Phillip “Reality Check” Dampier

The city of Los Angeles believes if they ask for it, they will get it – gigabit fiber broadband, that is. It is too bad we have to run a reality check.

In December, the city plans to issue an ambitious Request for Proposals (RFP) inviting at least one private company to run fiber service to all 3.5 million residents (and businesses and public buildings) within the city limits. The idea, which won unanimous support from the City Council, does not exactly come with many risks for the city. The Council acknowledges the project is likely to cost up to $5 billion (we suspect more), and the city has made it clear it won’t be contributing a penny.

“The city is going into it and writing the agreement, basically saying, ‘we have no additional funding for this effort.’ We’re requiring the vendors that respond to pay for the city resources needed to expedite any permitting and inspection associated with laying their fiber,” Los Angeles IT Agency general manager Steve Reneker told Ars Technica. “If they’re not willing to do that, our City Council may consider a general fund transfer to reimburse those departments, but we’re going in with the assumption that the vendor is going to absorb those up-front costs to make sure they can do their buildout in a timely fashion.”

That is wishful thinking.

The winning vendor is not just on the hook for the cost of building the network. It also has to comply with a city requirement to give away basic 2-5Mbps broadband service, possibly recouping the lost revenue with advertising. Customers wanting faster access will pay for it. Although not required to offer phone or television service, Reneker anticipates the winning vendor will offer both to earn more revenue to pay off construction costs.

Greater Los Angeles is now served by a mix of AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cox, and Charter. Only Verizon has a history of providing a significant fiber optic broadband service, but it has suspended further expansion of its network. AT&T is the dominant landline provider, but considers its U-verse fiber-to-the-neighborhood design adequate for southern California. It seems unlikely any incumbent provider is likely to seriously contemplate such an expensive fiber project, especially because the city requires the winner to build an open access network that competitors can also use. Cable operators have also stated repeatedly that their existing infrastructure is more than adequate. The question providers are likely to ask is, “why do we need to partner with the City Council to build a fiber network we could build ourselves, on our own terms, that we ultimately own and control?”

The city can offer some incentives to attract an outsider, such as promising a lucrative contract to manage the city government’s telecom needs. It can also ease bureaucratic red tape that often stalls big city infrastructure projects. But Los Angeles is not exactly prime territory for a fiber build. Its notorious sprawling boundaries encompass 469 square miles, with many residents and businesses in free-standing buildings, not cheaper to serve multi-dwelling units.

Google avoided California for its fiber project reportedly because of environmental law and bureaucracy concerns. Even Google cherry-picks neighborhoods where it will deploy its fiber project in Austin, Provo, and Kansas City. The Los Angeles RFP will likely require universal coverage for the fiber network, although it will probably allow a lengthy amount of time for construction.

The City Council’s RFP comes close to promising Gigabit Fiber-to-the-Press Release.

Private providers govern their expansion efforts by an increasingly stiff formula to recover construction costs by measuring potential Return On Investment (ROI), which basically means when a company can expect to earn back the amount initially invested. Spending $5 billion on a fiber network that could actually cut expected Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) with a free broadband offer is going to raise eyebrows. Convincing investors to chip in on a fiber network “open to competitors” will also elicit a lot of frowning faces.

Wall Street analysts rolled their eyes when Verizon rolled out FiOS. It was “too expensive” and provided too few avenues for a quick ROI. ‘Verizon built a Lamborghini Aventador fiber network when a Honda Accord would have done just fine in the absence of fierce competition,’ analysts complained. Why spend all this money on fiber when fat profits were waiting to be harvested from high-ARPU wireless service? Verizon got the message and ceased expansion. AT&T never walked that Wall Street plank in the first place, delivering a less capable Chevrolet Spark network known as U-verse.

The city is likely to be disappointed with the proposals they receive, in much the same way local governments begging for competition from other cable companies get no positive results. The economics and expectations of today’s private broadband market makes it extremely unlikely an incumbent provider is going to rock a boat that has delivered comfortable broadband profits with a minimum of investment.

Breaking the broadband duopoly of high prices for slow service is only likely in the private sector if deep-pocketed revolutionaries like Google can self-finance game-changing projects. Los Angeles will likely have to sweeten its invitation to attract interest from players serious enough to spend $5 billion. It will likely have to invest some money of its own in a public-private partnership. Perhaps an even better idea is to take control of the city’s broadband destiny more directly with a community project administered by a qualified broadband authority with proven experience in the telecom business.

There is no reason private companies cannot be active participants in whatever project is ultimately built, but these companies are not charities and if their financial backers don’t see a pathway to profit running fiber rings around LA today, an RFP to build a fiber network with city strings-attached isn’t likely to garner serious interest tomorrow.

Wheeler

Incoming Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler believes competition can be a more effective regulator of telecom industry practices and pricing than “micromanaging” the companies selling service.

“The first goal ought to be to make sure there is effective competition,” Wheeler told the Wall Street Journal in an interview Wednesday. “But I also know competition isn’t something that happens all by itself. We very much have a responsibility to make sure that there is access, at reasonable prices, to competitive broadband services. The way you do that is go back to competition.”

But Wheeler refused to share his views on whether Americans now enjoy his definition of “effective competition” from a wireless industry dominated by AT&T and Verizon and wired broadband service available from only one cable and telephone company in most communities.

“The reason why the U.S. is the world leader on the Internet is because we have the home-field advantage,” Wheeler said. “We want to keep that home-field advantage. One of the ways to do that is to keep the environment competitive, so it’s not the regulators determining what companies do.”

But the United States is not a broadband leader in speed, price, or penetration according to the OECD.

Wheeler seems reluctant to intervene in the market unless he is convinced competition is lacking. As a former lobbyist for the same companies he is now tasked with overseeing, a key test will be if Wheeler adopts the industry view that broadband is already a fiercely competitive and highly regulated business, or the one held by many consumer groups that a consolidated telecommunications marketplace retards competition, leading to higher prices and more restrictive service.

In an article posted on the FCC website, Wheeler described the philosophy governing his chairmanship of the FCC:

During my confirmation hearing I described myself as “an unabashed supporter of competition because competitive markets produce better outcomes than regulated or uncompetitive markets.” Yet we all know that competition does not always flourish by itself; it must be supported and protected if its benefits are to be enjoyed. This agency is a pro-competition agency.

We stand for the things that are important regardless of the network technology being used:

• To promote economic growth – technological innovation, growth and national economic leadership have always been determined by our networks; competition drives the benefits of those networks; and we have a responsibility to see to the expansion of those networks, including the appropriate allocation of adequate amounts of spectrum.
• To maintain the historic compact between networks and users – a change in technology may occasion a review of the rules, but it does not change the rights of users or the responsibilities of networks.
• To make networks work for everyone – it isn’t just that we expand high-speed Internet, but what we will be doing with that capacity. How networks enable a 21st century educational system, enable the expansion of capabilities for Americans with disabilities; and assure diversity, localism and speech are basic underpinnings of our responsibility.

One surprising appointment announced by Wheeler was Public Knowledge’s Gigi Sohn, who will become special counsel for external affairs. Sohn has been a frequent critic of the FCC and its former chairman, Julius Genachowski. She is also a strong advocate of Net Neutrality.

Frontier Communications’ new simplified pricing with no equipment fees or surprise contracts was well-timed for the phone company as it picked up a growing number of disgruntled Comcast and Time Warner Cable customers fed up with increasing modem rental fees.

Frontier depends a great deal on its residential broadband service to win back revenue the company has lost from years of landline cord-cutting. The company reported slowing revenue losses, now down to less than one percent for the quarter ending Sept. 30. Frontier’s profits reached $35.4 million this quarter, reduced by increased investment in broadband upgrades and pension fund-related expenses.

The independent phone company is still losing residential and business phone customers, but those losses have begun to stabilize. Frontier has 2.82 million residential customers and 275,000 business customers. While Time Warner Cable lost customers during the recent quarter, Frontier picked up 27,000 new ones. For all of 2013, Frontier added 84,500 new broadband customers. Nearly 84 percent of them added broadband as part of a bundle, which leads analysts to suspect most of Frontier’s new broadband customers are located in rural areas that never had access to broadband speeds before.

Frontier’s greatest opportunity is in the rural residential broadband business, and the company’s investment in improved broadband speeds has made a major difference in growing market share especially where it has a cable competitor. Currently, Frontier has 20-25 percent market share in most of its service areas. It wants 40%, but is unlikely to achieve it selling broadband speeds that often top out at around 10Mbps. Winning customers back to a landline provider has also proved difficult without an attractive bundled offer. In all but a few cities, Frontier bundles landline service with DSL broadband and a satellite television package.

Wilderotter

In rural markets, Frontier has had better success, particularly in areas formerly served by Verizon.

With help from the federal government’s Connect America Fund (CAF), Frontier invested over $21 million to expand rural broadband service in 2013. In the third quarter, the company expanded service to another 37,000 possible homes and businesses, with 30,000 more on the way in the fourth quarter. The company applied for $71.5 million in CAF funding for 2014.

Broadband speeds have also gradually increased in an expanding number of communities. As of today, 45 percent of homes can receive 20Mbps or better, 58 percent are capable of 12Mbps. A year-end commitment to offer at least 3Mbps speeds to 85% of customers in the most rural areas also appears within reach. Customers can upgrade to the next speed level in $10 increments.

But not every customer has gotten speed upgrades. In their largest legacy market — Rochester, N.Y., DSL speeds have remained unchanged in many areas. At the headquarters of Stop the Cap!, Frontier pre-qualified us this afternoon for the same 3.1Mbps DSL speed they offered in 2009, despite being blocks away from the city line.

Those increasing speeds have led to more traffic on Frontier’s broadband network, but the company says it has enough capacity to handle it.

“The average usage of all our customers across both fiber and the copper has grown to about 24GB per month at this point, and we see that increasing and people are comfortable with [our] facilities as well as our backhaul to support that growth,” said chief operating officer Dan McCarthy. “We’ve seen that grow virtually every month as we move forward.”

Frontier analyzes what customers do with their broadband connection and found 30 percent of customer usage is online video. That number is growing. Customers upgrading to the fastest speeds are often telecommuters or have a home full of avid broadband users.

“On the residential side [these high-end customers] are usually working at home, they are VPNing, they are gamers, and they are very active on video services and social media as well,” said CEO Maggie Wilderotter.

The average Frontier DSL customer still subscribes to 6Mbps service, which Wilderotter said was adequate for Netflix, web surfing, and e-mail. But the company is preparing to market speed upgrades to these customers to earn extra revenue.

So far, Frontier’s broadband growth has gone relatively unnoticed by their cable competitors.

“We really haven’t seen any sustainable programs that cable has put against us in the market and we do know that several cable operators have said they’re going to do more in those areas,” said Wilderotter. “We are very well prepared for that. We are giving everyday low pricing to the customer that’s simple and predictable and there are no add-on fees or modem rental costs.”

Most Frontier customers are offered $19.99 or $29.99 broadband pricing that can be bundled with other products for discounts. There is no term contract.

“Time Warner Cable has increased their modem fees [to] between $6 and $9 a month,” said Wilderotter. “That’s a huge price increase for a lot of customers. You compare that with Frontier which has no modem cost and customers understand where price value lies.”

Wilderotter noted Comcast has raised rates as well. Frontier intends to remind cable customers they have a choice, and will tailor offers to continue to increase market share.

The cable industry believes the majority of America not using the Internet remain offline by choice.

The National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA) says the digital divide is not their fault. Price have very little to do with it, according to an NCTA infographic showing just 6% cite “cost” as the main reason they are not signed up for Internet service.

“Cable has made extensive efforts to connect all Americans to the Internet. And while high-speed Internet adoption has rapidly increased in the United States, still too many low-income families remain unconnected and are at risk of falling behind in the global information economy,” writes NCTA blogger John Solit. “Connecting all Americans in order to bridge the digital divide and expand the availability of broadband service remains a national goal embraced by cable companies. In a recent blog post, David L. Cohen, Comcast Executive VP & Chief Diversity Officer said, “[I]n just over two years through our Internet Essentials program, Comcast has connected an estimated 1 million low-income Americans, or more than 250,000 families, to the Internet at home.”

The “digital divide” — broadband have’s and have-nots — has been a regular topic among regulators and legislators for more than a decade. A suspicion that cost is a major factor keeping people from signing up could result in legislation compelling providers to offer low-cost Lifeline broadband service to the income-disadvantaged. In the last three years, the cable industry has tried to fight off that type of approach with voluntary programs that selectively target non-customers.

Comcast’s Internet Essentials provides 5/1Mbps service for $9.95 a month, but signing up isn’t easy.

The discounted service is available only to families with school-age children that qualify for the school lunch aid program. Comcast often promotes its discount program to legislators and others in the industry as an example of the voluntary effort the cable industry is making to solve the digital divide. Target customers who most likely qualify for the service are not going to learn about it through television ads or cable company mailers targeting low-income zip codes. Most of Comcast’s marketing effort is in cooperation with area schools.

Ironically, Comcast’s Internet Essentials actually forces some people to temporarily give up Internet access if they want to participate.

Customers must be current on their Comcast bills and must not have a subscription to any Comcast Internet service for the last 90 days to receive consideration. If you already have Comcast broadband service, you must disconnect it for at least three months before you can apply for Internet Essentials.

This requirement is designed to protect Comcast’s bottom line. Why offer a discount to customers already willing to sacrifice for home Internet service at Comcast’s regular price?

“How is this helping me and my family out,” asks one Tennessee customer who tried to sign up for Internet Essentials but couldn’t because they were already paying for Comcast Internet service. “The Comcast representative said that if I wanted to be enrolled in the program I would have to discontinue my Internet service for 90 days and then reapply. We have the Economy Internet Promotion and pay $19.95 per month. After the promotion ends our fee will increase to $26.95 a month. In our current economy and financial situation saving $17 per month would greatly help our family to keep our service. I will not rest until I find a solution to this problem. My children at least deserve that.”

Comcast also makes it its business to check your household to make sure at least one child still qualifies for the National School Lunch Program. The company reserves the right to immediately cancel service if you miss a payment or move. Participants also must not upgrade, alter or change Comcast service for any reason or risk being removed from the program.

Comcast’s Wi-Fi Ban

Shapiro

One of the most annoying conditions of the Internet Essentials program is that it does not allow Wi-Fi access.

Phil Shapiro, who refurbishes donated computers and distributes them to needy families regularly runs into Comcast’s Wi-Fi ban — a significant issue for larger families that need to be online concurrently.

“I’ve taken three donated computers to [one] family and I was expecting to get them all online with this cable modem service,” Shapiro tells The Hechinger Report.  “But not so fast. Comcast’s telephone tech support tells me that Internet Essentials users cannot use Wi-Fi with their cable modems. Nowhere in Comcast’s printed literature or on the website is this limitation mentioned. Naturally, families who sign up for Internet Essentials get confused about this, but they are not well positioned to advocate for their needs.”

Charlie Douglas, a Comcast spokesperson, confirms that Internet Essentials does not offer Wi-Fi service, although he noted a customer could theoretically buy a wireless router themselves and use that to provide wireless connectivity. But that isn’t what Comcast’s technical support team recommends. Any deviation from the terms of the service offered to Internet Essentials customers could lead to an immediate disqualification. Comcast defines Internet Essentials as a wired service, including one outlet and a basic (not wireless) modem.

“The family that I was helping patiently waited for me while I talked on the phone,” said Shapiro. “They could see that I spoke very politely with the tech support person. They also saw that I had reached the end of my patience.”

A representative told Stop the Cap! Internet Essentials accounts have insufficient bandwidth and speed for Wi-Fi service, so it is not offered.

Shapiro dismisses Comcast’s explanation. Many public Wi-Fi networks offer even slower service than Comcast.

Douglas defended Comcast’s policy noting families served by the program don’t miss Wi-Fi and don’t need it.

But those using tablets might disagree, and with an increasing number of students using them as school textbooks are gradually phased out, Wi-Fi will only grow in importance.

Many large school districts, including Los Angeles, are introducing Wi-Fi only tablets for student use because they are cheaper and easier to support. When Internet Essentials participants ask about Wi-Fi access with the discounted broadband service, Comcast representatives are trained to up sell customers out of the program and sign them to a more costly plan than includes built-in Wi-Fi support.

Customers can successfully, if covertly, connect a router with Wi-Fi capability to the basic cable modem supplied by Comcast and configure wireless Internet Essentials service. But there are no guarantees Comcast will not give customers grief about it, if they wish.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast Internet Essentials Key Milestones 11-13.mp4[/flv]

Comcast produced this video marking the start of the second year of its Internet Essentials program. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel gushed Internet Essentials was “top of the line” Internet access. He was joined by other recognizable political leaders and the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Julius Genachowski. (2:47)

More drive-by reporting on Comcast’s usage caps.

When the media covers Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, it is often much easier to take the provider’s word for it instead of actually investigating whether subscribers actually need their Internet usage limited.

Comcast’s planned reintroduction of its usage caps on South Carolina customers begins Friday. Instead of the now-retired 250GB limit, Comcast is graciously throwing another 50GB of usage allowance to customers, five years after defining 250GB as more than generous.

The Post & Courier never bothered to investigate if Comcast’s new 300GB usage cap was warranted or if Charleston-area customers wanted it. It was so much easier to just print Comcast’s point of view and throw in a quote or two from an industry analyst.

In fact, the reporter even tried to suggest the Internet Overcharging scheme was an improvement for customers.

The newspaper reported Comcast was the first large Internet provider in the region to allow customers to pay even more for broadband service by extending their allowance in 50GB increments at $10 a pop. (Actually, AT&T beat Comcast to the bank on that idea, but has avoided dropping that hammer on customers who already have to be persuaded to switch to AT&T U-verse broadband that tops out at around 24Mbps for most customers.)

Since 2008, the company’s monthly limit has been capped at 250 GB per household. When customers exceeded that threshold, Comcast didn’t have a firm mechanism for bringing them back in line, other than to issue warnings or threaten to cut off service.

“People didn’t like that static cap. They felt that if they wanted to extend their usage, then they should be allowed to do that,” said Charlie Douglas, a senior director with Comcast.

Charleston is the latest in a series of trial markets the cable giant has used to test the new Internet usage policy in the past year. As with any test period, the company can modify or discontinue the plan at any time.

During the trial period in Charleston, customers will get an extra 50 GB of monthly data than they’re used to having. If they exceed 300 GB, they can pay for more.

“300 GB is well beyond what any typical household is ever going to consume in a month,” Douglas said. “In all of the other trial markets with this (limit), it really doesn’t impact the overwhelming super-majority of customers.”

The average Internet user with Comcast service uses about 16 to 18 GB of data per month, Douglas said.

Customers who use less than five GB per month will start seeing a $5 discount on their bills.

“We think this approach is fair because we’re giving consumers who want to use more data a way to do so, and for consumers who use less, they can pay less,” Douglas said.

Data caps are designed to stop content piracy?

The Charleston reporter asserts, without any evidence, “data-capping is a trend many Internet service providers are expected to follow in the next few years as the industry aims to reduce network congestion and to find safeguards against online piracy.”

Suggesting data caps are about piracy immediately rings alarm bells. Comcast and other Internet Service Providers fought long and hard against being held accountable for their customers’ actions. The industry wants nothing to do with monitoring online activities lest the government hold them accountable for not actively stopping criminal activity.

“It’s not about piracy, per se,” said Douglas. “We don’t look at what people are doing. The purpose is really a matter of fairness. If people are using a disproportionate amount of data, then they should pay more.”

Comcast’s concern for fairness and disproportionate behavior does not extend to the rapacious pricing and enormous profit it earns selling broadband, flat rate or not.

MIT Technology Review’s David Talbot found “Time Warner Cable and Comcast are already making a 97 percent margin on their ‘almost comically profitable’ Internet services.” That figure was repeated by Craig Moffett, one of the most enthusiastic, well-respected cable industry analysts. That percentage refers to “gross margin,” which is effectively gravy on largely paid off cable plant/infrastructure that last saw a major wholesale upgrade in the 1990s to accommodate the advent of digital cable television and the 500-channel universe. Broadband was introduced in the late 1990s as a cheap-to-deploy but highly profitable, unregulated ancillary service.

How things have changed.

Just follow the money….

Customers used to being gouged for cable television are now willing to say goodbye to Comcast’s television package in growing numbers. Today’s must-have service is broadband and Comcast has a high-priced plan for you! But earning up to 97 percent profit from $50+ broadband isn’t enough.

A 300GB limit isn’t designed to control congestion either. In fact, had she investigated that claim, she would have discovered the cable industry itself disavowed that notion earlier this year.

In fact, it’s all about the money.

Michael Powell, the head of the cable industry’s top lobbying group admitted the theory that data caps are designed to control network congestion was wrong.

“Our principal purpose is how to fairly monetize a high fixed cost,” said Powell.

Powell mentioned costs like digging up streets, laying cable and operational expenses. Except the cable industry long ago stopped aggressive buildouts and now maintains a tight Return On Investment formula that keeps cable broadband out of rural areas indefinitely. Operational expenses for broadband have also declined, despite increases in traffic and the number of customers subscribing.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Internet v. Cable 8-20-10.flv[/flv]

Don’t take our word for it. Consider the views of Suddenlink Cable CEO Jerry Kent, interviewed in 2010 on CNBC. (8 minutes)

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” said Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Unfortunately, Charleston residents don’t have the benefit of reporting that takes a skeptical view of a company press release and the spokesperson readily willing to underline it.

If Comcast seeks to be the arbiter of ‘fairness,’ then one must ask what concept of fairness allows for a usage cap almost no customers want for a service already grossly overpriced.