We know what you are watching.

AT&T’s efforts to expand its U-verse platform to more communities is all about improving AT&T’s growing revenues in the broadband business and further monetizing customers’ broadband usage.

Those are the views of Jeff Weber, AT&T’s president of content and advertising sales. Appearing at last week’s Nomura Global Media Summit Conference, Weber also admitted AT&T is using viewer data collected from U-verse TV set-top boxes to help decide what networks to carry and which can be dropped because of lack of viewership.

Weber appeared at the conference to talk about the implications of Project Velocity IP — AT&T’s investment in expanding its U-verse platform and its proposal to transition rural landline customers to AT&T’s wireless service.

AT&T claims when the project is complete, two-thirds of its landline customers will have access to U-verse, and 99 percent of AT&T’s wireline service areas will be covered by AT&T’s mobile network.

Weber’s job primarily focuses on AT&T’s U-verse TV service — dealing with all the networks on the lineup and selling advertising time.

Although television programming is an important revenue generator for AT&T, broadband revenue is the real focus behind AT&T’s U-verse expansion.

“At the core, it is about improving the fundamental broadband business, extending our footprints to be able to cover more of our customers,” Weber said. “Because our core belief is that the broadband business is [going to be] a very good business for a long time.”

Weber

One way AT&T can further increase revenue is to limit broadband usage and charge overlimit fees for customers who exceed their monthly allowance. AT&T currently limits DSL customers to 150GB of usage per month, 250GB for U-verse broadband. The overlimit fee is $10 for each additional 50GB of usage. At present, both the usage limits and overlimit fees are not broadly enforced in many areas.

“I think very clearly incremental broadband usage is going to drive incremental revenue,” explained Weber. “Part of that assumption is that as traffic continues to grow, you need to be able to monetize that traffic in some way, shape or form. At the end of the day, it’s a pretty efficient market and a really efficient way for customers to pay. In almost every other way the more you use, the more you pay. And I don’t think that’s a radical notion and I suspect that’s a kind of thing we’ll see.”

AT&T already earns $170 a month in average revenue per U-verse customer, mostly from package sales of telephone, broadband, and television service.

Television programming content continues to be a major and growing expense for AT&T, eating into profits. Weber complained programming costs are “too high” and limit AT&T from asking subscribers to pay more when rate increases are contemplated.

Instead, AT&T is increasingly playing hardball with programmers, refusing to pay growing programming costs for certain networks and dropping others that do not have many viewers.

How does AT&T know what channels its customers are watching? The company tracks viewing habits with U-verse TV set-top boxes, which automatically report back to AT&T what channels and programs customers are watching.

“Everybody is facing [profit] margin pressure as content costs go up but the question is how will customers react to higher prices as content costs go up,” Weber said. “Everybody is having to make tough decisions and we’ve been able to use that data and make very smart decisions for our customers.”

As an example, Weber noted AT&T uses real viewer numbers during contract negotiations, suggesting that lower-rated networks deserve a lower rate. If a programmer refuses, AT&T can successfully drop a little-watched network without significant customer backlash.

Weber said the numbers are even more valuable when negotiating carriage fees for expensive regional sports networks. Weber said in one city, AT&T decided to not carry a regional network because it found the majority of customers never watched many of the sports teams featured.

Comcast’s Sportsnet for Houston is not available to some U-verse subscribers because AT&T determined the audience for the sports teams on the network was too small.

“We looked at how many of our customers watched zero of those games, one, two, all the way through 150 games for baseball and 80 games for the basketball team that we’re talking about,” Weber said, noting that if a particular viewer watched 30 or more games, AT&T considered that customer a passionate viewer likely to cancel service if the channel was dropped from the lineup.

“It was very clear the viewership intensity in that particular market was low and we didn’t need to pay the rates that were being asked and we’re not,” Weber said, calling the tracking a “perfect insight” into programming costs vs. viewership value.

AT&T also made it clear if programmers went around the company to sell channels direct to consumers over the Internet, AT&T would bring significant pressure for a wholesale rate cut, which some programmers might see as a deterrent to offering online viewing alternatives.

“If they’re going to [stream their programming online], then that’s a very different conversation and a very different value for our customer,” Weber said. “That’s a choice the content providers can make. We’re totally OK with that, but exclusivity versus non-exclusivity has materially different value for our customers, and I think we would want that reflected,” he added.

Monitoring customer viewing habits also helps AT&T earn more revenue by selling targeted commercial messages to specific viewing audiences.

“If an advertiser wanted to buy The Ellen DeGeneres Show, we know based on our data who that audience is,” Weber said. “We can go find that same audience outside of Ellen and maybe extend reach or drive [the ad] price a bit [higher]. We can also go find that same audience online or on your mobile phone.”

All Arcadia, N.Y. town supervisor Dick Colacino wanted was for Time Warner Cable to consider using some of their profits to expand their cable system by one or two roads a year to offer service where it has earlier refused to go.

Time Warner Cable’s response? No.

But Time Warner might turn that “no” into “yes” if customers offer to cover the cable company’s estimated cost of $22,000 per overhead mile to extend cable service down ignored rural roads. Underground wiring costs much more.

Every year, elected officials in just about every small town and village get an earful of complaints from bypassed residents who cannot get cable broadband service.

Arcadia (pop. 14,900) is a small community in Wayne County, east of Rochester. Time Warner Cable dominates western and central New York, with cable service from Albany west to Buffalo. In Wayne County alone, Time Warner is the only cable provider in the 23 largest municipalities. But the company has routinely skipped over potential service areas it considers not worth a wiring investment. That leaves bypassed residents with one choice for broadband — Verizon Communications, which has not expanded DSL service in the area for some time.

The New York Public Service Commission has mandated that cable service must be available to any area where 35 homes per mile are located within 150 feet of the road.

Time Warner representative Chris Mueller says the cable operator has already cut that benchmark to 20 miles per home, but areas remain that do not meet even that reduced standard. Without an appropriate return on investment within a certain time frame, Time Warner Cable won’t wire those areas for service.

Colacino told Mueller he was very unhappy with that decision and intended to pursue the matter at franchise renewal time, possibly in coordination with other communities that also have a number of bypassed residents. A community can negotiate for changes during franchise renewal talks, but in almost every case, the incumbent cable operator holds the strongest position, knowing a community looking for another provider will be unlikely to find one willing to serve.

Colacino has battled with the cable company since at least 2010 because of complaints from area residents and businesses who cannot get service.

That year, a Time Warner Cable government affairs representative offered Colacino a novel solution to the problem — agree to refund collected franchise fees to Time Warner Cable, after which the company would consider using the money to expand service to more roads in Arcadia.

The only problem with that solution is that it is illegal.

“You can’t do that,” town attorney David Saracino responded. “It’s an unconstitutional gift of public monies.”

Despite findings from an independent consultant that reported West Virginia wasted millions on a broadband expansion effort that effectively built a private, taxpayer-funded fiber network for Frontier Communications, the governor’s office abruptly canceled a 2011 follow-up state audit of the $126.3 million project.

The Charleston Gazette reports Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s office said it dropped the audit because Frontier “answered or addressed” issues raised in a memo produced by an out-of-state independent consulting firm.

ICF’s document was so scathing of the state government’s handling of federal broadband stimulus funds, the governor’s office kept it secret until a copy was independently leaked to the Charleston newspaper. The governor’s office said it initially withheld the “internal memorandum” produced by Vienna, Va.-based ICF International because it proved “embarrassing to some people.”

Among ICF’s findings:

• Taxpayers underwrote the construction of a Frontier Communications’ owned and operated fiber broadband network so fragmented in its construction, the only entity likely to benefit is Frontier Communications;
• ICF found West Virginia’s broadband grant program created an “unintended monopoly” for Frontier Communications, and an unusable ‘open access’ network except for Frontier;”
• Frontier’s documentation and expense reports, submitted for reimbursement by taxpayers were inadequate and could have resulted in double billing;
• Frontier overbuilt its network with excessive numbers of fiber strands three to six times above industry standards, driving up construction costs.

Frontier’s called the ICF report “worthless” and accused the consultant of using inaccurate and stale comments that repeat “previously repudiated allegations.”

Frontier also produced its own company-sponsored “external audit” of its work on the $126.3 million broadband project that found “no material deficiencies.”

But ICF says it is standing by its report, and documented instances where the state authorized Frontier to spend significant sums to build fiber connections to community institutions that were later scaled back by the company. Whether Frontier was paid for the originally scheduled work, or for the scaled back construction eventually completed, is unknown.

At this point, ICF reports it is resigned to the fact Frontier will be a major beneficiary of the taxpayer-funded fiber infrastructure and the state has few options to fix the problems they created. The consultant firm says the only workable option would be a joint effort by Frontier’s competitors to build, at their own expense, a “middle-mile, open-access network” that can interconnect with Frontier’s taxpayer-funded network, assuming Frontier will allow it.

A major critic of the broadband stimulus program in West Virginia, Citynet President Jim Martin, has long said the broadband project was primarily going to benefit Frontier.

In September 2010, Martin told the Gazette, “Frontier is going to have the state’s business forever. No other company will have the money to come in and build the network.”

Two months later, Martin was back ringing the alarm bell before more than $126 million in taxpayer funds were spent.

“The state represented it would build a ‘middle-mile’ network reaching 700,000 homes and 100,000 businesses, and it would be this great new superhighway and do all the things the federal government is seeking,” Martin told the Gazette. “But afterward, Citynet and others got to look and it looks like it is a windfall for Frontier Communications only.”

“We’ll ultimately prove this was a complete sham and didn’t benefit anybody,” Martin said. “We’re here. We’re not going anywhere. We totally recognize this is going to be a long battle unless the Broadband Council or the new governor or the next governor does something. We’re going to be on this for however many years it takes. We’re going to hold the state accountable for every single dollar they’re spending. At the end of the day we will show that no jobs were created, there’s no benefit to the citizens of West Virginia. Hopefully we’ll show this was all about Frontier.”

Three years later, Martin is still trying to get accurate broadband maps that depict exactly where Frontier has laid its publicly funded fiber infrastructure. Apparently they are secret, too.

Verizon Voice Link: The company’s landline replacement, works over Verizon Wireless.

The New York Public Service Commission has granted limited approval for a Verizon Communications plan to replace traditional landline service on the western half of Fire Island with a wireless voice service some users complain is unstable and unreliable.

Verizon claims its landline network on Fire Island has been damaged irreparably in places, and argued it needed to immediately deploy a wireless alternative before the arrival of thousands of tourists on the island, a popular summer destination.

On May 3, Verizon asked the commission to approve the use of Voice Link, which provides fixed wireless phone service, anywhere in the state if the company can prove there is an equal competitor or if existing copper-based facilities are damaged or too costly to upgrade.

Stop the Cap! reminded local politicians, union representatives, and consumer advocates Verizon’s CEO earlier promised it would decommission its copper wire networks in rural areas in favor of wireless, mostly for financial reasons. The New York State Attorney General’s office took careful note of McAdam’s commitment to abandon copper in their objection letter to the commission.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam in 2012:

The vision that I have is we are going into the copper plant areas and every place we have FiOS, we are going to kill the copper. We are going to just take it out of service and we are going to move those services onto FiOS. We have got parallel networks in way too many places now, so that is a pot of gold in my view. And then in other areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there. We are going to do it over wireless.

Verizon’s efforts to rush a tariff change without adequate public notice or formal hearings brought complaints from affected customers, unions, and area politicians.

The Communications Workers of America called Verizon’s emergency “self-made.” The company could have begun repair work on Fire Island as early as last November, but instead only came to regulators earlier this month with its Voice Link proposal, while much of the western half of the island remains out of service.

CWA officials are concerned Verizon is using Hurricane Sandy as an excuse to carry out its broader agenda of abandoning rural New York’s landline infrastructure in favor of wireless service.

“Playing on sympathy for the plight of customers whom it has left without service for more than six months, Verizon proposes to implement broad, generic rules that go to the core of its obligation to serve,” said CWA vice president Chris Shelton.

The union considers Verizon’s wireless alternative less adequate than the wireline facilities Verizon wants to abandon. The CWA wants the PSC to study Voice Link’s performance during times of peak cellular usage times, power outages, adverse weather, and inadequate reception.

Thomas Barraga, a legislator in Suffolk County, says his constituents with Voice Link service are already unhappy with its performance and reliability.

“Residents and business owners who had Voice Link installed after Sandy say the connection is unstable and unreliable, and doesn’t provide for DSL Internet or fax service,” Barraga wrote in a letter to the PSC.

“Internet service is so much a part of everyday life it should be consider a basic service and they should be mandated to provide this as well,” writes Fire Island resident Robert Gonzalez. “They should provide this for the same fees and usage rates as they had previously been charging.  As of today they are price gouging.  Prior to Sandy we paid approximately $50 per month for unlimited Internet access.  Now they are putting low limits on our usage for the same $50 per month with severe penalties for going over.  You can opt for higher usage plans at a much greater cost and they are not offering an unlimited plan.”

Stop the Cap! also continues to hear from Fire Island residents about their dissatisfaction with the service. Among the newest complaints we have received:

• “It doesn’t work with collect calls and you cannot dial “0” for operator assistance;”
• “I have to dial 10 digits for all calls, seven digit dialing no longer works even though it did before;”
• “Call Waiting and Caller ID often do not work, and my unit does not ring for incoming calls about 30% of the time and people have to keep calling me back;”
• “When you attempt to take a call when on the line with someone, you cannot get them back after answering a new call;”
• “I cannot use this with my home alarm system at all and the monitoring company keeps notifying police because they think my phone line was cut;”
• “If we had a major storm with three days of power being out, Verizon’s claim Voice Link will work for two hours without power means I would have to feed it up to 72 ‘AA’ batteries, costing more than what the phone line costs me every month;”
• “What does this do to our future? It makes us second class citizens without access to the Internet except through very expensive wireless capped usage plans that cost much more.”

The PSC ruled that allowing Verizon to deploy Voice Link on Fire Island during the peak tourist season will make sure adequate phone service is up and running as quickly as possible. But the commission also made it clear it is unwilling to approve Verizon’s request to extend the service further into rural New York without a thorough review of its performance and customer reaction.

Verizon casts off its rural landline network for some customers.

Verizon landline customers reporting problems with their service in Pennsylvania may be soon targeted for Verizon’s wireless landline replacement — Voice Link — according to two sources sharing an internal memo with Broadband Reports.

The May 7 memo states that a significant number “selected customers” will be migrated off Verizon’s copper landline network to the Voice Link wireless service. One of the sources recognized the move as an end run around regulators:

“It has become painfully obvious to both our employees and customers that Verizon wishes to divest themselves of all regulated services,” says the source. “Abandoning our regulated wire line customers in favor of fixed point LTE may seem like a clever move but it violates “The Negroponte Principle” and will ultimately bump-up against the immutable laws of spectrum conservation physics.”

“It’s a shame that corporations like Verizon can build a FTTCS based wireless empire with regulatory subsidies provided by their wireline customers and then force them onto the unregulated wireless side,” argues the insider. “Questions of ethics and legality abound and perhaps regulatory over-sight is warranted here.”

Verizon may not get too much oversight from Pennsylvania regulators hoodwinked by the telecom company in the past.

Voice Link is a voice-only wireless home phone replacement that lacks certain calling features, Caller ID with Name for one, and requires the homeowner to provide power (and backup batteries in the event of a power failure). Customers are also dependent on quality reception from the nearest Verizon Wireless cell tower and that it remains in service during severe weather events or prolonged power outages.

Some of the customers likely targeted are still waiting for DSL broadband service from Verizon. If those customers are identified as Voice Link prospects, they will be waiting for broadband forever because Voice Link does not support data services and Verizon cannot supply DSL over a scrapped landline network.

Stop the Cap! has also learned today that the Federal Communications Commission has no problem with Verizon’s unilateral action to switch landline customers to wireless.

A FCC representative told our reader Anne, who is currently fighting Verizon over its plans to abandon landline service on the New Jersey Barrier Island, that they consider Voice Link a functionally equivalent landline service. In a response that could have come directly from Verizon customer service, the FCC helpfully describes the new service Anne already understands and does not want:

Q. What if Verizon is NOT replacing copper with fiber, but is going strictly to wireless?  There will be no landlines whatsoever.  Is that acceptable?

A. “Yes that is acceptable and it is called Verizon Voice Link.  It is a wireless device that plugs into the telephone lines in your home, allowing customers the ability to use their home telephone to make and receive calls.” — FCC Representative Number : TSR54

“This second FCC response, like the first one, ignores the issue, is unprofessional and is insulting,” says Anne. “Obviously, I already know what Voice Link is.”