Gone

After more than a decade of “beep, beep,” Time Warner Cable is retiring Geococcyx californianus, the ground foraging cuckoo better known as the Greater Roadrunner.

It’s all part of a “brand refresh,” Time Warner’s Jeannette Castaneda tells Fortune.  The idea is to “create excitement around the eye-ear symbol.”  For now, the “Road Runner” name will remain — just the mascot disappears.

When Road Runner was first introduced in 1995 in Elmira, N.Y., it was designed to be a localized high-speed online portal, originally called the “Southern Tier On-Line Community.” Portals were all the rage in the 1990s, designed to serve as a unified home page to help users find content more easily.  When the cable modem broadband service finally spread to other markets, it was branded ‘LineRunner.’

But Time Warner’s marketing people decided the company’s best strategy to convince users that paying at least double the price they were paying for dial-up was worth the investment when you considered how fast cable broadband service was, and how it would outperform any dial-up connection.  The cable company spent months negotiating with Warner Bros. to license the use of the roadrunner in the old Wile E. Coyote cartoons.  The company even changed the name of their broadband product to Road Runner to drive home the speed message.

The "eye-ear" branding that replaces it.

Over the years, Time Warner has blanketed customers in postcard mailers, advertising, and billboards showcasing their broadband mascot, but no more.  While Time Warner Cable would not provide exact reasons for the brand change, we suspect there are several factors involved:

1. The cost to license the roadrunner character from Warner Bros.  In 1998, regional Time Warner representatives shared that the licensing agreement with Warner Bros. was costly and complicated.  Warner Bros. maintains strict control over their licensed characters and how they are used.
2. In the past, emphasizing speed was essential in convincing consumers to drop their old provider for the cable company’s alternative.  But broadband penetration in most of Time Warner’s markets has already reached a high level and most of those still refusing to take the service are not going to be convinced by speed arguments.  For these holdouts, lack of interest and the cost of the service are the most important factors, and the roadrunner character does not speak to these concerns.
3. 

   Canis usagecapus

   The telecom industry, notably cable, has spent years trying to retire the phrases “Internet access” and “Internet Service Provider.”  They don’t even like the word “broadband.”  For them – it’s High Speed Internet (HSI) or “High Speed Online.”  They have put the words “high speed” in the very term they use to describe Internet access.

4. Time Warner Cable believes in their unified bundling of services.  They aggressively pitch all of them together at a discounted price and have de-emphasized the branding that used to be associated with individual package components.  For example, Time Warner didn’t retire the name “LineRunner” when they rebranded their cable modem service Road Runner.  They simply re-used the name for their telephone service.  Time Warner tested LineRunner in the Rochester, N.Y. market before ditching the product for a Voice Over IP service they now like to call “digital phone.”  Today, most of Time Warner Cable’s most visible ancillary branding is done for their triple-play packages.  Remember “All the Best?”

Fortune thinks the retirement of the roadrunner may also have something to do with the company’s desire to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme:

TWC, like other big ISPs, is a leading proponent of imposing bandwidth caps on its Internet users. Imagine the possibilities for illustrating articles about this topic – Wile E Coyote (perhaps wearing a TWC ballcap) tripping up the Road Runner with piano wire, or finally getting his revenge and hurling the obnoxious bird off a cliff.

Phillip "Try the Gouda" Dampier

Welcome to the Broadband Usage Whine & Cheese Festival

Midcontinent Communications earlier this month announced a big boost in broadband speeds for more than 250,000 customers in the Dakotas and Minnesota, bringing up to 100/15Mbps service to customers who wanted or needed that speed.

MidcoNet Xstream Wideband, made possible with a DOCSIS 3 upgrade, delivers 1/1Mbps ($30.95), 30/5Mbps ($44.95), 50/10Mbps ($64.95), or 100/15Mbps ($104.95) service.  Those are mighty fast speeds for an upper midwestern cable company, especially in states where 1-3Mbps DSL is much more common.

The cable provider was excited to introduce the speed upgrades earlier this month, telling customers:

At up to 100 Mbps, MidcoNet Xstream^® Wideband is fast. But today’s online experience is about more than speed. It’s about the power and capacity to run every streaming, blogging, downloading, surfing, gaming, chatting, working, playing, connected device in the house. All at the same time. MidcoNet Xstream Wideband delivers…it’s everyone in your entire family online at once, doing the most intense online activities, no problem.

But now there is a problem.  Customers spending upwards of $105 a month for the fastest Internet speeds are actually using them to leverage the Internet’s most bandwidth-intensive services, and evidently Midco isn’t too happy about that.  Todd Spangler, a columnist for cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News, was given a usage chart by Midco, and used it to lecture readers about the need for usage caps: “One thing is clear: Broadband service providers will all need to do something to contain the rapidly rising flood of Internet data.”  The implication left with readers is that limiting broadband usage is the only way to stem the tide.

Midco's not-so-useful chart looks mighty scary, showing usage growth on their 100Gbps backbone network, but leaves an enormous amount of information out of the equation. (Source: Midcontinent Communications via Multichannel News)

Spangler quotes Midco’s vice president of technology Jon Pederson: “Like most network providers we have evaluated this possibility, but have no immediate plans to implement bandwidth-usage caps,” he said.

So Midco is more than happy to pocket up to $105 a month from their customers, so long as they don’t actually use the broadband service they are paying top dollar to receive.  It’s an ironic case of a provider desiring to improve service, but then getting upset when customers actually use it.

We say ironic because, from all outward appearances, Midco is well-aware of the transformational usage of broadband service in the United States these days:

If you have ever once said “my Internet is too slow,” then you need MidcoNet Xstream Wideband. With it, you can do all the cool things you’ve heard people are doing online. Explore all the great stuff your online world has to offer. Play the most intense games. Try things you could never do before, from entertainment to finance, video chat or video streaming. Like we said, MidcoNet Xstream Wideband is all about speed, capacity, choice and control.

What this means for you is that you’ll be able to do things like:

• Download and start enjoying entire HD movies in seconds, not minutes.
• Stream video and music without a hitch while you simultaneously perform other intense online tasks.
• Choose from three different pipelines, from 3.0 to 1.0, for the capacity and price your family needs.
• Monitor your bandwidth use to determine if you need more capacity or can do what you want with less.
• Upload files or signals, such as webcam footage, faster than ever before possible for a better online experience.
• Watch ESPN3.com. Your Favorite Sports. Live. Online.

Just don’t do any of these things too much.  Indeed, when providers start toying with usage caps, it’s clear they want you to use your service the same way you did in 2004 — reading your e-mail and browsing web pages.  Real Audio stream anyone?

Let’s ponder the facts Mr. Spangler didn’t entertain in his piece.

Midco upgraded their network to DOCSIS 3 technology to deliver faster speeds and provide more broadband capacity to customers who are using the Internet much differently than a decade ago, when cable modems first became common.  Some providers and their trade press friends seem to think it’s perfectly reasonable to collect the proceeds of premium-priced broadband service while claiming shock over the reality that someone prepared to spend $100 a month for that product will use it far more than the average user.

Part of the price premium charged for faster service is supposed to cover whatever broadband usage growth comes as a result.  That’s why Comcast’s 250GB usage cap never made any sense.  Why would someone pay the company a premium for 50Mbps service that has precisely the same limit someone paying for standard service has to endure?

Cringely

Midcontinent Communications is a private company so we do not have access to their financial reports, but among larger providers the trend is quite clear: revenues from premium speed accounts are being pocketed without a corresponding increase in investment to upgrade their networks to meet demand.  Inevitably that brings the kind of complaining about usage that leads to calls for usage caps or speed throttles to control the growth.

We’re uncertain if Midco is making the case for usage caps, or simply Mr. Spangler.  We’ll explain that in a moment.  But if we are to fully grasp Midco’s broadband challenges, we need much more than a single usage growth chart.  A “shocking” usage graph is no more impressive than those showing an exponential increase in hard drive capacity over the same period.  The only difference is consumers are paying about the same for hard drives today and getting a lot more capacity, while broadband users are paying much more and now being told to use less.  Here is what we’d like to see to assemble a true picture of Midco’s usage “dilemma:”

1. How much average revenue per customer does Midco collect from broadband customers.  Traditional evidence shows ARPU for broadband is growing at a rapid rate, as consumers upgrade to faster speeds at higher prices.  We’d like to compare numbers over the last five years;
2. How much does Midco spend on capital improvements to their network, and plot that spending over the last 10 years to see whether it has increased, remained level, or decreased.  The latter is most common for cable operators, as the percentage spent in relation to revenue is dropping fast;
3. How many subscribers have adopted broadband service over the period their usage chart illustrates, and at what rate of growth?
4. What does Midco pay for upstream connectivity and has that amount gone up, down, or stayed the same over the past few years.  Traditionally, those costs are plummeting.
5. If the expenses for broadband upgrades and connectivity have decreased, what has Midco done with the savings and why are they not prepared to spend that money now to improve their network?

While Midco expresses concern about the costs of connectivity and ponders usage caps, there was plenty of money available for their recent purchase of U.S. Cable, a state-of-the-art fiber system serving 33,000 customers — a significant addition for a cable company that serves around 250,000 customers.

A journey through Midco’s own website seems to tell a very different story from the one Mr. Spangler is promoting.  The aforementioned Mr. Pederson is all over the website with YouTube videos which cast doubt on all of Spangler’s arguments.  Midco has plentiful bandwidth, Mr. Pederson declares — both to neighborhoods and to the Internet backbone.  Their network upgrades were designed precisely to handle today’s realistic use of the Internet.  They are marketing content add-ons that include bandwidth-heavy multimedia.  Why would a provider sell customers on using their broadband service for high-bandwidth applications and then ponder limiting their use?  Mr. Pederson seems well-aware of the implications of an increasingly connected world, and higher usage comes along with that.

That’s why we’d prefer to attack Mr. Spangler’s “evidence” used to favor usage caps instead of simply vilifying Midco — they have so far rejected usage limits for their customers, and should be applauded for that.

Robert X. Cringely approached Midco’s usage chart from a different angle on his blog, delivering facts our readers already know: Americans are overpaying for their broadband service, and the threat of usage caps simply disguises a big fat rate hike.  He found Midco’s chart the same place we did — on Multichannel News’ website.  He dismisses its relevance in the usage cap debate.  Cringley’s article explores the costs of broadband connectivity, which we have repeatedly documented are dropping, and he has several charts to illustrate that fact.

You’ll notice for example that backbone costs in Tokyo, where broadband connections typically run at 100 megabits-per-second, are about four times higher than they are in New York or London. Yet broadband connections in Tokyo cost halfwhat they do in New York, and that’s for a connection at least four times a fast!

So Softbank BB in Tokyo pays four times as much per megabit for backbone capacity and offers four times the speed for half the price of Verizon in New York. Yet Softbank BB is profitable.

No matter what your ISP says, their backbone costs are inconsequential and to argue otherwise is probably a lie.

Cue up Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, who said precisely as much Thursday morning when he admitted bandwidth costs are not terribly relevant to broadband pricing.

We knew that, but it’s great to hear him say it.

Cringely’s excellent analysis puts a price tag on what ISP’s want to cap for their own benefit — their maximum cost to deliver the service:

That 250 gigabytes-per-month works out to about one megabit-per-second, which costs $8 in New York. So your American ISP, who has been spending $0.40 per month to buy the bandwidth they’ve been selling to you for $30, wants to cap their maximum backbone cost per-subscriber at $8.

[…] IP Transit costs will continue to drop. That $8 price will most likely continue to fall at the historical annual rate of 22 percent. So what’s presented as an ISP insurance policy is really a guaranteed profit increase of 22 percent that will be compounded over time because consumption will continue to rise and customers will be for the first time charged for that increased consumption.

This isn’t about capping ISP losses, but are about increasing ISP profits. The caps are a built-in revenue bump that will kick-in 2-3 years from now, circumventing any existing regulatory structure for setting rates. The regulators just haven’t realized it yet. By the time they do it may be too late.

Unfortunately, even if they knew, we have legislators in Washington who are well-paid in campaign money to look the other way unless consumers launch a revolution against duopoly broadband pricing.

Cringely believes usage caps will be the form of your provider’s next rate increase for broadband, but he need not wait that long.  As the aforementioned CEO of Time Warner Cable has already admitted, the pricing power of broadband is such that the cable and phone companies are already increasing rates — repeatedly — for a service many still want to cap.  Why?  Because they can.

Consumers who have educated themselves with actual facts instead of succumbing to ISP “re-education” efforts designed to sell usage limits under the guise of “fairness” are well-equipped to answer Mr. Spangler’s question about whether bandwidth caps are necessary.

The answer was no, is no, and will always be no.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Midco D3 Upgrade Promo 7-11.flv[/flv]

Jon Pederson’s comments on Midcontinent’s own website promoting its new faster broadband speeds can’t be missed.  He counts the number of devices in his own home that connect to the Internet, explains how our use of the Internet has been transformed in the past several years, and declares Midco well-prepared to deliver customers the capacity they need.  Perhaps Mr. Spangler used the wrong company to promote his desire for Internet usage caps.  Pederson handily, albeit indirectly, obliterates Spangler’s own talking points, which makes us wonder why this company even pondered Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps in the first place.  (10 minutes)

Rogers Communications has announced usage cap and speed adjustments for many of its Internet service plans — changes that will bring increased allowances for some of the company’s most premium customers.

Rogers has modestly adjusted usage caps on its popular Extreme Internet Plan a year after slashing them, and brings dramatic increases for the company’s most expensive service tiers, even as it leaves usage caps unchanged for the bulk of their customers subscribed to the basic Express service plan:

A Rogers spokesman explained the changes.

The bar gets raised only for those who agree to spend more.

“With the rapid rise of online video, social media and online gaming, the way Canadians use the Internet is changing dramatically. We’re always reviewing our plans to ensure they meet your changing needs so starting later this month, our Hi-Speed Internet tiers are being upgraded with faster download speeds and higher data allowances for customers on Rogers DOCSIS 3.0, our best and fastest wireline network,” wrote RogersMarina on the company’s RedBoard blog.

Apparently the way Canadians use the Internet with Rogers’ most-popular Express plan hasn’t changed much, because Rogers leaves that cap unchanged at 60GB of usage per month.  Rogers previously reduced its usage cap for its Extreme level of service from 95 to 80GB, days after Netflix announced it was bringing its streamed video service to Canada.  Rogers’ latest increase amounts to just 5GB more usage than customers had during the spring of 2010.

The increased speeds that some usage tiers are gaining with the introduction of DOCSIS 3 technology come “at no additional cost” according to Rogers, but the company also mentions it charges higher prices — $1.50-$3 more per month — for the required DOCSIS 3 modem.

For customers certain to exceed their allowance, Rogers will sell you an insurance plan to protect your wallet from their $0.50-5.00/GB overlimit fees:

“Also starting later this month, you’ll be able to add a data assurance option if you’re currently using the Express and Extreme tiers. For an extra $20 per month, you’ll receive an extra 80 GB of data on top of your existing allowances. If you don’t need quite as much data, you can also get an additional 20 GB for an extra $5 per month.”

Most customers were not impressed.  Take Matt, for example:

“Speed increases are great but all they allow us to do is to get to our low data caps faster. These days with YouTube, Netflix, VOIP, and work VPN (heavy work from home user) $60 for 100 GB of data is pretty expensive, especially when a GB of data probably costs Rogers pennies per user. Competitors are starting to offer higher data caps for a similar price. In Toronto you can get a plan for same or slightly cheaper starting with 200GB.  In Vancouver you can get 50Mbps for $29 a month with a 400 GB data cap!”

Cambo notes the usage upgrades come easy for higher-priced tiers, but customers on the most popular Express tier have no increase in their usage allowance at all.

“You guys just don’t get it,” he writes on RedBoard.  “Speed isn’t the issue. Usage is. Why is it every tier gets a usage bump except the most popular Express? What is the point of bumping the speeds up and not significantly increasing usage, so we can get to the caps even faster I suppose. Sounds like a ploy to get people to spend more, to me.”

Andrew agreed:

“I also agree with this. I would rather get a larger usage bump than a speed bump — I don’t see a point in raising speeds when the data cap is still extremely restrictive. After all, I’d want to enjoy using the Internet, rather than monitoring my usage restrictions every day. If Rogers really listened to the customers, they’d know that most of us are more critical of their plans’ usage restrictions than their speeds.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOMO Seattle Man Loses Internet for a Year 7-14-11.mp4[/flv]

Last week, Stop the Cap! shared the story of Andre Vrignaud, a 39-year-old gaming consultant in Seattle who found his Comcast Internet service shut off for a year for twice exceeding the company’s arbitrary 250GB usage cap.  The story continues to draw media attention, including this TV news report from Seattle station KOMO-TV.  Cloud computing is implicated, but Vrignaud’s cure — paying more for additional usage, strikes us as the wrong answer.  Monetizing broadband usage is a provider’s dream come true.  The better solution would be to fight to remove the cap or at least ensure residential customers can upgrade to business service, if they choose, without the year-long “ban” in place.  (3 minutes)

Leap Wireless’ Cricket is raising prices $5 a month on its prepaid 3G mobile broadband service for the second time in nearly a year, with the announcement the company will offer limited data roaming on Sprint’s 3G network.

In return for being able to access Cricket mobile broadband outside of the company’s highly limited network of cell towers, the price has to increase, according to statements made on Cricket’s website.  Cricket will now sell three different broadband plans, all without a contract:

$45/month for 2.5GB, $55/month for 5GB, or $65/month for 7.5GB

But there are a number of catches.

First, your service will be terminated if you do not live in a zip code where Cricket provides its own cellular service.  The company is only interested in selling service to customers who will primarily use it inside of its own coverage areas.  Second, if you are caught data roaming on Sprint’s network for more than 50 percent of your monthly usage, the company can throttle your speed to dial-up for at least one month or terminate your account.

These pricing changes could also impact certain grandfathered Cricket mobile broadband customers, some of whom are still paying Cricket’s rate of $40 a month for up to 5GB of usage that was being sold until last summer.  Who will pay the added $5 bite depends on when and where you activated your account:

Customers activated prior to August 2, 2010: You are likely grandfathered on Cricket’s $40 a month plan, good for up to 5GB of usage per month.  Most of these customers never activated last year’s newly introduced limited 3G mobile data roaming, so they will not be able to use their service outside of a Cricket service area.  They will not see a rate increase unless they opt-in to “roaming” service from a menu on their wireless device’s configuration panel.  If you opt in, you cannot opt back out.

Customers who purchased their device at Best Buy, Wal-Mart, or Radio Shack at any time: You are not eligible for 3G data roaming service at this time.  You will not see a rate change unless and until that changes.

Customers activated after August 3, 2010: Your device was activated with 3G roaming capability and you will be impacted by the price change.  Existing customers on an impacted account will receive Nationwide 3G coverage beginning July 12.  The first bill with increased pricing will be for customers with a bill due on August 11.  Your bill will see an increase on or after this date.  Technically that equals one month of free roaming coverage.

Cricket's new data coverage map, with Sprint roaming included.

For some customers, this is quite a price increase from two years ago when the company claimed to provide “unlimited” 3G wireless broadband service for $40 a month.  Customers soon learned Cricket’s definition of “unlimited” meant around 5GB of usage before the company throttled broadband speeds to near dial-up for the remainder of the billing month.  By last summer, “unlimited” was gone, replaced with usage allowances enforced by the aforementioned “fair access policy” speed throttles.

Although the company touts the service will run at speeds up to 1.4Mbps, in reality, most will see speeds much lower than that.  From Stop the Cap! headquarters in Rochester, N.Y., we routinely see speeds on Cricket’s 3G network operating at between 300-600kbps.

Cricket still delivers a cheaper plan over Sprint-owned Virgin Mobile, which charges $50 for 2.5GB.  For those who want more, Clearwire is still pitching 5GB of usage on Sprint’s 3G network and “unlimited” use on its 4G network, although “unlimited” really isn’t when the provider deems you a heavy user and throttles your speeds.  T-Mobile offers a data pass for some of their customers allowing 1GB of data for $30, 3GB of data for $50 — all prepaid.