The days may be numbered for Sunflower Broadband

A Kansas cable system notorious for Internet Overcharging is nearing a deal to be acquired by a cable overbuilder that does not usage cap broadband customers.

Sunflower Broadband, an independent cable system providing cable, phone, and broadband service to 30,000 Lawrence residents, is expected to be acquired by Georgia-based cable overbuilder Knology, which has been on a buying spree of late.  The asking price – $127 million dollars, according to a report in the cable trade journal Multichannel News.

Sunflower has been overcharging their broadband customers for years with schemes like usage caps and a flat rate service plan that delivers speed throttled broadband service to customers.  Sunflower has remained a hot topic for Stop the Cap! because we hear so many complaints from their long-suffering customers.  In fact, no independent cable operator has generated more reader complaints than Sunflower Broadband, almost all targeting the company’s unjustified usage caps.

Broadband Reports reminds us Sunflower was among the first to implement the idea of low caps and high overages ($2 for each additional gigabyte).  Customers also routinely complain about Sunflower’s stingy upstream speeds, maxed out at just 1Mbps for their $60 Gold tier.

None of the details about Sunflower Broadband’s impending sale can be found in the local newspaper — the Lawrence Journal-World or the local “Channel 6” news operation.  That’s ironic, considering the same parent company that owns Sunflower Broadband, The World Company, also happens to own the newspaper and Channel 6.  It took a cable trade publication based hundreds of miles away to break the story — not exactly a shining moment for journalism in Lawrence, especially considering an LJWorld reporter need not break a sweat to chase the story.

Part of the reason for the sale may have been AT&T bringing U-verse competition to Lawrence.  U-verse does not have customer unfriendly usage limits.  With AT&T ready to usher away many of Sunflower’s customers, management may have decided now was a good time to sell.

The good news for Lawrence residents is that none of Knology’s cable systems engage in Internet Overcharging schemes, so Sunflower’s usage caps may be gone after the sale.

Still, some Lawrence residents are concerned about the implications of a Knology takeover.  The Lawrence Broadband Observer is among them:

I browsed Knology’s corporate web site and was actually pretty unimpressed. To put it mildly, Knology is well behind Sunflower both geographically and technically. Knology offers service in rural areas much smaller then Lawrence, like Storm Lake, Iowa and Dothan, Alabama. They also offer service in a few towns that are equal or larger then Lawrence like Charleston, South Carolina.

Technically, Knology is well behind Sunflower in what they offer customers in other cities. Top internet speeds (albeit cap-free) are only in the 8-10 megabit range, five times slower then Sunflower’s new DOCSIS 3 offerings. On the television side, while it varies from city to city, Knology generally offers only 30 or so HD channels, which is less then half of what Sunflower offers. Knology offers a rudimentary DVR, but nothing like Sunflower’s multi-room options.

Perhaps Knology is interested in buying Sunflower to learn how to offer more advanced services, knowledge they can take to their other markets. I don’t know, but it seems like this is a case of a large buggy-whip manufacturer buying out a smaller company that makes automobiles.

Most of Knology’s network of systems have been acquired from other companies and providers.  Technically, they are a cable “overbuilder” because they do overlap other providers in some areas, such as Knoxville, Tenn., where they compete with Comcast.  In many communities, they are most common in rental parks and apartments.

Knology’s customers in other cities have usually suffered some transitional glitches (Knology uses a more “advanced e-mail system” they eventually forced their PrairieWave customers to join), but overall they have usually increased broadband speeds in their markets and add lots of new HD channels.  Knology is aggressively deploying DOCSIS 3, something Sunflower already has, so few changes should be expected there.  They do not have a history of downgrading customers.

Clues about the impact of a Knology buy can be found in communities like Rapid City, S.D., who saw their cable system switched from Black Hills FiberCom to PrairieWave to Knology.  Rapid City residents first saw changes to the cable system’s technology and billing.  That was followed by the introduction of new services and packages, and then finally the name change to Knology.

With the anticipated sale, existing Sunflower customers (and ex-customers) might want to impress on the new owner that Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and throttled speeds are unacceptable, and you want an immediate end to both.

Remember too it could be worse — Mediacom could have been the buyer.

Broadband providers with a vested interest in keeping the marketplace a comfortable (for them) duopoly want you to believe everything is great in American broadband.  They would have you believe there is little room for improvement, despite the ongoing drop in America’s global broadband rankings and the ever-increasing price for the service.

Google’s announcement this spring that it was looking for a few great communities to provide 1 gigabit broadband service at competitive rates caused a firestorm… of interest.  Over 1,100 communities have applied for the service and more than 200,000 consumers have nominated their towns and cities for Google Broadband.  Apparently there is plenty of room for improvement after all — from coast to coast and in every state.

The small dots refer to local government applications for the service, the large dots indicate places where more than 1,000 individuals nominated their community.

Communities Applying for Google’s Think Big With a Gig Project

Kyle "What Broadband Problem?" McSlarrow

In Kyle McSlarrow’s world, the only broadband problem is the one invented by the Federal Communications Commission when it claims that service is not being deployed to all Americans on a “reasonable and timely” basis.  The head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the cable industry’s lobbying group, has declared today’s broadband a U.S. “success story that keeps getting better.”

Writing in the group’s “CableTechTalk” blog, McSlarrow tells his readers that 95 percent of Americans already have broadband service available to them that meets the 4Mbps minimum speed standard proposed by the FCC, so where is the big problem?

McSlarrow’s interest in the economics of rural broadband is ironic considering the cable industry routinely bypasses rural Americans.  Where cable lines do predominate, meeting the FCC’s anemic 4Mbps minimum speed standard is not the biggest problem — cost is.  Where cable lines don’t reach, speed is an issue for many wireless and DSL subscribers.  For others, broadband service is not available at any price.

McSlarrow plays cable’s advantage on speed issues to promote minimum speeds higher than those sought by phone companies like AT&T and Verizon.  Of course, cable broadband does not rely on antiquated copper wire telephone networks.  In rural areas, many of these networks are held together with minimal investment.  DSL at any speed can be a luxury when available.

McSlarrow’s recognition that most of rural America will continue to be served by telephone companies doesn’t stop the cable industry from seeking an advantage over their nearest competitors by advocating for reduced subsidies for rural areas and policies that guarantee no potential competitor can ever see a dime in government broadband money.

Because the report plainly acknowledges that there is no reasonable business case to be made for extending broadband facilities to many of the unserved homes.  So instead of viewing the report’s finding as an indictment of broadband providers, it’s  perhaps better read as a statement of principle by the Chairman and two commissioners that, in their opinion, broadband already should be universally available, and, if there is no business case for that universal deployment, the government may have to step in to achieve it. So far as that goes, we agree.  For example, we support the report’s call to action on specific items that will speed broadband deployment to unserved communities.  Immediate FCC action on Universal Service Fund (USF) reform and pole attachment policy is critical to connecting unserved areas.

As explained in comments we filed last week, our industry strongly supports the USF reforms recommended in the National Broadband Plan (NBP).  To fund the FCC’s broadband USF proposals, we recommend adopting our proposal – filed in a November 2009 rulemaking petition – to reduce subsidies in rural areas where ample phone competition exists.  The sooner the Commission reduces unnecessary funding in the existing high-cost support program, the sooner it can direct funding to broadband deployment and adoption.

McSlarrow’s comments neglect to tell the whole story about what the NCTA actually wrote in its comments filed with the FCC:

The 4Mbps/1Mbps standard reflects today’s marketplace reality that most consumers choose not to purchase the highest speed tiers that are offered by their broadband provider. By setting a standard based on the services actually purchased by consumers, the Plan strikes the appropriate balance – not so low that it deprives consumers of the ability to purchase a service that meets their needs and not so high that it will require a significant infusion of new government funding.

Second, based on this definition of broadband, the Plan found that the vast majority of Americans – 95% of households – already have access to broadband, and that 80% of those consumers live in geographic areas served by two or more providers. For these areas where broadband has already been deployed, there is no basis for any increase in support; indeed, as NCTA has demonstrated, in many of these areas there is no basis for any high-cost support at all.

Consequently, the only areas that should see an increase in the support they receive are those areas that do not have broadband and qualify for CAF support, i.e., areas where there currently is no business case for private investment in broadband facilities.

In Great Britain, speeds promised don't match speeds delivered. The FCC is studying whether the same is true in the United States.

McSlarrow is disingenuous about Americans’ interest in improved broadband.  It’s not surprising many do not choose the highest speed tiers available from telephone and cable providers when one considers the premium prices charged for that service.  Some NCTA members charge $99 for 50/5Mbps service, which in other countries like Hong Kong sells for a fraction of that price.  One need only consider Google’s plan to deliver 1Gbps service to a handful of American communities.  It’s easier to count the communities that were not interested in this super-fast service.

The cable industry can afford to relent on a 4Mbps minimum speed standard for downloading as virtually all cable broadband providers already offer “standard service” plans well above that rate.  The cable industry’s own “lite” plans, usually 1.5Mbps or less, are not exactly the industry’s most popular.  Americans will choose higher speed service at the right price.

Broadband availability figures have become an important political issue, which is why controlling broadband mapping is so important to cable and phone companies.  Being able to offer that “95 percent of Americans already have access,” a figure in dispute by the way, can make a big difference in the debate.  As Stop the Cap! readers have seen repeatedly, broadband maps that depict broadband service as widely available in many areas actually is not, especially from phone company DSL service, which depends heavily on the quality of the existing infrastructure.

Most importantly, the NCTA seeks a new, even stricter standard for broadband funding under Universal Service Fund reform that would immediately deny money to any applicant that cannot prove there is no chance for any private investment in broadband.  As we’ve seen from broadband improvement applications filed under the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program, cable and phone companies routinely object to most proposals, claiming “duplication” of existing broadband service even in areas they have chosen not to provide service.  The NCTA would have us set the bar even lower, allowing any private entity to kill funding projects based solely on their claimed interest in providing the service themselves.

One sensitive spot the FCC did manage to hit was taking providers to task for advertising broadband speeds they don’t actually provide to customers.  While DSL speeds vary based on distance from the telephone company’s central office, cable broadband speeds vary depending on how many customers are online at any particular moment.  The cable industry’s shared access platform can create major bottlenecks in high-use neighborhoods, dramatically reducing speeds for every customer.  While some cable operators are better than others at re-dividing neighborhoods to increase capacity, others won’t spend the money to upgrade an area until service becomes intolerable.  That means consumers sold 10Mbps service may actually find it running at less than half that during evening hours.

A sampling of British cable and telephone company DSL providers, all of which aren't giving their customers what they are paying for.

McSlarrow’s view is there isn’t a problem there either — the FCC is relying on old data:

The key statistics in the report are drawn from Form 477 data for December 2008, data that was out of date when it was released earlier this year and is now 18 months old.  Broadband providers have made two subsequent Form 477 filings (with another one scheduled in a few weeks), so the reliance on stale data is frustrating.

Equally troubling is the Commission’s repetition of the NBP’s claim that “actual” broadband speeds are only half of “advertised” speeds.   After the NBP was released, we submitted an expert technical report demonstrating that the comScore data used was deeply flawed.  Since then, cable and telco ISPs have been working constructively with Commission staff on a hardware-based testing regime that should produce more accurate results.  Given the hard work that has been devoted to produce accurate speed measurements, it is disheartening that the 706 Report chose to perpetuate the NBP’s flawed speed data conclusions.

Finally, some of the data relied on in the 706 Report is not publicly available.  The report relies extensively on a cost model created for the NBP, but that model hasn’t been released, making it impossible to validate its results.  The Commission also repeatedly refers to an FCC staff report on international trends, but that report also has not been released.

The frustration McSlarrow writes about is shared by cable subscribers stuck in overloaded neighborhoods where service does not come close to marketed speeds.  The FCC is conducting an independent speed analysis that goes beyond speedtest data, and the results will be forthcoming.  In other countries where similar speed claims have not met reality, providers were usually found culpable for promising service they didn’t deliver.

Just ask Ofcom, the British regulatory agency charged with addressing this dilemma.  Earlier today they released evidence that 97 percent of UK broadband customers were not actually getting the speeds they were promised, and the gap between marketed speed and actual speed was growing. Will things be any different for American providers who use fine print to disclaim their bold marketing promises about speed?  Time will tell.

Finally, McSlarrow’s concerns about withheld data is ironic enough to call it a “pot to kettle” moment.  As those challenged with broadband mapping can attest, nobody keeps raw data about broadband availability and speeds closer to the vest than cable and telephone companies.

Of course, the ultimate agenda of the NCTA is to defend its industry’s record in broadband service, which means reducing any broadband challenges into little more than whining by Americans who don’t know how good they have it.

Rogers Cable: Setting the Bar Lower Than Ever

Just a day after Netflix announced they are coming to Canada, Rogers Cable has responded by announcing it is lowering the usage allowances of its customers.  Stop the Cap! reader Munly writes to inform us Rogers Lite service plan, intended for occasional users, has dropped its 25GB usage allowance to 15GB per month, making it suitable for even less usage.

New customers on Rogers’ popular Extreme plan will find their usage limit cut from 95GB to just 80GB per month.  But if you accept the cut in your allowance, Rogers will increase the speed on that tier from 10Mbps to 15Mbps, allowing customers to blow through that usage limit that much quicker.

Existing customers may be grandfathered in, at least temporarily, but Rogers is notorious for eventually terminating grandfathered plans and moving customers to higher-priced alternatives.

All this from a company that claims it offers its customers “abundant usage.”

Rogers buries in the fine print the fact customers can stay with their current higher allowance if they forego the speed increase.

AND AN EVER INCREASING BILL

With the new lowered usage allowances, Rogers offers tips for customers to reduce their usage, including our favorites:

Use medium quality photos when sending them through e-mail. Your family’s cherished memories don’t deserve high resolution, even if you want to send them to a digital photo lab for printing.  Maybe you could get the kids together and have them draw copies of those vacation pictures with crayons.  At least they won’t be online using up your Rogers Internet ration.

Be aware of how others in your home use your Internet connection.  If you are not spying on your family’s online usage, it’s your own fault if we send you an enormous bill.  In the time it took you to read these tips, your kids could have downloaded over 20 e-mails, looked at more than three web pages, or watched almost a minute of online video.  Don’t make us bill you for that.

Turn off Peer-to-peer programs when you’re not downloading. Better yet, since we know you are using them to steal the content we’d like to sell or rent you, stop using them altogether… or else.

Try the tools. No, we’re not talking about us, silly.  If you are doing more than reading your e-mail or browsing web pages, look out because we’re coming for your wallet.  You can try and outwit our overcharging ways by using our usage notifications service, which will flash messages to you that we’re about to cash in on your over-usage.  Hey, don’t say we didn’t warn you!  Remember, if you use Rogers Internet to download files, stream video or music or play online games, we own you.

Does this mean I should use the Internet less to avoid paying more? Is Sarah Palin American?  You betcha.  We want to get the most out of our customers who use their Internet service too much, which is why we expose them to up to $5.00 per gigabyte if they exceed our ever-dwindling usage allowances.  Our goal is for you to feel free to use the Internet as you always have, just so long as you recognize it’s not free and that you’ll need to pay us for every web page your read, more if you dare to watch cable programming online you should be watching on our cable TV service.  The only surprise you’ll have about your bill is that we haven’t found a way to charge you even more… yet.

What About Netflix? Seriously? You weren’t really thinking of using that service on Rogers were you?  A word to the wise — we can cut your allowance down even further.  Go outside.  Read a book.  Rent a movie from Rogers Plus or enjoy some great Rogers Cable TV.

Rogers Cable’s Internet Packages

A Before And After Comparison

Rogers Old Pricing and Usage Allowances

Rogers All-New Pricing and Usage Allowances, Effective July 21, 2010

Greed is still good at Time Warner Cable

Time Warner Cable has tried every excuse in the book to justify their continued interest in Internet Overcharging schemes directed at residential Road Runner customers.  Over a year after Stop the Cap! and its readers helped bury an experiment in overpriced broadband, the notion of doubling or tripling Internet pricing for consumers is still alive and well at the nation’s second largest cable company.

Nate Anderson of Ars Technica explored the thinking of Time Warner Cable’s executives a year later and discovered their desires for overcharging remain as strong as ever, but the excuses they give for wanting to do so have changed.

TWC’s revenues from Internet access have soared in the last few years, surging from $2.7 billion in 2006 to $4.5 billion in 2009. Customer numbers have grown, too, from 7.6 million in 2007 to 8.9 million in 2009.

But this growth doesn’t translate into higher bandwidth costs for the company; in fact, bandwidth costs have dropped. TWC spent $164 million on data contracts in 2007, but only $132 million in 2009.

What about investing in its infrastructure? That’s down too as a percentage of revenue. TWC does spend billions each year building and improving its network ($3.2 billion in 2009), but the raw number alone is meaningless; what matters is relative investment, and it has declined even as subscribers increased and revenues surged. “Total CapEx [capital expenses] as a percentage of revenues for the year [2009] was 18.1 percent versus 20.5 percent in 2008,” said the company a few months ago.

In fact, CapEx has declined for the industry as a whole. As the National Broadband Plan noted, the big ISPs invested $48 billion in their networks in 2008 and $40 billion in 2009. (About half of this money can be chalked up to broadband; the rest of the improvements were done to aid cable or phone service.)

To recap: subscribers up, revenues up, bandwidth costs down, infrastructure costs down. This might seem like a textbook case of “viability”; what were execs like Britt and Hobbs talking about last year when data caps were held up as a necessary safeguard against doom?

Before moving to Time Warner’s Excuse-O-Matic, let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the fact this company has stalled more on Internet upgrades than virtually every other major cable operator.  Even bankrupt Charter Communications has been aggressively pursuing investment in the win-win DOCSIS 3 technology that allows cable operators to sell faster tiers of service -and- reduce congestion in heavy web-surfing neighborhoods.  By effectively “bonding” several cable channels devoted to its broadband service together, the pipeline into even the most hip college neighborhoods can sustain a full-scale assault by Hulu fans streaming high bandwidth video.  Comcast realized this more than two years ago and rolled out its super-fast 50Mbps tier to a dozen cities well over a year ago.  In contrast, Time Warner Cable managed to bring forth its “wideband” offering in just a handful of communities — New York City being the largest, last year.

Internet providers always try to awe an audience with claims about the billions of dollars they invest in improved technology, while forgetting to mention they earn tens of billions in profit on those investments.  The shock and awe of stacks of money piled high on a table is tempered when you see the warehouse holding the rest of the cash standing behind it.

Broadband is becoming the single biggest revenue source for cable operators, passing digital phone and well on the way to passing cable television service.  It’s the cash cow that can be milked forever, especially with the limited number of choices most Americans have to obtain the service.

Back to Nate’s story:

Several months ago, while on a business trip to Manhattan, I entered a nondescript building near the Flatiron building and rode the elevator to the top. Inside was one of TWC’s main New York operations centers, hosting an astonishing array of cable and Internet gear. But the real showpiece was the monitoring room, a darkened room with control hardware, computers, and a wall of TVs showing every cable channel currently running out over TWC’s network.

It looked brand new and obscenely expensive. Engineers slipped in and out in silence. A huge pile of boxes on the floor held a new set of replacement TVs. When I make my career shift from ink-stained wretch to Evil Genius, this is exactly the sort of room I will build in order to plot my world domination.

“It’s not a cheap endeavor to run a network like we do,” said TWC’s tweeting VP of Public Relations, Alex Dudley, when I had spoken to him the week before. Here was an obvious reminder of what he meant.

Time Warner Cable’s version of a command and control center, wall after wall fitted for television sets — the Time Warner Cable Sports Bar — impresses only until you realize the company could have paid for it out of the petty cash box.  It’s obvious nobody was watching those televisions last spring as wide-scale protests erupted in four of the cities Time Warner Cable chose for their experimental pricing project.  If they had, they would have apologized to their customers and buried the idea then and there.

At this point, Mr. Anderson began the useless attempt to debate Mr. Dudley, whose job is to sell the agenda of Time Warner Cable (and obfuscate when necessary).  Why has Time Warner Cable’s senior management held onto its dreams of Internet Overcharging like a pit bill, refusing to let go, Anderson asked.  Because of labor costs, Dudley replied.

As Internet use increases, TWC techs, engineers, and executives need to make adjustments such as DOCSIS upgrades at the cable company headend or “node splits” that divide a shared cable loop in two when bandwidth use hits certain metrics. Paying all of these people costs money, and those costs increase as the network is more heavily used.

Last April, when Time Warner Cable was relying on its tweeters like TWCAlex to spin a tale about how their Internet Overcharging schemes would benefit customers and help pay for DOCSIS 3 upgrades (which ended up bypassing cities like Rochester, N.Y., and went to New York City instead — where no such pricing scheme was tested), Alex’s bosses were just completing a layoff of some 1,250 Time Warner Cable employees.  As Internet use was increasing, Time Warner Cable was decreasing the number of its employees from coast to coast.

If Alex is telling the truth, Time Warner Cable needs an employment fund from 8.9 million customers.  Considering many Time Warner Cable cities raised the price on Road Runner service by $5 a month this year, that’s $240 million dollars a year to get the pot started and I’m only counting four million of those subscribers.  If Time Warner Cable hired back those 1,250 former employees, they could each get $192,000 a year from that kitty.  Implement Internet Overcharging schemes that could triple consumers’ rates for an equivalent level of service and they could earn as much as CEO Glenn Britt and then some.

I’m also uncertain how often Time Warner Cable executives are shimmying up phone poles or clearing out wasp nests inside those green cabinets positioned all over town while performing service upgrades and node splits.  It’s far more likely they are spending their time dreaming up new excuses to raise cable rates.

Please deposit 25 cents for the next megabyte of usage

This latest excuse, while certainly novel, is just another bit of nonsense.

Time Warner Cable actually spent more money last year dealing with HD channel rollouts and upgrading their cable systems to support Switched Digital Video to accommodate them.  The company did not exactly slap limits on how often cable viewers can leave their sets on, nor pitted their average TV viewers against viewing piggies who watched too much.  Maybe the coin slot on top of the cable box can be tried in 2011.

In fact, as broadband equipment continues to become more reliable and scaled to manage growing demand, it’s becoming easier than ever to keep broadband lines humming at the cable company.  That leaves Time Warner in the envious position of enjoying increasing profits on service that increases in price while decreasing in cost.  In fact the only thing growing at a faster pace than the company’s broadband profits is the level of incredulity informed consumers have towards cable companies with long lists of excuses to justify rape and pillage pricing.

No matter what Time Warner Cable executives want you to believe, the FCC noted in its broadband plan that international bandwidth has grown 66 percent each of the last five years, all while the costs have dropped by 22 percent per year to handle that traffic.

Consumers do not want these Internet Overcharging schemes.  Time Warner Cable should do itself a favor and drop them, once and for all, just as they have done for their Road Runner Mobile service.  If 3G/4G wireless broadband from Time Warner comes without usage caps, why in the world should cable broadband be any different?