Fans of the “hands-off” approach to broadband oversight finally have a country where they can see a deregulated free marketplace in action, where consumers theoretically pick the winners and losers and where demand governs the kinds of services consumers and businesses can get from their providers.

That country is the Philippines, which has taken the libertarian free market approach to Internet access in a dramatic leap away from the authoritarian Marcos era of the 1980s.

The Deregulation “Miracle”

Until 1995, the Philippines Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) maintained a 60-year plus government-sanctioned monopoly on telecommunications services. Its performance was less than compelling. Establishing landline service took up to 10 years on a lengthy waiting list. Getting a phone line was the first problem, making sure it worked consistently was another. Just over 10 years after the United States formally broke up AT&T and the Bell System, the government in Manila approved RA 7925 – the Public Telecommunications Policy Act of 1995, breaking PLDT’s monopoly and establishing a level playing ground for each of 11 regions across the country and its many islands in which private companies could compete with PLDT for customers.

To attract investment and competition, the government declared all value-added services like Internet access deregulated and guaranteed the complete privatization of all government telecom facilities no later than 1998. It also initially limited the number of companies that could compete against PLDT in each region to two new entrants. The government felt that would be necessary to attract competitors that knew they would have to quickly invest millions, if not billions, to build telecom infrastructure in the Philippines. It would be hard to make a case for investment in a region where a half-dozen companies all engaged in a price war fighting for customers while stringing new telephone lines and building cell towers.

To prevent cherry-picking only the wealthiest areas of the country, the government declared its desire for a privately funded nationwide telecom network and used the 11 regions, combining urban and rural areas in each, to get it. Competitors were required to support at least 300,000 landlines and 400,000 cellular lines in each region. That assured new networks could not simply be built in urban areas, bypassing smaller communities. After building their networks, companies largely operated on their own in a mostly-free deregulated market, slightly overseen by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) — the Philippines equivalent of the FCC.

The early years of telecom deregulation seemed promising. PLDT, much like AT&T in the United States, kept the lion’s share of customers (67.24%) after deregulation took effect, but new competitors quickly captured one-third of the market. But with lax regulation and oversight, some of the Philippines’ most powerful families, many benefiting under years of the Marcos dictatorship, managed to gain influence in the newly competitive Philippines telecom business. In the United States, telecom competition meant a choice between Sprint, MCI, AT&T or others. In the Philippines, you dealt with one or two of nine powerful family owned conglomerates, each operating with a foreign-owned telecom partner. It would be like choosing between companies owned by the Rockefellers, the Astors, the Carnegies, or the Morgans.

The NTC remained more “hands-off” than the FCC, avoiding significant involvement in critical interconnection issues — how competing telephone companies handle calls from subscribers of a competing provider. That was last an issue in the United States in the early 1900s, where rare independent competitors to the rapidly consolidating Bell System faced a telecom giant that initially refused to handle calls from customers of other companies. American regulators eventually demanded interconnection policies that guaranteed customers could reach any other telephone customer, regardless of what company handled their service. In the Philippines, the NTC eventually mandated less-demanding access, allowing companies to charge long distance rates to reach customers of other companies. In the 1990s, it was not uncommon to find businesses maintaining at least two telephone lines with different companies to escape long distance expenses and stay accessible to all of their potential customers.

PLDT initially fought the opening of the marketplace but benefited handsomely from it once it took effect. The company got away with setting sky-high interconnection rates to connect calls from other smaller providers to its customers. It also made access to its network a minefield of bureaucracy and often required competitors to sign unfair revenue sharing agreements.

It is Cheaper to Buy Out the Competition Instead of Competing With It

(Image Courtesy: Mary Grace Mirandilla-Santos/LIRNEasia)

The investment community eventually balked at the cost of constructing competing telecommunications networks, especially after the dot.com crash in 2000, and a drumbeat for industry consolidation through mergers and acquisitions quickly grew too loud to ignore. Investors fumed over the amount of money being spent by providers to meet their service obligations in the 11 subdivided regions. Instead of building redundant or competing infrastructure, allowing competitors to merge would cut costs and enhance investor return. The NTC let the marketplace decide, as did the government, and it led to a frenzy of industry consolidation that ran far beyond what the FCC and American Justice Department would ever tolerate.

In 2011, the government backed a colossal merger that brought together the wireless networks of Pilipino Telephone Corporation, PLDT, and Smart under the PLDT brand. The three former competitors became one and controlled 66.3% of the Philippine’s wireless customers. The merger was comparable to allowing Verizon to buy out Sprint.

Additional mergers in response to the super-sized PLDT rapidly reduced the competitiveness of Philippine’s telecommunications marketplace to a duopoly. Just two companies — PLDT, Globe, and their respective house brands — dominate landline, DSL, cable, and wireless telecommunications service in the Philippines. The investment community celebrated the deal’s approval as a lucrative goldmine of future revenue gains from a less competitive market.

Philippine Broadband: Hey, It’s at Least Moderately Better Than Afghanistan

(Image courtesy: Mary Grace Mirandilla-Santos/LIRNEasia)

Broadband performance, under any measure other than financial success, has proved abysmal for Philippine consumers and businesses. The country’s broadband speeds are among the worst in the world, only beating Afghanistan in many speed tests. Look the other way–oversight led to a bribery scandal in 2007 that threatened to bring down the government. Officials exploring the development of a National Broadband Network were accused of soliciting kickbacks from Chinese equipment vendor ZTE, which would have been responsible for supplying equipment for the project. The government canceled the project as the scandal widened and some of the principals left the country or in at least one case were kidnapped.

Eight years later, broadband in the Philippines would be considered a North American nightmare. The free market approach has led to free-flowing profits and a profound lack of marketplace competition, with broadband ripoffs and broken promises rampant across the country.

Although both PLDT and Globe Telecom are spending large sums on infrastructure, much of it benefits their very profitable wireless networks and business customers. Despite the investments, residential customers are stuck with some of the world’s worst broadband speeds and performance.

An independent Quality of Service test revealed the bad news all around:

The findings of the Philippine QoSE tests were expected, but nevertheless still disappointing.

The best performing among the three ISPs delivered only 21% of actual versus advertised speed on average. This same ISP also offered at least 256kbps download speed (generally accepted definition of broadband) only 67% of the whole time it was tested, falling short of the required 80% service reliability.

The Broadband Commission defines the core concepts of broadband as an “always-on service” with high capacity “able to carry lots of data per second.” While there is no official definition of broadband locally, the Philippine Digital Strategy 2011-2016 defines broadband Internet service as 2Mbps download speed.

Finally, like the last nail in the coffin, Philippine ISPs performed the worst in terms of value for money when compared to select providers in South Asia and Southeast Asia. The highest value given by any of the three Philippine ISPs tested was a measly 22kbps per US dollar. This figure is too low when compared to similar mobile broadband ISPs that offer 173kbps per dollar in Jakarta, Indonesia and 445kbps per dollar in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

These results have huge implications on truth in advertising, consumer welfare, and the need for appropriate regulation.

My DSL Service is So Bad I Prefer 3GB Usage-Capped Slow Wireless Instead

Legarda

Home DSL broadband is so bad that customers have increasingly dropped service in favor of tightly managed wireless service. Companies report DSL customer losses over the past few years, with no end in sight.

The telecom regulator has generally just shrugged its shoulders at the situation, suggesting competition between equally poor providers will somehow resolve the problem. That view is applauded by service providers who claim the Internet is “just a value-added service” not essential to basic living needs. But consumer groups wonder why providers are allowed to make false advertising claims about the speed of their service with no repercussions. A range of position papers appealing to the government to create a meaningful minimum broadband speed have been introduced and some are being pushed by members of the Philippine Senate.

Senator Loren Legarda joined scores of other frustrated customers complaining about unreliable and expensive Internet in the country. In a 2014 hearing Legarda complained she had once again lost her DSL Internet connection in her office and her wireless connection was so slow it was unusable.

“As we speak now, there is no Internet connection in my office,” Legarda said. “I received a message this morning from my staff on my way here because I may be e-mailing, etc. And for someone whose deadline was yesterday, I always want things done fast and I’m sure many of you want that efficiency too to serve our people better.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ANC Poor Broadband Internet 5-14.flv[/flv]

ANC aired this story about Sen. Legarda’s broadband problems and how Philippines’ providers oversell their networks back in 2014. (4:56)

We Oversold Our Networks So Sue Us, Except You Can’t

Providers blame the problem on oversold networks that attempt to manage too many paying customers on an inadequate network. In other words, they blame themselves with little fear any regulator will create problems for them.

Wireless service is no panacea either. Customers in the Philippines face draconian “fair use policies” on so-called “unlimited plans” that leave them throttled after 1GB of usage per day or 3GB of usage per month, whichever happens first. Providers suggest the policy is a benefit, promising them a better user experience. Besides, they suggest, even those that run into the speed throttle can still browse the Internet, albeit at as speed resembling dial-up:

Your internet speed will slow down if you use up 1GB of data for the day, or accumulate 3GB of data usage for the month.

If you hit the 1GB/day threshold, you’ll experience slower speed, but no worries because as we mentioned above, you can still surf! You’ll move up to normal speed at midnight. If you hit the 3GB/month threshold, your speed will move up to normal speed on the next calendar month (not based on bill cycle).

With a stifling usage allowance, shouldn’t providers in the Philippines be offering better speeds?

Say Hello to the “Promo Pack” – Your Net Neutrality Nightmare Come True

Remember the scary ads from Net Neutrality proponents promising a future of Internet add-ons that would charge you to surf theme-based websites without facing network slowdowns or stingy usage caps if Net Neutrality protections were not forthcoming? In the Philippines, the nightmare came true. Mobile providers sell added cost “promo packs” that bundle extra throttle-free usage with theme-based apps. A package with Spotify runs about $6.50US a month and includes 1GB of usage. Anyone can buy a Spotify premium membership in the Philippines for around $4.37US without the add-on. But even worse are app-based promo packs that bundle free-to-download-and-use apps in the U.S. with special designated usage allowances.

Want to use Google Maps on your wireless provider? A “promo pack” including it costs around $2.17 a month and includes 300MB of usage. That money doesn’t go to Google — it stays in the pocket of the provider – Globe Networks. Twitter will set you back $4.37US a month and includes 600MB of usage, which seems odd for a short message service when contrasted with an identically-priced promo pack for Facebook, that needs the extra usage allowance more than Twitter likely would. But then they also get you for Facebook Messenger, which costs an extra $2.17US per month and comes with its own usage allowance — 300MB.

“What If” actually “Is” in the Philippines.

While segmenting out popular mobile apps for special treatment, Philippine mobile providers have also taken Verizon and AT&T’s lead, pushing plans like myLIFESTYLE that bundle unlimited text and phone calls with expensive data plans.

Lifestyle Promo Packs:

Extra Add-ons:

The Philippines Should Regulate Under the American Example vs. The Philippines Should Not Regulate Under the American Example (It’s Obama’s Fault)

Providers in the Philippines have learned a lot from America’s telecommunications lobbyists. Their advocacy campaigns revolve around the theme that the United States has the best wireless networks in the world, developed under a largely hands-off regulatory philosophy that the Philippine government should follow.

The government and regulators largely acquiesced to that campaign until this year, when that idea came back to haunt providers. Earlier this year, the Obama Administration and the FCC began taking a more hands-on approach to telecom regulation after recognizing the marketplace is not as competitive as providers suggest. Strong Net Neutrality enforcement, limits on mergers and acquisitions and strong signals marketplace abuses would no longer be tolerated are now being pushed in Washington by the White House and the Federal Communications Commission. Providers in the Philippines no longer advocate following the American model, but it may now be too late.

The NTC is close to issuing new minimum broadband speed and performance standards and is now listening to Filipino consumers that launched Democracy.net.ph to fight usage caps in the Philippines back in 2011. The NTC may soon require providers advertise average speeds and performance, not “up to” speeds nobody actually receives. Those getting poor service would be entitled to refunds or rebates.

That could be the first step towards a more activist NTC that may have learned the lesson that listening to the broken promises of better service through deregulation has resulted in some of the worst broadband performance the world has to offer. The Philippines took the advocacy arguments of the deregulation crowd and doubled down, not only allowing providers to lie and distort in their advertising, but also permitting massive industry consolidation reducing the choice for most Filipinos to just two providers for almost all telecommunications services. The government looked the other way as corruption turned into a scandal and today it is left with two very powerful conglomerates that deliver third world Internet access while pocketing the generous proceeds.

A Better Way to Better Broadband

A deregulated, free market only works where healthy competition exists. Too few players always leads to reduced innovation, poorer service at higher prices, and a corporate fortress deterring would-be competitors that are unlikely to be able to survive in a fair, competitive fight. For the Philippines (and by extension the United States) to fully benefit from healthy competition, large conglomerates must be broken up and further mergers must be prevented above all else. Until sufficient competition can self-regulate the marketplace, strong oversight is necessary to protect consumers from the abuses that always come from monopolies and duopolies. Charging wireless customers for free apps and suggesting 3GB of usage is equal to unlimited broadband are two places to start cracking down, quickly followed by an investigation into where investment dollars are being spent and for whose benefit. It seems like customers are not reaping any rewards in return for high-priced service.

The Philippine government should also continue exploring a National Broadband Network strategy that puts the country’s broadband needs above the profit motivations of the current duopoly. Governments build roads and bridges, airports and railways. Broadband is another infrastructure project that needs to be developed in the public interest. If private companies want to be a part of that effort, that is wonderful. But they should not be dictating the terms or holding the country back from what may be the biggest scandal of all — broadband that barely performs better than what the Taliban can get these days in Helmand province.

”After considering all of our options, your leadership has decided not to go on strike at midnight tonight, even though we have not yet reached a contract agreement,” came word Sunday from Dennis Trainor, vice president for CWA District One, which represents Verizon workers in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts.

Verizon’s workers will stay on the job for now, launching a new strategy that will include sharing information with customers about Verizon’s unwillingness to invest in FiOS fiber expansion and improved broadband and phone service. The PR war will extend not just to customers but also to the media, politicians, and regulators. The union’s message: “Verizon’s greed knows no bounds.”

“Despite $18 billion in profits over the last 18 months, and a quarter of a billion in compensation to its top executives over the last five years, this greedy corporation is still insisting on destroying our job security, forcing us to pay thousands of dollars more for our health care, and slashing our retirement security,” Trainor said in a bargaining update. “It’s a disgrace.”

“But we are not going to let our anger allow us to walk into a trap,” Trainor added. “It’s quite possible that Verizon is trying to provoke us into a long strike in order to try to break us. They have spent tens of millions of dollars preparing for a strike, training managers, hiring scabs and contractors, advertising against us on TV and radio. So your leadership has decided that if and when we strike, it will be on our terms, on our timing.”

Verizon’s FiOS expansion is still dead.

The union wants Verizon to expand FiOS throughout the company’s entire service area, not just a select few communities and wealthy suburbs. That’s a win for customers and for workers running fiber optic cables, installing and maintaining the service, according to the union. A series of radio ads from the CWA are running in New York and Pennsylvania telling customers “you just can’t trust Verizon” after the company failed to bring FiOS service across both states.

The CWA says the New York mayors of Albany, Syracuse, Kingston, Rome and Utica, as well as the town supervisor of Brookhaven, have joined the CWA in sharing their concerns Verizon has refused to build out its FiOS broadband and TV services across upstate New York, leaving customers with a neglected legacy copper network Verizon barely maintains.

Verizon spokesperson Rich Young attacked the CWA’s efforts to bring politicians looking for better broadband from Verizon into the negotiating process.

“The CWA owes these mayors an apology,” Young said. “These elected officials should be outraged that union leaders wasted their time attending a negotiating session today that had nothing to do with FiOS. Unfortunately, the mayors were seemingly misled to think FiOS deployment is an issue that’s being negotiated. It’s not. Sadly, it seems the mayors were just a ploy as part of this bargaining publicity gimmick.”

Sheil

“I can assure you, none of these mayors were misled,” said Kevin Sheil, president of CWA Local 1103. “Does the company really believe that the mayor’s constituents need for reliable High Speed Internet so underprivileged children could have additional educational opportunities is a union gimmick, or do they just not give a shit about the consumers in their footprint.”

Union officials expressed concern about Verizon’s latest contract offer, which would allow the company to transfer employees to any Verizon service area, in or out-of-state, on short notice. The union also noticed Verizon is limiting job opportunities in rural service areas, which could be another clue Verizon is planning to eventually sell off much of its rural landline network to another company. Some utilities that have experience fighting over infrastructure issues like telephone poles believe all signs point to Verizon’s exit of the landline business to focus on more profitable wireless service instead.

Union officials admit they could be in for a long fight with Verizon before another contract is signed. The hostility is coming from both sides. Verizon took heat for creating what the CWA is calling a “spy app” it has distributed to non-union employees to document and report bad behavior by union workers if a strike occurs. The app records a photo and the time and exact place of any vandalism or intimidation non-union workers encounter, and asks the user to write a short incident report that will be sent to corporate security.

The Communications Workers of America is running this radio ad slamming Verizon’s lack of FiOS deployment in Pennsylvania. (0:30)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

“Verizon should stop focusing on clever new ways to fire people and start focusing on bargaining in good faith towards a contract that protects workers’  job security and standard of living, and ensures that every customer is getting the highest quality service,” said Bob Master, legislative and political director for CWA District One. “The company’s petty attempts to intimidate workers do not bring us any closer to a fair collective bargaining agreement.”

Amy Seifer, Verizon associate general counsel for labor and employment, told RCR Wireless News, “The app serves three primary purposes: the first is a means for our management employees to report or document an unsafe situation, unlawful act, or violation of our code of conduct, and it will also be used by managers who have been assigned into these union positions for the duration of the strike to ask questions about installations or repairs they are handling. It also provides a means for our employees to submit suggestions on process improvements.”

“The answers [they receive in response] will be wrong anyway,” countered Ed Mooney, vice president of CWA District 2-13 on a town hall conference call.

Seifer did admit the app’s primary purpose was to assist non-union workers taking over during a work stoppage.

“If we get reports of misconduct, our corporate security office will do a thorough investigation then determine a course of action whether that’s suspension, termination or no action at all will be based on the outcome of the investigation,” Seifer said.

“We will rally, engage in informational picketing, build political and regulatory pressure on the company, follow all the company rules to the letter, never take shortcuts, pressure company executives and members of the board of directors,” said Trainor. “We will be disciplined, militant and united. This was not an easy decision. But it is the smart decision. And if and when the time comes, we will strike the company on our terms.”

The Communications Workers of America is airing this radio ad across upstate New York, telling consumers they were bypassed for Verizon FiOS because of the company’s broken promises. (0:30)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Time Warner Cable is nearing the end of its $60 million “Maxx” upgrade of San Antonio, company officials said in a news release.

The Maxx upgrade most noticeably boosts broadband speeds up to six times faster than what customers used to receive, at no change in price, up to 300/20Mbps.

Time Warner Cable Maxx Broadband Speed Comparison

Earthlink customers will also get a speed boost.  The traditional EarthLink Broadband plan will become EarthLink Extreme with speed up to 50/5Mbps. EarthLink Cable Max will become EarthLink Ultimate with speed up to 100/10Mbps. Customers who want faster Internet will have to switch back to Time Warner Cable to upgrade above 100Mbps.

As part of the upgrade, Time Warner has converted its analog television signals to all-digital service. Free digital adapters are available to customers until Dec. 28, 2016. After that, each adapter will cost $2.75 a month.

Time Warner Cable will continue to offer customers unlimited data plans and further expand its Maxx upgrade program until it reaches the company’s entire service area or the merger with Charter Communications is approved by regulators.

CEO Robert Marcus told investors on a morning conference call the company has been “completely committed to delivering an unlimited broadband offering in connection with whatever else we do, because we know customers do place a value on the peace of mind that comes with unlimited plans.”

Marcus continued to admit his company’s experiments with voluntary usage pricing have largely failed, noting the “vast majority” of customers choose unlimited plans, and Time Warner “never had any intention of substituting the availability of unlimited with exclusively usage-based programs.”

The original goal for Time Warner’s voluntary usage pricing options “was to offer customers who use less bandwidth, who maybe just do e-mail, an opportunity to pay less and have an Internet offering that better meets their demands for both usage and price.”

Time Warner Cable goes out of its way to advertise “No Data Caps.”

Most broadband customers do not want usage-based billing or usage-capped Internet, but some providers force such usage plans on customers anyway.

“Different providers have had different philosophies on these things,” Marcus offered.

Marcus reported TWC Maxx deployment in Austin is finished, and the company is working on completing upgrades in Dallas, San Antonio, Raleigh, Charlotte, Kansas City and Hawaii by year-end. The latest markets to be upgraded — San Diego, Wilmington and Greensboro, N.C., will start this year, but speed increases will not begin until next year. The upgrades are improving customer satisfaction with a 35% drop in voluntary disconnects in Maxx service areas, but will cost an estimated $4.45 billion in spending this year by the country’s second largest cable operator.

Time Warner Cable Maxx has been very successful at bringing new customers to Time Warner, attracted by improved broadband speeds and better service, Marcus told investors. Maxx customers see broadband speed upgrades that dramatically boost speeds at no additional cost. Standard Internet speeds in non-Maxx markets are 15Mbps. In Maxx areas, customers receive 50Mbps. Customers signed up for 50Mbps “Ultimate” Internet in Maxx markets see that speed raised to 300Mbps.

Large sections of Time Warner Cable territory have yet to be upgraded, however. Marcus today said he plans to continue the Maxx upgrade effort as the Charter merger proceeds through a lengthy regulatory review process. If the merger is delayed or unsuccessful, Time Warner likely will announce additional cities targeted for upgrades in 2016, but customers should not expect speed changes until later that year or 2017. If the Charter merger is approved, areas bypassed for Maxx upgrades will likely get a more modest upgrade promised by Charter, with maximum broadband speeds of 100Mbps.

Marcus

Time Warner Cable spent the last quarter pushing lower priced promotions to attract new and returning customers. That, combined with higher programming costs, increased spending on network upgrades, and pension expenses cut into the cable company’s profits, which declined 7.2% in the last quarter.

Time Warner Cable added 66,000 residential customers overall, its best ever second quarter and its first rise in any quarter since 2008, according to Marcus. Time Warner added 172,000 new broadband customers and 252,000 voice subscribers, primarily from a promotion that allows any subscriber to add phone service to their package for $10 a month. But Time Warner is not immune to cord cutting, and lost 45,000 video customers in the second quarter.

The cable company may have stepped up promotions to be certain it can report good results as investors wait for the Charter Communications merger to win or lose regulator approval. A triple play promotion for new customers runs as low as $89 a month and despite touting an earlier philosophy the company did not see much value promoting cheap phone service, it has apparently reversed course, boosting triple play upgrades as a result of reduced pricing.

It is also continuing strong customer retention policies, a sign Time Warner Cable will continue to respond when customers threaten to cancel unless they get a better deal.

“Our whole view of retention hasn’t really changed since the middle part of 2014,” said William F. Osbourn, Jr., acting co-chief financial officer. “Our view is that we will always rather save the customer than lose the customer, but I think we’re pretty disciplined about not giving away the farm in doing that.”

Some other highlights:

• Programming costs rose 11%, a sure bet another rate increase will be forthcoming in the future;
• Marcus loves mergers: “The only thing I’d add to that is that from an industry structure perspective, in roughly a quarter of our footprint, the deal [between AT&T and DirecTV] results in two competitors becoming one. And, generally speaking, that’s a positive for all the players in the industry”;
• Time Warner Cable will continue to encourage customers to use their own set-top box devices (Roku, Apple TV, etc.) as an alternative to the traditional cable set-top box;
• Roughly 12% of customers now own their own cable modems to escape Time Warner’s rental fee;
• Despite the clamor for “skinny bundles” 82% of Time Warner Cable customers subscribed to the full video package;
• In Maxx areas, customers need set-top boxes on all of their connected televisions. Most are opting for the cheapest option, taking an average of two less-capable DTA boxes instead of more expensive set-tops. DVR subscriber numbers have remain largely unchanged after Maxx upgrades.

Comcast is rejecting some requests for its new 2Gbps fiber to the home service, claiming construction costs to provide the service to some homes are too high, even for customers living 0.15 of a mile from Comcast’s nearest fiber optic connection point.

Stop the Cap! reader Thomas, who wishes to withhold his last name, was excited at the prospect of signing up for Comcast’s 2Gbps broadband service for his home-based Internet business, despite the steep $1,000 installation fee and $159/mo promotional price he saw in the media.

“For the average person just looking for a faster connection at home, 2Gbps is absolute overkill, but if you run a home-based business that depends on a fast Internet connection, Comcast’s prices are a lot more reasonable than a Metro Ethernet or fiber solution from AT&T,” Thomas said.

Thomas is a Comcast customer in the Chicago area and knew he’d qualify for the service because he watched Comcast crews install/upgrade fiber cables close to his home. Comcast requires customers to live within one-third of a mile of the nearest company-owned fiber connection point to get 2Gbps service. Thomas lives far closer than that and Comcast’s online qualification tool also seemed to show the service would be available to him.

“I assumed it would be easy to order service, but it has not turned out that way at all,” Thomas complained.

Comcast’s regular customer service agents were hit or miss for Thomas. Some are acquainted with Comcast’s Gigabit Pro offering, many others are not. It took three calls for him to find a representative aware of the product, but even then the representative informed him someone would have to call him back to take his order. Two days later, he did receive a call from a Comcast regional office that explained the lengthy ordering and installation procedure. If everything worked as it should, it would take up to three months for Comcast to complete the fiber installation. But Thomas warned there were potential deal-breakers along the way.

Equipment Costs

Comcast will supply some, but not all, of the necessary equipment. A router provided by Comcast adds $19.99/mo to the price, and could be worthwhile to customers wanting to limit their out-of-pocket up front costs. But there are other equipment requirements to consider as well:

• Desktop PC with available PCIe expansion slot
• 1 10G PCIe network interface controller with SFP+ cage ($200-400)
• 1 10G enhanced small form factor pluggable SFP+ transceiver (850nm MMF) ($200-350)
• 1 MMF LC patch cable ($25-30)

To connect multiple devices to the fiber handoff, a compatible and very expensive 10Gbps Layer 3 switch or router is also required, which can run well into the thousands of dollars.

Pricing Gotchas

Installation is $500 and activation costs another $500. There is an early termination fee of $1,100 if you disconnect service before the end of your term contract. On a three-year contract, the amount of the fee is reduced by $100 every three months you keep the service. That $159 promotional price quoted in the press turned out to be another issue. Comcast informed him that offer is only good in the cities of Nashville (a future Google Fiber city also designated for GigaPower U-verse from AT&T) and Chattanooga, Tenn. (which already has gigabit service from EPB). It would cost him $299.95 a month, not $159.

Service Qualification Procedure

Comcast implies any customer within 1/3rd of a mile of their nearest fiber cable is qualified to get Gigabit Pro service, but Thomas tells us that just isn’t true.

“Comcast treats these installations the same way they would running cable into virgin territories like an unserved neighborhood or office park,” Thomas said. “Once you commit to an order, I am convinced they do a Return On Investment (ROI) and cost analysis to decide if it makes financial sense to actually bring fiber to you.”

It begins with an in-office map survey that reviews Comcast’s existing network and verifies a path from Comcast’s existing fiber network to the customer’s home. This process takes up to 14 days, according to Thomas, and makes certain the customer is within the qualified distance for service.

“But I can say it goes beyond this, because Comcast was also looking at proposed routes to get fiber to me, and the representative was concerned about whether Comcast’s cables in my area were on telephone poles or underground in conduit,” reported Thomas. “There was also an issue with a pedestal and I was informed a site survey was required to check whether existing infrastructure in my neighborhood could support the service.”

Comcast said a visit from a technician would be required — another two-week process, and about then he was told “there was indeed a problem with their existing pedestal and they also ran into a conduit issue,” Thomas said. “At that point, I was informed my order could not go ahead because Comcast would have to spend about $17,000 to correct these issues and cover my installation and that evidently failed their ROI and cost analysis.”

Had Thomas passed all the qualification tests, he would have waited up to 13 weeks (more than three months) from the time he ordered service before he could actually use it. Now, he will wait at least a year for Comcast’s suggested alternative — the arrival of DOCSIS 3.1, which is expected to support gigabit speeds over Comcast’s existing coax cable network.

“I honestly felt mislead by Comcast’s press releases that suggested service was just a matter of where you lived without telling customers they will deny service if it costs Comcast over a certain dollar amount, no matter how close you live to their existing fiber,” Thomas added. “Promoting a service and actually providing it are two very different things and it seems Comcast just isn’t providing it, at least to me.”

Have you explored Comcast Gigabit Pro? If so, share your experiences in the comment section. We’d love to hear from you if you actually have the service installed.