America’s worst-rated cable company is facing an apparent customer backlash on two fronts — its introduction of usage caps and at least one disgruntled unidentified citizen who mailed Mediacom a white powdery substance that forced a temporary closure of one hospital and left two Mediacom employees and two Washington County, N.C. sheriff’s deputies quarantined Wednesday.

Deputies launched an investigation after Mediacom employees handled and opened a plain envelope that was found to contain an unknown substance. Employees unintentionally exposed two sheriff’s deputies to the material after they responded to the incident. As a precaution, Mediacom’s Plymouth office was evacuated and both employees and police were decontaminated in an area hospital also placed on lockdown.

All are reportedly doing fine and the unknown substance was sent to Raleigh for further examination. Authorities won’t release further details about the envelope or its contents as the investigation is ongoing, but did say the substance turned out not to be harmful.

Earlier this month the cable company announced it was introducing variable usage caps for customers who either add or change broadband services after August 1. Current customers will be grandfathered under Mediacom’s informally uncapped usage plans, but cannot make changes to their packages without choosing one of several new usage-limited plans. (Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Curt for sending along the details.)

The caps range from 150GB for Mediacom’s lightest-use plan Launch, which offers 3Mbps downstream, 250GB for the popular 15/1Mbps Prime plan, to 999GB for the company’s 50/5 Ultra and 105/10Mbps Ultra Plus plans.

A Mediacom representative explained the company’s reasons for the usage caps:

“We’ve implemented the usage allowances to ensure we can deliver on our promise of Always Faster Internet,” said “Chad” — from Mediacom Social Media Relations in Gulf Breeze, Fla. “In reality, only 2% of our users exceed our usage allowances. This 2% can use over 19 times what the average household would use, and this can dramatically impact the service you experience in your home. It could cause us to raise our rates for everyone, just to accommodate the excessive use of a few.”

Unfortunately, not every Mediacom customer currently has access to a company-developed usage measurement tool. If a customer exceeds their limit, Mediacom will charge a flat $10 for every 50GB segment over that amount.

Mediacom’s need to implement usage caps is open to debate, however.

The company’s latest 10-Q report filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, Mediacom admits it has already increased rates for its broadband customers – heavy users and otherwise. At the same time, Mediacom admits its costs to operate its broadband service have dropped 18.7%, principally due to lower connectivity costs.

In fact, the largest costs Mediacom faced included:

• Field operating costs, which grew 13.7% as the company increasingly relies on outside, third-party contractors;
• Marketing costs increased 13.8% to pay for the company’s rebranding, junk mail marketing, and advertising;
• Employee costs increased 23.5%, primarily to beef up its marketing and direct sales to potential business customers.

Nothing in Mediacom’s required declarations to the SEC show any impact by so-called “heavy users” on its broadband service costs or revenues. If they represented any potential threat to the company’s value to investors, disclosure as a “risk factor” is required by law.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNCT Jacksonville Investigation continues following Mediacom Powder 8-8-12.flv[/flv]

WNCT in Jacksonville, N.C. covers a potential anthrax scare when an unidentified person mailed a plain envelope to Mediacom in Plymouth containing a white, powdery substance.  (2 minutes)

Broadband transport costs continue to decline, at an accelerating pace, according to researcher Telegeography.

Prices to move data across the Internet continue to decline throughout the world. According to new data from TeleGeography’s IP Transit Pricing Service, price declines in most locations accelerated over the past year, at an accelerating pace. But none of those savings are showing up on customer bills. In fact, while providers have been increasing broadband prices over the past three years, their costs to provide the service continue to plummet.

“IP transit prices have reached extremely low levels in developed markets, but remain high in many developing markets and in countries that are remote from major IP transit hubs,” said TeleGeography analyst Erik Kreifeldt. “Nevertheless, few places remain where transit prices exceed $100 per Mbps. As carriers expand into emerging markets and establish new price floors in developed markets, global IP transit prices will continue to fall.”

The median monthly lease price for a full GigE port in London dropped 57 percent between Q2 2011 and Q2 2012 to $3.13 per Mbps, compared with a 31 percent decline compounded annually from Q2 2007 to Q2 2012. In New York, the comparable price dropped 50 percent to $3.50 per Mbps over the past year, and 26 percent compounded annually over the five-year period. Pricing for short term promotions and high capacities have dropped below $1.00 per Mbps per month.

DSL Prime‘s Dave Burstein says that translates to Internet backbone wholesale pricing of less than $0.50 per broadband customer per month in New York or London.

Burstein also notes router and switch prices are also matching the predicted pace of Moore’s Law, declining 25-40 percent per annum. With competition for backbone connectivity robust in North America, the reduced costs are passed along to large broadband providers, but not to customers.

Burstein reports that while Internet traffic continues to expand at “ferocious rates,” your broadband provider’s net cost has been generally flat or even down. In fact, he estimates that when providers add up the cost of backbone transport costs and moving traffic from their network to individual customers, they end up spending less than $1 per month on traffic per customer. But they charge you $40-50 or more for the service.

Burstein also notes that broadband usage has almost no impact on provider costs, whether they offer 3Mbps or 1,000Mbps service, have caps of 50GB, 500GB, or no caps at all.

“With bandwidth costs this low, we’re talking dimes or at most a couple of dollars per month to handle any likely traffic flow,” Burstein reports.

Even accounting for perennial predictions of data tsunamis from equipment manufacturers like Cisco, their own data shows the primary cost of Internet traffic per customer is falling, according to Burstein, even as data consumption increases.

An Australian Internet Service Provider that caps customer usage and charges extra if you want to exceed your allowance has taken to the company’s blog to argue that usage caps are fair, even as their customers start departing for competitors offering unlimited service.

iiNet chief technology officer John Lindsay defends the company’s usage-based billing scheme, which charges more than $30 a month for DSL service with a 20GB usage cap.

“Service providers in favour of a two-speed Internet argue that there is limited capacity on the Internet and that those using the most bandwidth by delivering rich content or transferring large files should pay more,” wrote Lindsay. “In Australia, we have a different business model for the Internet. ISPs operate on a pay-as-you-go model, which also shapes the consumer market. Here, consumers can choose a plan with upload and download quotas to fit their usage and pay according to their needs – the more you use, the more you pay.”

Lindsay

Unfortunately for Lindsay, an increasing number of Australians don’t agree and are switching to providers like TPG and Dodo, which have become enormously popular selling flat rate, unlimited broadband service.

Lindsay warns that if Australia adopts the flat rate service model popular in the United States, a Net Neutrality debate will be sparked as customers discover ISPs are unable to handle the traffic and start prioritizing their own content.

“Operating a quota based business model ensures we’re not responsible for policing activity online – our customers pay a fair price for the services they receive and we can focus on more important issues than where their traffic is coming from,” Lindsay argues. “While US providers argue about a two-tier system, our priority is to provide awesome customer service and ensure our customers enjoy a seamless experience online, whatever it is their Internet connection means to them.”

Of course, Lindsay’s characterization of the American broadband landscape is fact-challenged, because most broadband providers have plenty of capacity to deliver content. Some simply want to earn a new revenue stream from content producers for managing that traffic, even though paying customers already compensate them for that service.

Australia’s data caps have traditionally been onerous because of the higher costs and limited capacity of underseas cables that handle traffic inside and out of the Pacific Basin. But Australians have complained about the low caps for years — so loudly that the Australian government has made construction of a super-capacity fiber to the home network a national priority for the country as international capacity also increases.

Customers were not fooled by Lindsay’s rhetoric.

“This is nonsense,” wrote Lachlan Hunt. “Australia’s model of capped usage limits with higher prices for higher caps, and of ISPs including yourself offering free zones where such data doesn’t count towards the monthly quota is exactly the problem that Net Neutrality advocates aim to deal with. It treats data from companies who choose to partner with you to get their content in the free zone as privileged compared with everyone else, and similarly with other ISPs.”

Hunt complains iiNet’s caps were “ridiculously low” and interfered with his career in the web development industry. Today he lives and works in Europe, where usage caps are increasingly a thing of the past.

“I’m really hoping that you will eventually wake up and realize that usage caps go together with Non-Neutral internet, and with the introduction of the [national fiber to the home network], which brings both higher speeds and capacities, you should be able to lower prices, abolish usage caps and offer a fair model with pricing tiers based on the chosen speeds.”

Stop the Cap! also addressed Lindsay:

[…] We have learned dealing with this issue for several years that ISPs are terrified of their own argument if carried to its fullest extension. If iiNet wants customers to fairly pay for only what they use, they should be billing them on exactly that basis. A flat charge per gigabyte — no allowances/quotas, no penalty overage fees or speed throttles, no wasted, unused quota at the end of the month.

But they don’t dare. If you charged $1/GB (still a crime-gouge compared to the wholesale price), those customers currently paying $30 for up to 20GB service might suddenly be paying $5-15 instead.

[…] If you asked your customers whether they prefer unlimited service or your current cap system, most will clamor for unlimited, even if it costs them a bit more, just for the peace of mind of never facing overage charges or speed throttles.

This argument has never been about capacity. It’s about what it always is about: money.

Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) are incensed about efforts by CenturyLink to win waivers from the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America rural broadband funding program that could leave WISPs facing new competition from CenturyLink made possible by surcharges paid by phone customers nationwide.

At issue is a filing from CenturyLink before the FCC that would allow the phone company to “change the rules,” according to critics. One of CenturyLink’s most prominent arguments is that WISPs have data caps that inconvenience customers. But CenturyLink buries the fact it has usage caps of its own in a footnote.

“The waiver application we filed … would allow CenturyLink to spend tens of millions of dollars to bring more broadband services to more rural and high-cost customers who do not have reasonable access to broadband service today,” CenturyLink said in a media release. “These funds would be provided by the FCC’s Connect America Fund, as well as additional investment dollars would be provided by CenturyLink. If the waiver application is approved, CenturyLink will build needed broadband services to thousands of homes in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon and several other states.”

CenturyLink claims WISPs charge considerably more for service, suffer from line-of-sight restrictions which could leave many rural customers without service, have limited spectrum which keeps broadband speeds to a bare minimum and often forces customers to endure stringent data usage caps.

The waiver request would allow CenturyLink to receive and use federal Connect America funds to deploy its DSL service to rural customers already served by WISPs if two conditions are met:

• The state where CenturyLink would spend the money has not independently verified the coverage area of the wireless ISP and objective data opens the door to an argument that a WISP cannot adequately service areas where they claim coverage;
• The WISP imposes unusually high prices ($720/yr or more) or severe usage caps (25GB per month or less).

Chuck Siefert, CEO of the Montana Internet Corporation (MIC), a WISP, argues CenturyLink has no case, and is attempting to modify the rules to accomplish its own objectives rather than adhering to the original goals of the program — to deliver broadband to the rural unserved:

CenturyLink is simply raising an old protest in a new venue. Having been designated as eligible for almost ninety million dollars of the Connect America Program (CAP), it wishes to have the opportunity to use more than a third of that as it chooses, rather than as the Commission designated after input and analysis from all parties. The Rubicon has been crossed with respect to this issue: unserved areas are those that are not served by fixed wireless providers.  Regardless of CenturyLink’s opinion of the quality of service provided, these areas have been deemed served by the Commission and CAP incremental support may not be used to build out broadband in these areas. CenturyLink is certainly capable of using other funding to build out in these areas; the Commission has not precluded that.

CenturyLink’s complaints that WISPs often come with data usage caps is ironic because CenturyLink is now imposing usage caps on its own broadband service. CenturyLink argues data caps expose the limitations inherent in wireless broadband in their filing with the FCC:

Satellite broadband also often comes encumbered with restrictive data caps. The same is true of many of the WISPs subject to this waiver request. They impose on their users highly restrictive data caps of less than 25 GB per month. Indeed, two of the WISPs impose a cap of just 5 GB per month.

It is no surprise that these WISPs would impose such unusually low caps; like satellite providers, they must ration out their highly constrained capacity among the various end users who compete for it. WISP broadband capacity—unlike the customer-specific links in DSL-based broadband—is shared by all customers within a given wireless cell or sector.

This means that the more customers a WISP persuades to sign up, the worse the average service quality gets for all customers unless the WISP sharply limits how much customers may consume.

That imperative may be an unavoidable consequence of the WISPs’ technology, but it further underscores the need to give the affected consumers a robust broadband alternative.

Siefert claims CenturyLink’s assertions about the quality of its DSL service, pricing, and performance simply fall short of the truth, and MIC does better by its customers.

Pricing

CenturyLink charges a $134.89 non-recurring charge plus $29.99/mo for “up to 1.5Mbps” DSL service, plus “up to” $99.95 for professional installation. CenturyLink’s DSL modem costs $99 and has a one-year warranty.

Siefert claims MIC charges $30/mo for “bursting speeds up to 10Mbps” and $250 for technician installation, but the company offers regular installation promotions that cost $99. MIC warrants its equipment for the life of the service and charges no fee for service calls as long as the customer is current on their bill.

But Stop the Cap! found speeds and pricing less advantageous than Siefert might have the FCC believe. For instance, MIC’s $30 tier only guarantees 384kbps with speed “bursts” up to 10Mbps. Getting committed 2Mbps service runs $55 a month with the same “bursting” speed of 10Mbps. We also found CenturyLink willing to negotiate installation charges, and the company frequently discounts or even waives them if a customer signs up for a multi-service package.

Data Caps

CenturyLink now imposes a 150GB usage cap on customers with 1.5Mbps service or slower, 250GB for customers at higher speeds.

MIC claims it does not even monitor individual customer usage. Siefert says data use limitations are found in the terms and conditions of its service and are imposed only when a customer creates a problem for other users on the network.

“Rather than strictly applying data caps, MIC’s policy is to contact its customers and explain the impact their usage has on other customers,” Siefert explains. “As a small provider in a local community, MIC is able to do this in a way that a carrier like CenturyLink cannot. CenturyLink’s representations regarding transfer caps imply that WISPs arbitrarily and automatically shut a customer down once the cap is reached. This assertion is not based on evidence and is not an accurate statement of MIC’s approach to the caps. CenturyLink’s argument that WISPs operate like satellite and therefore WISPs service areas should be categorized as unserved areas based on how transfer caps are used fails.”

Stop the Cap! found different information on MIC’s website, however, including a 20GB monthly data cap and a $15/GB overage charge. Siefert’s submission to the FCC may suggest the published cap is a guideline more than a rule.

Performance

CenturyLink still uses T1-level circuits (1.5Mbps) to connect at least some of their remote D-SLAMs, according to Siefert, which helps the phone company extend DSL service to homes and businesses far away from the company’s central office. The net result is that customers fight for the bandwidth on an insufficient backhaul, which dramatically reduces speeds during peak usage times. In Helena, Montana CenturyLink “daisy-chains” D-SLAMs to support customers over a single T3 line, creating latency problems, packet loss, and further reductions in speed and performance.

MIC is capable of providing a total of 252Mbps per distribution site. The incoming next generation of wireless technology will increase that to 1.4Gbps. Additional distribution sites can divide the traffic load similar to how new cell towers can reduce demand on other nearby towers.

Speeds

CenturyLink sells speeds “up to” a certain level without guaranteeing customers will actually get the speed they are paying to receive. Siefert says CenturyLink customers in Montana currently can manage up to 7Mbps in some areas.

MIC says it can commit to its customers they can receive 10-40Mbps (and 80Mbps by the end of 2012) over its wireless network.

Independent Netindex.com suggests MIC does offers faster service on average than CenturyLink provides in Montana:

• Montana (statewide average): MIC 5.04Mbps vs. CenturyLink 3.8Mbps
• Helena: MIC 5.08Mbps vs. CenturyLink 2.73Mbps

The Wireless Internet Service Provider Association says their members are not eligible for federal Connect America subsidies, and most wireless providers are privately financed operations built with the support of their rural customers.

Said Richard Harnish, WISPA’s executive director, “We find it hard to believe that a company like CenturyLink that gets millions of dollars in federal support now wants more free money to overbuild unsubsidized rural broadband networks that WISPs already successfully operate. To do this, CenturyLink has attempted to discredit the taxpayer-funded National Broadband Map and invent its own standards in an effort to show that they should receive more than $30 million in additional subsidies.  Our strong opposition reflects WISPA’s view that CenturyLink’s arguments are factually and technically flawed.  We thank the other associations, state agencies and WISPs that support our views.”

The wireless industry is in transition. Increasing capacity also means decreasing the number of customers trying to share a traditional cell tower. The future will bring a combination of shorter-range cellular and Wi-Fi antennas that can sustain traffic loads much easier than overburdened traditional cell towers.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Policy and Technology’s recommendation that the growing demand for wireless spectrum be met by sharing frequencies with the federal government is getting a cold reception from the wireless industry.

AT&T, other wireless operators, and their lobbying trade association have been embarked on a fierce campaign in Washington to free up additional spectrum they can use to meet growing demands for wireless data. Unfortunately, clearing spectrum that can be re-purposed for wireless phone companies requires complicated, and often expensive frequency reassignments as existing users relocate elsewhere. With the federal government holding a large swath of spectrum for the use of a range of public safety, research, and military applications, the best source for new frequencies comes from Washington.

PCAST’s final 200-page report urges the Commerce Department prioritize locating 1000MHz of frequencies that could be re-purposed for private wireless communications. But the council also recommended that frequencies could be more quickly made available by asking wireless telecom companies to share them with existing users.

Today’s “exclusive use” licenses all too often are being underutilized and, in fact, are sometimes used as a valuable investment tool to buy, trade, or sell. Issuing exclusive licenses guarantees that no other players can use those frequencies. That is a valuable tool for wireless companies protecting their market share from potential competitors.

PCAST declared the concept of a “spectrum shortage” to be largely a myth:

Although there is a general perception of spectrum scarcity, most spectrum capacity is not used. An assigned primary user may occupy a band, preventing any other user from gaining access, yet consume only a fraction of the potential spectrum capacity. Unique among natural resources owned by the public, spectrum capacity is infinitely renewable from second to second—that is, any spectrum vacated by one user is immediately available for any other user.

Measurements of actual spectrum use show that less than 20 percent of the capacity of the prime spec­trum bands (below 3.7 GHz) is in use even in the most congested urban areas.

This spectrum inefficiency is not just a problem for the wireless industry, it also afflicts government use as well. But it is a problem that can be solved by modernizing spectrum allocation policy in the United States.

“Exclusive frequency assign­ments should not be interpreted as a reason to preclude other productive uses of spectrum capacity in areas or at times where the primary use is dormant or where underutilized capacity can be shared,” the report concludes.

If implemented, the wireless industry could begin accessing hundreds of megahertz of new spectrum, with the understanding there may be other users sharing certain frequencies in different areas at different times. For example, AT&T could use spectrum assigned to forest rangers in federal parks for wireless data in Manhattan or other urban areas, where neither user will create interference for the other. Verizon could use spectrum allocated for naval communications at seaside ports in land-locked Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, or West Virginia.

The proposal identifies these frequency bands as ideal for shared use between private and government users.

As technology progresses, shared spectrum users will easily afford equipment that dynamically locates open frequencies for communications with little or no interference even if two users are located right next door to each other.

The benefits to taxpayers, governmental users, and private industry are notable:

1. The cost to relocate existing government users to other bands is prohibitively time-consuming, complicated, and expensive. Taxpayers often foot the bill for the frequency changes;
2. Government use of spectrum is not particularly efficient either. Identifying under-utilized spectrum for shared-use can bring pressure to government users to consolidate operations and increase operating efficiency;
3. Private industry gets much faster access to new spectrum, which suddenly becomes plentiful and potentially affordable for new entrants in the wireless marketplace.

Despite the benefits, the wireless industry had a frosty reception to the new report:

Joan Marsh, AT&T Vice President of Federal Regulatory:

“While we are still reviewing the PCAST report, we are encouraged by the sustained interest in exploring ways to free up underutilized government spectrum for mobile Internet use.  However, we are concerned with the report’s primary conclusion that ‘the norm for spectrum use should be sharing, not exclusivity.’  The report fails to recognize the benefits of exclusive use licenses, which are well known.  Those licenses enabled the creation of the mobile Internet and all of the ensuing innovation, investment and job creation that followed.

“While we should be considering all options to meet the country’s spectrum goals, including the sharing of federal spectrum with government users, it is imperative that we clear and reallocate government spectrum where practical.  We fully support the NTIA effort of determining which government bands can be cleared for commercial use, and we look forward to continuing to work with NTIA and other stakeholders to make more spectrum available for American consumers and businesses.”

CTIA – The Wireless Association:

The CTIA is the wireless industry’s lobbying group

“We thank the Administration and PCAST for focusing on the need to make more efficient use of spectrum currently assigned to federal government users. As the PCAST report notes, it is sensible to investigate creative approaches for making federal government spectrum commercially available, including the development of certain sharing capabilities. At the same time, and as Congress recognized in the recently-passed spectrum legislation, the gold standard for deployment of ubiquitous mobile broadband networks remains cleared spectrum.

“Cleared spectrum and an exclusive-use approach has enabled the U.S. wireless industry to invest hundreds of billions of dollars, deploying world-leading mobile broadband networks and resulting in tremendous economic benefits for U.S. consumers and businesses. Not surprisingly, that is the very same approach that has been used by the countries that we compete with in the global marketplace, who have brought hundreds of megahertz of cleared spectrum to market in recent years.

“Policymakers on a bipartisan basis have grasped the importance of making more spectrum available to meet the growing demand for mobile Internet services, and this report highlights a range of forward-looking options, some of which are not yet commercially available, that may be considered to meet this important national goal. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, the FCC, NTIA, Congress and other interested parties to increase access to federal government spectrum and to continue to assist our nation in its economic recovery.”

Wireless carriers will continue to lobby Washington lawmakers to leave the current “exclusive use” spectrum policies in place, even if it delays opening up “badly-needed” spectrum for years.

In short, the major players in the wireless industry are hostile to the idea of losing exclusive-use spectrum. That comes as little surprise because shared spectrum cannot be controlled by the wireless industry. Spectrum squatting, where large phone companies or investment groups hang on to unused spectrum either to keep competitors out or as an investment tool until it eventually can be resold at a major profit, is a significant problem in the industry. Wall Street analysts routinely assign value to the spectrum holdings of wireless carriers, whether they are used or not. Since most spectrum is now sold to the industry at “highest bidder wins” auctions, only the largest players are frequently serious contenders. Auctioning off shared spectrum, if practical, will bring lower bids — but could potentially bring new bidders like start-up ventures that have some new ideas on how to use wireless frequencies to compete.

Therefore, it has been in the wireless industry’s best interests to keep the idea of sharing frequencies with other players out of the minds of Washington regulators and legislators. Their technical objections and claims that shared spectrum would somehow destroy innovation and investment ring hollow, and are weak deflections from the more obvious agenda: to maintain their status quo control of wireless frequencies, well-utilized or not.

AT&T and other wireless players will no doubt lobby their case to Washington politicians, many who will rush to the industry’s defense. The shadow argument most likely to be used to defend the current “exclusive use” auction system is the auction proceeds collected by the federal government. Billions have been raised from past auctions, and shared use frequencies would never net that level of return. But PCAST’s report exposes the rest of the story. The cost to reallocate existing users to other frequencies, hand out new radios, raise new antennas and purchase new transmitters is often so costly, the government’s net gain, post-auction, is likely to be minimal.

Abroad, many governments have already adopted shared use, discarding the focus on spectrum earnings and refocusing spectrum allocation on delivering the best bang for the buck — whether that dollar belongs to the consumer, the wireless industry, or the government.

Attempts by AT&T and others to kill PCAST’s recommendations should also be considered proof the industry’s dire claim of a spectrum shortage emergency is vastly overblown. In a true crisis, everyone makes compromises.  That does not appear to be the case here. Congress and regulators should receive that message loud and clear.