Despite the economic downturn, broadband providers continue to achieve healthy growth in the number of new subscribers, with five million new customers signing up for service across the United States in 2009.  Although this does not represent the double digit percent increases operators have achieved in prior years, considering the anemic sales of subscriptions for telephone and television service, broadband’s anticipated seven percent growth this year is a bright spot in an otherwise challenged telecommunications industry.

Healthy profits continue to be reported by most broadband providers, with growing revenue coming at the same time bandwidth costs continue to decline, and some providers decrease the percentage of revenue invested in their networks.

Operators proposing Internet Overcharging schemes don’t have much of a leg to stand on, when consumers learn of the healthy profits earned by the industry and their reluctance to invest in expanding their networks at the same rate year after year to keep up with subscriber growth and demand.

By 2013, fiber to the home will reach an estimated 13% of U.S. households, with more than 80% subscribing to a broadband service package.

Comcast introduces the nation's capital to 50Mbps "wideband" service

Back in the 1980s, cable television systems in suburban Washington, DC and northern Virginia often showcased all that was possible for that era of cable operators.  When legislators and other movers and shakers were done for the day, they found some amazing cable services waiting for them when they got home.  Media General’s cable system in Fairfax County had an unprecented two coaxial cables going into each home, with up to 60 channels on each cable, and this was in the early 1980s, when most cable systems provided no more than 40 channels.  Up to 120 channels at prices often cheaper than cable systems with 30 channels, Media General received a lot of praise.

Providing a high level of service with robust competition in the nation’s capital is a great way to diffuse complaints about poor quality monopoly service at high prices reaching members of Congress from constituents back home.  More than a few elected officials opposing pro-consumer legislation in the 1980s and early 1990s used to rave about cable service they received in Washington, forgetting things were hardly as rosy back home.

Now Comcast, which provides cable service through large parts of the metro Washington, DC area, has announced the arrival of 50Mbps cable modem service, made possible with DOCSIS 3 upgrades.  Comcast will reap the profit potential of offering consumers and businesses higher tiers of broadband speed, making customers happy and reporting higher broadband revenue, which will also keep investors pleased.

Unlike Time Warner Cable, Comcast is bullish on deploying DOCSIS upgrades across all of their cable systems.  Comcast COO Steve Burke said, “We are hardcore on DOCSIS 3.0. We want to have two-thirds of our footprint by end of year.”

Comcast is also positioning itself to compete with Verizon FiOS, now being wired in parts of DC, Maryland, and Virginia.

The company announced the new “wideband” service was now available in the Anacostia area east of the river.  Over the course of the summer into fall, it will become available in parts of Arlington County, the City of Alexandria, Montgomery County and Prince George’s County.

Comcast promises to have 100% coverage by the end of the year.

New Speed Tier Pricing (assumes customer has at least one other Comcast service)

Extreme 50 — 50 Mbps down/10 Mbps up — $99.95 per month
Ultra — 22 Mbps down/5 Mbps up — $62.95 per month.
Deluxe (Business Class) — 50 Mbps down/10 Mbps up — $189.95/month (includes business class extra features)

Existing broadband services at slower speeds will also remain available at current prices, but customers may find reduced congestion made possible by DOCSIS 3 upgrades.

Where is the downside?  Comcast is keeping a strict limit of 250GB of consumption on these new residential tiers, which reduces their value, particularly on the higher priced plans.

When otherwise intelligent writers get sucked into industry propaganda and advocate against their own readers’ best interests, the blowback can become substantial.

VentureBeat is about to learn that principle firsthand as it bungled a piece about wireless carrier mobile data growth into a confusing article claiming “Net Neutrality” will be used by AT&T and Verizon to “drive Sprint and T-Mobile into the ground.”

What?

Authors Tim Chang and Matt Marshall then journey across the landscape of mobile data networks in the United States, regularly stopping to hammer home the requirement for limits on usage, blaming it mostly on online video.  The factual potholes litter the landscape, unfortunately:

What that means is the country’s major wireless carriers — Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile — are going to have to abort the all-you-can-eat mobile data plans most of us take for granted. It’s just getting too costly for them to give us the service on their networks for the pricing they offer today.

Video 'is the big problem' justifying Internet Overcharging for wireless mobile data, yet one of the nation's largest providers sees no problem providing its own video service on its network.

Actually, none of these carriers provide unlimited all-you-can-eat mobile data plans.  They either explicitly or implicitly (buried in the fine print) limit consumption, usually to 5GB of usage per month.  What happens beyond that does vary by carrier.  The big four impose overlimit penalties at punishing prices.  Some smaller carriers, like Cricket, simply throttle your connection or suspend service on a case-by-case basis.

The reasons for these limits:

• Limited spectrum (the frequencies the provider operates on) may not sustain demand using currently available technology and network design. Could additional spectrum, new technology standards, and more localized delivery of data reduce network congestion?
• Lack of competition.  The two primary carriers, AT&T and Verizon, have essentially provided nearly-equivalent pricing.  Their robust coverage areas make either a natural choice for most users who travel.  Sprint and T-Mobile have larger gaps in coverage.  Spectrum auctions, which is how carriers obtain new blocks of frequencies, raise huge sums for the government, but those costs inevitably do get passed down to customers.
• Psychological: Consumers accustomed to limited wireless broadband from the outset are less likely to complain if it is taken away later.
• Economical: Data packages with low limits produce profitable results, with the future possibility of earning even higher profits from subscribers who routinely exceed them and pay penalties and fees, or for carriers to create and market “additional usage packs.”

Jon Metzler, an industry consultant who has conducted research for the CTIA, says he’s heard estimates that a YouTube video of 3-5 minutes costs $1 for a carrier to handle. At this rate, a carrier would be killed when a typical user streams a mere two videos a day. That day is coming soon, because of the race by the smartphones to offer these cool video services.

Of course Metzler works for the CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry trade and lobbying group.  They have a vested interest in pushing the “bandwidth flood” theory to preserve carrier pricing models.  The factual basis for this YouTube assertion has been challenged as well, once even by a VentureBeat reader.

Verizon doesn’t see wireless mobile video as the harbinger of doom — it sees it as a feature it can rake profits from, charging $13-25 a month extra for access to VCAST Mobile TV, a Verizon Wireless portal filled with video clips and streams.

It’s always ironic when carriers complain about the impact of services like video, while also heavily marketing their own services that, by their nature, impact their network.  YouTube bad, VCAST good.

… Continue Reading

From $199 to much more, Apple & AT&T expect premium prices for iPhone addicts.

High demand for a product often carries a premium price to acquire and use it.  The Apple iPhone, one of those few mobile products that can generate lines extending out the door of a retailer, is one such product.  AT&T Mobility, which still holds an exclusive contract with Apple for iPhones in the United States, has made it clear it will not be making any price changes to its wireless data plans with the introduction of the Apple 3G S on June 19.  Speculation about lower pricing started with AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de le Vega, who spoke at a conference last month indicating he was amenable to “limited data plans for lower fees.”  That message was soon modified into a more generic ‘price cut’ as the story traveled.

“We’ve been very happy with our pricing,” AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel told Dow Jones Newswires.

AT&T already charges a pretty penny for iPhone users on their network.  Customers signing up for service face a minimum voice plan of 450 minutes for $39.99.  An “unlimited” data plan, required for the iPhone, adds $30 per month.  AT&T claims the average iPhone customer spends about $90 per month for voice and data.  The company also reserves the right to crack down on excessive data usage and limits some applications.

Should de le Vega’s tolerance of limited data plans become reality, plans with more specific usage limits may be forthcoming, at a moderately discounted price.

AT&T has had a bad week in the public relations arena, as current iPhone owners continue to object to the full-price upgrade price they may have to pay if they are in a two year contract.  Thousands have signed a Twitter petition and have filled AT&T’s online support forums with complaints about AT&T “price gouging” loyal customers.

AT&T has enjoyed significant revenue from their exclusive arrangement with Apple.  But iPhone users are dedicated to their combination phone and data device, and try to get their money’s worth.  That has put pressure on AT&T’s network, and despite the company’s revenue from its premium priced plans, has been criticized for not keeping up with that demand.

Verizon Wireless, AT&T’s biggest competitor, trashed AT&T’s proposed upgrades as inadequate:

Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam characterized AT&T’s promises as “too little too late”. He said that AT&T’s “ceiling for their network will be the floor for our network.” McAdam called AT&T’s announcement on its network upgrade old news—about a year old. He also noted AT&T’s promises to upgrade speed are spin.

Grande Communications serves 148,000 and 147,000 Texas residential and business customers, respectively.

Grande Communications, the San Marcos, Texas company competing against Time Warner Cable and AT&T, will effectively be sold to ABRY Partners, an investment banking firm based in Boston, for an undisclosed sum.

Grande, familiar to Stop the Cap! readers in Austin, ran advertisements back in April and May against Time Warner Cable and AT&T touting their broadband service as being free from Internet Overcharging schemes.  The company has managed to build its fiber optic network to reach approximately 20% of homes in the Austin area, mostly in the northeast and eastern areas, as well as Tarrytown.

Growth had been slow for the “overbuilder” due to financing difficulties.  Investors feared a three-way competition between cable, telephone, and fiber-based Grande, because heavy competition usually results in lower prices and profits, decreasing their potential return.

With ABRY effectively helping refill Grande’s bank accounts to allow them to accelerate the building of their network, Grande hopes to achieve one million homes passed by their network in a few short years.

ABRY has experience in the broadband market with their ownership of Atlantic Broadband, the nation’s 15th largest cable operator serving customers in Florida, Maryland, Delaware, South Carolina and central Pennsylvania.

The deal requires internal review from Grande’s board of directors and external review by the Federal Communications Commission, the Texas Public Utilities Commission, and others.