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)

November 7 will be an important day if you are a rural AT&T landline customer. On that date, AT&T, in concert with Wall Street, plans to announce the future of its rural and “tier two-smaller city” landline business.

The implications for customers are enormous. AT&T could elect to exit and auction off its rural customers to companies like Windstream, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink, and FairPoint Communications. AT&T could also announce it will aggressively petition the Federal Communications Commission to decommission its copper landline facilities in favor of a new wireless IP network based largely on its national 4G LTE expansion, or it could be a combination of both: keeping existing landline facilities but transitioning them to Voice over IP technology with a gradual shift towards wireless.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson delivered important clues about the company’s direction in remarks at yesterday’s Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference, attended primarily by Wall Street investors. Stephenson drew clear distinctions between valued customers in areas upgraded to AT&T’s U-verse platform and more problematic customers in smaller communities where AT&T refuses to invest in landline upgrades.

“Where you look at the footprint where we have deployed U-verse technology we do very well,” Stephenson said. “In fact we are the share leader in virtually all U-verse markets. Those markets grow nicely. Where we have not deployed fiber and U-verse technology, we are losing share and those markets are in decline and that is the whole reason behind this analysis and evaluation that we will be laying out Nov. 7. What do we do with those markets? Because we have demonstrated if you go invest you can grow the market.”

Stephenson

“We said coming into the year that we have to find a broadband solution for these assets that is cost-effective or we need to look at selling them,” Stephenson said. “I would just tell you at the 30,000 foot [line length] level we think we’re finding line of sight to some investment theses here. We can get a good competitive broadband product to a large portion of our footprint and would avoid us having to go through a number of regulatory approval processes to sell [landlines] across a large geography. There will probably be a mix of actions here, but the bottom line is we think we may have line of sight but we will flush that out on Nov. 7 in an analyst conference here in New York.”

Early indications suggest the company is considering deploying DSL extenders to reach a larger share of rural customers without a complete overhaul of its copper wire network. The upgrades could deliver results similar to what Frontier Communications has been doing in territories it acquired from Verizon Communications, which includes extending fiber optics further into neighborhoods and finding ways to reduce copper wire length to improve speeds. Frontier has set its sights on delivering up to 25Mbps over copper landlines, a speed it feels is competitive with cable broadband. AT&T could come close to these speeds without the amount of investment required in a typical U-verse deployment.

But just as likely is a largely wireless broadband solution to replace the company’s aging copper wire-based DSL service. Stephenson says he strongly believes that a wireless solution exists for rural America over the company’s new LTE 4G network.

“I don’t envision in major metropolitan dense population centers that LTE will serve as a broad-based fixed-line replacement or surrogate,” Stephenson said. “I do believe in less dense markets and especially when you begin to think about rural America and tier two towns, that LTE can become a fixed line replacement or even better than what you can get in fixed line out in those markets. This is one of the exciting things about the WCS spectrum [AT&T plans to acquire]. It allows you to truly begin to think about investing in and doing this.”

But AT&T’s solutions will come with strings attached: a lobbying effort to get the FCC to loosen up on regulations, acquire more wireless spectrum, and allow the company to dispose of its landline infrastructure.

“You don’t go out and put in LTE capability in rural America and leave up all your copper infrastructure in the long haul,” said Stephenson. “It just wouldn’t make sense to do both. So this is the big regulatory issue. The FCC would require us to leave that copper and TDM fixed-line infrastructure up by some mandated rules and you can’t do both. You can’t support both infrastructures. We have got to work through the regulatory implications of this, but I think LTE can prove over time to be a fixed line replacement in rural and less dense populations. I think in a five year time horizon that can become significant.”

Thus far, AT&T has been unwilling to consider upgrading smaller communities to its U-verse platform, primarily because of the cost and return on investment. The company is content with its current U-verse footprint and has begun to enjoy increased wireline margins from a growing number of urban customers as programming costs decline.

LTE: AT&T’s wireless rural broadband solution?

“The U-verse margins continue to expand,” Stephenson noted. “U-verse is one of those where you go make a really significant capital investment and then you go in as a new entrant to do programming contracts and you’re paying multiples of what the big scale guys are paying and then as you scale that over time then margins really begin to expand. We’re riding that right now and we’re getting really good margin expansion just out out of scaling U-verse and getting better economics on content terms as well.”

Wall Street has been applying pressure to Stephenson to extract higher margins and cut costs from its traditional landline business. Stephenson sought to placate concerns about the cost profile of AT&T landlines before investors.

“We have done a nice job controlling our labor costs and that has been very helpful to continue to sustain margins in the fixed line business,” Stephenson said. “Those labor costs savings we take and reinvest back in the business in the form of U-verse and looking at some future investments as well.”

Stephenson hopes the FCC will eventually let AT&T abandon traditional landline service everywhere, which could also deliver serious cost savings for AT&T.

“I do believe if we can find a path to an all-IP infrastructure in not just your major metropolitan areas but your tier two markets there are significant cost savings in the five or six year time horizon that could come out of these businesses as well,” he noted.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson took questions at Goldman Sachs’ Communacopia Conference about its wireless network and the future of the rural landline business. (September 19, 2012) (41 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Despite industry propaganda touting an “unlimited broadband future” (possibilities, that is, not an end to usage caps) and good sounding headlines about robust competition in the broadband market, the reality on the ground isn’t as rosy.

Americans looking for a better deal for broadband are largely stuck negotiating with the local cable company or putting up with less speed from the phone company to get a cheaper rate.

That is hardly the “success story” being pushed by the Mother of All Broadband Astroturf Front Groups, Broadband for America. BfA, backed by money from some of America’s largest telecom companies calls today’s marketplace “dynamic” and “rapidly changing.” For them, competition is not the problem, the way we define competition is.

Tell that to San Jose Mercury News columnist Troy Wolverton, whose dynamic and rapidly changing Comcast cable bill has now reached $144 a month, and threatens to go higher still when his two-year contract expires.

Wolverton is a case study of what an average American consumer goes through shopping around for broadband service. Despite assertions of a vibrant, competitive Internet access paradise from groups like Broadband for America, Wolverton found very little real competition on the menu, despite being in the high tech heart of Silicon Valley.

Valley residents can typically choose between AT&T and Comcast, if they have any choice at all. Neither company offers a great deal for consumers.

Comcast offers faster speeds at considerably higher prices that can be reduced somewhat by signing up for a costly triple-play service. AT&T’s prices are lower, but its service is slower and is based on a technology that in my experience is less reliable.

So it goes for millions of Americans who face the same dilemma: take a higher-priced package from the cable company or settle for less from the phone company. With the exception of Verizon FiOS, most large telephone companies still rely on basic DSL service to deliver broadband. AT&T’s U-verse and CenturyLink’s Prism are both fiber to the neighborhood services that deliver somewhat faster speeds than traditional DSL, but also have to share bandwidth with television and traditional phone service, leaving them topped out at around 25Mbps.

Wolverton could not believe his only choices were Comcast and AT&T, so he visited the California Broadband Availability Map, one of the state projects earnestly trying to identify the available choices consumers have for broadband access. Despite California’s vast size, it quickly became apparent that even companies like AT&T and Comcast largely don’t deliver broadband outside of cities and suburbs. Several smaller, lesser-known providers emerged from the map that were open to Wolverton, which he explored with less-than-satisfying results:

In addition to Comcast and AT&T, it listed Etheric Networks, which offers a wireless Internet service directed at home users that’s based on Wi-Fi technology, and MegaPath, which offers Internet access through a variety of wired technologies, including DSL.

After further research I found that neither of those companies was a legitimate option. MegaPath can’t deliver residential service to my house that’s faster than 1.5 megabits per second. Etheric, which focuses on business customers, offers a service level with speeds of up to 22 megabits per second, but it costs a cool $400 a month.

Other non-options for Wolverton included the highly-rated Sonic.net, which in his neighborhood is entirely dependent on AT&T’s landlines for its DSL service. That was a no-go, after Wolverton discovered he would be stuck with 3-6Mbps service. Clearwire also offers service in greater San Jose, but not at his home in Willow Glen.

That left him back with AT&T and Comcast.

But that is not really a problem in the eyes of industry defenders like Jeffrey Eisenach, managing director and principal at Navigant Economics and an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School. Navigant is a “research group” that counts AT&T as one of its most important clients. The firm provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues cover for clients trying to sell their agenda. Navigant’s “experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.”

Eisenach goes all out for the broadband industry in his paper, “Theories of Broadband Competition,” which throws in everything but the kitchen sink to defend the status quo:

• The cost of broadband service is declining;
• The duopoly of cable and phone companies are still competing for customers and introducing new services;
• Competition can take the form of provider innovation (ie. providers compete by offering a better services, not lower prices);
• Wireless competition is accelerating, citing LightSquared and Clearwire as two conclusive examples of competition at work;
• The cost of service on a per-megabit basis has declined.
• Competition in today’s broadband market delivers ancillary benefits not immediately evident when only considering the customer’s point of view;

Eisenach’s pricing proof stopped in 2009, just as cable providers like Time Warner Cable began raising broadband prices. TWC’s Landel Hobbs to investors: “We have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data.” (February, 2010)

Eisenach has appeared at various industry-sponsored evidence touting his views of broadband economics and competition that later turns up as headline news on Broadband for America’s website. But just as Wolverton’s initial optimism finding other choices for broadband faded with reality, so do Eisenach’s conclusions:

1. Eisenach’s evidence of broadband price declines stops in 2009, coincidentally just prior to the recent phenomena of cable broadband rate increases, which have accelerated in the past three years;
2. Competition still exists in urban and suburban markets, as long as phone companies attempt to stem the tide of landline losses, but it’s largely absent in rural markets and in decline in others where companies “reset” prices to match their cable competition. AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon’s FiOS both effectively ended their expansion, leaving large swaths of the country with “good enough for you” service. Cable operators have even teamed up with Verizon Wireless to cross-market their products — hardly evidence of a robustly competitive marketplace;
3. Innovation can take the form of services customers don’t actually want but are compelled to take because of bundled pricing or, worse, the decline in a-la-carte add-ons in favor of “one price for everything” models. Verizon Wireless set the stage for providers of all kinds to consider mandatory bundling for any product or service that can no longer deliver a suitable return on its own. For customers already taking every possible service or fastest speed, this pricing  may deliver lower prices at the outset, but for budget-focused consumers, compulsory packages or high prices on a-la-carte services assures them of a higher bill;
4. Eisenach’s examples of competition are a real mess. LightSquared is bankrupt and Clearwire has shown it cannot deliver an equivalent broadband experience for customers and throttles the speeds of those perceived to be using the service too much. Other wireless providers typically limit customer usage or cannot deliver speeds comparable to wired broadband;
5. While the cost per megabit may have declined in the past, cable providers are still raising prices, and as Google and community-owned providers have illustrated, delivering fast speeds should not cost customers nearly as much as providers continue to charge, with no incentive to cut prices in the absence of equally fast, competitive networks;
6. While broadband may open the door for additional economic benefits not immediately apparent, competitive broadband would further drive innovation and reduce pricing, delivering an even bigger bang for the buck.

Wolverton recognized taking a promotional offer from AT&T will temporarily deliver savings over what Comcast charges, but he would have to set his expectations lower if he switched:

I’m reluctant to switch to AT&T. [U-verse] Max Plus is the fastest level of service it offers at our house, but with a top speed of 18 megabits a second, it’s significantly slower than Comcast’s Blast. Speed matters to us, because my wife and I often share our Internet connection, and we frequently use it to transfer large files such as apps, videos, photos or songs to or from the Net.

[…] What’s more, as the FCC outlined in another recent report, Comcast does a better job of delivering the speeds it advertises than does AT&T.

What’s worse in my book is that AT&T’s U-verse’s Internet service is a version of DSL. It’s faster than regular DSL, because the copper wires in your house and neighborhood are connected to nearby high-speed fiber-optic cables. Even with that speed boost, though, I’m hesitant to go back to any kind of DSL service, because my wife and I suffered through years of unreliable DSL service from AT&T predecessor PacBell and then EarthLink, which piggybacked on AT&T’s lines.

Wolverton also objected to Comcast’s bundled pricing scheme, which delivers the best value to customers who sign up for broadband, television and phone service. Wolverton does not need a landline from AT&T or Comcast, and would like to drop the service. He’s not especially impressed with Comcast’s TV lineup (or pricing) either. But he noted if he switched to broadband-only service, Comcast would effectively penalize him with a broadband-only rate of $72 a month, exactly half the current cost of Comcast’s triple-play package.

In a later blog post, Wolverton confessed he liked Comcast’s broadband service and speeds, and with the carefully-crafted pricing the cable and phone companies have developed, he expected to remain a Comcast customer given his choices and pricing options, which are simply not enough.

While cable and phone companies make excuses justifying rate increases and usage caps, Chattanooga’s publicly-owned EPB Fiber network has been blowing the windows out with hurricane-fast gigabit broadband, and now they are cutting prices for some while boosting speeds for others.

At the recent Hackanooga event, EPB customers learned the fiber to the home provider was set to celebrate three years of service by delivering value for speed that Comcast and AT&T can’t touch:

• 30/30Mbps customers will now receive 50/50Mbps service for $57.99 a month;
• 50/50Mbps customers are now getting 100/100Mbps speeds for $69.99;
• 100/100Mbps customers are now seeing 250/250Mbps service for $139.99;
• 1000/1000Mbps service is getting a significant price cut: $299.99 a month, down $50.

In comparison, Comcast customers pay $115 a month for hardly-comparable 105/20Mbps service and they will nail you with a modem rental fee. Don’t call AT&T for 100Mbps speeds, they’ll call you. The U-verse platform can’t even achieve 30Mbps in its current configuration.

“This is the second time EPB has upgraded service to customers for free,” says Lisa Gonzalez from Community Broadband Networks. “In 2010, EPB upgraded 15Mbps service to 30Mbps.”

Gonzalez notes that if customers review their bills from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and others, they will find rate increases outnumber speed boosts. EPB Fiber has not increased broadband prices for three years.

Skeptics of community-owned broadband network might also take note: EPB Fiber CEO Harold DePriest reports the company has now passed 40,000 customers in the Chattanooga area and has made $4 million, despite original projections of a loss of $8 million in the third year of operation.

What makes the difference? Competitive broadband, phone, and television packages and customer support that easily surpasses what Comcast and AT&T offer in Tennessee. EPB is also Chattanooga’s municipal electric utility, so it understands the importance of keeping service up and running for customers. EPB is also heavily involved in the local community, and its revenue stays in southeastern Tennessee instead of being shipped back to Philadelphia (Comcast) or Dallas (AT&T). Comcast made it to #4 on the American Customer Satisfaction Index’s 15 most disliked companies roster. AT&T scored #3 on 24/7 Wall St.’s Most Hated Companies list.

Free Press’ campaign against AT&T’s Net Neutrality violation (click image for further information)

When AT&T customers take delivery of their new iPhone 5 or install Apple’s latest iOS 6 software update, the popular video conferencing app FaceTime will become available to the company’s mobile broadband customers for the first time, if they agree to switch their service to one of AT&T’s new, often more-costly “Mobile Share” plans.

Until now, FaceTime has been limited to Wi-Fi use only, but objections from wireless carriers and some technical limitations kept the popular app from working over 3G or 4G wireless networks.

AT&T’s decision to block the FaceTime app unless a customer changes their current mobile plan has sparked a notification from three public interest groups that they intend to file a formal Net Neutrality complaint against AT&T.

“AT&T’s decision to block FaceTime unless a customer pays for voice and text minutes she doesn’t need is a clear violation of the FCC’s Open Internet rules,” said Free Press policy director Matt Wood. “It’s particularly outrageous that AT&T is requiring this for iPad users, given that this device isn’t even capable of making voice calls. AT&T’s actions are incredibly harmful to all of its customers, including the deaf, immigrant families and others with relatives overseas, who depend on mobile video apps to communicate with friends and family.”

Free Press is joined in the forthcoming complaint by Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute.

“AT&T’s decision to block mobile FaceTime on many data plans is a direct contradiction of the Commission’s Open Internet rules for mobile providers,” said Sarah Morris, policy counsel for the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute. “For those rules to actually protect consumers and allow them to choose the services they use, the Commission must act quickly in reviewing complaints before it.”

AT&T earlier responded claiming they still allow the app to work over Wi-Fi (yours or theirs), so it cannot be a Net Neutrality violation. The company has spent an increasing amount of energy trying to convince regulators that wireless networks, including Wi-Fi, are largely equivalent. So long as a customer can access an app on one of them, there is no violation according to AT&T.

The company also claimed that since FaceTime comes pre-installed on phones, it is exempted from Net Neutrality regulations.

Whether the FCC will believe arguments that access over Wi-Fi is suitable enough to escape scrutiny for blocking an app on AT&T’s own 3G and 4G networks is open to debate.

The Obama Administration’s FCC has taken a lukewarm approach on Net Neutrality, adopting a compromise that is being attacked in court by MetroPCS and Verizon Wireless and considered insufficient protection by most consumer groups.