Fixed line (wired) broadband is still a critically important technology in Germany.

Vodafone Deutschland and Kabel Deutschland, now both owned by Vodafone, have launched a joint marketing agreement to pitch wired broadband to customers across Germany under the new brand Zuhause Plus (At Home Plus).

Customers have the choice of either Vodafone’s VDSL at speeds up to 50Mbps or cable broadband from Kabel Deutschland at speeds up to 100Mbps. Vodafone is trying to convince customers to abandon VDSL in favor of cable broadband, which also offers television service. Vodafone is working on bringing television to its VDSL customers at some point in the future, but it would compromise available broadband speeds.

To provoke DSL customers to consider a change, a special offer of $27.72 a month for phone and broadband service is available for those agreeing to switch to cable.

Together, Vodafone and Kabel Deutschland reach nearly 98% of German homes. At least 40% get DSL speeds exceeding 25Mbps. The company is targeting speeds of at least 100Mbps for its DSL, cable and LTE wireless networks.

The Kabel Deutschland brand will soon disappear in favor of the Vodafone brand. The two companies were merged last October in a $15.3 billion dollar deal.

Level 3’s global network: Orange lines represent Level 3-owned infrastructure, yellow lines show leased or co-owned connections.

Five of the largest Internet Service Providers in the country are intentionally sabotaging your use of the Internet by allowing their network connections to degrade unless they receive extra compensation from content companies they often directly compete with.

Mark Taylor, vice president of content and media for Level 3, wrote a lengthy primer on how Internet providers exchange traffic with each other across a vast global network. While clients of Level 3 are likely to have few problems exchanging traffic back and forth across Level 3’s global network, vital interconnections with other providers that make sure everyone can communicate with everyone else on the Internet are occasional trouble spots.

Every provider has different options to reach other providers, but favor those offering the most direct route possible to minimize “hops” between networks, which slow down the connection and increase the risk of service interruptions. These connections are often arranged through peering agreements. Level 3 has 51 peers, minimized in number to keep traffic moving as efficiently as possible.

This oversaturated port in Dallas cannot handle all the traffic trying to pass through it, so Internet packets are often dropped and traffic speeds are slowed.

Taylor writes most peering arrangements were informal agreements between engineers and did not involve any money changing hands. Today, 48 of the 51 Level 3 peering agreements don’t involve compensation. In fact, Level 3 refuses to pay “arbitrary charges to add interconnection capacity.” Taylor feels such upgrades are a matter of routine and are not costly for either party.

Peering agreements have been a very successful part of the Internet experience, even if end users remain completely in the dark about how Internet traffic moves around the world. In the view of many, customers don’t need to know and shouldn’t care, because their monthly Internet bill more than covers the cost of transporting data back and forth.

Because of ongoing upgrades the average utilization of Level 3’s connections is around 36 percent of capacity — busy enough to justify keeping the connection and providing spare capacity for days when Internet traffic explodes during breaking news or over the holidays.

However, Taylor says more than a year ago, something suddenly changed at five U.S. Internet Service Providers. They stopped periodic upgrades and allowed some of their connections to become increasingly busy with traffic. Today, six of Level 3’s 51 peer connections are now 90 percent saturated with traffic for several hours a day, which causes traffic to degrade or get lost.

“[The] congestion [has become] permanent, has been in place for well over a year and […] our peer refuses to augment capacity,” Taylor wrote. “They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfill the requests their customers make for content.”

Taylor adds all but one of the affected connections are U.S. consumer broadband networks with a dominant or exclusive market share. Where competition exists, no provider allows their Internet connections to degrade, said Taylor.

Taylor won’t directly name the offenders, but he left an easy-to-follow trail:

“The companies with the congested peering interconnects also happen to rank dead last in customer satisfaction across all industries in the U.S.,” Taylor wrote. “Not only dead last, but by a massive statistical margin of almost three standard deviations.”

Taylor footnotes the source for his rankings, the American Consumer Satisfaction Index. The five worse providers listed for consumer satisfaction:

• Comcast
• Time Warner Cable
• Charter Communications
• Cox Communications
• Verizon

AT&T has also made noises about insisting on compensation for its own network upgrades, blaming Netflix traffic.

In fact, Netflix traffic seems to be a common point of contention among Internet Service Providers that also sell their own television packages. They now insist the streaming video provider establish direct, paid connections with their networks. Level 3 is affected because it carries a substantial amount of traffic on behalf of Netflix.

Ultimately, the debate is about who pays for network upgrades to keep up with traffic growth. Taylor says Level 3’s cost to add an extra 10Gbps port would be between $10-20 thousand dollars, spare change for multi-billion dollar Americans cable and phone companies. Normally, competition would never allow a traffic dispute like this interfere with a customer’s usage experience. Angry customers would simply switch providers. But the lack of competition prevents this from happening in the United States, leaving customers in the middle.

This leaves Taylor with a question: “Shouldn’t a broadband consumer network with near monopoly control over their customers be expected, if not obligated, to deliver a better experience than this?”

In North America, the best prices, rebates and packages are only available to new customers while customer loyalty is rewarded with rate hikes.

In the United Kingdom, Virgin Media handles things differently, offering its best new packages and deals first to current customers before they become available to the public at large.

This week, the cable operator introduced two discounted “quad-play” bundles of broadband, mobile, television, and home phone service at prices that are unbelievably low by North American standards.

• The $59.40 Big Bang bundle provides 100Mbps broadband, a Virgin Media TiVo, home phone service, and Virgin Mobile service with unlimited talk/text and 250MB of data;
• The $84.88 Big Kahuna delivers 152Mbps broadband, a Virgin Media TiVo with a 230 TV channel package, home phone service, and Virgin Mobile service with unlimited talk/text and 250MB of data.

“Our fantastic new bundles deliver unprecedented value as standard,” said Dana Strong, chief operating officer of Virgin Media. “For the first time, households will be able to get the best broadband together with the UK’s best value mobile SIM, as part of a bundle perfectly tailored to the customer’s needs.”

Virgin Media will introduce other packages in the near future and is resetting its standard broadband speed offering to 50Mbps. Customers with 30Mbps will be upgraded to 50Mbps, 60Mbps customers will soon get 100Mbps, and 120Mbps customers will be boosted to 152Mbps — all at no additional charge.

The new bundles come with an 18-month contract and do not include the usual BT line rental charge for telephone service that most landline customers in Britain already pay, regardless of provider, which costs an extra $27.15 a month.

Customers who don’t want mobile service with Virgin will be given a further discount, as the price chart below shows:

Despite years of arguments from telecom companies that residential customers don’t need or want super-fast broadband speeds, the people of Kansas City think otherwise.

A survey by Wall Street analyst Bernstein Research discovered Google Fiber has signed up almost 75% of homes offered the gigabit fiber-to-the-home service.

“[Customer] penetration measured by our survey was much higher than we had expected,” said Berstein Research analyst Carlos Kirjner.

Haynes and Company conducted a door-to-door survey of more than 200 homes within Google Fiber’s service area in Kansas City, visiting wealthy, middle-income, and challenged urban areas. Despite claims from cable and phone companies that Google is only interested in choosing to offer fiber service in affluent areas, Bernstein Research found Google was doing very well in every neighborhood.

In the poorest neighborhoods, Google is still winning a 30% market share — way above estimates, with customers attracted to Google’s free 5/1Mbps broadband service (customers must pay a recently lowered $30 construction fee). Customer penetration rates in urban areas could grow even higher if Google allowed customers with free Internet service access to its $50 cable television package, now only available to gigabit broadband customers.

Google’s service plans

In middle and upper income neighborhoods, Google has decisively captured a 75% market share — clearly a major problem for incumbent competitors AT&T and Time Warner Cable, which could lose well over half their customers.

Even more worrying for the cable and phone companies, Google is grabbing customers primarily on word-of-mouth testimonials from satisfied customers. At least 98% of Kansas City residents surveyed were aware of Google’s fiber offering. At least 52% said they would “definitely or probably” buy Google Fiber, 25% said they might or might not purchase the service, and only 19% said they definitely or probably wouldn’t buy it.

“Our survey suggests that Google Fiber has gained a significant foothold in its early Kansas City fiberhoods. Consumers are highly satisfied with Google Fiber service, suggesting its share gains are likely not done yet,” Kirjner added.

Bernstein believes Google can grab an even larger share of the Kansas City market by returning to mature fiberhoods in the future with aggressive marketing campaigns that could easily win even more customers.

If Bernstein’s research holds true in other markets, Google Fiber could eventually become a serious competitive threat to both cable and telephone companies, depending on how quickly they expand. Google Fiber is also likely to become a profitable service for the search engine giant, despite the high initial expense of wiring communities for fiber optics.

Bernstein predicts that Google Fiber is positioned to capture a minimum of 50% of the Kansas City market within four years, knocking Time Warner Cable’s out of first place for the first time and posing a serious financial threat for AT&T’s less-capable U-verse platform, which has only attracted a minority share of the market. At least 40% of customers seeking a broadband and cable television package will choose Google Fiber, Bernstein Research predicts.

In almost every market, the traditional cable operator still maintains the largest share of customers. Telephone company competitors usually don’t win more than 20-30% of a market, although Verizon FiOS’ fiber network does better than most. Satellite providers only compete for television customers, which is increasingly less profitable than broadband service.

These kinds of results underline Bernstein Research’s conviction Google Fiber is not an experiment or publicity stunt that the cable industry often claims it to be. Nor does the research firm believe Google is only interested in forcing cable and phone companies to raise broadband speeds. Instead, it is becoming increasingly clear Google is prepared to gradually expand its fiber network across the country, at least in areas bypassed by Verizon FiOS or other fiber networks. However, it will take many years for this to happen.

Paul

Three important Republican lawmakers have announced their support of Comcast’s $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable, claiming the combined entity will not affect competition in the cable or broadband market.

Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas told Newsmax TV’s Steve Malzberg the cable merger does not seem to be a monopoly.

“One of the good things about the Internet … is there’s such of diversity of opinion and so many places to get opinion that all the old-fashioned rules on merger and acquisitions in media really have become outdated,” Paul said. “[There are] so many places to look for a viewpoint … [so] I’m just not much on having the government get involved. Most of the time the government gets involved because another competitor doesn’t like it and that competitor is usually an enormous competitor…. So for the most part, I would let [these] mergers occur.”

Graham

South Carolina’s Lindsay Graham agreed with Paul. Despite the fact South Carolina is now dominated by Comcast and Time Warner Cable, turning the two companies into one does not pose any problem for Graham.

“There’s no competition between Time Warner and Comcast in a cable market, so you’re not creating a monopoly,” Graham said. “There’s competition with satellite, with phone companies, with all kind of things.”

Farenthold expressed concern about “left-leaning” Comcast, owner of NBC and MSNBC, getting larger but cannot oppose the merger on those grounds alone.

Farenthold

“You can’t not approve a merger because you don’t like the companies’ politics. That’s just not right,” Farenthold told Newsmax. “The issue is, is it going to create a monopoly? Well, Time Warner and Comcast don’t compete in any markets or maybe very few markets.”

Two of the lawmakers received contributions from Comcast’s political action committee:

• Graham: $13,500
• Farenthold: $2,000