Invest or die.  That succinctly explains the current state of the landline telephone business and the companies providing service to a decreasing number of Americans.  Some companies, like AT&T and Verizon have heavily diversified their business into wireless, fiber, IPTV and broadband.  Others, like Frontier are hoping their presence in uncompetitive rural markets will keep them in business, as long as their dividends keep stockholders happy.

CenturyLink, which is in the process of absorbing the last remaining Baby Bell — Qwest, has decided to invest in their business to stay competitive with their biggest nemesis — the cable company.  CenturyLink is still hanging on to ADSL broadband service in many rural areas, but the company sees the promise of future relevance with bonded DSL, which is delivering 25/2Mbps broadband service to an increasing number of their customers.  Where distances allow, CenturyLink is at least temporarily providing the fastest residential broadband service available in areas like southwest Florida.  They are holding their own against local cable competitors like Comcast.

Now the company is following AT&T in introducing a new IPTV service to many of its customers.  Dubbed Prism, the U-verse like service delivers a true triple play package to customers who thought they would be stuck with their local cable company or satellite dish provider for TV programming.

Prism offers more than 200 channels, a multi-room DVR capable of recording up to four shows at the same time, and an interactive program guide that doesn’t need an instruction manual to navigate.

[flv width=”640″ height=”390″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Introducing CenturyLink Prism.flv[/flv]

This promotional video introduces CenturyLink’s Prism service and its television features.  (4 minutes)

Prism has been introduced in larger CenturyLink areas ranging from southern Nevada, southwestern Florida, and North Carolina, where EMBARQ used to provide telephone service.

The service works through a hybrid fiber-copper wire IPTV network.  Fiber optic cable reduces the distance data needs to travel over ordinary copper phone wires.  The less copper, the faster the potential speed.  With a 25-30Mbps broadband platform, Prism can divide up available bandwidth to support television, phone, and up to 10Mbps broadband service.  It’s all delivered over the same digital network.  While not as advanced as Verizon FiOS and other fiber to the home networks, IPTV services like Prism and U-verse are cheaper to provide, and that can mean faster deployment in areas not well served by competition.

Reaction to Prism has been generally positive among Stop the Cap! readers who have shared their stories with us.  Among the positives:

• The interactive program guide is light years ahead of Comcast, Cox, and Time Warner Cable;
• Broadband speeds are generally better than the original DSL service CenturyLink used to provide;
• The picture quality is excellent where the telephone network has been upgraded the most;
• Competitive introductory and retention offers mean consumers can pay less for service, at least initially.

But there are some problems, too:

• Bandwidth varies depending on how far away you are from the nearest fiber node.  This affects what you can do with the service.  If you are further out, you can only watch one HD television channel at a time, and may not be able to record more than one HD channel at the same time;
• The DVR box has issues — readers report shows disappear, don’t get recorded, or show poor results when line quality drops;
• Broadband speeds with Prism officially max out at 10Mbps;
• If you are watching a number of televisions at the same time, your broadband speeds could drop;
• Variability in service quality comes largely as a result of inferior copper wire phone networks CenturyLink chose to stick with.  If your phone line is prone to static or hum, or deliver poor results when the weather is bad, Prism might not work well for you.

Some subscribers found they initially loved the service, but when bad weather arrived, it all fell apart.

“Our phone lines are decades old, so this comes as no surprise,” says Manny who writes from Naples, Fla.  “I was also disappointed some of the channels in HD I had with Comcast are not available from Prism.”

In parts of Raleigh, N.C., Prism just launched a few weeks ago.  But some of our readers are sticking with Time Warner Cable.

“After looking over their pricing and packages, Time Warner has more HD channels and doesn’t charge $12 a month extra for them,” writes Ralph.  “CenturyLink also only bundles 3Mbps broadband service with most of their packages, and you have to pay extra for 10Mbps service.”

Ralph thinks Road Runner from the cable company will provide a more consistent broadband experience for his family.

“There is only so much you can push through a phone line at the same time; I like the fact they are competing, but they will not be able to keep up if they rely on copper phone wiring forever,” Ralph says.

Cox faces new competition in southern Nevada

Despite some of the negatives, CenturyLink may deliver formidable competition where cable companies haven’t kept up.  Some other markets where Prism will offer service: Jefferson City, and Columbia, Mo., and La Crosse, Wis.  Cox Cable in southern Nevada is now competing with Prism, and believes it has the superior network.

“The way our system is constructed, we have services equally distributed everywhere in the valley,” Juergen Barbusca, Cox manager of communications, public and government affairs in Las Vegas said. “Everybody in our footprint can get our highest advertised speeds.”

Cable broadband is less susceptible to distance degradation that can make Prism a no-go in neighborhoods at the far end of a phone company’s central office.

Also equally distributed is the price.  Outside of new customer promotions, nobody will save any money here.  Cox and CenturyLink are both selling their respective triple-play packages of TV, Internet, and phone for exactly the same price: $143 a month.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTNV Las Vegas CenturyLink Prism 2-8-11 WFTX Cape Coral CenturyLink in SW Florida 12-7-10.flv[/flv]

KTNV-TV in Las Vegas introduces viewers to CenturyLink’s Prism service and WFTX-TV in Cape Coral, Florida talks with CenturyLink about their new 25Mbps broadband service in two exceptionally company-friendly pieces from the stations’ respective news shows.  (13 minutes)

While big cable and phone companies tell you that you don’t need fiber optic broadband speeds, EPB, a publicly-owned utility in Chattanooga, Tenn., thinks otherwise.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/EPB Network Feature 2-15-11.flv[/flv]

While you plod along with 3-10Mbps, learn more about Chattanooga’s 1Gbps broadband network delivering truly lightning-fast speeds today — right now — at an affordable price.  What has your broadband provider done for you lately?  (6 minutes)

(Thanks, as always, to Community Broadband Networks for another great video find.)

Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry Science and Technology has taken an in-depth look at Internet Overcharging in an ongoing series of hearings to explore Bell’s petition to charge usage-based billing.  The request, earlier approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), would end flat rate, unlimited usage plans across the country, and mandate Bell’s proscribed usage cap regime on every ISP in Canada.

Remarkably, even Canada’s Conservative Party, which laid the deregulatory framework that allowed Canada’s barely-competitive market to stick it to consumers and small businesses, refuses to defend the overcharging schemes.

So far, the three hearings deliver everything Stop the Cap! has warned about since we began this fight in the summer of 2008:

1. Proof that usage caps, and consumption-based billing have nothing to do with cost recovery or fairness.  They are, at their root, economically engineered to discourage use of the Internet and protect revenue from the provider’s other businesses, especially video.
2. There is no evidence of a data tsunami, exaflood, or whatever other term providers and their financially-connected allies in the equipment business cook up to warn about an explosion of data usage mandating control measures.  Data usage is increasing at a slower rate than the development of new equipment and fiber pipelines to manage it.
3. Nobody ever saves a thing with Internet Overcharging schemes.  While Bell and other providers make up scary stories about “heavy users” picking “innocent” users’ pockets, it’s the providers themselves making all the money.  In fact, bytes of data have no intrinsic value.  The pipelines that deliver data at varying speeds do, which is why providers are well-compensated for use of them.  Levying additional charges for data consumption is nothing more than extra profit — a broadband usage tax.  Providers make plenty selling users increasingly profitable connections based on speed.  They do not need to be paid twice.
4. For all the talk about the need to invest in network expansion, Bell has reduced infrastructure spending on its core broadband networks the last three years’ running.  They are spending more on deploying Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), a service the company swears has nothing to do with the Internet or their broadband service (despite the fact it travels down the exact same pipeline).
5. Caps and usage billing never bring about innovation, except from providers looking for new ways to charge their customers more for less service.

I strongly encourage readers to spend an evening watching and listening to these hearings.  At least download the audio and let Canada’s broadband story penetrate.  You will laugh, cringe, and sometimes want to throw things at your multimedia player.

In the end, the hearings illustrate the points we’ve raised here repeatedly over the past three years, and it only strengthens our resolve to battle these Internet pricing ripoffs wherever they appear.  If you are a Canadian citizen,write your MP and demand an end to “usage-based billing” and make it clear this issue is paramount for your vote at the next election.  Don’t debate the numbers or waste time “compromising” on how much you want to be ripped off.  There is no middle ground for usage-based pricing.  It should be rejected at every turn, everywhere, with no compromises.  After all, aren’t you paying enough for your Internet connection already?

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 54 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 3, 2011

This video is encoded in the Windows Media format which presents some technical challenges.  Full screen or 200% zoom-viewing mode is recommended.

[For Windows users, right click the video and select ‘Zoom->Full Screen’ or ‘Zoom->200%’.]

This hearing was televised and had the most media attention.  Testimony from the CRTC was decidedly defensive, and almost entirely in support of usage-based billing and Bell’s petition.  The Commission found no friends in this hearing.

Appearing from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Konrad W. von Finckenstein, Chairman; Len Katz, Vice-Chairman, Telecommunications; Lynne Fancy, Acting Executive Director, Telecommunications.  (1 hour, 29 minutes)

If you want to take the hearing audio along for a ride, you can download the MP3 version.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 55 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 8, 2011

The second in a series of hearings exploring Usage-based billing included witnesses from independent Internet Service Providers who could face extinction if they are forced to pay higher prices for wholesale broadband access.

Appearing: Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of TekSavvy Solutions Inc., Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus Telecommunications Canada, and Jean-François Mezei, a Montreal-based telecommunications consultant who most recently petitioned the CRTC to repeal its decision. (120 minutes)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 56 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 10, 2011

The third in a series of hearings exploring Usage-based billing included witnesses from Bell Canada, which originally proposed the idea, and additional testimony from independent Internet Service Providers and their trade association, and consumer advocates who oppose the pricing scheme.

Appearing: OpenMedia.ca: Steve Anderson, Founder and National Coordinator. Bell Canada: Jonathan Daniels, Vice-President, Law and Regulatory Affairs; Mirko Bibic, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory and Government Affairs. Shaw Communications Inc.: Jean Brazeau, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs; Ken Stein, Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs. Canadian Association of Internet Providers: Monica Song, Counsel, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. MTS Allstream Inc.: Teresa Griffin-Muir, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs. Union des consommateurs: Anthony Hémond, Lawyer, Analyst, policy and regulations in telecommunications, broadcasting, information highway and privacy. Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.: Bill Sandiford, President; Christian S. Tacit, Barrister and Solicitor, Counsel. (128 minutes)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

EchoStar Corporation, which makes equipment and provides satellites for Dish Network, today announced it has agreed to buy Hughes Communications, Inc., for about $1.32 billion.

The deal means Dish, the second-largest U.S. satellite television provider, could be one step closer to providing a national data service to its customers.  Hughes operates a “broadband” satellite network, which almost entirely serves rural areas.

Much maligned by its customers, who consider the service’s high prices, low speeds and even lower usage caps “fraudband,” Hughes’ satellite service has been up for sale for some time.

The purchase “brings together the two premier providers of satellite communications services and delivers substantial value to our shareholders,” Pradman Kaul, chief executive officer of Hughes said in the statement.

Satellite television companies have increasingly been at a disadvantage because they cannot sell a true “triple-play” package of television, Internet, and phone service to customers who commonly bundle the three services together.  Instead, Dish and its larger competitor DirecTV have been relying on partnerships with telephone companies who provide phone and Internet service with a satellite television package.

The current generation of satellite broadband services are not well-rated by their customers.  Capacity shortages force providers to place strict limits on usage, which makes the service largely useless for high bandwidth applications — especially video.

The deal is expected to close later this year.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Hughesnet.flv[/flv]

Watch HughesNet’s advertisement promising “blazing fast” speeds in contrast to an actual speed test completed by one of their customers, at a non-peak-usage time.  (2 minutes)

During the third day of hearings on usage-based billing, Mirko Bibic from Bell admitted that usage-based billing “prevents [other ISPs] from differentiating their offers from our own.”

That remarkable admission is exactly what independent Internet Service Providers have been arguing since the issue of wholesale usage-based billing was first proposed by Canada’s largest broadband supplier.

Independent providers have managed to carve out a niche supplying primarily residential DSL customers with flat rate usage plans, made possible because of wholesale access provisions assured under Canada’s telecommunications regulations.  As Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron have systematically imposed usage limits on their residential customers (and occasionally lowered them), consumers seeking better value have found it from smaller ISPs that still offer unlimited access.

As Bell frets over its inability to reap retail revenue from customers departing for other providers, the idea of imposing usage-based billing on wholesale accounts ends that revenue erosion once and for all.  As Bell admits, it forces every provider in Canada to charge the same high prices they do for Internet access.

Canada’s telecom regulator, the CRTC, still cannot define what a “heavy user” is, and neither could Bibic.  But with these pricing schemes, now they don’t have to.  Imposing higher prices with vague promises that the resulting revenue will expand Canada’s broadband networks is eerily familiar to what Time Warner promised residents in several major cities, and then didn’t deliver.

In western New York, the cable company promised a new generation of blazing fast speeds on a world class broadband network, as long as customers agreed to pay up to $150 for unlimited residential service per month.  The old price was $50.  But the cable company provided those upgrades in other cities instead — without usage based pricing.  No wonder residents were furious.  After two weeks of protest, Time Warner threw in the towel.

Two years later, the promised upgrades are finally slated to arrive, long after being made available in most large cities in New York State.

Provider-promised bait and switch broadband upgrades merely represent sucker bets, and no one except the provider wins.

If Bell gets its way, there will be no reason for anyone to do business with an independent service provider.  They’ll be forced to charge increased prices, sometimes even higher than Bell itself.