[flv width=”448″ height=”276″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/David Cay Johnston The Fine Print How Big Companies Use Plain English to Rob You Blind 9-19-12.mp4[/flv]

Fellow Brighton, N.Y. resident and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston hits the nail right on the head describing the Big Telecom Swindle that promised America it was going to get something magical called “the information superhighway.”

Over a half-trillion dollars in rate increases later, AT&T and Verizon instead spent a lot of that money on an enormously profitable wireless business that redefines the average American family’s monthly phone bill at $100+. Johnston talks about the broken industry promises of ubiquitous broadband, leaving millions of potential FiOS and U-verse customers behind.

With vast lobbying arms, large cable and phone companies have manipulated public policy to assure they can gouge customers, shortchange workers, and erect barriers to fair play. If consumers don’t pay attention, politicians armed with fat campaign contributions will continue to represent corporate interests, not those of the average American.  

[Note to Mr. Johnston: He isn’t the only reporter paying attention. Hat tip to Stop the Cap! reader Pat McDermott who shared the video.]  (17 minutes)

Comcast cable subscribers in Mattapoisett want less bundling and fewer fees.

They and everyone else.

This month, the 6,000 local residents of the small coastal town in southeastern Massachusetts got the opportunity to voice their concerns about Comcast Cable’s performance before the Board of Selectmen at an open town meeting contemplating the renewal of the cable operator’s five year franchise agreement.

The Sippican Week covered the proceedings:

Subscription plans and fees were the main concerns voiced by residents at the meeting.

“I’m just here to see if there is any way we can unbundle or offer some of the channels a la carte, rather than have to pay an exorbitant fee for the channels that are bundled at the different levels,” said Herb Webb.

“Instead of these large packages you have to buy, they could break them up into smaller sub-packages,” said Selectman Tyler Macallister. “Get some feedback from the town and develop packages specially for Mattapoisett.”

Resident Bob Spooner also questioned the $2 fee subscribers are charged for each cable box in addition to their main TV.

“What about the people who have four or five TVs,” said Spooner. “That’s another six or eight dollars a month.”

Macallister agreed, “I’m already paying for those channels, but now I have to pay $2 to get it.”

Selectmen chair Jordan Collyer tried to answer residents’ concerns, much like any local town or city official facing similar complaints would — with understanding and little else. After all, Comcast operates in a largely deregulated marketplace and need not fear threats from elected officials.

Local governments have no say over a cable company’s pricing for its most popular tiers of service, cannot dictate matters of channel bundling or equipment fees, and have little recourse beyond taking bids from other operators willing to serve when an incumbent company’s franchise goes unrenewed.

But that almost never happens. No major cable operator will offer to replace another major operator, meaning the chances that Time Warner Cable, Cox, Cablevision, or Bright House Networks would respond favorably to a request are effectively zero.

But parts of Mattapoisett are lucky enough to at least have a competitive option — Verizon FiOS, although that company also charges for set top equipment and bundles channels together. The local government has little control over Verizon’s service either.

One alternative open to residents and the local government is to support the construction of a community-owned provider that could, as much as programming contracts allow, respond more effectively to these kinds of concerns. Under current regulatory policies, that is about the only way Mattapoisett, and towns like it, can guarantee the presence of a responsive provider ready to meet the collective needs of the community.

Apple’s newest iPhone is proving to be a mixed blessing for wireless carriers and their Wall Street investors as company margins suffer from the subsidies paid to woo customers with discounted phones.

The biggest winner remains Apple, which charges between $649-849 for an iPhone 5 that IHSiSuppli estimates costs between $207-238 to manufacture, depending on the amount of memory included. Regardless of how much you pay for your next iPhone with a 2-year contract, Apple gets a much larger wholesale price, upfront.

Barclays analyst James Ratcliffe estimates AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint are providing nearly $400 in advance subsidies to reduce the contract price of the iPhone to between $199 and $399. That subsidy is 60 percent higher than comparable Android smartphones.

“We always say an Apple a day keeps the profits away,” Neil Montefiore, chief executive of Singapore wireless carrier Starhub said during an August earnings conference call.

Wireless carriers have to report the subsidy on balance sheets as a drop in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (called EBIDTA on Wall Street). AT&T and Verizon typically don’t see profits from Android smartphone customers until 5-6 months after selling them a new phone. Apple iPhone customers are unprofitable for up to nine months.

According to Reuters, profit margins will fall for America’s two largest cell phone companies because of the newest iPhone.

AT&T’s margin is expected to fall from 45 percent in the second quarter to 40.8 percent in the third quarter and 35.7 percent in the fourth quarter. Verizon’s margin is expected to fall from 49 percent in the second quarter to 47.4 percent in the third quarter and 43.6 percent in the fourth quarter.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse

Under pressure from investors, wireless carriers are trying harder than ever to reduce the financial hit from the endless two-year upgrade cycle most North Americans have gotten used to over more than a decade.

For most, changing data pricing has been the key to earlier profits. Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless have eliminated unlimited data plans for new customers, and Verizon has taken away subsidies for customers holding onto a grandfathered unlimited plan. As contracts expire, customers seeking upgrades must either purchase their next phone at the unsubsidized price or give up their unlimited plan for good.

Sprint continues to bank on its unlimited data offer bundled with Apple’s iPhone 5 as an important marketing tool to attract new customers. It has worked for them, but the company may eventually capitalize on that growth with increased prices, but not before Sprint completes an ambitious upgrade to a 4G LTE nationwide network.

“We have a competitive disadvantage in terms of LTE footprint,” CEO Dan Hesse told investors. “You don’t increase your price when you have a network footprint disadvantage. You want to wait and think of that until you get to that point.”

The foundation for future profits come from data usage.

Verizon’s chief financial officer Fran Shammo believes Verizon Wireless’ foundation for higher profits will come from their new family shared data plans.

“When you think about revenue growth into the future, the shared revenue plan and what I’ll call revenue per account if you will, is really the critical piece because there are two functions,” Shammo told investors last week. “One is get people to share so that data becomes the most significant piece of the plan and the more data they consume the more they will have to buy up in bundles.”

“And the second one is make it easier for customers to attach more devices. So when you think about that future of the car, the home, medical devices, and anything else that you want to attach to that wireless network, […] I get incremental dollars for each device that’s attached and that is really what drives the future revenue growth.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBS Sprint CEO talks iPhone 5 and unlimited data strategy 9-20-12.flv[/flv]

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse last week appeared on CBS’ “This Morning” to discuss the arrival of Apple’s newest iPhone and the company’s unlimited wireless data plan.  (4 minutes)

Phillip “Tollbooths are not innovation” Dampier

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski last week wrote a guest editorial on TechCrunch espousing the benefits of faster broadband networks, but the advances he celebrates often come with innovation-killing usage caps and overlimit fees he continues to ignore.

We feel the need – the need for speed. As Tom Friedman and others have written, in this flat global economy a strategic bandwidth advantage will help keep the U.S. as the home and most desired destination for the world’s greatest innovators and entrepreneurs.

[…] But progress isn’t victory, particularly in this fast-moving sector. Challenges to U.S. leadership are real. This is a time to press harder on the gas pedal, not let up. The first challenge is the need for faster and more accessible broadband networks. We need to keep pushing because our global competitors aren’t slowing down. I’ve met with senior government officials and business leaders from every continent, and every one of them is focused on the broadband opportunity. If we in the U.S. don’t foster major investments to extend and expand our broadband infrastructure, somebody else will take the lead.

We need to keep pushing because innovators need next-generation bandwidth for next-generation innovations – genetic sequencing for cancer patients, immersive and creative software to help children learn, ways for small businesses to take advantage of Big Data, and speed- and capacity-heavy innovations we can’t yet imagine.

We need to remove bandwidth as a constraint on our innovators and entrepreneurs. In addition to steadily increasing broadband speed and capacity for consumers and businesses throughout the country, we need – as we said in our National Broadband Plan – “innovation hubs” with super-fast broadband, with speed measured in gigabits, not megabits.

[…]Some argue the private sector will solve these challenges itself, and that all government has to do is get out of the way. I disagree. The private sector must take the lead, but the public sector has a vital though limited role to play.

Among the policy levers government needs to use is the removal of barriers to broadband buildout, lowering the costs of infrastructure deployment with new policies like “Dig Once” that says you should lay fiber when you dig up roads. The President recently issued an Executive Order implementing this idea, suggested in our Broadband Plan. Government must promote competition, which drives innovation and network upgrades.

We must ensure the Internet remains an open platform that continues to enable innovation without permission.

Genachowski

Genachowski’s vision for faster broadband has the noble goal of maintaining competitiveness with the rest of the world and putting the United States back on top in broadband rankings and innovation. But while hobnobbing with his industry friends at recent industry conventions, he may have gotten too close to one of the biggest impediments holding us back — big cable and phone companies merrily working their magic to create a comfortable duopoly with pricing and service plans to match.

Back in the late 1990s, most cable operators thought of broadband as an ancillary service easy enough to operate, but probably hard to monetize. Just like digital cable radio services like Music Choice and DMX, “broadband” would likely appeal only to a tiny subset of customers.

“Back in the 1990s, Time Warner was primarily a TV company in a TV industry.  Broadband then was an innovating and radical thing, and a lot of people thought it was stupid and wouldn’t work,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said in April, 2009.

The launch of “Road Runner” was not the most auspicious marketing effort undertaken by the cable operator. In fact, the service was rarely targeted for price adjustments, hovering at around $40 a month for a decade.

When the Great Recession hit the United States, something unexpected happened. Cable operators discovered people were willing to cancel their cable and phone services, but not their broadband. In fact, as high bandwidth online video became an increasing part of our lives, the cable industry realized they were in the catbird seat to deliver the best broadband experience, and be well-paid for it. With little competition, increasing prices brought little risk and, thanks to the insatiable drive to boost revenue and reduce costs, implementing usage caps to control “excess” usage and costs were within their grasp.

In 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, only a handful of ISPs had usage caps. Now most providers, with the exception of Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cablevision, and a handful of others, all have usage allowances and overlimit fee Internet Overcharging schemes to further pad their bottom lines.

Innovation: Rationing Your Internet Experience — Stick to e-mail and web pages.

Genachowski has completely ignored the growing pervasiveness of usage caps, and even excused them as an experiment in marketplace innovation. But limits on broadband usage will also limit the broadband innovation revolution he wants, especially when most Americans have just one or two realistic choices for broadband service:

1. Usage caps are the product of artificial scarcity. Rationing Internet usage, even with now-pervasive cost-effective upgrades like DOCSIS 3, simply does not make sense (but it will make dollars). Cable operators are switching off analog television service to free up bandwidth to provider faster Internet speed and fatten the pipeline that delivers it. They have plenty of capacity, but continue to proclaim they must limit usage for “fairness” reasons, without providing a single shred of evidence to prove the need for usage caps. Consumers will self-ration just to avoid the prospect of being cut off or handed a bill with overlimit fees.
2. Usage caps make faster speeds irrelevant. Selling customers premium-priced, super fast broadband speed is hardly compelling when accompanied by usage caps that constrain the benefits of buying. Why pay $20-50 more for faster speeds when customers cannot take practical advantage of them. Customers using their Internet service to browse web pages and read e-mail have no interest in upgrading to 30+Mbps. Customers streaming video or moving large files do.
3. Usage caps retard innovation. Google’s new 1Gbps fiber optic network was built on the premise that usage caps were unnecessary on a fiber-based network and would retard innovation. Developing the next generation of innovative apps that Genachowski celebrates will never happen if developers are discouraged by Internet usage toll booths and stop signs. The cost to provide the service is not largely dependent on customer usage. It is the initial price of last mile infrastructure that really matters. Both cable and phone companies have reduced their investments to upgrade their networks, and AT&T and Verizon both contemplate getting rid of their rural landlines. Most cable operators paid off their networks years ago.
4. Usage caps create a whole new digital divide.  Time Warner Cable’s discounted Internet Essentials program delivers only a $5 discount with a harsh 5GB usage cap. For an income-challenged home compelled to switch to a provider’s budget plan, the result is a different Internet experience than the rest of us enjoy. Imagine if your home broadband account was limited to 5GB a month. What online services would you have to avoid to stay under the provider’s limit? Traditionally, operators sell the lowest speed tiers with the lowest usage allowances. Slower speeds already offer a disincentive to use high bandwidth services, but many providers typically drive that disincentive home even harder with a paltry allowance that will cost plenty to exceed.
5. Usage caps harm our broadband standing. While Genachowski celebrates increasing broadband speeds, he ignores the fact the rest of the world is moving away from usage caps even as the United States moves towards them. Both Australia and New Zealand elected to construct their own national fiber networks in large part because the heavily usage-capped experience was holding both countries back. Usage caps are a product of a barely competitive market.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bandwidth Caps 7-2011.flv[/flv]

Tech News Today debunks providers’ claims that usage caps are fair and control those who “overuse” their networks, noting the same phone companies (AT&T) pushing for usage caps are also moving voice calling to unlimited service plans. (August, 2011) (4 minutes)

Time Warner Cable has lost between 10-15 percent of their analog cable television customers over the past year, according to Time Warner Cable president and chief operating officer Rob Marcus.

Speaking at this morning’s Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference, Marcus noted the economic downturn has continued to cost the cable operator “single play” subscribers. Marcus noted that roughly 60 percent of the cable company’s customers are now on discounted or retention plans, and the company has no plans to reduce aggressive retention offers and promotions in the immediate future. Time Warner Cable will also exercise caution when customer promotions expire, an allusion to the company’s practice of gradually resetting rates to retail prices over an extended period of time to avoid antagonizing customers into switching providers.

Marcus acknowledged broadband is now a key service for Time Warner Cable, one that the company will continue to exploit to drive earnings. Some investors have complained Time Warner has only managed an increase of 2-3 percent in Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) for broadband, a key metric for Wall Street. Marcus was asked why Time Warner, with its superior market share over telephone companies, was not “exercising the price lever a little bit more” in a marketplace lacking serious competition.

Marcus

“I think it is fair to say that as the utility of the [broadband] product increases in customers’ minds, their willingness to pay for it (assuming they are able) goes up, so I think it stands to reason that we can continue to increase rates on high speed data,” Marcus said.

But even more important to Time Warner Cable is its differentiated broadband speed tiers, which the company is refining to pick up additional revenue and price-resistant customers. Broadband usage caps will be a part of that equation.

Marcus confirmed that Time Warner Cable will provide unlimited broadband packages to its premium tier customers, but will introduce usage-limited service on its budget tiers. Currently, the company only imposes a usage cap of 5GB on its Internet Essentials package, which offers a $5 discount off regular prices. But Marcus seemed to acknowledge that the company plans to experiment further with additional limits.

“We are going to deliver very fast speeds, unlimited consumption, and now mobile capability via our Wi-Fi network to those customers who demand it and are willing to pay premium prices for those tiers of service,” Marcus said. “At the other end of the spectrum we are going to have budget products as we do today that offer lower speeds, more limited consumption like our Internet Essentials product, and those probably won’t have access to our Wi-Fi hotspots. We think that is the best way to drive revenue and profitability.”

Marcus also told investors the company was working on the next generation of the company’s electronic program guide, which he said will be cloud-based. Time Warner Cable continues to signal it is willing to work with third party set top box manufacturers to let customers dump traditional set top boxes, but only so long as Time Warner Cable gets the credit in the minds of customers. The company is also working on rolling out video-on-demand for its online video apps.