Cisco, a networking equipment and service provider, has announced a joint effort with Flash Networks to provide a new Intelligent Traffic Management “solution” to “maximize data revenues, network utilization, and subscriber satisfaction.”

The “solution” is being sold primarily to wireless bandwidth providers to help manage the “explosion of mobile data traffic” expected in the next five years.

“Our successful partnership with Flash Networks enables operators to meet the challenge of maximizing revenues while protecting network assets by providing tiered services that ensure fair bandwidth usage and protect the network from traffic congestion,” said Sergey Belonozhko, Area Sales Manager for SP at Cisco.

The Intelligent Traffic Management solution supports personalized data plans where service providers can notify subscribers when they are near usage quotas, provide a temporary bandwidth boost, offer data plan extension to support additional IP services, or enable subscribers to set personalized usage caps that can be updated in real-time based on personal financial limits. This same solution is used to both insert targeted advertising based on subscriber browsing patterns, and to block inappropriate content for safe browsing.

It is being touted by Cisco as a way for operators to implement service tiers to maximize revenue while at the same time reducing traffic load on networks, reducing the capital investments required to grow them with demand.  Customers end up with “gauges” and warnings to get them to reduce their usage, or give the operator an incentive to up-sell the customer to another tier of service (or make the customer purchase additional bandwidth.)

A nice tidy arrangement for all concerned, except the customer, of course.  Cisco has been one of the more active “exaflood” promoters, with their talking points even turning up on Australian breakfast television.  They promote the “Internet is over-flooded and will brownout” scare tactics to establish that premise in the minds of consumers, sell the “solution” to help manage the traffic growth, give operators the tools to help them raise prices, limit usage, and provide gauges to customers to get them to be paranoid about their usage, and then take their earnings to the bank.

Consumers get notification that their access has been capped, are told to recall the mainstream media stories about Internet congestion, and go along with the plan.

It’s part of the grand scheme for uninformed customers to simply accept higher prices and service quotas and limits, all while companies providing the bandwidth earn higher revenue than ever.

Verizon’s decision to exit several smaller communities across the country and hand operations over to Frontier isn’t threatening Comcast, one of the predominate cable providers in some of the larger communities Verizon is abandoning in Washington, Oregon, and Indiana.  Some of the impacted communities, particularly Fort Wayne, were being prepared for Verizon FiOS before this week’s announcement.  While Verizon and Frontier have agreed to continue building out the fiber to the home projects already underway, the cable operators serving these communities are likely to exploit the molasses slow transfer from one phone company to the other.

Comcast is busily deploying DOCSIS 3 in their service areas, and even with Verizon FiOS, cable operators with upgraded networks can readily compete for broadband business in any of their markets.

As Verizon rapidly loses interest in the markets it will be leaving, the slow transition can be part of a publicity campaign by the cable operator to convince customers to abandon the phone company, because ‘they’ve abandoned you.”

Donna Jaegers, a senior research analyst at D.A. Davidson & Company told Multichannel News, “Verizon has no real incentive to continue to invest more capital in these markets.”

“In that one-year window, the cable competitors have an easy sales pitch,” she said. “They can say, ‘Hey look, Verizon is already neglecting you — and for the next year they’ll have even more reason to neglect you.’ ”

Cable operators completing upgrades to their networks as a normal cost of doing business make competing with changes in a market a snap.  Some companies recognize the benefits of DOCSIS 3 and have upgraded without running a “pledge drive” to beg for money to do it.  Others have not.

The Austin Community Technology & Telecommunications Commission convened this past Wednesday for their monthly meeting to discuss, among other items, possible actions on Time Warner Cable consumption billing for broadband Internet.  According to chairman Chip Rosenthal, it was the longest agenda in the many years he’s been there, and the TWC discussion didn’t come up until after 9 p.m.

As a concerned Austinite and former TWC customer (thanks to AT&T U-verse!), I attended this meeting to make sure all the important information on the subject was made available to the commissioners.  I only had three minutes to speak, as per meeting rules, which wasn’t near enough time for me to get through my three pages of material.  Luckily though, since the topic was an agenda item, the commission was allowed to ask questions and they were gracious enough to ask me open-ended questions and allow me to continue my points.  I stressed to the Commission that the most effective actions they and the City Council could do is file comments to the FCC and the FTC, and to put pressure on state and federal legislators to remove impediments to municipal broadband.  I emphasized that even if the City has no intention of creating a municipal broadband service, it is to Austin’s benefit to have the option on the table.  I told the commission that I believe a major reason TWC initially chose Austin as one of its metered billing test markets is that TWC knew the city’s hands were tied and that it had no real recourse.  During the discussion after my presentation, the commission agreed to work on a resolution recommending to the City Council that, through the City Attorney, submissions be filed to the FCC, Federal Trade Commission, and the Texas State Attorney General, and they agreed that the city should begin working with state and federal legislators to stop abusive practices.  The commission also agreed they should focus their efforts on  the state and federal level because little could be done at the municipal level, and that they should seek out other municipalities in a similar situation to present a coordinated effort.

There were two interesting facts that I learned at this meeting.  One, the municipal franchise that TWC has with the city of Austin will expire in 2011, but at that point it will transition to a state franchise agreement.  I had never heard of a state franchise before.  I know that the negotiating power the city has at franchise renewal will be diluted considerably on the state level. Second, the current franchise only applies to TWC cable TV service, not its broadband products.  It was brought up in the meeting that Grande Communications, another regional cable provider, has full authority to compete in TWC’s market for broadband service.  This raised a serious flag to me.  If both cable TV and broadband products are carried on the same infrastructure, but the franchise agreement only applies to the cable TV service, then they are in effect creating and illegal de facto franchise out of the broadband market.  Grande cannot compete with TWC’s broadband product, because they’re not allowed to bring their cable TV infrastructure into TWC’s market.

Since TWC has decided to shelve it’s metered broadband trials in Ausin for the time being, there is not much the Telecom Commission can do against current TWC actions other than possibly investigate instances of service being shut off based on a soft 40 GB cap in their excessive use clause.  But the commission has resolved to begin the groundwork necessary to fight this issue in the future by codifying its own policies and rules for fair market practices and pressing the city of Austin to lobby state and federal lawmakers.

The Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, two unions representing employees at Verizon and Frontier, are skeptical about the benefits of Frontier acquiring telephone lines from Verizon.

In a joint statement, the two unions suggest the debt load from the deal will mean less money for broadband service deployment, not more.

The sale would move 4.8 million lines serving residential and business customers in 14 states to Frontier. The deal calls for Frontier to take on $3.3 billion in debt; Verizon gets that amount in debt relief. That leaves Frontier saddled with debt that will lessen the potential amount available for investment in high speed broadband deployment.

Similar tax-free transactions by Verizon, especially those involving the Reverse Morris Trust tax provisions, haven’t worked out so well, especially for consumers in New England now served by FairPoint Communications.

Having your local phone company disappear and get replaced by another provider isn’t an everyday occurrence for most people.  Customers are concerned about the impact of Verizon leaving their area, to be replaced by Frontier, an unfamiliar company for most parts of the country.  We have the video.

Let’s begin in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where WANE-TV interviews one worried local businessman already dissatisfied with what Verizon was charging, and wonder what surprises Frontier will bring: