Phillip “They Want to Save You Money By Charging You More” Dampier

The pro-Internet Overcharging forces’ meme of “pay for what you use” sounds good in theory, but no broadband provider in the country would dare switch to a true consumption-based billing system for broadband, because it would destroy predictable profits for a service large cable and phone companies hope you cannot live without.

Twenty years ago, the cable industry could raise rates on television packages with almost no fear consumers would cancel service. When I produced a weekly radio show about the cable and satellite television industry, cable companies candidly told me they expected vocal backlashes from customers every time a rate increase notice was mailed out, but only a handful would actually follow through on threats to cut the cord. Now that competition for your video dollar is at an all-time-high, providers are shocked (and some remain in denial) that customers are actually following through on their threats to cut the cord. Goodbye Comcast, Hello Netflix!

Some Wall Street analysts have begun warning their investor clients that the days of guaranteed revenue growth from video subscribers are over, risking profits as customers start to depart when the bill gets too high. Cable companies have always increased rates faster than the rate of inflation, and investors have grown to expect those reliable profits, so the pressure to make up the difference elsewhere has never been higher.

With broadband, cable and phone companies may have found a new way to bring back the Money Party, and ride the wave of broadband usage to the stratosphere, earning money at rates never thought possible from cable-TV. The ticket to OPEC-like rivers of black gold? Usage-based billing.

Since the early days of broadband, most Americans have enjoyed flat rate access through a cable or phone company at prices that remained remarkably stable for a decade — usually around $40 a month for standard speed service.

In the last five years, as cord-cutting has grown beyond a phenomena limited to Luddites and satellite dish owners, the cable industry has responded. As they learned customers’ love of broadband has now made the service indispensable in most American homes, providers have been jacking up the price.

Time Warner Cable, for example, has increased prices for broadband annually for the last three years, especially for customers who do not subscribe to any other services.

Customers dissatisfaction with rate hikes has not led to broadband cord cutting, and in fact might prove useful on quarterly financial reports -and- for advocating changes in the way broadband service is priced:

1. Enhance revenue and profits, replacing lost ground from departing video customers and the slowing growth of new customers signing up for video and phone services (and keeping average revenue per user ((ARPU)) on the increase);
2. Using higher prices to provoke an argument about changing the way broadband service is sold.

Pouring over quarterly financial reports from most major providers shows remarkable consistency:

• The costs to provide broadband service are declining, even with broadband usage growth;
• Revenue and profits enjoy a healthy growth curve, especially as increased prices on existing customers make up for fewer new customer additions;
• Earnings from broadband are now so important, a cable company like Time Warner Cable now refers to itself as a broadband company. It is not alone.

Still, it is not enough. As usage continues to grow in the current monopoly/duopoly market, providers are drooling with anticipation over the possibility of scrapping the concept of “flat rate” broadband, which limits the endless ARPU growth Wall Street demands. If a company charges a fixed rate for a service, it cannot grow revenue from that service unless it increases the price, sells more expensive tiers of service, or innovates new products and services to sell.

Providers have enjoyed moderate success selling customers more expensive, faster service, also on a flat rate basis. But that still leaves money on the table, according to Wall Street-based “usage billing” advocates like Craig Moffett, who see major ARPU growth charging customers more and more money for service as their usage grows.

Moffett has a few accidental allies in the blogger world who seem to share his belief in “usage-based” billing. Lou Mazzucchelli, reading the recent New York Times piece on Time Warner’s gradual move towards usage pricing, frames his support for consumption billing around the issue of affordability. In his view, usage pricing is better for consumers and the industry:

It costs real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand, and those costs are ultimately borne by the subscriber. So in the US, we have carriers trying to raise their rates to offset increases in capital and operating expenses to the point where consumers are beginning to push back, and the shoving has come to the attention of the Federal Communications Commission, which has raised the possibility of treating Internet network providers as common communications carriers subject to regulation.

I believe that flat-rate pricing is a major source of problems for network carriers and consumers. In the carrier world, the economics are known but ignored because marketers believe that flat rates are the only plans consumers will accept. But in the consumer world, flat rates are rising to incomprehensible levels for indecipherable reasons, with little recourse except disconnection. Consumer dissatisfaction is rising, in part because consumers feel they have no control over the price they have to pay. This is driven by their sense of pricing inequity that is hard to visualize but comes from implicit subsidies in the current environment. The irony is that pay-per-use pricing solves the problem for carriers and consumers.

Mazzucchelli reposted his blog piece originally written in 2010 for the benefit of Times readers. Two years ago, he measured his usage at 11GB a month. His provider Verizon Communications was charging him $64.99 a month for 25Mbps service, which identifies him as a FiOS fiber to the home customer.  Mazzucchelli argues the effective price he was paying for Internet access was $5.85 for each of the 11GB he consumed, which seemed steep at the time. (Not anymore, if you look at wireless company penalty rates which range from $10-15/GB or more.)

Mazzucchelli theorized that if he paid on a per-packet basis, instead of flat rate service based on Internet speed, he could pay something like $0.0000025 per packet, which would result in a bill of $31.91 for his 11GB instead of $65. For him, that’s money saved with usage billing.

On its face, it might seem to make sense, especially for light users who could pay less under a true usage-based pricing scenario like the one he proposes.

Verizon Communications is earning more average revenue per customer than ever with its fiber to the home network. That’s about the only bright spot Wall Street recognizes from Verizon’s fiber network, which some analysts deride as “too expensive.”

Unfortunately for Mazzucchelli, and others who claim usage-based pricing will prove a money-saver, the broadband industry has some bad news for you. Usage pricing simply cannot be allowed to save you, and other current customers money. Why? Because Wall Street will never tolerate pricing that threatens the all-important ARPU. In the monopoly/duopoly home broadband marketplace most Americans endure, it would be the equivalent of unilaterally disarming in the war for revenue and profits.

That is why broadband providers will never adopt a true usage-based billing system for customers. It would cannibalize earnings for a service that already enjoys massive markups above true cost. In 2009, Comcast was spending under $10 a month to sell broadband service priced above $40.

Mazzucchelli

Instead, providers design “usage-based” billing around rates comparable to today’s flat rate pricing, only they slap arbitrary maximum usage allowances on each tier of service, above which consumers pay an overlimit fee penalty. That would leave Mazzucchelli choosing a lower speed, lower usage allowance plan to maximize his savings, if his use of the Internet didn’t grow much. On a typical light use plan suitable for his usage, he would subscribe to 1-3Mbps service with a 10GB allowance, and pay the overlimit fee for one extra gigabyte if he wanted to maximize his broadband dollar.

But his usage experience would be dramatically different, both because he would be encouraged to use less, fearing he might exceed his usage allowance, and he would be “enjoying” the Internet at vastly slower speeds. If Mazzucchelli went with higher speed service, he would still pay prices comparable for flat rate service, and receive a usage allowance he personally would find unnecessarily large. The result for him would be little to no savings and a usage allowance he did not need.

Mazzucchelli’s usage pattern is probably different today than it was in 2010. Is he still using 11GB a month? If he uses double the amount he did two years ago, under his own pricing formula, the savings he sought would now be virtually wiped out, with a broadband bill for 22GB of consumption running $63.82. By the following year, usage-based pricing would cost even more than Verizon’s unlimited pricing, as average use of the Internet continues to grow.

That helps the broadband industry plenty but does nothing for consumers. Mazzucchelli might be surprised to learn that the “real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand,” is actually more than covered under today’s profit margins for flat-rate broadband. In fact, if he examines financial reports over the last five years and the statements company executives make to shareholders, virtually all of them speak in terms of reducing capital investments and the declining costs to deliver broadband, even as usage grows.

Verizon’s fiber network, while expensive to construct, is already earning the company enormous boosts in ARPU over traditional copper wire phone service. While Wall Street howled about short term capital costs to construct the network, then-CEO Ivan Seidenberg said fiber optics was the vehicle that will drive Verizon earnings for decades selling new products and services that its old network could never deliver.

Still, is Mazzucchelli paying too much for his broadband at both 2010 and 2012 prices? Yes he is. But that is not a function of the cost to deliver broadband service. It is the result of a barely competitive marketplace that has an absence of price-moderating competitors. Usage-based pricing in today’s broadband market assures lower costs for providers by retarding usage. It also brings even higher profits from bigger broadband bills as Internet usage grows, with no real relationship to the actual costs to provide the service. It also protects companies from video package cord-cutting, as customers will find online viewing prohibitively expensive.

One need only look at pricing abroad to see how much Americans are gouged for Internet service. Unlimited high speed Internet is available in a growing number of countries for $20-40 a month.

Usage-based billing is a dead end that might deliver temporary savings now, but considerably higher broadband bills soon after. It is not too late to turn the car around and join us in the fight to keep unlimited broadband, enhance competition, and win the lower prices users like Mazzucchelli crave.

Phillip “We’re Still Here to Fight” Dampier

“We’re moving away from one-size-fits-all,” admits Jon Gary Herrera, a Texas spokesman for Time Warner Cable, which has introduced a usage-limited plan called “Internet Essentials” that limits customers to a paltry 5GB of usage per month in return for a $5 discount.

Time Warner Cable has learned from its mistakes in 2009, when the company attempted to force usage limits on broadband customers that would have left those seeking an unlimited experience with a broadband bill of $150 a month. After a consumer backlash organized by Stop the Cap!, the company quickly pulled back and put the plans on hold.

After three years, the playbook is off the shelf once again and being dusted off, although the nation’s second largest cable company is taking things a lot more slowly the second time around.

Lesson one: Broadband pricing and usage plan changes must happen gradually and carefully.

The New York Times reports that cable executives privately admit they are working to charge consumer expectations, starting with the notion that “all you can eat” broadband is what customers want or need.

Time Warner telemarketers have begun re-educating consumers when calling to sign up for broadband, now asking them what they do with their Internet connection and suggesting different plans based on their anticipated usage, not their speed expectations.

So far, sources working for Time Warner Cable in South Texas tell Stop the Cap! the plan is not working too well and few customers are interested in the usage-capped “Internet Essentials” plan that has been marketed in several markets in the state.

“Overage charges will be capped at $75 per month. That means that for $150 per month customers could have virtually unlimited usage at Turbo speeds.” — (April 9, 2009) Landel Hobbs, then chief operating officer of Time Warner Cable

“Customers really are not interested in understanding what their usage level is and don’t see much benefit from the small discount our company is offering those who sign up,” one Time Warner customer service agent privately tells us. “A lot of them have learned lessons from what AT&T and Verizon Wireless are doing with wireless data plans, and they don’t want their home broadband accounts measured.”

Another source tells us those consumers most likely to consider the “Internet Essentials” plan are casual Internet users, particularly older customers on fixed incomes. But they are also the least likely to understand how to measure their usage.

“If you tell people what a gigabyte is, it goes in one ear and out the other and they really have no comprehension about it, and when their family members find out what they signed up for, we inevitably get a call back asking to switch to something else,” another agent tells Stop the Cap! “There is a real hostility about usage limits on home broadband out there, at least among those that understand what they are.”

Lesson Two: Forgive overlimit fees or overages liberally, because consumers will adjust their behavior to use less Internet just by threatening to charge them more.

Time Warner has been very liberal about forgiving customers who exceed their 5GB limit. AT&T has yet to enforce its limits in many markets, in part because of a defective usage meter. Other ISPs with usage limits are also wary about imposing overage fees on customers because of the potential political backlash. In short, the industry hopes the threat of overlimit fees will be sufficient to get customers thinking about their usage and self-limit what they do online, an important tool to wield against customers considering cord-cutting traditional cable TV to watch everything online. Efforts to earn additional revenue from more expensive usage-based broadband plans will come later.

Cable to Netflix: You better think about going back to the U.S. Post Office and mailing DVDs. Our customers can’t afford to throw away their usage allowance on your streamed movies.

The Justice Department’s antitrust lawyers are conducting an investigation into the cable industry’s treatment of online video companies, especially with the increasing number of usage caps coming into the market. With most consumers confronted with a broadband monopoly or duopoly, it is easy for providers to slap limits on usage if the competition follows suit. The new found love of usage caps and usage billing is proving curious to those abroad, because the rest of the world is moving away from consumption limits and towards flat rate broadband.

One Wall Street analyst wants the industry to adopt the meme that if the Justice Department gets away with banning usage limits, the industry should retaliate with usage-based billing, which is just another version of Internet Overcharging.

As with the wireless industry, Wall Street is the primary driving force pushing broadband providers to adopt usage billing and other price increases on broadband to boost earnings. Verizon Wireless and AT&T, responding to investor concerns about slowing growth, see endless profits in their future monetizing broadband usage. With broadband usage rising, charging customers more for using more can bring in endless profits, even as the costs to provide the service continue to decline. Without competition and with no organized opposition by consumers, regulators, or legislators, there is nothing to stop prices from skyrocketing.

Lesson Three: Try to convince customers upgrades are expensive and difficult.

A major enemy of the forces working to adopt income-increasing usage billing are broadband advocates who regularly analyze quarterly earnings of major providers, the costs of upgrades, the price of backbone connections, and the ever-increasing prices for Internet service.

In every case, cable and phone broadband providers adopting the latest broadband technologies are seeing major increases in revenue and profits even as their costs to upgrade and manage their networks decline overall. With providers like Comcast and Time Warner Cable now regularly increasing broadband prices, earnings are higher than ever for flat rate broadband sold in speed-based tiers, and consumers are gravitating towards higher speed service, which brings even more profit.

In 2009, Time Warner Cable faced protesters opposed to usage limits at this rally in front of the company’s headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Unfortunately, when cable and phone companies control the pipes that deliver broadband service and monetize their use, the threat to high bandwidth innovation has never been greater.

Netflix tells the New York Times there may be little they can do to stem to tide of usage limits.  Sony, a potential online video competitor, has already pulled the plug on its plan to sell cable channels over the Internet because usage limits will destroy the market for online video.

Netflix has been desperate enough to explore a concessionary move — partnering with the very providers that seem ready to limit customers’ access to their service. Netflix hopes it can find a way to be exempt from the industry’s usage limits, much the same way Comcast has given a free pass to Microsoft Xbox streamed video.

Lesson Four: Control the voices that claim to speak for consumers.

Consumers still overwhelmingly despise usage limits, but without unified action against Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits and usage billing, the drumbeat of industry voices and the dollar-a-holler groups that parrot their beliefs in Washington will have the upper hand.

Consider the FCC’s “voice of the people” Consumer Advisory Council, infested with corporate interests and groups that would not exist without Big Telecom money paying to keep the lights on.

While the CAC has several authentic voices for consumers, they are practically outnumbered by industry sock puppets like the “American Consumer Institute” run by Stephen Pociask, who happens to be a telecom industry consultant and former chief economist for what is now Verizon. ACI represents the interests of AT&T and Verizon, not consumers. Call For Action is aptly named. It cashed checks written by AT&T.  “Consumer Action” relies on AT&T “grants.”  Many of the other “consumer voices” on the CAC are nothing of the sort. The CTIA Wireless Association is the giant lobbying group for the wireless industry. Not to be outdone, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) is there too, representing the cable industry. Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon are there in person as well, along with the billion dollar broadcast industry in the form of the National Association of Broadcasters. So much for the “Consumer” Advisory Council.

Is it any surprise that with “consumers” like this providing advice, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski opined he thought such billing schemes were useful.

It is more urgent than ever for customers to prepare for another round of battle against major broadband providers. Time Warner Cable itself fears a repeat of the 2009 public relations disaster, and promises it will always have an unlimited tier available for customers, even if it remains quiet on how much the company would charge for the service. If the cable operator still believes in its former chief operating officer Landel Hobbs, we can give you a clue. In April 2009, Hobbs thought he was delivering a major concession to protesters by offering to bring back unlimited broadband… for $150 a month.

An all-out consumer backlash can bring additional consumer victories, but only if customers are willing to get involved in the fight.

Stay tuned.

Despite perpetual claims of a wireless spectrum shortage, Verizon Wireless expects to have capacity to spare and has agreed to sell airwave licenses worth millions to T-Mobile USA if it can get federal regulators to approve a separate $3.6 billion acquisition of spectrum from some of America’s largest cable operators.

The deal will transfer surplus frequencies Verizon expects to acquire from its deal with Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and other cable companies in return for undisclosed compensation from the German-owned carrier. In return, T-Mobile will also turn over some of its spectrum to Verizon, most likely to give both companies a larger pool of contiguous spectrum.

The frequencies involved are expected to be in the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) band (1700/2100MHz).

Wall Street analysts say the deal will remove T-Mobile from the list of concerns critical of Verizon Wireless’ deal with cable operators. It also may alleviate some criticism that Verizon is “hoarding” spectrum.

Phillip "Is this 'innovation' or more 'alienation' from Big Cable" Dampier

While Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski pals around with his cable industry friends at this week’s Cable Show in Boston, observers could not miss the irony of the current FCC chairman nodding in repeated agreement with former FCC chairman Michael Powell, whose bread is now buttered by the industry he used to regulate.

The revolving door remains well-greased at the FCC, with Mr. Powell assuming the role of chief lobbyist for the cable industry’s National Cable and Telecommunications Association (and as convention host) and former commissioner Meredith Attwell-Baker enjoying her new office and high priced position at Comcast Corporation, just months after voting to approve its multi-billion dollar merger with NBC-Universal.

Genachowski’s announcement that he favors “usage-based pricing” as healthy and beneficial for broadband and high-tech industries reflects the view of a man who doesn’t worry about his monthly broadband bill. As long as he works for taxpayers, we’re covering most of those expenses for him.

Former FCC chairman Powell said cable providers want to be able to experiment with pricing broadband by usage. That represents the first step towards monetizing broadband usage, an alarming development for consumers and a welcome one for Wall Street who understands the increased earnings that will bring.

Unfortunately, the unspoken truth is the majority of consumers who endure these “experiments” are unwilling participants. The plan is to transform today’s broadband Internet ecosystem into one checked by usage gauges, rationing, bill shock, and reduced innovation.  The director of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, Blair Levin, recently warned the United States is on the verge of throwing away its leadership in online innovation, distracted trying to cope with a regime of usage limits that will force every developer and content producer to focus primarily on living within the usage allowances providers allow their customers.

“I’d rather be the country that developed fantastic applications that everyone in the world wants to use than the country that only invented data compression technology [to reduce usage],” Levin said.

Genachowski’s performance in Boston displayed a public servant primarily concerned about the business models of the companies he is supposed to oversee.

Genachowski: Abdicating his responsibility to protect the public in favor of the interests of the cable industry.

“Business model innovation is very important,” Genachowski said. “There was a point of view a couple years ago that there was only one permissible pricing model for broadband. I didn’t agree.”

We are still trying to determine what Genachowski is talking about. In fact, providers offer numerous pricing models for broadband service in the United States, almost uniformly around speed-based tiers, which offer customers both a choice in pricing and includes a worry-free usage cap defined by the maximum speed the connection supports.

Broadband providers experimenting with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, speed throttles, and usage-billing only layer an additional profit incentive or cost control measure on top of existing pricing models.  A usage cap limits a customer to a completely arbitrary level of usage a provider determines is sufficient. But such caps can also be used to control over-the-top streaming video by limiting its consumption — an important matter for companies witnessing a decline in cable television customers.  Speed throttles are a punishing reminder to customers who “use too much” they need to ration their usage to avoid being reduced to mind-numbing dial-up speeds until the next billing cycle begins. Usage billing discourages consumers from ever trying new and innovative services that could potentially chew up their allowance and deliver bill shock when overlimit fees appear on the bill.

The industry continues to justify these experiments with wild claims of congestion, which do not prevent companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cox from sponsoring their own online video streaming services which even they admit burn through bandwidth. Others claim customers should pay for what they use, which is exactly what they do today when they write a check to cover their growing monthly bill. Broadband pricing is not falling in the United States, it is rising — even in places where companies claim these pricing schemes are designed to save customers money. The only money saved is that not spent on network improvements companies can now delay by artificially reducing demand.

It’s having your cake and eating it too, and this is one expensive cake.

Comcast is selling broadband service for $40-50 that one research report found only costs them $8 a month to provide. That’s quite a markup, but it never seems to be enough. Now Comcast claims it is ditching its usage cap (it is not), raising usage allowances (by 50GB — four years after introducing a cap the company said it would regularly revisit), and testing a new Internet overlimit usage fee it literally stole from AT&T’s bean counters (a whopping $10 for an anti-granular 50GB).

In my life, all of the trials and experiments I have participated in have been voluntary. But the cable industry (outside of Time Warner Cable, for the moment) has a garlic-to-a-vampire reaction to the concept of “opting out,” and customers are told they will participate and they’ll like it.  Pay for what you use! (-at our inflated prices, with a usage limit that was not there yesterday, and an overlimit fee for transgressors that is here today. Does not, under any circumstances, apply to our cable television service.)

No wonder Americans despise cable companies.

Michael Powell, former FCC chairman, is now the host and chief lobbyist for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association's Cable Show in Boston. (Photo courtesy: NCTA)

For some reason, Chairman Genachowski cannot absorb the pocket-picking-potential usage billing offers an industry that is insatiable for enormous profits and faces little competition.

Should consumers be allowed to pay for broadband in different ways?  Sure. Must they be compelled into usage pricing schemes they want no part of? No, but that’s too far into the tall grass for the guy overseeing the FCC and the market players to demand.

Of course, we’ve been here and done this all before.

America’s dinosaur phone companies have been grappling with the mysterious concept of ‘flat-rate envy’ for more than 100 years, and they made billions from delivering it. While the propaganda department at the NCTA conflates broadband usage with water, gas, and electricity, they always avoid comparing broadband with its closest technological relative: the telephone. It gets hard to argue broadband is a precious, limited resource when your local phone company is pelting you with offers for unlimited local and long distance calling plans. Thankfully, a nuclear power plant or “clean coal” isn’t required to generate a high-powered dial tone and telephone call tsunamis are rarely a problem for companies that upgraded networks long ago to keep up with demand. Long distance rates went down and have now become as rare as a rotary dial phone.

In the 20th century, landline telephone companies grappled with how to price their service to consumers.  Businesses paid “tariff” rates which typically amount to 7-10 cents per minute for phone calls. But residential customers, particularly those outside of the largest cities, were offered the opportunity to choose flat-rate local calling service. Customers were also offered measured rate services that either charged a flat rate per call or offered one or two tiers of calling allowances, above which consumers paid for each additional local call.

Consumers given the choice overwhelmingly picked flat-rate service, even in cases where their calling patterns proved they would save money with a measured rate plan.

"All you can eat" pricing is increasingly common with phone service, the closest cousin to broadband.

The concept baffled the economic intelligentsia who wondered why consumers would purposefully pay more for a service than they had to. A series of studies were commissioned to explore the psychology of flat-rate pricing, and the results were consistent: customers wanted the peace of mind a predictable price for service would deliver, and did not want to think twice about using a service out of fear it would increase their monthly bill.

In most cases, flat rate service has delivered a gold mine of profits for companies that offer it. It makes billing simple and delivers consistent financial results. But there occasionally comes a time when the economics of flat-rate service increasingly does not make sense to the company or its shareholders. That typically happens when the costs to provide the service are increasing and the ability to raise flat rates to a new price point is constrained. Neither has been true in any respect for the cable broadband business, where costs to provide the service continue to decline on a per-customer basis and rates have continued to increase for consumers. The other warning sign is when economic projections show an even greater amount of revenue and profits can be earned by measuring and monetizing a service experiencing high growth in usage. Why leave money on the table, Wall Street asks.

That leaves us with companies that used to make plenty of profit charging $50 a month for flat rate broadband, now under pressure to still charge $50, but impose usage limits that reduce costs and set the stage for rapacious profit-taking when customers blow through their usage caps. It also delivers a useful fringe benefit by keeping high bandwidth content companies from entering the marketplace, as consumers fret about their impact on monthly usage allowances. Nothing eats a usage allowance like online video. Limit it and companies can also limit cable-TV cord-cutting.

Fabian Herweg and Konrad Mierendorff at the Department of Economics at the University of Zurich found the economics of flat rate pricing still work well for providers and customers, who clearly prefer unlimited-use pricing:

We developed a model of firm pricing and consumer choice, where consumers are loss averse and uncertain about their own future demand. We showed that loss-averse consumers are biased in favor of flat-rate contracts: a loss-averse consumer may prefer a flat-rate contract to a measured tariff before learning his preferences even though the expected consumption would be cheaper with the measured tariff than with the flat rate. Moreover, the optimal pricing strategy of a monopolistic supplier when consumers are loss averse is analyzed. The optimal two-part tariff is a flat-rate contract if marginal costs are low and if consumers value sufficiently the insurance provided by the flat-rate contract. A flat-rate contract insures a loss-averse consumer against fluctuations in his billing amounts and this insurance is particularly valuable when loss aversion is intense or demand is highly uncertain.

Applied to broadband, Herweg and Mierendorff’s conclusions fit almost perfectly:

1. Consumers often do not understand the measurement units of broadband usage and do not want to learn them (gigabytes, megabytes, etc.)
2. Consumers cannot predict a consistent level of usage demand, leading to disturbing wild fluctuations in billing under usage-based pricing;
3. The peace of mind, or “insurance” factor, gives consumers an expected stable bill for service, which they prefer over unstable usage fees, even if lower than flat rate;
4. Flat rate works in an industry with stable or declining marginal costs. Incremental technology upgrades and falling broadband delivery costs offer the cable industry exceptional profits even at flat-rate prices.

Time Warner Cable (for now) is proposing usage-based pricing as an option, while leaving flat rate broadband a choice on the service menu. But will it last?

Time Warner Cable (so far) is the only cable operator in the country that has announced a usage-based pricing experiment that it claims is completely optional, and will not impact on the broadband rates of current flat rate customers. If this remains the case, the cable operator will have taken the first step to successfully duplicate the pricing model of traditional phone company calling plans, offering price-sensitive light users a measured usage plan and risk-averse customers a flat-rate plan. The unfortunate pressure and temptation to eliminate the flat rate pricing plan remains, however. Company CEO Glenn Britt routinely talks of favoring usage-based pricing and Wall Street continues to pressure the company to exclusively adopt those metered plans to increase profits.

Other cable operators compel customers to adopt both speed and usage-based plans, which often require a customer to either ration usage to avoid an overlimit fee or compel an expensive service upgrade for a more generous allowance.  The result is customers are stuck with plans they do not want that deliver little or no savings and often cost much more.

Why wouldn’t a company sell you a plan you want? Either because they cannot afford to or because they can make a lot more selling you something else. Guess which is true here?

Broadband threatens to not be an American success story if current industry plans to further monetize usage come to fruition. The United States is already falling behind in global broadband rankings. In fact, the countries that lived under congestion and capacity-induced usage limits in the last decade are rapidly moving to discard them altogether, even as providers in this country seek to adopt them. That is an ominous sign that destroys this country’s lead role in online innovation. How will consumers react to tele-medicine, education, and entertainment services of the future that will eat away at your usage allowance?

Even worse, with no evidence of a broadband capacity problem in the United States, Mr. Genachowski’s apparent ignorance of the anti-competitive duopoly’s influence on pricing power is frankly disturbing. Why innovate prices down in a market where most Americans have just one or two choices for service? Economic theory tells us that in the absence of regulatory oversight or additional competition, prices have nowhere to go but up.

To believe otherwise is to consider your local cable operator the guardian angel of your wallet, and just about every American with a cable bill knows that is about as real as the tooth fairy.

Genachowski

On Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said that he generally supports data caps and tiered broadband pricing plans. The chairman’s comments came during an interview at the Cable Show with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, now the top lobbyist with the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

Genachowski has remained consistent in his cautious support for “industry innovation” that includes usage-based pricing, with a caveat providers should not exploit that at the expense of consumers.  But consumer groups like Free Press already believe usage caps, particularly on wired broadband services, are already bad for consumers, exploit a marketplace duopoly, and are worthy of investigation by the agency.

“All the evidence shows that caps on wired broadband platforms like cable make no sense. They don’t affect network congestion, even in the rare instances where congestion actually exists on these systems,” says Free Press policy director Matt Wood. “Cable companies use them to penalize their subscribers and discourage them from using innovative services that compete with cable TV.”

Free Press reminded Genachowski of Comcast’s recent actions which exempted its own video content from usage caps, while leaving them in place for competitors.

“Comcast’s recent actions show both the harms of these caps and the lack of any legitimate reason for them,” noted Wood. “[Now] Comcast changed course and suspended caps temporarily in all but a few markets — but promised to start overcharging any users there who exceeded these arbitrary limits.”

“The FCC has turned a blind eye to this competition problem. If it wants to see experimentation in pricing that actually benefits consumers, we need a competition policy that creates more experimenters.”