Shhh... Bright House's fiber network is a secret.

Volusia County’s consideration of a community-owned fiber optic network has been scoffed at by incumbent cable provider Bright House Networks, which claims the network is “redundant” and unnecessary.

The proposed fiber project is being promoted by Jim Cameron, vice president of government relations for the Daytona Regional Chamber of Commerce.  The organization believes a public-private fiber-optic network could do wonders for economic development across the Fun Coast.

But the idea of stringing miles of fiber to connect area businesses to a gigabit-speed network brought rolled eyes from the folks at the cable company.

“We have miles and miles of fiber-optic lines in Volusia County,” Donald Forbes, senior director of corporate communications for Bright House told the Daytona Beach News-Journal. “Where anyone is willing to do business with us, we can make it happen . . . You want it, we’ve got it.”

But area businesses supportive of Cameron’s initiative are mystified by Bright House’s secretive-fiber-network, because few ever heard of it before.

Jason Frederick, business development director for WorkSmart MD, a Daytona Beach medical billing company, was just one example.  The News-Journal reports Frederick was surprised when he was told that Bright House claims to have fiber lines in the county that can deliver Internet at one gigabit per second, about 200 times faster than average broadband service in the U.S., or faster.

“I haven’t heard anything about Bright House offering one gig, and my tech guy is laughing (incredulously) right now,” said Frederick.

"This series presents information based in part on theory and conjecture. The producer's purpose is to suggest some possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones, to the mysteries we will examine."

In Search Of… Bright House’s Mystery Fiber

Bright House declined to quote pricing for access to their fiber network to the folks at the News-Journal, so Stop the Cap! called Bright House Networks’ Business Solutions department this morning posing as a new business customer looking for fiber optic access.

STC: We were calling to gather information about getting broadband service for our new Internet business.  Can you tell me what kind of broadband services you have available?

At this point, Bright House asked us a ton of questions about where the business was located, what we intended to do with the connection, how many employees we had, etc.  After feeding them answers, we got them to narrow down some basics, even as they tried to have a sales representative come out and meet with us (we explained they would have to fly to New York to manage that, and they should bring a shovel if they come.)

Bright House pointed us to their website for basic details, but stressed individual plans could be customized to meet our needs.  That was the invitation we were looking for.

None of these plans seemed at all fast enough for our needs, we explained.  The maximum plan on their website, 50/5Mbps, didn’t even come close.  Where was the 50/50 or 100/100Mbps plans?  What if we needed a gigabit?  Didn’t we read they ran a fiber network?

Bright House: We do run a fiber network, but it’s a special kind known as a hybrid fiber/coax network.  That is the most proven technology out there, installed to millions of homes and businesses across the country for more than a decade.

STC: Then all-fiber networks are unproven?

Bright House: In a way, yes.  But more important, they are enormously expensive.

STC: How expensive?

It would cost you this much.

Bright House: We spent millions on ours.

STC: So you are saying if we wanted Bright House to deliver fiber to our business, it would cost millions?

Bright House: Probably not that much, but it would probably be a waste of money because it was so expensive.  We service business customers all over central Florida, and I’ll be honest none of them really need fiber — it would be a waste of money.  We couldn’t even give you a price for fiber because nobody ever asked us before.

STC: Wow, I am surprised nobody has even asked.  Our business would want symmetrical broadband so our upload and download speeds would be the same.  We also don’t want to pay an outrageous amount of money for it.  What would Bright House charge for a symmetrical connection?

Bright House: One of our account specialists would have to talk with you about that.  Our network was designed to deliver faster download speeds because that is what our customers want.

STC: Well, not every customer.

Bright House: I understand that, and it sounds like you are a special case.  I think you’ll find we deliver the best service in town for business customers, and we sure do a lot better than AT&T.  Have you spoken with them about their service?

STC: We don’t want DSL.

Bright House (laughing): I can certainly agree with you there.  AT&T is a good company for what they do, but I am proud to say we do better.  And we can give you cable television and business phone service in one package.

STC: Yes, but we’re probably getting ahead of ourselves.  How much would it cost for just the broadband service?

Bright House: Before we quote you a price, we’d really like to sit down with you or a representative of your company so we can explain our whole product line and the benefits we offer.  Is there someone down here we could meet with?

STC: Not yet, but I appreciate the information and we can always call you back.

(We did learn from another source 50/5Mbps business class service costs around $190 a month from Bright House.)

So Bright House fiber remains elusive, even after our call.  Connected Nation, which has direct ties to Big Telecom, couldn’t find any fiber across the area either.  That was surprising, considering the large telecom companies help manage their operations:

The Florida Department of Management Services is running Connected Nation’s efforts in the Sunshine State.

If the goal is widespread fiber-optic coverage, then Connected Nation’s map shows Florida sorely needs a fiber dietary supplement (Metamucil-optic?). Only a small portion of the state — around Orlando and to the south, and around Tampa and along the surrounding Gulf Coast — has fiber coverage, according to Connected Nation’s survey results.

Jessica Ditto, Connected Nation communications director, said the map only reflects spots where fiber-optic lines run to homes, and that Bright House might not have responded accurately to the survey. Bright House’s Forbes said he hadn’t heard of Connected Nation.

You didn't want this anyway, did you?

Another indictment for the useless work Connected Nation does for large sums.  If a major provider doesn’t answer the questionnaire, broadband from that provider apparently does not exist as far as Connected Nation is concerned.

Finding fiber is Daytona is turning into that commercial for Honey Nut Clusters cereal.  It’s got to be around somewhere.

The county director of economic development, Phil Ehlinger, suggests it is all around us even if we can’t see it at first glance.

“I am not aware of anyone (in the business community) who is unable to get the service that they want,” Ehlinger told the newspaper. “Bright House and some of the other folks, AT&T, they have been putting in fiber optic all over the county.”

But the important question left unanswered is whether or not you can access it.  For individuals, the answer is clearly no.  Bright House believes its network is plenty fast enough, and AT&T didn’t want to talk to us in time for today’s story.  But phone companies, already vulnerable in the broadband speed race, prefers to deflect the question, arguing you don’t need that speed anyway.

Fiber optics delivers the fastest broadband experience, period.  But when providers don’t sell or promote the service, it’s easy to suggest nobody wants it.

But not too far away, in communities like Chattanooga, and several areas in North Carolina, they -do- want it.  Even Verizon FiOS, a growing presence in the northeastern United States, has won over business and residential customers to fiber-fast broadband.  In many cases, the network sells itself.

But in central Florida, Bright House won’t sell the service to you even if you ask.  It’s apparently the best kept secret in Daytona Beach.

[Updated 2/4/2011 — Don Forbes attached a reply to a piece on Broadband Reports that quotes from our piece:

Bright House Networks does in fact provide Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) – or what is known in the business services market as “dedicated access” – to its business customers who want this type of bandwidth. We work directly with our business customers to provide solutions tailored to meet their specific needs. We currently serve more than 3,000 Florida business locations directly with fiber. We currently offer speeds up to 1 Gbps, although it should be understood most business customers do not require 1Gbps speeds. Residential customers, at this time, do not need the bandwidth offered with dedicated fiber – however, Bright House has led the industry in comprehensively deploying next-generation bandwidth services (DOCSIS 3.0) to its’ entire footprint in Florida – current speeds offered are 50 Mbps with the ability to offer much higher. We provision our network according to our customers’ needs.

As a private company, we do reserve the right to share specific proprietary details of our network and our business for competitive reasons. However, it is no secret that we offer the above services.

It apparently is a secret to the people taking calls at Bright House’s business services hotline at 1-877-424-9246.  That’s the number we called yesterday to inquire.  The results are noted above.  I’d make two observations:

1. The point of our piece was partly to confirm whether fiber is a big secret in the Daytona area, as was the implication.  In our experience, it was.
2. Once again, another provider — this time Bright House — has made the declaration that residential customers don’t need fiber to the home access, something Verizon and many municipal/community-owned networks would strongly disagree with.  We do as well.  As long as phone companies compete using DSL, cable companies can safely make this claim and it won’t harm their business.  But if a far faster fiber to the home network arrives in town delivering far faster speeds (at equal or lower prices), Bright House, and other companies like it, could be in trouble — especially if their new competitors market themselves well.

We stand by our piece, which documents our direct experiences with Bright House Networks business class customer service.]

Prime Minister Harper's government is facing an open revolt by Canadian consumers over Internet Overcharging.

A full-scale revolt among consumers across Canada has brought the issue of Internet Overcharging to the highest levels of government.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the government is very concerned about a decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that has effectively forced the end of unlimited use broadband plans across the country.

Both the Liberal and NDP parties have made a point of protesting the CRTC decision, which happened under the Conservative Party’s watch.  Harper’s Industry Minister Tony Clement stepped up his remarks this morning which hint the government is prepared to quash last week’s decision by the CRTC, which has already forced price increases for broadband service across the country.

“The decision on its face has some pretty severe impacts,” Clement told reporters in Ottawa after NDP and Liberal critics in the House of Commons repeatedly pounded the government on the issue of so-called “usage-based billing.”

“I indicated the impacts on consumers, on small business operators, on creators, on innovators. So that’s why I have to work through a process, cross my T’s, doc my I’s. When you’re dealing with a legal process, that’s what you have to do. But I will be doing that very, very quickly, and getting back to the prime minister and my colleagues very, very quickly,” said Clement.

As of this morning, more than 286,000 Canadians have signed a petition protesting the Internet Overcharging schemes.

The protest movement has now been joined by small and medium-sized business groups who fear the impact new Internet pricing will have on their businesses.

Richard Truscott, with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, normally a group that prefers less government action, said his members are demanding a stop to the pricing schemes before they get started.

“The vast majority of small businesses rely on reasonably-priced Internet service to conduct their operations,” he said. “Generally this is the sort of thing that hits the most innovative sector with higher costs.”

Most cable and phone companies are lobbying Ottawa politicians to keep the new usage-based billing schemes, and several are pretending the protest movement doesn’t exist.

AgenceQMI, a cable-company owned wire service, is also coming under fire for misrepresenting Clement’s positions on the pricing schemes in a news report issued yesterday.  The wire service claimed Clement supported the CRTC’s position, something Clement adamantly denied this morning.

The National Post, a self-described conservative newspaper, this morning published an editorial supporting usage-based pricing, claiming a handful of users were creating a problem that light users should not pay to solve.  But many readers leaving comments on the article strongly disagreed, claiming the newspaper is out of touch.

Although the regime of usage caps, speed throttles, and overlimit fees have been in place with most major providers for at least two years, the culmination of several events in the last six months have brought the issue to the boiling point:

1. The arrival of Netflix video streaming, which provides unlimited access for a flat monthly fee;
2. The ongoing limbo dance among several providers who are reducing usage allowances when competitive threats arrive;
3. The increase in providers now enforcing usage limits by billing consumers overlimit fees that spike broadband bills;
4. Recent examples of bill shock, which have left some consumers with thousands of dollars in Internet charges.

Bill Shock

Kevin Brennan, a graphic designer who works from home and downloads large files from clients, was first hit with extra charges in November, which cost him $34 above his usual Shaw bill.

“I’d never been contacted about going over before,” he told the Calgary Herald, adding he was also over in December. “Thirty-four dollars doesn’t seem like much, but over the course of a year it adds up.

“What concerns me, outside my own business, is the lack of innovation people will be able to do. And it makes Shaw a monopoly. . . . if you watch TV or the Internet, you pay more to them.”

Shaw reduced its usage allowance for customers like Brennan late last year from 75 to 60GB on its most popular broadband plan.  It also now enforces a $2/GB overlimit fee.

John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, told the Herald the concern isn’t just that smaller companies can no longer offer unlimited plans, which reduces competition.

“The phone and Internet and cable companies of the world are playing it both ways. They’re saying, ‘Well, there’s these big data hogs that are using too much, we’ve got to punish them to keep the price down.’ On the other hand they’re buying media companies so they have stuff to shove down the wires, which doesn’t count toward your cap,” Lawford said. “That’s anti-competitive.”

Most Canadian media companies are now tightly integrated with large telecommunications companies.  CTV, Canada’s largest commercial network, is now owned by Bell, the country’s biggest phone company.  Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron — the largest cable companies in Canada own cable and broadcast stations, newspapers, and magazines.  They also control cellphone companies, Wi-Fi networks, and have interests in satellite providers as well.

When a competitor like Netflix arrives to challenge the companies’ pay television interests, turning down consumers’ broadband usage allowances discourages cord-cutting.

The CRTC’s decision to allow Bell to charge usage-based pricing for wholesale accounts was the final death blow to unlimited Internet according to several independent service providers, because virtually all of them rely on Bell — a company that received taxpayer subsidies to build its broadband network — for access to the Internet.

Canadian Parliament

TekSavvy, a company that used to offer unlimited use plans, can do so no more.  In a statement to customers, TekSavvy laid blame on regulators for being forced to increase prices.

“From March 1 on, users of the up to 5Mbps packages in Ontario can expect a usage cap of 25Gb (60Gb in Quebec), substantially down from the 200Gb or unlimited deals TekSavvy was able to offer before the CRTC’s decision to impose usage based billing,” read a statement sent to customers.

TekSavvy spokeswoman Katie do Forno said the CRTC decision is a disaster for Canadian broadband in the new digital economy.

“This will result in unjustifiably high prices and a reduction in innovation,” said do Forno. “I think it’s going to change behavior about how people use the Internet.”

The company underlines the point by including “before and after” pricing schedules on its website, an unprecedented move.  Shaw, western Canada’s largest cable company, was heavily criticized for trying to hide their reduction in usage allowances.

Ottawa residents are planning direct action to protest the decision this Saturday.  Shawn Pepin is organizing the protest rally.

“What they’re doing right now looks like a cash-grab scheme, and people aren’t going to take it,” he said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Pay As You Go Tony Clement 2-1-11.flv[/flv]

Minister of Industry Tony Clement was pressed by CBC Television about the Harper Government’s stand on Internet Overcharging.  The CBC asks why Canadians are paying some of the world’s highest prices for broadband and why Clement is finally getting involved.  Watch as he mysteriously avoids stating the obvious: Canadians are in open revolt and politicians from competing parties are taking their side.  (9 minutes)

Clement

On Monday, the Federal Minister of Industry Tony Clement issued a statement about Internet Overcharging that was so non-committal, media companies are interpreting his comments as “for” and “against” usage-based billing.

Tony Clement’s full statement:

“On Tuesday, January 25, 2011, the CRTC announced its decision to allow wholesale and retail internet service providers to charge customers for exceeding the monthly usage of data transfer permitted with their broadband Internet package. This will mean, for the first time, that many smaller and regional internet service providers will be required to move to a system of usage-based billing for their customers.

I am aware that an appeal has been initiated by a market participant. As Canada’s Industry Minister, it is my job to help encourage an innovative and competitive marketplace, and to ensure Canadian consumers have real choices in the services they purchase. I can assure that, as with any ruling, this decision will be studied carefully to ensure that competition, innovation and consumers were all fairly considered.

The Harper Government is committed to encouraging choice and competition in wireless and internet markets. Increased choice results in more competition, which means lower prices and better quality services for Canadians. We have always been clear on our policies in this regard and will continue on this path.

Our Conservative Government is focused on the economy and creating a positive environment for job creators and business to flourish. Canadians can count on us to do what is in the best interest of consumers.”

AgenceQMI and Videotron are both owned by Quebecor Media

CBC Radio made mention of Clement’s comments and indicated the minister had expressed concerns about the billing scheme, but readers of wire service reports from AgenceQMI are getting an entirely different view — Clement’s approval of the new pricing scheme.

In a French language story headlined, “Minister Clement justifies the end of unlimited Internet packages,” the news agency got just a little creative in interpreting Clement’s statement (roughly translated from the French original):

He also argues that billing based on actual usage would more efficiently manage Internet traffic and bandwidth and provide a better experience for light users, currently impacted by massive data exchanges among the Internet’s heaviest users.

Minister Clement, who supports this decision, said in a statement that it is his duty to encourage a more competitive market.

It’s hardly a coincidence that AgenceQMI‘s creative spin of Clement’s statement just happens to match the position of Videotron, Quebec’s largest cable company.  They are both owned by Quebecor Media.  Videotron engages in Internet Overcharging that left one Montreal student with an $1,800 broadband bill.

NY City Council members are reviewing an application by Time Warner Cable and Cablevision to offer Wi-Fi services in 32 New York-area parks… for a fee that could bring the companies as much as $10 million dollars a year in new revenue.

The controversial proposal would frustrate efforts by the nonprofit group NYCWireless to find free Wi-Fi providers to deliver service in New York’s public parks.

In September, the city of New York renewed franchises for both Cablevision and Time Warner Cable that included a commitment to spend $10 million to install Wi-Fi service in area parks.  But nobody said the companies had to provide the service for free.

Instead, users will only get free samples — up to three ten-minute sessions per month.  Additional time on the network will cost 99 cents per day.  Cable customers will get unlimited access for free.

Dana Spiegel, executive director of the nonprofit NYCWireless, says handing over the wireless space in public parks to private fee-based providers is “absolutely unconscionable.”

City council members don’t have a final say over the deal — a state commission does — but intends to investigate the deal and its fairness to New York residents.

Verizon FiOS has a growing presence in New York City, and those customers would be locked out of free Wi-Fi access on the proposed park network.

NYCWireless offered the council several reasons why relying on cable companies to deliver public park Wi-Fi was not a great deal:

First, the plan does not establish any form of “Free Public Wi-Fi”, an amenity of New York City parks since NYCwireless began our work, and one replicated by the Parks Department and many other organizations around the City. Free Public Wi-Fi Hotspots were a very significant recommendation of the Diamond Consulting “Broadband Needs Assessment Study,” and the “Free” part of these public hotspots are exactly the part of these amenities that make them so valuable and essential for local residents.

Make no mistake: DoITT’s plan establishes a $1 per day fee for internet service in parks. There may be a few free 10-minute blocks per month, and there may be ways to hide the $1 per day charge in a resident’s cable service internet bill, but with DoITT’s plan, NYC won’t have Free Wi-Fi. We’ll have $1 per day Wi-Fi, delivered to public spaces that are maintained by our tax dollars, paid to a couple of huge private corporations.

In fact, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable stand to make tens of millions of dollars per year providing this service. Central Park gets about 25m visitors per year, and if we ignore all other parks, and figure that fewer than half of those visitors buy one day of internet service per year, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision get paid $0.99 x 10 million visitors = $10,000,000.

Second, the industry standard for gaining access to such types of subscription service as are contemplated by DoITT and the cable companies requires that a prospective user of a fee-based Parks Hotspot will need to create an account and enter their billing information. This requires the submission of identity, address, and credit card information into a web form prior to gaining access to the hotspot. Essentially, by promoting this solution, DoITT is pushing NYC citizens and visitors to hand over deeply personal and secure information to a private organization over which neither the user nor DoITT has any control.

Contrast this to the way that NYCwireless offers free Wi-Fi to citizens: we do require registration of a user account so that we can track agreement to our Acceptable Usage Policy. However we require only a valid email address. No billing address, no credit card, no other identity information.

Personally, I am fearful of handing over such information to such private organizations, though I have in the past. But I am more fearful for the harm that will be done to those that depend more significantly upon Park Hotspots. How many city residents don’t have a credit card? How many children in playgrounds who couldn’t get a credit card even if they wanted to? Adults? How many city residents live in neighborhoods that are otherwise safe, but in which they would prefer not pulling out their wallet and a credit card just to get what should be Free Internet Access? How many city residents depend upon Free Wi-Fi because they live below the poverty line, and because they can’t afford or don’t want cable internet, cannot afford the $5 it would cost them to get internet access in a city park during the week?

Lastly, because of DoITT’s “whole package solution”, most NYC residents and visitors won’t see any Wi-Fi, for free or for fee, for years, since local organizations that would otherwise have sponsored the creation of a Free Public Wi-Fi Hotspot say “oh, well, the city is going to do this someday, so we won’t bother doing this now for our community.” If past experience is any predictor of future performance, it will be years before the first Paid Wi-Fi Hotspot is opened, and many more before many others are opened, if at all. Meanwhile, DoITT’s actions will have stopped in its tracks any plans for more hotspots that local organizations may be contemplating.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY 1 Time Warner Cable Offers Free WiFi Hotspots For City Customers 3-26-10.flv[/flv]

NY1 reported on Time Warner Cable’s expanded Wi-Fi hotspots in New York in this story from last March.  (1 minute)

A company claiming to own a broad patent covering ‘storage and retrieval playback systems’ has sued six large cable companies claiming they are infringing its patents.

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications, Bright House Networks, Charter Communications, and Cablevision have all been accused of violating patents that could cover their respective video-on-demand systems.

Pragmatus, whose website is “under construction,” acquired the patents from Intellectual Patents, which has extracted more than a billion dollars in licensing fees on broad-based general patents.  Law.com calls both firms “patent trolls,” because they exist largely to collect money from deep pocketed technology companies.

The lawsuit covers patents 5,581,479 and 5,636,139 which describe technology that uses “information service control points” that send blocks of data to remote stations.  That could cover just about any server.

As proof of infringement, the legal filing simply includes the URL’s of websites that promote video-on-demand services.

Many lawsuits eventually settle out of court quietly, with licensing deals that extract a portion of each subscriber’s monthly payment and send it on to companies like Pragmatus.

Harry Cole, who has dealt with these nuisance suits before, says they are a product of a broken patent system.

“[A patent trolls does] not produce anything. It does not sell anything bought or processed, nor does it buy anything sold or processed, nor does it process anything sold, bought or processed, nor does it repair anything sold, bought or processed … All the company does is speculate on patents, which it purchases on the secondary market in the hope that one such patent will hit it big.”