Burlington Telecom, the troubled publicly-owned fiber broadband network for Burlington, Vt., is working on a comeback by finally boosting its speeds well beyond what competitors FairPoint Communications and Comcast can offer residential broadband subscribers.

BT will offer residents 40/40Mbps service for $99.99 per month and 1,000/1,000Mbps service for just $50 more per month (with a 12-month contract), starting Dec. 1:

Stop the Cap! previously recommended BT consider offering faster speed packages that give subscribers a compelling reason to switch from Comcast or FairPoint. Community broadband providers with fiber optic networks need to leverage those superior networks to drive new customers to sign up, and BT certainly could use a influx of new business as it fights through its financial problems.

We strongly recommend BT consider boosting its 40/40Mbps offering to at least 100/100Mbps at the $100 price point to better compete with Comcast’s Extreme 105 tier, which offers 105/20Mbps for just $15 more per month. Pricing and speeds must be comparable with the cable competition to compel a customer to go through the hassle of changing providers, and most subscribers still don’t value higher upload speeds as much as download speeds.

BT’s gigabit offering succeeds on all counts, but it is unlikely to draw a large percentage of customers willing to pay $150 a month for residential Internet service.

Cable companies are starting to lay the groundwork to support the next generation of HD video — first with 4K, an improvement over today’s HD standard, and eventually 8K Ultra High Definition TV — delivering pictures 16 times better than the current 1080p HD standard and coming close to the level of detail supported by IMAX.

The 8K evolving standard, proposed by Japan’s public broadcaster NHK and dubbed Super Hi-Vision, remains years away, but cable operators are preparing their systems to support 4K UHDTV (3840 x 2160 – 8.3 megapixels)  much sooner.

By the time 8K comes into use, most cable operators will rely entirely on a single broadband pipe to deliver video, Internet access and telephone service. To handle that traffic, and the bandwidth UHDTV demands, providers will have to upgrade their systems to support much faster speeds. A single video channel transmitted in 8K UHDTV requires around 360Mbps.

That makes Google’s decision to construct a gigabit broadband network in Kansas City seem less revolutionary and almost evolutionary, considering how quickly bandwidth demand will increase in the next eight years.

The cable industry is now moving fast to finalize the next version of the DOCSIS standard which supports cable broadband. DOCSIS 3.1 is expected to be introduced Thursday at the Cable-Tec Expo. An initial preview seems to suggest the standard will be backwards-compatible with prior DOCSIS versions — good news for those buying their own cable modems — and will support multi-gigabit speeds, if the cable operator decides to dedicate more of its available bandwidth to broadband.

An essential goal of the cable industry is to match or beat 1Gbps, currently on offer from several fiber to the home service providers and Google. Some operators want even more — up to 10/2Gbps capacity, as they consider future speed needs.

But engineering advancements and innovation fly in the face of bean counters attempting to monetize broadband usage with usage caps and usage-based billing. The industry’s justification for usage caps becomes even more tenuous as it moves to a single pipeline for all of its services and treats its cable TV package differently from Internet traffic. AT&T and Bell are already doing that today with their U-verse and Fibe platforms. Both claim their TV channels move over a different network than traditional Internet, but as costs for both continue to decline, that is becoming a distinction with little difference.

Google and a handful of independent or community-owned broadband networks are largely the only ones calling out the cable industry’s bogus claims that consumers don’t need super fast broadband, usage caps are necessary, and broadband speed upgrades are difficult and too expensive. These new competitors have correctly predicted the exponential growth in bandwidth demand and are prepared for it, even as the industry continues to dismiss their competitors’ networks as unnecessary overkill.

But cable’s hurry to DOCSIS 3.1 tells a different story.

Jeff Baumgartner from Light Reading Cable observed cable executives at Tuesday’s annual Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing (CTAM) conference, where those attending beat the drum for faster and better networks:

[DOCSIS 3.1] will also focus on the quality of cable’s pipe, reduced latency and other smarts designed to help enable a new set of broadband-based services. Cable’s interest in offering 4K HD services, which offer four times the resolution of today’s HD, was an example that was brought up several times during the session.

The cable industry also hopes to shorten the process of creating the specs and having them turn into deployable products. An average generation of DOCSIS has typically taken three to four years.

“We can no longer do that,” said Phil McKinney, the new president and CEO of CableLabs, but didn’t offer a guess on the anticipated cycle for 3.1. “We have to deliver higher and higher performance.”

[…] And 3.1 is also about the almighty dollar as broadband usage continues to climb. Getting costs down “is a key part of Docsis 3.1,” said Cox Communications Inc. EVP and CTO Kevin Hart.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Light Reading NBCU Ultra-HD Demo 10-12.flv[/flv]

Jeff Baumgartner from Light Reading Cable was invited to a demonstration of 8K UHDTV, which will require much faster broadband networks to handle the super high quality video. (3 minutes)

Phillip “You Guys Need a Timeout” Dampier

AT&T and Time Warner Cable are complaining they have gotten a raw deal from Kansas City, Mo. and Kansas City, Ks., in comparison to the incentives Google was granted to wire both cities with gigabit fiber broadband.

“It’s time to modernize our industry’s rules and regulations…so all consumers benefit from fair and equal competition,” read a statement from AT&T.

“There are certain portions of the agreement between Google and Kansas City, Kan., that put them at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field,” said Alex Dudley, a Time Warner Cable spokesman. “We’re happy to compete with Google, but we’d just like an even playing field.”

The Wall Street Journal seemed to suggest Google was getting the keys to both cities, with grants of free office space and free power for Google’s equipment, according to the agreement on file with the cities. The company also gets the use of all the cities’ “assets and infrastructure”—including fiber, buildings, land and computer tools, for no charge. Both cities are even providing Google a team of government employees “dedicated to the project,” says the Journal.

The Google Fiber project was so desired that the local governments rolled out the red carpet. In Kansas City, Mo., for instance, the city is allowing Google to construct “fiberhuts,” small buildings that house equipment on city land at no cost, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The cities are discounting other services, as well. For the right to attach its cables to city utility poles, Google is paying Kansas City, Kan., only $10 per pole per year—compared with the $18.95 Time Warner Cable pays. Both cities have also waived permit and inspection fees for Google.

The cities are even helping Google market its fiber build-out. And both are implementing city-managed marketing and education programs about the gigabit network that will, among other things, include direct mailings and community meetings.

Several cable executives complain that the cities also gave Google the unusual right to start its fiber project only in neighborhoods guaranteeing high demand for the service through pre-registrations. Most cable and phone companies were required by franchise agreements with regional governments to build out most of the markets they entered, regardless of demand.

But the Journal missed two key points:

1. Time Warner Cable has been granted the same concessions given to Google on the Missouri side, and AT&T presumably will also get them when it completes negotiations with city officials on the matter.
2. Both cable and phone companies have the benefit of incumbency, and the article ignores concessions each had secured when their operations first got started.

The Bell System enjoyed a monopoly on phone service for decades, with concessions on rights-of-way, telephone poles and placement. AT&T was a major beneficiary, and although the AT&T of today is not the same corporation that older Americans once knew, the company continues a century-long tradition of winning the benefit of the doubt in both the state and federal legislature. AT&T has won statewide video franchise agreements that give the company the power to determine where it will roll out its more advanced U-verse platform, and enjoys carefully crafted federal tax policies that helped them not only avoid paying any federal tax in 2011 — the company actually secured a $420 million “refund” subsidized by taxpayers.

Cable operators also won major concessions from local governments under pressure from citizens eager to buy cable television. At the time, cable companies were granted exclusive franchises — a cable monopoly — to operate, an important distinction for investors concerned about the value of their early investments. Local zoning and pole attachment matters were either negotiated or dealt with legislatively to allow cable companies the right to hang their wires on existing utility poles. Franchise agreements permitted the gradual roll-out of cable service in each franchise area, often allowing two, three, or more years to introduce service. It was not uncommon for neighborhoods on one side of town to have cable two years before the other side could sign up. That sounds awfully familiar to AT&T U-verse today.

Google’s proposal to build a revolutionary broadband network delivering 1Gbps deserved and got the same type of treatment then-revolutionary phone and cable service won back in the day.

Time Warner Cable also won much the same treatment Google is now getting, and the cable operator has gotten $27,000 in fees refunded and will avoid another $100,000 in permit fees going forward. Time Warner Cable and Google will both receive free traffic control services during network construction — not that Time Warner Cable plans much of a change for customers in either Missouri or Kansas.

AT&T will likely also receive the same treatment, although it would be hypocritical of them to complain that Google gets to pick and choose where it provides service. Large swaths of Kansas City and suburbs are still waiting for U-verse to arrive, and many areas will never get the service. Cable operators had to wire a little further, but also benefited from years of monopoly status and network construction expenses paid off years ago when there literally was no competition.

Those paragons of virtue at Goldman Sachs are appalled Google has such a good relationship with Kansas City officials more than happy to have the gigabit speeds neither AT&T or Time Warner Cable would even consider providing.

Google’s rights “appear to be significantly more favorable than those cable, Verizon or any other fiber overbuilders achieved when striking deals with local governments in the past,” Goldman Sachs analyst Jason Armstrong told the Journal. “We’re surprised Time Warner Cable hasn’t been more vocal in its opposition.”

But then the cable company has secured most of the same benefits Google has, so why complain at all?

In fact, city officials had to browbeat Time Warner to modernize its network in ways it would have not done otherwise without the new agreement.

Both AT&T and Time Warner have every right to be concerned. Their substandard networks and high prices (along with a lousy history of customer service, according to national surveys) put them at a competitive disadvantage if Google does not make any major mistakes. Neither cable or phone company has made any noise about upgrading service to compete, and should customers begin to leave in droves, then both companies may actually have something to cry about.

The Wall Street Journal’s report on the concessions granted to Google wanders off into the Net Neutrality debate for some reason, and misses several important facts reviewed above.  (3 minutes)

Phillip Dampier

While tech fans in Kansas City rejoice over 1Gbps broadband for $70 a month, the average broadband user will think long and hard about the prospect of paying $840 a year for broadband at any speed.

That is why Google Fiber-delivered broadband in and of itself is not a cable/phone company-killing proposition.

We too easily forget our friends and neighbors that seem clueless satisfied with their 3Mbps DSL account from AT&T that they were sold with a phone line package for around $60 a month. Web pages slow to load and constantly-buffering multimedia? In their world, that means “the Internet is slow today,” not their provider.

Phone and cable companies have the internal studies to back up their claims that price matters… a lot. Those who treat the Internet as a useful, but not indispensable part of their life are going to be a tough sell at $70 a month. In fact, it is my prediction many future income-challenged and older customers will splurge on Google’s free-after-paying-for-installation 5Mbps service, satisfied that speed is currently “good enough” for the web browsing, e-mail, and occasional web video they watch on their home computer.

That is why Google was smart to offer the ultimate in “budget Internet.” Free after the $300 installation fee (thank goodness for the interest-free budget $25 payment plan) is far better than $20-25 a month for 1-3Mbps service many cable and phone companies offer their “light users.” It also brings Google’s fiber into the customer’s home, a perfect way to up-sell them later or offer other services down the road.

But the smartest move of all was Google’s very-familiar quasi-triple play package price point — $120 for broadband and television service (they really should bundle Google Voice into the package and cover the phone component for those who still want it). With the phone and cable company charging upwards of that amount already for after-promotion triple-play service, the sticker shock disappears. It’s no longer $70 for broadband, it’s $120 for everything. That is a much easier sell for the non-broadband-obsessed.

It also provides Google a critically-important broadband platform to roll out other services, including those that will appeal to customers who don’t have the first clue what a megabit or gigabit is all about. They don’t really care — they just want it to work and deliver the services they want to use hassle-free.

For Google Fiber to prove a profitable proposition, the search engine giant has to:

• Find a way to manage the huge infrastructure and installation costs, especially bringing fiber lines to individual homes. Middle-mile networks with fiber cables that string down major roadways, but ultimately never connect to individual homes and businesses are far less expensive than providing retail service. Google’s $300 installation fee is steep, but manageable with payments and even better when customers commit to a multi-year contract to waive it;
• Offer the services customers want. An incomplete cable television package can be a deal-breaker for many customers who demand certain sports or movie channels. Although younger customers may not care a bit about cable television service, they also may not be able to afford the $70 broadband-only price. Google will need to attract families, and most of them still subscribe to cable, satellite, or telco TV. They are also the most grounded customers, an attractive proposition for a company dealing with high infrastructure expenses that will take years to pay off. It’s harder to cover your costs selling to a customer still in school and likely to move after they graduate in a few years;
• Sell customers on the hassle and inconvenience of throwing out the incumbent provider in favor of fiber, which will require considerable rewiring. It is one thing to express dissatisfaction with the local cable or phone company, it is another to take a day off from work to return old equipment and have unfamiliar installers in your home to provision fiber service. Some don’t want the hassle or lost time, others won’t switch until they get around to cleaning their messy house or apartment before they invite Google inside;
• Deliver an excellent customer service experience. Google’s current level of support for its web-based services would never be tolerated by a paying broadband/cable customer. Google will have to learn as they go in Kansas City, but first impressions can mean a lot;
• Expansion to get economy of scale. It is highly likely Google Fiber is a marketplace experiment for the company, and one it will study for a long time before it decides where to go next. Google’s “beta” projects are legendary and long, and if their fiber experiment does prove successful (or at least potentially so), the company will need to expand it rapidly to enjoy the kinds of vendor discounts a super-player can negotiate.

Verizon FiOS is the largest fiber to the home network in the United States. Their “take rate” of customers willing to sign up for the service has not exactly put incumbent cable companies into bankruptcy, even with $300-500 reward debit rebate cards and ultra-cheap introductory rates. Motivating subscribers to switch has never been as successful as theory might suggest. But Verizon has also shown other providers they can hard-negotiate significant discounts on hardware and equipment, and price cutting sessions have become ruthless.

At least Google has set its targets at reasonable levels. Only between 5-25% of eligible families have to commit to signing up for service in each “fiberhood” for Google to proceed with service rollout in that immediate area. That’s a realistic target with all of the factors necessary to deem the project a success.

Time Warner Cable last week intimated the only thing keeping faster cable modem speeds from Kansas City customers is consumer demand and they are not worried about the arrival of Google Fiber’s 1Gbps broadband speeds.

The cable operator claims they have the advantage in Kansas City, as the first provider to offer a triple play package of voice, broadband, and television service. Time Warner also says they are constantly working on new, innovative services, including the much-touted “tablet remote” the company says it already offers customers in Kansas City in the form of apps available on the Android and iOS platforms.

“We always have the ability to adjust our network to keep up with demands from consumers [for faster broadband speeds],” Time Warner Cable said.

Cable operators and phone companies have traditionally argued there is little consumer demand for gigabit broadband speeds because the services most customers access online don’t need or cannot support that level of speed. Cost has also usually been a factor, and many operators point out the majority of their customers are satisfied with speeds of 20Mbps or less.

“We’re ready to compete any day, anytime, anywhere, with anyone,” said Time Warner Cable spokesman Mike Pedelty.

AT&T, which has been providing U-verse in parts of Kansas City since 2007 says it isn’t threatened by Google Fiber either.

Chris Lester from AT&T Media Relations notes AT&T now offers U-verse to more than 400,000 households in and around Kansas City and claims the company has gotten a “great response” from consumers, but declined to specify exactly how many of those households have actually signed up for service.

Both the dominant cable and phone company in Kansas City are betting on subscriber loyalty and consumer resistance to change to maintain their subscriber numbers. Statistically, they have a good chance of holding most of their current customers, at least for now.

The threat of Google’s fiber fast speeds may not be limited only to Kansas City, however. The Wall Street Journal has learned Google may be intending to bring its fiber network to other American cities, as long as they are not already served by Verizon’s FiOS fiber-to-the-home network.

Incumbent cable operators facing new competition from phone company IPTV (AT&T U-verse, Verizon FiOS) have not lost as much business as they first anticipated. In most cases, only 25-35% of customers eventually left for a satellite or phone company competitor. The older the subscriber, the less likely that customer is to consider a change, unless the service is poor or the price becomes unaffordable.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Competition for Google Fiber 7-26-12.mp4[/flv]

KCTV in Kansas City talks with AT&T and Time Warner Cable about their newest competitor.  (2 minutes)

No cable operator has reported alarming results from subscriber defections, either from competition or cord-cutting behavior, and Wall Street analysts are watching subscriber numbers closely.

So far, reports on the ground indicate AT&T and Time Warner Cable are following the playbook first established when any new broadband provider arrives on their turf — aggressively market discounts tied to a contract with a stiff early termination fee to discourage customers from switching. At least one local provider has been reportedly sending salespeople door to door to try and lock customers in with a multi-year service contract. When that does not work, both companies use their customer retention departments to offer customers cheaper service in a last ditch effort to keep them from heading for the door.

Even with those defensive measures, some investors still see Google’s new fiber service as something new and different in the broadband marketplace — “the most disruptive thing since Gmail,” concludes Business Insider‘s Matt Rosoff.

Rosoff says Google Fiber could completely change the broadband landscape in the United States much the same way Gmail changed e-mail.

Back when Gmail launched, the other free email providers like Hotmail and Yahoo Mail were offering less than 5MB of storage — that’s five megabytes,” Rosoff writes. “Google trumped them all with 1GB of free storage. With so much storage, there was no need to trash anything. You could archive it and keep it forever.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox Business News Google Stirs It Up 7-26-12.flv[/flv]

Fox Business News explores Google Fiber and finds phone companies telling reporters consumers don’t need 1Gbps broadband.  (2 minutes)

Gmail has since captured a large share of the email market, while also paving the way for Google’s increasingly profitable business apps. Some also argue Google’s “save everything online” approach was like training wheels for the cloud computing concept, where consumers think less about local storage and more about going online to access content. Google Fiber’s speeds make accessing online content effortless, and with no usage caps, customers need not ration their usage.

As of Monday, Google has already achieved the minimum number of needed homes to install Google Fiber in several, mostly affluent, Kansas City neighborhoods.

Rosoff says much like Gmail exposed the weaknesses of former email leaders like Hotmail, Google Fiber embarrasses incumbent Internet Service Providers and illustrates just how slow they have been to innovate.

“Google Fiber makes the cable-based ISPs look pathetic,” says Rosoff. “It promises to offer speeds up to 1,000Mbps downstream and upstream, for only $70 a month.”

In comparison, Time Warner Cable charges $100 for 50/5Mbps service in Kansas City. AT&T’s U-verse can only offer up to 24/3Mbps service, and it charges well over $50 a month for that, except on a new customer promotion. Both Time Warner and AT&T also sell “lite use” packages from 1-6Mpbs for $20-25 a month — service Google intends to give away for free after a $300 installation fee.

Many industry observers suggest Google is using its new fiber network in part as a hedge against market abuse from dominant cable and phone companies who are fiercely opposed to Net Neutrality and favor monetizing broadband usage.  Both are serious threats to Google’s business model which seeks more usage, not less. The more time consumers spend online, the more likely they will be exposed to a Google ad, use a Google product, or purchase a current or forthcoming service owned or partnered with the search engine giant.

Early indications from Kansas City show the cable and phone companies do have something to be concerned about. In more affluent areas of Kansas City, Google passed the minimum number of households willing to commit to the fiber service in just two days. Enthusiasm has been so overwhelming, tech entrepreneurs drooling for fiber service are hiring door-to-door promoters to visit nearby residents to encourage them to show their interest, in some cases even paying Google’s $10 pre-registration fee on their behalf.

More than 20 percent of the eligible “fiberhoods” in Kansas City, Mo. have already passed their signup goals. In poorer, mostly minority neighborhoods, Google is still waiting for their first pre-registration. In less affluent Kansas City, Kan., Google is finding considerably less interest, and pre-registrations are running below goal in all but three “fiberhoods.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDAF Kansas City Competitors Gear Up For Google’s Challenge 7-26-12.flv[/flv]

WDAF says competing cable and phone companies cannot deliver the speeds Google Fiber will offer, but they are betting consumers don’t need or care about faster broadband speeds. (3 minutes)