Phillip “Reality Check” Dampier

The city of Los Angeles believes if they ask for it, they will get it – gigabit fiber broadband, that is. It is too bad we have to run a reality check.

In December, the city plans to issue an ambitious Request for Proposals (RFP) inviting at least one private company to run fiber service to all 3.5 million residents (and businesses and public buildings) within the city limits. The idea, which won unanimous support from the City Council, does not exactly come with many risks for the city. The Council acknowledges the project is likely to cost up to $5 billion (we suspect more), and the city has made it clear it won’t be contributing a penny.

“The city is going into it and writing the agreement, basically saying, ‘we have no additional funding for this effort.’ We’re requiring the vendors that respond to pay for the city resources needed to expedite any permitting and inspection associated with laying their fiber,” Los Angeles IT Agency general manager Steve Reneker told Ars Technica. “If they’re not willing to do that, our City Council may consider a general fund transfer to reimburse those departments, but we’re going in with the assumption that the vendor is going to absorb those up-front costs to make sure they can do their buildout in a timely fashion.”

That is wishful thinking.

The winning vendor is not just on the hook for the cost of building the network. It also has to comply with a city requirement to give away basic 2-5Mbps broadband service, possibly recouping the lost revenue with advertising. Customers wanting faster access will pay for it. Although not required to offer phone or television service, Reneker anticipates the winning vendor will offer both to earn more revenue to pay off construction costs.

Greater Los Angeles is now served by a mix of AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cox, and Charter. Only Verizon has a history of providing a significant fiber optic broadband service, but it has suspended further expansion of its network. AT&T is the dominant landline provider, but considers its U-verse fiber-to-the-neighborhood design adequate for southern California. It seems unlikely any incumbent provider is likely to seriously contemplate such an expensive fiber project, especially because the city requires the winner to build an open access network that competitors can also use. Cable operators have also stated repeatedly that their existing infrastructure is more than adequate. The question providers are likely to ask is, “why do we need to partner with the City Council to build a fiber network we could build ourselves, on our own terms, that we ultimately own and control?”

The city can offer some incentives to attract an outsider, such as promising a lucrative contract to manage the city government’s telecom needs. It can also ease bureaucratic red tape that often stalls big city infrastructure projects. But Los Angeles is not exactly prime territory for a fiber build. Its notorious sprawling boundaries encompass 469 square miles, with many residents and businesses in free-standing buildings, not cheaper to serve multi-dwelling units.

Google avoided California for its fiber project reportedly because of environmental law and bureaucracy concerns. Even Google cherry-picks neighborhoods where it will deploy its fiber project in Austin, Provo, and Kansas City. The Los Angeles RFP will likely require universal coverage for the fiber network, although it will probably allow a lengthy amount of time for construction.

The City Council’s RFP comes close to promising Gigabit Fiber-to-the-Press Release.

Private providers govern their expansion efforts by an increasingly stiff formula to recover construction costs by measuring potential Return On Investment (ROI), which basically means when a company can expect to earn back the amount initially invested. Spending $5 billion on a fiber network that could actually cut expected Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) with a free broadband offer is going to raise eyebrows. Convincing investors to chip in on a fiber network “open to competitors” will also elicit a lot of frowning faces.

Wall Street analysts rolled their eyes when Verizon rolled out FiOS. It was “too expensive” and provided too few avenues for a quick ROI. ‘Verizon built a Lamborghini Aventador fiber network when a Honda Accord would have done just fine in the absence of fierce competition,’ analysts complained. Why spend all this money on fiber when fat profits were waiting to be harvested from high-ARPU wireless service? Verizon got the message and ceased expansion. AT&T never walked that Wall Street plank in the first place, delivering a less capable Chevrolet Spark network known as U-verse.

The city is likely to be disappointed with the proposals they receive, in much the same way local governments begging for competition from other cable companies get no positive results. The economics and expectations of today’s private broadband market makes it extremely unlikely an incumbent provider is going to rock a boat that has delivered comfortable broadband profits with a minimum of investment.

Breaking the broadband duopoly of high prices for slow service is only likely in the private sector if deep-pocketed revolutionaries like Google can self-finance game-changing projects. Los Angeles will likely have to sweeten its invitation to attract interest from players serious enough to spend $5 billion. It will likely have to invest some money of its own in a public-private partnership. Perhaps an even better idea is to take control of the city’s broadband destiny more directly with a community project administered by a qualified broadband authority with proven experience in the telecom business.

There is no reason private companies cannot be active participants in whatever project is ultimately built, but these companies are not charities and if their financial backers don’t see a pathway to profit running fiber rings around LA today, an RFP to build a fiber network with city strings-attached isn’t likely to garner serious interest tomorrow.

AT&T has agreed to pay an extra $3.5 million in addition to the $18.25 million already paid to settle Justice Department claims the company knowingly overbilled the government for reimbursement of fraudulent international relay calls usually made by scammers originating from countries like Nigeria.

The government joined a whistle-blower lawsuit in a Pittsburgh court in March 2012 after learning as many as 95 percent of relay service calls were initiated by ineligible individuals using a service intended for the hard of hearing.

AT&T was accused of knowingly allowing and profiting from fraudulent use of its relay service, collecting $1.30 a minute in reimbursement from a ratepayer-funded account administered by the government. The lawsuit claimed virtually all of the relay traffic was initiated by swindlers using untraceable text messaging.

Under the scam, an overseas individual pretending to be deaf would text message an AT&T relay operator to connect a call to a U.S. business or individual. Operators were compelled to relay any messages sent over the texting system, even if they suspected the calls were fraudulent. A large percentage of the calls originated in Nigeria and often involved placing orders with U.S. companies using stolen credit cards or counterfeit checks. Any subsequent investigation would reach a dead-end at one of AT&T’s relay operator centers, where the voice calls originated.

The federal government accused AT&T of profiting from the fraudulent calls and not suitably screening users to verify eligibility. The rules mandate individuals must certify they are deaf or hard of hearing and that they are United States residents. The federal government said AT&T skirted those requirements “out of fears that fraudulent call volume would drop after the registration deadline.”

“Taxpayers must not bear the cost of abuses of the Telecommunications Relay system,” said David J. Hickton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. “Those who misuse funds intended to benefit the hearing- and speech-impaired must be held accountable.”

Today, the Justice Department announced AT&T agreed to pay another $3.5 million to resolve civil allegations under the federal False Claims Act.

AT&T said through a spokesperson settling the case was the “most productive course” of action.

Set-top box-less Time Warner Cable subscribers in parts of New York City will find more than 90 percent of the basic cable lineup missing from their QAM-equipped televisions as the cable company completes a transition away from analog cable television and begins encrypting almost all its digital channels.

The Federal Communications Commission changed the rules last year allowing large cable operators to begin encrypting basic cable, requiring customers to rent cable boxes or CableCARD units to keep watching.

Time Warner Cable began the all-digital, encrypted channel conversion earlier this year in Mount Vernon, Staten Island and Bergen County, N.J., and is now switching on encryption in the New York City region on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.

The switch renders televisions useless for receiving cable channels without extra equipment supplied by Time Warner Cable. Encryption is deployed as an anti-theft measure, but it also inconveniences customers who have to rent equipment for each of their televisions. Encrypting basic channels also benefits Time Warner Cable by allowing service authorizations and disconnects to be handed from the office, reducing in-home appointments.

Customers will need a traditional set-top box, a Digital Transport Adapter (DTA), or a CableCARD to get the channels back. DTA boxes are being provided at no charge until 2015, after which they will cost $0.99 a month each.

Some customers also complain Time Warner is testing “copy protection” permissions, preventing some channels from being recorded. In Queens, one customer noted copy protection was active on C-SPAN, preventing recordings of the network. Some programmers may insist on copy protection technology being implemented as part of future cable carriage contracts. Most expect pay-per-view and on-demand events will be the first blocked from recording, potentially followed by premium movie channels.

At this time, Time Warner Cable says its encryption initiative is limited to the New York City area.

Wheeler

Incoming Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler believes competition can be a more effective regulator of telecom industry practices and pricing than “micromanaging” the companies selling service.

“The first goal ought to be to make sure there is effective competition,” Wheeler told the Wall Street Journal in an interview Wednesday. “But I also know competition isn’t something that happens all by itself. We very much have a responsibility to make sure that there is access, at reasonable prices, to competitive broadband services. The way you do that is go back to competition.”

But Wheeler refused to share his views on whether Americans now enjoy his definition of “effective competition” from a wireless industry dominated by AT&T and Verizon and wired broadband service available from only one cable and telephone company in most communities.

“The reason why the U.S. is the world leader on the Internet is because we have the home-field advantage,” Wheeler said. “We want to keep that home-field advantage. One of the ways to do that is to keep the environment competitive, so it’s not the regulators determining what companies do.”

But the United States is not a broadband leader in speed, price, or penetration according to the OECD.

Wheeler seems reluctant to intervene in the market unless he is convinced competition is lacking. As a former lobbyist for the same companies he is now tasked with overseeing, a key test will be if Wheeler adopts the industry view that broadband is already a fiercely competitive and highly regulated business, or the one held by many consumer groups that a consolidated telecommunications marketplace retards competition, leading to higher prices and more restrictive service.

In an article posted on the FCC website, Wheeler described the philosophy governing his chairmanship of the FCC:

During my confirmation hearing I described myself as “an unabashed supporter of competition because competitive markets produce better outcomes than regulated or uncompetitive markets.” Yet we all know that competition does not always flourish by itself; it must be supported and protected if its benefits are to be enjoyed. This agency is a pro-competition agency.

We stand for the things that are important regardless of the network technology being used:

• To promote economic growth – technological innovation, growth and national economic leadership have always been determined by our networks; competition drives the benefits of those networks; and we have a responsibility to see to the expansion of those networks, including the appropriate allocation of adequate amounts of spectrum.
• To maintain the historic compact between networks and users – a change in technology may occasion a review of the rules, but it does not change the rights of users or the responsibilities of networks.
• To make networks work for everyone – it isn’t just that we expand high-speed Internet, but what we will be doing with that capacity. How networks enable a 21st century educational system, enable the expansion of capabilities for Americans with disabilities; and assure diversity, localism and speech are basic underpinnings of our responsibility.

One surprising appointment announced by Wheeler was Public Knowledge’s Gigi Sohn, who will become special counsel for external affairs. Sohn has been a frequent critic of the FCC and its former chairman, Julius Genachowski. She is also a strong advocate of Net Neutrality.

Frontier Communications’ new simplified pricing with no equipment fees or surprise contracts was well-timed for the phone company as it picked up a growing number of disgruntled Comcast and Time Warner Cable customers fed up with increasing modem rental fees.

Frontier depends a great deal on its residential broadband service to win back revenue the company has lost from years of landline cord-cutting. The company reported slowing revenue losses, now down to less than one percent for the quarter ending Sept. 30. Frontier’s profits reached $35.4 million this quarter, reduced by increased investment in broadband upgrades and pension fund-related expenses.

The independent phone company is still losing residential and business phone customers, but those losses have begun to stabilize. Frontier has 2.82 million residential customers and 275,000 business customers. While Time Warner Cable lost customers during the recent quarter, Frontier picked up 27,000 new ones. For all of 2013, Frontier added 84,500 new broadband customers. Nearly 84 percent of them added broadband as part of a bundle, which leads analysts to suspect most of Frontier’s new broadband customers are located in rural areas that never had access to broadband speeds before.

Frontier’s greatest opportunity is in the rural residential broadband business, and the company’s investment in improved broadband speeds has made a major difference in growing market share especially where it has a cable competitor. Currently, Frontier has 20-25 percent market share in most of its service areas. It wants 40%, but is unlikely to achieve it selling broadband speeds that often top out at around 10Mbps. Winning customers back to a landline provider has also proved difficult without an attractive bundled offer. In all but a few cities, Frontier bundles landline service with DSL broadband and a satellite television package.

Wilderotter

In rural markets, Frontier has had better success, particularly in areas formerly served by Verizon.

With help from the federal government’s Connect America Fund (CAF), Frontier invested over $21 million to expand rural broadband service in 2013. In the third quarter, the company expanded service to another 37,000 possible homes and businesses, with 30,000 more on the way in the fourth quarter. The company applied for $71.5 million in CAF funding for 2014.

Broadband speeds have also gradually increased in an expanding number of communities. As of today, 45 percent of homes can receive 20Mbps or better, 58 percent are capable of 12Mbps. A year-end commitment to offer at least 3Mbps speeds to 85% of customers in the most rural areas also appears within reach. Customers can upgrade to the next speed level in $10 increments.

But not every customer has gotten speed upgrades. In their largest legacy market — Rochester, N.Y., DSL speeds have remained unchanged in many areas. At the headquarters of Stop the Cap!, Frontier pre-qualified us this afternoon for the same 3.1Mbps DSL speed they offered in 2009, despite being blocks away from the city line.

Those increasing speeds have led to more traffic on Frontier’s broadband network, but the company says it has enough capacity to handle it.

“The average usage of all our customers across both fiber and the copper has grown to about 24GB per month at this point, and we see that increasing and people are comfortable with [our] facilities as well as our backhaul to support that growth,” said chief operating officer Dan McCarthy. “We’ve seen that grow virtually every month as we move forward.”

Frontier analyzes what customers do with their broadband connection and found 30 percent of customer usage is online video. That number is growing. Customers upgrading to the fastest speeds are often telecommuters or have a home full of avid broadband users.

“On the residential side [these high-end customers] are usually working at home, they are VPNing, they are gamers, and they are very active on video services and social media as well,” said CEO Maggie Wilderotter.

The average Frontier DSL customer still subscribes to 6Mbps service, which Wilderotter said was adequate for Netflix, web surfing, and e-mail. But the company is preparing to market speed upgrades to these customers to earn extra revenue.

So far, Frontier’s broadband growth has gone relatively unnoticed by their cable competitors.

“We really haven’t seen any sustainable programs that cable has put against us in the market and we do know that several cable operators have said they’re going to do more in those areas,” said Wilderotter. “We are very well prepared for that. We are giving everyday low pricing to the customer that’s simple and predictable and there are no add-on fees or modem rental costs.”

Most Frontier customers are offered $19.99 or $29.99 broadband pricing that can be bundled with other products for discounts. There is no term contract.

“Time Warner Cable has increased their modem fees [to] between $6 and $9 a month,” said Wilderotter. “That’s a huge price increase for a lot of customers. You compare that with Frontier which has no modem cost and customers understand where price value lies.”

Wilderotter noted Comcast has raised rates as well. Frontier intends to remind cable customers they have a choice, and will tailor offers to continue to increase market share.