Charter Spectrum’s broadband-only customers run up more than double the amount of broadband usage average customers subscribing to both cable TV and broadband use, and that consumption is growing fast.

“Data usage by residential internet customers is rising rapidly and monthly median data usage is over 200 GB per customer,” Charter CEO Thomas Rutledge said on a morning quarterly results conference call. “When you look at average monthly usage for customers that don’t subscribe to our traditional video product, usage climbs to over 400 GB per month.”

Last week, Comcast reported its average broadband customer also used over 200 GB a month, but did not break out the difference between those subscribing to cable TV and those who do not. If Comcast’s broadband-only customers are consuming a comparable amount of data, they could be nearing half of their monthly usage allowance (1 TB), in markets where Comcast caps its customers’ usage. But because that is only an average, it means many more Comcast customers are likely nearing or now exceeding Comcast’s data cap, exposing them to hefty overlimit penalties.

Spectrum does not impose any data allowances on its customers — all usage is unlimited.

Charter officials also reported their average mobile customers use “well under 10 GB a month.” The fact Charter did not get more specific about mobile usage is important because the new product is getting scrutiny from some on Wall Street concerned it will have a hard time becoming profitable because of its wholesale agreement with Verizon Wireless, which provides the 4G LTE service for Spectrum Mobile.

Subscribers have been primarily drawn to the $14/GB plan, which includes unlimited talk and texting, because it offers a very low entry price for a full-function wireless plan. But a customer only needs to use more than 3 GB of service per month to find their bill higher than what they would pay subscribing to Spectrum Mobile’s $45 unlimited usage plan. If Charter executives said the average mobile user consumed 5 GB of data, analysts could deduce what the average customer bill probably looked like. To maximize profits, Charter needs customers to select an unlimited data plan and keep data usage low to assure it can cover the wholesale costs Verizon Wireless charges the cable company for wireless connectivity.

Rutledge

Rutledge stressed he expects Spectrum Mobile to be profitable with the current Verizon Wireless MVNO contract in place — the service simply needs a larger user base to overcome its current losses.

Rutledge also announced Spectrum Mobile was testing dual SIM technology, which could allow it to eventually offload more of its 4G LTE traffic to its own (cheaper) network, which could eventually include mid-band wireless spectrum and the CBRS spectrum the company is already testing for fixed wireless service for rural areas. Spectrum could also follow Comcast with its own in-home network of publicly available Wi-Fi or innovate with unlicensed wireless mobile spectrum using small cells or external antennas.

Charter executives noted that customer data demands were pushing many to upgrade to higher speed internet products.

“Over 80% of our internet customers are now in packages that deliver 100 Mbps of speed or more and 30% of our customers are getting 200 Mbps or more,” Rutledge said. “We’re also seeing strong demand for our Ultra product, which delivers 400 Mbps, and we have gigabit service available everywhere.”

The costs to continue upgrading service for broadband customers are negligible on the company’s current platform, Rutledge admits. In the future, Charter Spectrum is considering offering 10 Gbps and 25 Gbps symmetrical service to customers, and it can scale up upgrades very quickly.

“For example, in only 14 months we launched DOCSIS 3.1, which took our speeds up to 1 Gbps across our entire footprint at a cost of just $9 per passing,” Rutledge said.

Virginia officials cannot get broadband providers to reveal full details about their actual service areas, so the state now believes cable and phone companies will be more forthcoming if they can quietly share that information with each other, keeping the state government in the dark.

Virginia Public Radio reports that there are more than 600,000 residents that have no access to high-speed internet, because the state’s dominant telecom companies — Verizon, Cox, and Comcast, choose not to provide service. But the state’s efforts to fund rural broadband projects to reach the unserved have been repeatedly complicated by the lack of accurate information about who actually has access to broadband, and who does not.

“If you call them and say, “I live at this address can I get connected?’ They can tell you yes or no. They will not share that information nationally,” Evan Feinman, Virginia’s chief broadband advisor, told VPR.

State officials cannot get straight answers because telecom companies treat their service areas as confidential and proprietary business information. Broadband availability maps have been criticized as inaccurate as well, with providers volunteering the information with little, if any, independent verification. That creates problems when a would-be provider for an unserved area completes a broadband grant application that results in immediate objections from incumbent providers that claim they already offer service in the proposed project’s service area.

Feinman believes that if the state steps out of any referee roll of verifying what areas actually get service, providers will suddenly begin sharing service information with each other.

Feinman

“Comcast is interested in helping us avoid having to fund an overbuild… if they don’t bid on covering the rest of the county then they’re not interested in covering the rest of the county,” Feinman explains. “So when another ISP comes in I have high confidence that when that ISP asks Comcast ‘Hey I want to cover the rest of this county, how much of that do I need to do?’ Comcast will share that information.”

That is not the experience of other states, where providers like Charter Communications treat any disclosure of their rural broadband service areas and intended expansion areas as “highly confidential information.” In New York, companies will share information with the state, especially when state taxpayers are helping to subsidize their costs, but under no circumstances will they share service and expansion intentions with other providers, calling them competitors.

That would leave Virginia taxpayers footing the bill for rural broadband funding, without the state being a fully informed partner, able to audit projects and their service areas.

This year, Virginia intends to spend $19 million on rural broadband funding, a comparatively tiny amount for the number of residents still lacking service (New York spent over a half billion dollars), but still an increase over earlier years. But where those funds are spent may now be up to the same cable and phone companies that have never been willing to offer service in those areas before, and may not be too interested in letting someone else serve those areas either.

The stakes are high, as Feinman pointed out.

“I have conversations with corporate leaders who say, ‘Well am I going to be able to get in touch with my manager at 1 am and will he or she be able to send me a document?’ If the answer is no that community’s off the list,” says Feinman.

Virginia could follow the lead of Wall Street analysts that have conducted detailed studies by using a provider’s own website to query service availability and information for each individual address in a proposed service area. It would be a labor intensive project, but one that would put providers on record about whether they actually offer service or not.

Virginia Public Radio reports the state’s goal for universal broadband has been hampered by a lack of accurate broadband mapping. Now the state proposes to allow cable and phone companies to sort it out themselves. (1:43)

The average Comcast broadband customer now consumes over 200 GB of online data per month, an increase of 34% over just one year ago, according to Dave Watson, president and CEO of Comcast Cable Communications.

The increased usage accelerated during the last quarter of 2018, Watson told investors on a quarterly conference call.

What remains unchanged is Comcast’s data cap, which remains fixed at 1 TB per month for many customers. To avoid overlimit penalty fees of $10 for each additional 50 GB block of data consumed (up to $200 per month), Comcast is still pitching its unlimited data option — insurance against Comcast’s own overlimit penalties, which costs a growing number of customers an extra $50 a month.

Watson knows data usage over Comcast’s network is about to grow exponentially, mostly thanks to streaming video.

“I think that we start with the central view that streaming is going to happen, video over the internet is more friend than foe. and we wish every bit was our bit,” Watson told investors this morning. “If people consume more bits and video clearly does that, and 4K video does even more than that, that is the sweet spot of where this company is going to grow.”

Translation: We intend to make a killing on usage growth. Comcast can market you a faster internet package at a higher price, or as your usage approaches the data cap, scare you into buying overlimit insurance.

Remember that Comcast drops usage caps for some customers willing to rent their latest network gateway (available only in some areas at this time).

Verizon Communications has indefinitely suspended plans to charge customers an extra $10 a month for access to Verizon’s extremely spotty and uneven 5G service, which launched earlier this month in Chicago and Minneapolis.

Early adopters were told Verizon would waive the extra $10 fee for the first three months of service. But after receiving mixed reviews about Verizon’s 5G performance and very limited coverage area after launch, Verizon decided to withdraw the charge until further notice.

“This is some of the blowback you get from being first” in offering smartphone 5G service, John Hodulik, an analyst at UBS Group AG, told the Wall Street Journal. “It didn’t make sense to charge people extra money for a service that they’re rarely going to use.”

AT&T’s CEO Randall Stephenson sent signals to shareholders AT&T was also considering charging a premium rate for customers upgrading to 5G technology in the next two or three years.

For the last several years, cable subscribers have lamented that the advertised price of service falls short of the real “out-the-door” cost shown on one’s monthly bill.

Charter Spectrum is one of the worst offenders, having avoided to mention in its advertising the spiraling-upwards “Broadcast TV Fee,” applied without exception to cable television customers’ bills.

The “Broadcast TV Fee,” (recently increased to $11.99 a month) is compulsory for cable TV customers and subject to change, regardless if you have a “rate guarantee” with Spectrum or not. The fee is the same for new and old customers, regardless of any promotion, and it has not been well-disclosed in Spectrum’s print and online advertising. Only customers subscribing to one of Spectrum’s new streaming TV packages will get a break. One of Spectrum’s most advertised stream-only packages applies a $5/mo Broadcast TV Fee, less than half of what Spectrum charges traditional cable TV customers for the same local stations.

As of this month, Spectrum.com now includes the fee on its price quote system for customers looking for an estimated cost of service. It adds enough to put the monthly cost of cable TV above $60 for new customers (including the rental cost of one, now-mandatory, HD-set top box), despite the fact Spectrum advertises a rate of $44.99/mo for the first year of service. This reality might further aggravate cord-cutting or “cable-TV nevers” from considering bundling television service with Spectrum.

For its part, Spectrum explains the fee represents “a fee by the owners of local broadcast ‘network-affiliated’ TV stations (affiliates of CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and so on). This fee enables Spectrum to continue to offer these channels for our customers.”

But in fact, it is just another cost of doing business. Cable programmers also charge similar fees, and some — notably ESPN — charge more than many local stations do for cable carriage. Cable operators are trying to make a political statement about the high cost of cable carriage of local TV stations that viewers can watch for free over-the-air. But they are also trying to hide the true cost of cable television, sensitive to the fact many customers are reaching their limit on bloated TV packages of hundreds of expensive channels that mostly go unwatched. Sticker shock can only worsen cord-cutting and cause more to rule out new subscriptions to cable television, especially as cable operators continue to raise the price of broadband internet service at the same time.