by charging more for the same service. What an outrage! It’s not like the company spent billions and billions to build out their network and needs to recoup that investment.” — Recouping an investment is easily accomplished by providing customers with an attractive, competitively priced service that delivers better speed and more reliability than the competition.  Provide that in an era when fiber optic technology and bandwidth costs are declining, and not only does the phone company survive the coming copper-wire obsolescence, it also benefits from the positive press opinion leaders who clamor for your service will generate to attract even more business.  Stacey’s comments acknowledged the positive vibes consumers have towards Verizon’s fiber investment — positive vibes they are now willing to throw away.

Verizon FiOS already gets to recoup its investment from premium-priced speed tiers that are favored by those heavy broadband users.  Most will happily hand over the money and stay loyal, right up until you ask for too much.  Theoretically charging your best customers $140 a month for 50Mbps/20Mbps service and then limiting it to, say, 250GB of usage will be an example of asking for too much.  Verizon didn’t get into the fiber optics business believing their path to return on investment was through consumption billing for broadband.

“Today’s broadband networks — not even FiOS — are not constructed to deliver peak theoretical demand and adding more capacity to the home or farther upstream will require investment.” — Readers, today’s newest excuse for overcharging you for your broadband access is “peak theoretical demand.”  It used to be peer-to-peer, then online videos, and now this variation on the “exaflood” nonsense.  It sounds like Todd has been reading some vendor’s press release about network management.  Peak theoretical demand has never been the model by which residential broadband networks have been constructed.  The Bell System constructed a phone network that could withstand enormous call volumes during holidays or other occasional events.  Broadband networks were designed for “best effort” broadband.  If we’d been living under this the peak demand broadband model, cable modem service and middle mile DSL networks wouldn’t be constructed to force hundreds of households to share one fixed rate connection back to the provider.  It’s this design that causes those peak usage slowdowns on overloaded networks that work fine at other times.

No residential broadband provider is building or proposing constructing peak theoretical demand networks that are good enough to include a service and speed guarantee.  Instead, cable providers are moving to affordable DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which continue the “shared model” cable modems have always relied on, except the pipeline we all share can be exponentially larger and deliver faster speeds.  Will this model work for decades to come?  Perhaps not, but it’s generally the same principle Time Warner Cable is using to deliver HD channels quietly ‘on demand’ to video customers without completely upgrading their facilities.  You don’t hear them talk about consumption billing for viewing, yet similar network models are in place for both.

“Is it fairer to recover that necessary investment in additional capacity from the heaviest users, who are driving the most demand?” Apparently so, because providers already do that by charging premium pricing for faster service tiers attractive to the heaviest users.  But Todd, as usual, ignores the publicly-available financial reports which tell a very different tale – one where profits run in the billions of dollars for broadband service, where many providers Todd feels urgently need to upgrade their networks are, in reality, spending a lower percentage on their network infrastructure costs, all at the same time bandwidth costs are either dropping or fixed, making it largely irrelevant how much any particular user consumes. What matters is how much of a percentage of profits providers are willing to put back into their networks.

Do people like Todd really believe consumers aren’t capable of reading financial reports and watching executives speak with investors about the fact their networks are well-able to handle traffic growth (Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable CEO), that consumption based billing represents potential increased revenue for companies that deny they even have a traffic management problem (Verizon), or that broadband is like a drug that company officials want to encourage consumers to keep using without unfriendly usage caps, limits, or consumption billing (Cablevision.)

“From 7 to 10 p.m., we’re all consumption kings,” Sandvine CEO David Caputo told Todd. “Bandwidth caps don’t do anything for you.” The implication of this finding is that “the Internet is really becoming like the electrical grid in the sense that it’s only peak that matters,” he added. — I would have been asking Todd to pick me up off the floor had Caputo said anything different.  His bread and butter, just like Todd’s, is based on pushing his business agenda.  Sandvine happens to be selling “network management” equipment that can throttle traffic, perhaps an endangered business should Net Neutrality become law in the United States.  His business depends on selling providers on the idea that sloppy usage caps don’t solve the problem — his equipment will.  Todd has no problem swallowing that argument because it helps him make his.  The rest of us who don’t work for a trade publication or a net throttler know otherwise.

What would actually be fair to consumers is to take some of those enormous profits and plow them back into the business to maintain, expand, and enhance services that deliver the gravy train of healthy revenue.  In fact, by providing even higher levels of service, they can rake in even larger profits.  You have to spend money to earn money, though.

Technology doesn’t sit still, which is why provider arguments about increased traffic leading to increased costs don’t quite ring true when financial reports to shareholders say exactly the opposite.  That’s because network engineers get access to new, faster, better networking technology, often at dramatically lower prices than what they paid for less-able technology just a few years earlier.  With new customers on the way, particularly for the cable industry picking up those dropping ADSL service from the phone company, there’s even more revenue to be had.

Or, do you think spreading the cost across all subscribers, thereby raising the flat-rate pricing for everyone, is the better option? Note that Comcast did this to an extent when it raised the monthly lease fee for cable modems by $2 (to $5), citing costs associated with its DOCSIS 3.0 buildout.

The industry already thinks so.  As we’ve documented, cable broadband providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast (and Charter next year), are already raising prices across the board for broadband customers in many areas.  Does that mean the talk about Internet Overcharging schemes can be laid to rest?  Of course not.  They want their rate increases -and- consumption based billing for even fatter profits.

If, on the other hand, you want to pretend that all-you-can-eat plans are sustainable at today’s price tiers, you’d be kind of clueless.

Every ISP maintains an Acceptable Use Policy that provides appropriate sanctions for those users who are so far out of the consumption mainstream, they cannot even see the rest of us.  Slapping consumption based billing on consumers with steep overlimit fees and penalties punishes everyone, and the provider keeps the proceeds, and not necessarily for network upgrades.

If Todd believes consumers will sit still for profiteering by changing a model that has handsomely rewarded providers at today’s prices, with plenty of room to spare for appropriate upgrades, he’ll be the clueless one.  The cable industry’s ability to overreach never ceases to amaze me.  Every 15 years or so, legislative relief has to put them back in their place.  It’s what happens when just a handful of providers decide it is easier to hop on board the Internet Overcharging Express and cash those subscriber checks than actually engage in all-out competitive warfare with one another – keeping prices in check and onerous overcharges out of the picture.

Nobody needs to know my name to understand this.  But some of his provider friends already know the names of our readers, because PR disasters do not happen in a vacuum.  They are also acquainted with two other names: Rep. Eric Massa and Sen. Charles Schumer.  If they want to go hog wild with Internet Overcharging schemes, that list of names will get much, much longer.

Todd Spangler, who we seem to spar with on a semi-regular basis here, has another blog entry up expanding on his views of why Time Warner Cable’s metered pricing experiment failed.  Of course, completely missing from the list is the fact most customers do not want it.  That’s dangerous to say in a cable industry trade publication like Multichannel News, however.

Todd still thinks it’s all about how they did it, not the fact they did it in the first place that created what even he admits was a “category five” storm of backlash.

Clearly, the company’s idea — given that these were trials — was to have the flexibility to tweak pricing, adjust specific cap levels, etc., and not have these things set in stone. But the ad-hoc communications on the usage trials was perhaps the biggest reason this blew up.

The only “trial” here was on the customer, and the jury was stacked with Time Warner Cable executives who already found themselves innocent of extortionist pricing and market abuse.  The “tweak” most customers wanted was none at all.  What was set in stone, until the groundswell finally achieved temporary results, was that the caps were coming no matter what customers had to say.  Just ask people in Beaumont, Texas.

… Continue Reading