Fashionably late, Verizon Wireless intends to change its wireless smartphone data plans to end unlimited usage in the next four to six months, according to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.

Seidenberg said Verizon Wireless’s new data plans, which he says will probably arrive in time for the holiday shopping season, will differ from AT&T’s but he refused to elaborate.

“We’re not sure we agree yet with how they valued the data,” he said at an investor conference Thursday.

The change has been widely anticipated in the wireless industry, as Verizon Wireless and AT&T, the nation’s largest and second largest carriers, charge nearly identical pricing for their wireless services.  Both carriers formerly charged smartphone customers $29.99 per month for unlimited wireless usage.  AT&T eliminated unlimited usage with two new plans unveiled in June with the introduction of the latest Apple iPhone.  One charges customers $15 a month for up to 200Mb of usage, and another charges $25 for up to 2GB of usage per month.  Customers exceeding the limits pay $15 for an additional 200Mb or $10 per gigabyte in additional fees.

Critics charge Verizon’s decision to slap usage limits and overlimit fees on customers is just another attempt to gouge wireless customers, made possible by the two providers’ market power.

Wall Street Journal reader Candace Kalish commented on the new limited usage attitude Verizon seeks to embrace:

What the carriers want is a tiered system with outrageous penalties for slight overages. The banks, car renters, airlines, and credit card issuers do very well with this. It is the most profitable business model since it requires careful underuse or disproportionate costs on the part of their customers. This is why they require people to guess their usage and impose punitive marginal costs on single byte transfers.

[…]I think the carriers’ actions indicate a much greater concern with short term profits rather than long term innovation and even great profitability.

[…]Since carriers impose rates on a take it or leave it basis, I don’t see rates improving much in the near future. I’ll stick with my ancient $30 a month plan and a cheap flip phone with an iPod Touch. When competition kicks in, possibly in the next 10 to 20 years, and they offer more for my money, I’ll consider a smarter phone. Right now the market is still what they used to call a natural monopoly, and the pricing structure proves it.

Seidenberg

Seidenberg made it clear the new Internet Overcharging schemes will arrive in time for the company’s introduction of its fourth generation data network – Long-Term Evolution, more commonly known as LTE.  Earlier, Verizon hinted to its investors it intends to market its LTE service at a premium price, anticipating customers will be willing to pay a higher price for faster service.  This, despite the fact LTE will deliver Verizon dramatically increased capacity at a lower overall cost, in terms of bang for the spectrum buck.

Company officials are still considering whether LTE pricing will carry a per megabyte charge with little or no usage allowance or a more common usage allowance plan with overlimit fees.  Either way, few expect wireless will offer an effective competing alternative to wired broadband service, unless one’s monthly usage is below 5GB.  Above that amount, overlimit fees could quickly accumulate, leaving customers with wireless bill shock.

Dave Burstein, publisher of DSL Prime, commented back in January about wireless data pricing:

Charging at the this level, if the other wireless carriers go along, is a blatant attempt to protect their other services. [A government agency] filing points out the likely reason: “The Commission also must keep in mind that the two largest US wireless providers, Verizon and AT&T, also offer wireline services in major portions of the country, raising the question of whether these providers will market these services as replacements for wireline services.”

If his prices carry the day, the […] broadband plan will accomplish very little. The [plan] implicitly counts on wireless for competition, because new wired networks are highly unlikely and their plan doesn’t change that. Wireless voice in the U.S. is a weak cartel, data a relatively strong cartel. [Verizon’s] signals may inspire the other carriers to also drastically cut the basic data allowance.  Or not.

If there’s a significant cut in the 5GB wireless allowance, then the broadband plan needs a huge redirection to measures that work [in] a telco-cable duopoly. That’s so tough I don’t know if Washington can do that.

Thanks to our regular reader Bones for sending word.

Big Apple Day

As part of franchise negotiations between Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, and New York City officials, an agreement was reached to spend $10 million to provide “free Wi-Fi” service in some 32 parks across the metropolitan area.

But “free” access comes to those who can accomplish their wireless usage in ten-minutes, because that’s all the “free” use the two cable giants will allow non-customers on their wireless networks.  Specifically, non-cable customers can access the new Wi-Fi at no charge for up to three 10-minute sessions per month.  If you want more than 30 minutes a month of access, it will cost you $0.99 a day.

Broadband advocates in New York accused the Bloomberg Administration of selling out public spaces to private companies during the city’s closed-door negotiations with the two cable operators.

The NY Daily News:

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse told a crowd of Wall Street investors the wireless provider could drop unlimited wireless pricing if the costs to deliver it begin to upset shareholders.

“We are watching very closely,” Hesse said during a Goldman Sachs-sponsored conference.

“Clearly, I’m not ruling out metered [price packages],” he said. “But customers value simplicity.”

While Hesse stressed the company had no immediate plans to drop its “Simply Everything” plans, it does acknowledge a small percentage of its customers are using enough of Sprint’s network to cost the company more than it earns from its heavy users.

But Hesse argued the marketing benefits of unlimited service may have brought the number three wireless carrier more business (and revenue) than it loses.  Sprint has been trying to recapture a stronger position in the wireless market lost after years of notoriously poor customer service and reduced coverage areas.

Most customers who left Sprint switched to AT&T or Verizon Wireless.  Both of its larger competitors have been seeking to impose more usage limits on its customers, especially for data.  Sprint hopes to win some of them back, but Hesse admits the company still has a long way to go to improve customer numbers.

Phillip "Darn, they didn't pick my essay" Dampier

Time Warner Cable paid $20,000 for a report that concludes, “policymakers not only need to focus on the oft-stated long-term goal of encouraging Fiber-To-The-Home but also on the more immediate need to bring fiber significantly closer to the customer.”

That declaration was included in one of five essays released this week by Time Warner Cable’s Research Program.  When we first wrote about this program in February, we were convinced that the resulting essays would parrot the cable company’s public policy agenda.  We were largely right, especially in those that delved into public policy matters.  They stayed safely inside the company’s policy boundaries.  Even those who focused on technical matters avoided directly challenging the company writing the check.

The cable company earlier announced it would pay $20,000 stipends to essayists that wrote research reports on these questions:

• How are broadband operators coping with the explosive growth in Internet traffic? Will proposed limits on network management practices impede innovation and threaten to undermine consumers’ enjoyment of the Internet?
• How can policymakers harmonize the objectives of preventing anticompetitive tactics and preserving flexibility to engage in beneficial forms of network management?
• Regarding these issues, describe a vision for the architecture of cable broadband networks that promotes and advances innovation for the future of digital communications.
• How might Internet regulations have an impact on underserved or disadvantaged populations?

The winners:

• Dale N. Hatfield, executive director, Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology and Entrepeneurship, University of Colorado, “The Challenge of Increasing Broadband Capacity.”
• John G. Palfrey, Jr., Henry N., Ess III professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “The Challenge of Developing Effective Public Policy on the Use of Social Media by Youth.”
• Nicole Turner-Lee, vice president and director, Media and Technology Institute, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, “The Challenge of Increasing Civic Engagement in the Digital Age.”
• Scott J. Wallsten, vice president for Research and Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Institute, “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.”
• Christopher S. Yoo, professor of Law & Communciations, University of Pennsylvania Law School, “The Challenge of New Patterns in Internet Usage.”

Among the reports were a few that echoed the cable industry’s public policy agenda, particularly Scott Wallsten’s policy essay, “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.” Wallsten is an industry favorite.  He works for the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten's essay parrots the cable industry's agenda

Wallsten argues worrying about residential broadband service is far less important than delivering broadband improvements to businesses to spur economic growth.  Part of the money to do that might come from raising residential broadband prices.  Wallsten points out consumers are willing to pay far more than they do today for their broadband accounts — up to $80 a month for today’s typical access speeds.  That’s music to an Internet Overcharger’s ears.

Wallsten’s essay hints that broadband expansion to the unserved, and Washington’s focus on broadband competition, might be misplaced if they are looking for the biggest economic bang for the buck.  His overall conclusion?  Worry about business broadband, not home residential use.

This is hardly new territory for Mr. Wallsten, who in 2007 wrote a piece warning of the perils of flat rate, unlimited use broadband pricing for the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute, both great friends of large industry players. Only this time, he got a nice chuck of change from Time Warner Cable ratepayers.

More remarkable was Dale Hatfield’s essay, “The Challenge of Increasing Broadband Capacity.” Unlike Mr. Wallsten’s cable industry public policy echo chamber, Hatfield tries to keep things technical, but also safely made sure he didn’t stray too far off Time Warner’s broadband plantation.

Hatfield discusses the challenges of different broadband technologies ranging from twisted-pair copper wiring that delivers DSL to cable’s hybrid coaxial-fiber networks and the latest generation wireless and fiber optic technologies.  Hatfield largely calls them as he sees them, noting DSL’s inherent distance limitations and maximum supportable speeds, cable’s potential for last-mile/neighborhood congestion, wireless spectrum inadequacy, and the promises fiber optics can bring to the broadband revolution if costs can be reduced.

Hatfield avoids embarrassing his benefactor too much by spending the least amount of time and space on the benefits fiber brings to the broadband expansion question:

The fourth technology, fiber optic cable, is generally regarded as the “gold standard” in terms of increasing broadband digital access capacity because of its enormous analog bandwidth and its immunity to natural and man-made forms of electrical noise and interference. The actual digital transmission rate delivered to or from a customer depends upon the details of the architecture employed, but the ultimate capacity is limited more by economic factors rather than by the inherent technical constraints on the underlying technology imposed by Shannon’s Law. In this regard, fiber optic cable is often referred to as being “future-proof” because the maximum digital transmission rates are governed more by the electronic equipment attached to the cable rather than by the actual fiber itself. It is future-proof in the sense that the capacity can be increased by upgrading the associated electronic equipment rather than by taking the more expensive step of replacing the fiber itself.

Hatfield

While Time Warner Cable does market itself as having an “Advanced Fiber Network,” it is, in reality using the same technology the cable industry has used for a decade — fiber distribution into individual towns and large neighborhoods, coaxial cable the rest of the way.  Hatfield believes that simply isn’t good enough:

[…]Both DSL and cable modem technology benefit from the shorter distances that are associated with a more dense deployment of their access nodes. This suggests the growing need to extend fiber optic cable capacity closer to the customer—either fixed or mobile—to minimize the distance between the customer and the access nodes.

Hatfield’s subtle conclusion is that broadband expansion is ultimately best served by delivering fiber-optic connections straight to the home, something Time Warner Cable has argued against and refused to provide for years, but has now paid $20,000 to put on their website:

[…]Policymakers not only need to focus on the oft-stated long-term goal of encouraging FTTH but also on the more immediate need to bring fiber significantly closer to the customer to support a vastly increased number of access nodes. This is particularly important in the wireless case, where the capacity added through frequency reuse is critical to facilitating wireless competition with the two major suppliers of fixed broadband capacity—the incumbent telephone and cable television companies.

What is the last technology product you purchased that never declined in price after you bought it?  If you answered your broadband service, a new study proves you right.

Since there are no public data on what has happened to broadband prices over the last decade, Shane Greenstein, a professor of management and strategy at the Kellogg School of Management, and his co-author Ryan McDevitt, an assistant professor of economics and management at the University of Rochester and a graduate of Northwestern University, analyzed the contracts of 1,500 DSL and cable service providers from 2004 to 2009.

The results every broadband user already knows.

At best, prices have declined only slightly — typically between 3-10 percent, partly from a “quality adjustment” the authors included to account for gradually increased broadband speeds when measuring prices.

Greenstein blames a broadband duopoly for the stagnation in broadband pricing.

Greenstein

“So if you were in such a market as a supplier, why would you initiate a price war?” Greenstein asks. With no new entries on the market, suppliers can compete by slowly increasing quality but keeping prices the same. According to Greenstein, quality is where providers channel their competitive urges.

Meanwhile, once companies have installed the lines, their costs are far below prices. “At that point, it becomes pure profit,” Greenstein says. A company might spend around $100 per year to “maintain and service” the connection, but people are paying nearly that amount every other month. Greenstein says that it is not surprising that prices were high during the buildout phase in the early and mid-2000s, since the firms were trying to recover their costs. “However, we are approaching the end of the first buildout, so competitive pressures should have led to price drops by now, if there are any. Like many observers, I expected to see prices drop by now, and I am surprised they have not.”

The authors also confirm Stop the Cap!‘s long-standing contention that providers are enjoying dramatically reduced costs to deliver broadband to customers, yet are not spending some of those profits on important network upgrades.  That could lead to a broadband bottleneck, Greenstein contends, especially with the growth of online video.  We argue it is a recipe for Internet Overcharging — triggering increased pricing to “pay for upgrades” while limiting usage of broadband service, despite the mountain of profits available today to cope with usage growth.

McDevitt

Greenstein and McDevitt pored over 1,500 broadband contracts over several years, tracking pricing, service bundling, and speed improvements.  Pricing, adjusted for speed improvements, was generally flat.  Because the cable industry has delivered most of the speed growth Americans enjoy, the “quality adjustment” the authors used credited most of the modest price declines to the cable industry, especially for customers moving to bundled packages of services.  The authors found DSL and its providers almost completely stagnant — both in pricing and speed.

The most surprising discovery, Greenstein says, is that national decisions are being made without the type of data that he created in the consumer price index. “As an observer of communications policy in the U.S., I find it shocking sometimes how often government makes decisions by the seat of their pants,” he says. Without real data and statistics, decisions are based solely on who has better arguments—in essence, a debate. A better consumer price index will help produce better decisions for the future of the Internet and its users.

It may also serve as an effective challenge to telecommunications industry lobbyists who engineer their own statistics and claims about the performance of the nation’s phone and cable companies.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! readers Bones and Michael for sending along the story.