Cable subscribers in Natchez, Miss. are scratching their heads wondering why AT&T will neither confirm nor deny whether its fiber to the neighborhood U-verse service is coming to a neighborhood near them.

AT&T says if it told customers where the service was coming, it would give away vital information to its competition — the cable and satellite companies.

AT&T spokeswoman Sue Sperry says her competitors will stop at nothing to hang onto current customers, even if it means using predatory below-market-rate pricing.

“We’ve learned from experience that if they know what our footprint is, they go in and do retention offers and pretty much give their service away for next to nothing and then we can’t compete,” Sperry told the Natchez Democrat.

But considering its biggest competitor is locally-hated Cable One, a lot of customers would still be ready to switch even if AT&T sent the cable company its detailed business plans in advance.

“Unless you spend your weekends at the Bondage Bordello, there is nothing enjoyable about dealing with Cable One in Mississippi,” says Stop the Cap! reader DeWayne. “Last summer when their system went up and died on the folks over in Columbus, even the guy running it couldn’t tell when it was coming back.”

Top secret.

DeWayne started reading Stop the Cap! when we covered Cable One’s massive failure in August 2012 that brought all of its services in Columbus down while the company incredibly waited for express delivery of a replacement part. When customers could not get answers from Cable One over the phone, they lined up outside the local cable office only to learn from company general manager David Lusby he had no idea how many customers were affected by the outage or when the cable system would be back up and running.

“I hate AT&T but I hate Cable One more,” DeWayne said. “It is annoying that they won’t tell us when U-verse is coming to our neighborhood.”

Sperry claims AT&T U-verse is more robust than cable or satellite because it is powered by phone lines.

“That was one of the things during the hurricane, U-verse didn’t go out,” she told the newspaper. “It’s delivered through a phone line, and the phones are the last to go out.”

But unfortunately for customers, AT&T says it only rolls out U-verse in “a measured and slow way,” forcing customers to continually visit att.com and manually check availability using their home address.

But Sperry told the newspaper once customers get the service, they remain loyal to it. That may be especially true in smaller communities in Mississippi that cope with second rate cable operators not known for offering robust or affordable service.

Image: schvdenfreude

Chattanooga Comcast and AT&T U-verse customers will need to open their wallets a bit more in 2013 as both the cable and phone company have announced new rate hikes that are now taking effect. But not everyone will pay more. Customers of EPB Fiber, which offers up to 1,000/1,000Mbps broadband and is a service of the publicly-owned electric utility is keeping prices stable until further notice.

Comcast customers face new increases averaging 4% in 2013 — $5 a month for Triple Play customers, several dollars more for broadband, and around $1 for basic cable service. Customers on promotions are unaffected until the temporary pricing expires.

AT&T U-verse customers will see price increases as much as $9 a month for television and broadband service.

Chattanoogans who ditched both private providers for the public option are sitting pretty with absolutely no rate increases to pay at this time. Although negotiations with programmers are ongoing, and costs are rising, EPB says it won’t raise any rates unless it becomes absolutely necessary. The utility takes rate increases very seriously, bringing them directly to its board of directors for approval.

Comcast and AT&T said the introduction of new services and increased programming costs contributed to their need to increase rates. Comcast says it has kept rates for its Xfinity service stable since 2010, a claim that doesn’t explain away its 4% rate hike in January 2012. AT&T said its supplier and labor costs also contributed to price increases, which also includes a broadband television surcharge.

If this seems like déjà vu, it could be because both AT&T and Comcast raised rates exactly one year ago this month. AT&T was the worst offender last year, boosting TV prices between $2-5 a month, equipment fees by $4-7 a month for broadband, and a $3 rate hike for its unlimited calling landline service. In comparison, EPB said it had no immediate plans to raise TV, broadband, or phone prices last year either.

EPB Fiber is the only Chattanooga telecom provider not raising its prices.

Customers facing rate increases can find an easy way to avoid them: threaten to take your business somewhere else. Retention agents are on the lookout for customers considering moving to another provider, and will usually slash rates to keep your business. Don’t want to argue your way to a lower rate or just want to say goodbye to Comcast and AT&T? Stop the Cap! highly recommends EPB Fiber, the most technologically advanced option in Tennessee, priced fairly with a proven track record of reliability.

A lot of Chattanooga area residents have already considered their options:

“Comcast is complete garbage,” writes one former customer. “Horrible product, even worse customer service. My Internet went out daily. I switched to EPB as fast as I could and have never been happier. I wouldn’t have Comcast again if it was free for the rest of my life.”

Another former cable customer reminds Comcast competition makes all the difference. He switched to EPB as well:

“Keep your Xfinity Comcast, you treated me like dirt when there was no other choice for cable. Now that I have that choice, I’ll never consider you again.”

From writing friendly reports defending Internet Overcharging to the FCC’s new chief economist — D.C.’s revolving door keeps on spinning for Professor Steven Wildman.

The Federal Communications Commission has proved that Washington’s revolving door enjoys perpetual motion with the announcement it hired a new chief economist who just three weeks earlier was peddling his findings favoring usage caps and consumption billing before a National Cable & Telecommunications Association gathering that paid for his research.

Professor Steven Wildman’s move from the cable industry’s go-to-guy for defending Internet Overcharging to a cushy new position at the FCC just weeks after shilling for the country’s largest cable industry lobbying group is shocking even by Washington’s standards.

Remarkably, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski praised this cheerleader of wallet-pilfering by saying “his deep economic expertise and problem solving abilities” are the perfect fit for an agency pressed with challenging initiatives – like charging you more for your broadband service and calling it “pro-consumer.”

There is no doubt Wildman has deep economic expertise — he has found success penning dubious research bought and paid for by an industry that expects his findings to echo their own talking points. His problem-solving abilities at fixing the facts around the cable industry’s agenda are also unquestioned.

But his research reports aren’t worth wasting your monthly usage allowance to download because they only tell part of the story.

At the December NCTA Connects event, Wildman was the darling of the cable industry echo chamber telling tall tales about the problems of broadband penetration in a country where providers enjoy up to 95 percent gross margins on broadband pricing:

“One of the key mechanisms through which positive welfare effects are realized is the crafting of lower-priced plans for users who otherwise might not take service, while users who have a more intensive demand for broadband are able to contract for more advanced services. We also showed that UBP has flexibility advantages for users whose data service needs vary over time. Because UBP creates an incentive to offer lower cost-lower usage plans to consumers who otherwise could not profitably be served at a unitary price, UBP can be an effective tool for promoting increased broadband penetration in the United States, a role that is enhanced by the fact that low price-low usage options reduce the financial risks to consumers thinking about trying broadband for the first time.”

“Tiered pricing also has benefits for the recovery of shared network costs and for network investment. Whereas investment decisions are also influenced by other factors, including the costs of extending networks, potential revenues, and overall economic conditions, we found that, other things equal, usage tiers will likely contribute to better cash flows and stronger incentives to invest in broadband plant, both to improve the quality of service for current customers and to extend networks into unserved and underserved territories.”

Wildman does not mention his cable benefactors earn a higher percentage of profit on broadband than oil sheikhs in the Middle East rake in charging $90+ for a barrel of oil. So it is unsurprising his analysis lacks one simple solution providers could use to differentiate their services and enhance broadband penetration: lower the price to compete. He also ignores the fact that true usage pricing would offer consumers a chance to pay only for what they actually consumed during a month, but those plans are not on offer anywhere.

Wildman ignores the real industry agenda: monetizing broadband usage to create even higher profits. The cable industry is well on its way, using the enormous market power enjoyed in the current monopoly/duopoly state of consumer broadband to preserve today’s near-extortionist pricing while trying to pick up customers currently unwilling to pay, charging for slightly discounted service that comes with a paltry usage allowance.

The meme that unlimited, flat rate broadband is somehow responsible for America’s broadband-unserved is a popular one at the FCC, where Chairman Genachowski has applauded usage based pricing as an “innovative” experiment that could change how broadband is marketed in the U.S. and promote its expansion.

While those in D.C. may live in a bubble populated by industry lobbyists, others do not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NCTA Connects The Pros and Cons of Broadband Peak Load Pricing Dec 2012.flv[/flv]

Message Confusion: While some in the cable industry still advocate usage pricing and caps as a matter of “fairness” and as a salve for peak time congestion, today’s advocates of usage-based billing appearing at a cable-industry event in December admit congestion is simply no longer a problem on wired networks. Sandvine’s Dave Caputo and Professor David M. Lyons of Boston College Law School dismiss the notion of congestion-based pricing only during peak usage, arguing congestion is no longer the real issue driving usage caps. That is why everyone must be subjected to higher priced, usage-capped broadband no matter what time of day they use the network. (3 minutes)

The inevitable outcome of “differentiated pricing” is charging consumers more to access popular websites, as is already the case in countries like Colombia.

Wildman argues that like car manufacturers that offer many different models ranging from basic to well-appointed with luxury extras, providers should be free to offer different types of plans to consumers.

Wildman’s auto analogy fails because consumers have more than a dozen different manufacturers to choose from, each making a range of different models. For broadband, the overwhelming majority of Americans have two choices: the cable and phone company. Unlike auto manufacturers that respond to consumer demand, broadband providers are hellbent on eliminating the overwhelmingly popular flat rate, unlimited option in favor of mandatory usage pricing and/or usage caps. It would be like telling auto-buyers that their Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, or Chevy Malibu no longer met the needs of manufacturers. Instead, you have one choice: the Toyota Yaris. But you can get it with heated leather seats, so what’s the problem?

Wildman also ignores the fact providers already sell different plans, based on different speeds. Customers with only light web use can select a cheaper, lower speed tier and never notice the difference. Heavier users buy up into premium speed tiers, paying higher prices to cover their additional usage and expectations of performance.

Providers have spent the last few years trying to justify adding a usage component to the pricing equation and Wildman is perplexed by public policy and consumer groups overwhelmingly hostile to plans that would leave current pricing largely intact and add an artificial usage cap. Considering who pays for his research, this is not too surprising.

Wildman’s style of “innovation” already exists in countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and in parts of Europe allowing everyone to witness what actually happens when these pricing schemes gain a foothold. Usage-based pricing has successfully boosted the profits of providers but has done nothing to expand rural broadband networks or offer customers big savings. When providers gorge on profits made possible in uncompetitive markets, the money goes straight into bank accounts or back to investors, not into capital spending to improve service or expand into areas deemed unprofitable to serve.

Customers despise usage caps so much that in Australia and New Zealand, the government has partially taken over rebuilding infrastructure with new fiber to the home networks and promoting international capacity expansion that will eventually banish usage pricing for good. In western Canada, Shaw Cable heard so much condemnation about usage caps during its listening tour, it greatly relaxed them. (The fact its biggest competitor Telus barely enforces their own caps didn’t hurt either.)

In the rest of Canada, independent ISPs have found a growing niche selling plans with considerably larger usage allowances or flat rate access. How did dominant providers like Bell (BCE) respond? They asked regulators to force the competition to stop selling flat rate service.

How Sandvine helps providers “innovate.” Alaska’s GCI implemented its draconian caps and overlimit fees using Sandvine’s Internet Overcharging technology.

Wildman’s report flies in the face of reality, and every so often the cable industry itself admits as much. Take the word of Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent, who runs a largely rural cable company that launched its own Internet Overcharging scheme:

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Unsurprisingly, that sentiment did not make it into Wildman’s analysis either.

Wildman

Financial reports from providers that have usage caps and those that don’t show the same remarkable trend: broadband expenses are way down, capital intensity is well within expected norms, and cable operators are not pouring their profligate earnings into expanding rural broadband.

That makes Wildman the consummate team player, and hardly the best choice for taxpayers who will cover his salary for a few years before he takes another trip through the revolving door back to his industry friends. When Americans wonder why Washington doesn’t seem to be living in the reality-based community, this is why. We can hardly expect Mr. Wildman to represent our interests when he has spent the last several years representing an extremely profitable industry reviled for its overcharging, poor service, and scheming, and will be more than welcomed back if he remembers his friends while working at the FCC.

This latest move represents another disappointment from Chairman Julius Genachowski, who increasingly appears to be warming up to a telecommunications industry he used to aggressively oversee at the start of his tenure.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NCTA Connects The Evolving Internet – Patterns in Usage and Pricing Dec 2012.flv[/flv]

Three weeks ago, the Three Musketeers of Internet Overcharging appeared at a cable industry-sponsored event promoting usage caps and consumption billing. Sandvine CEO Dave Caputo makes his living scaring providers and consumers about Internet growth and (conveniently) selling the equipment that manages the traffic “tsunami” with speed throttles and usage limits. Professor David M. Lyons of Boston College Law School calls usage pricing “second degree price discrimination,” a term he hopes the industry will rebrand into something less ominous and obvious. He argues selling broadband at incremental costs will never recover “fixed costs” for networks the cable industry itself admits have already been largely paid off. Professor Steven Wildman, now on the way to the FCC as its new chief economist, peddles research bought and paid for by the cable industry. They got their money’s worth. (1 hour, 9 minutes)

Here today, gone tomorrow.

Cablevision West, formerly known as Bresnan Communications, has been up for sale for weeks, and at least three major cable operators have submitted bids to acquire its 300,000 customers in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.

Cablevision bought Bresnan Communications in 2010 for $1.37 billion. The cable operator invested millions updating the cable properties in the mountain west, but ultimately decided the more rural cable systems were too far away from its hometown systems in densely populated suburban New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

Selling Cablevision West would improve Cablevision’s balance sheet and allow the company to concentrate on its highly competitive home territory in the northeast, where Verizon FiOS frequently competes.

Among the three vying for Cablevision West, Charter Communications seems to be the best positioned to win. Charter already operates cable systems in the central and western United States, mostly in smaller cities and rural areas. Former Cablevision CEO Thomas Rutledge was in charge when Cablevision bought Bresnan Communications, and in his new role as CEO of Charter, he told CNBC he still admires those western systems.

Suddenlink has attained deeper pockets after its acquisition earlier this year by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, European private equity firm BC Partners and the cable operator’s current management. With money to spend, Suddenlink Communications could find itself the highest bidder. Suddenlink currently serves over 1.4 million residential and commercial customers, primarily in Texas, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Time Warner Cable, the second-largest U.S. cable provider, is also among the stingiest of the three bidders. CEO Glenn Britt has consistently told investors the company will not engage in bidding wars or overpay for acquisition opportunities. The company has passed on several earlier opportunities for cable systems up for sale, although it did successfully acquire Insight Communications earlier this year.

The winner will likely be announced as early as January and then customers will have to prepare, once again, for another owner to take control.

Phillip “Oh look, more industry-backed research in denial regarding unpopular usage caps and consumption billing” Dampier

It seems America’s biggest industry-funded broadband astroturf group, Broadband for America, thinks the New America Foundation completely misses the point of “new pricing strategies” like restrictive usage caps, costly consumption-based billing, and fiendishly high overlimit fees. In a hurry, they released this particularly weak argument favoring usage pricing:

A new report by the New America Foundation suggests that “dwindling competition is fueling the rise of increasingly costly and restrictive Internet usage caps” in the broadband sector. But as we’ve explained before, these experimental new pricing strategies are actually signs of competition in the market and ultimately benefit consumers.

In terms of competition between broadband service providers, a study by Boston College Law School Professor Daniel Lyons concluded “data caps and other pricing strategies are ways that broadband companies can distinguish themselves from one another to achieve a competitive advantage in the marketplace.” He also concluded these practices were not anti-consumer: “When firms experiment with different business models, they can tailor services to niche audiences whose interests are inadequately satisfied by a one-size-fits-all flat-rate plan.” Indeed, many consumers are no longer satisfied with one-size-fits-all rate plans. Since data usage by individual users can vary dramatically, imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to pricing would result in light data users subsidizing the use of heavier ones. As Michigan State University Professor of Information Studies Steven Wildman explains, not having usage-based pricing models “means that light users pay a higher effective rate for broadband service, cross-subsidizing the activities of those who spend more time online. With usage-based pricing, those who use more bandwidth contribute more toward the cost of building and maintaining broadband networks.”

Broadband providers should be free to experiment with usage-based pricing and other pricing strategies as tools in their arsenal to meet rising broadband demand on their networks. Moving forward, Lyons recommends instituting public policies that allow providers the freedom to experiment, in order to best preserve the spirit of innovation that has characterized the Internet since its inception.

Broadband for America thinks they are clever when they introduce “academic papers” that extend credibility to their arguments. No, Broadband for America, we get the point. Your benefactors want to charge customers more  money for less service and call that a fair deal.

The wheels driving their talking points start to fall off the moment one peaks under their covers:

1. Broadband for America (BfA) is America’s largest telecom industry front group, backed almost entirely by cable and phone companies and dozens of supporting groups that are typically funded by those companies, have telecom industry board members, or whose lifeblood depends on doing business with Big Telecom companies.

2. Experimental pricing plans that largely leave existing pricing in place –and– impose new service limitations is not a sign of competition that benefits consumers, it is proof of its absence. With today’s broadband duopoly, there is little risk imposing new fees or service restrictions when the only competition you have typically follows suit. There is no evidence that usage-based pricing is saving consumers money, particularly when broadband providers are using their marketplace power to further increase prices.

3. There is no evidence “many consumers are no longer satisfied with one-size-fits-all rate plans” for home broadband. In fact, the reverse has been proved conclusively, sometimes by industry-funded researchers.

4. With a 90-95% gross margin on broadband, there is plenty of room for price cuts –and– unlimited broadband, but why give those profits away when lack of competition doesn’t provide the necessary push. Instead, providers’ ideas of “innovative pricing” are always upwards and include usage limits, modem rental fees, and other restrictions.

5. The railroad industry argued much the same case in the early 20th century when communities complained about wide pricing disparity, depending on local competition. We all know what eventually happened there.

6. Full disclosure, as is too often the case, is completely lacking at BfA. So we’ve offered to help:

The “study by Boston College Law School Professor Daniel Lyons” is accurate. He is now a faculty member there. But BfA fails to disclose the study was actually produced on behalf of the Koch Brother-funded Mercatus Center, which specializes in industry-friendly position papers on deregulation. Lyons is also on the Board of Academic Advisers at the Free State Foundation, itself an industry-backed astroturf group that advocates on behalf of large telecom companies, among others.

His colleague Michigan State University Professor of Information Studies Steven Wildman is also an adviser at the Free State Foundation. He is also a bit more transparent about where the money comes from for his studies advocating usage-based pricing – the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the largest cable industry lobbying and trade group in the United States.

The only surprise Lyons and Wildman could have delivered is if they advocated against these Internet Overcharging schemes. But then they probably would not have been invited to present their findings at an NCTA Connects briefing last week entitled, “Connecting the Dots on Usage-Based Pricing.”

We at Stop the Cap! can connect the dots as well.