Phillip “Artificial Scarcity for Fun and Profits” Dampier

It would be an understatement to say I’ve heard the argument once or twice that there is simply no economic room for additional players to enter what Big Telecom companies always claim is a robustly competitive marketplace for Internet access.

Virtually every company facing inquiries from regulators, politicians, and consumers always makes the point today’s deregulated broadband playing field is an excellent example of free market competition at its best.

While they advocate for even more deregulation, oppose the entry of community-owned broadband services, and demand more spectrum from Washington lawmakers, we endure a veritable monopoly/duopoly for Internet access. Their defense, after a dismissive rolling of the eyes, is that we just don’t understand business.

Enter Tim Lee, writing for the alternate reality reader of Forbes, who decided to prove his argument by comparing broadband with Supercuts:

Being the first to build a hair-cutting shack in a particular customer’s backyard can be pretty lucrative. It gives you a de facto monopoly on that household’s haircut business. Let’s assume that it takes 4 years worth of haircuts to recoup the costs of building a shack for a particular household. While barbers will need to raise some extra capital to build the shacks, in the long run the owner of the first shack may be able to earn big monopoly rents.

Now along comes a new barber who wants to enter the hair-cutting business, but every household already has at least one hair-cutting shack. So he needs to build hair-cutting shacks in backyards where another barber has already built one. And that’s an economically precarious situation. Remember, we assumed a monopolist needs to do 4 years worth of haircuts in order to break even. But if you build a shack in a backyard that already has another barber in it, you shouldn’t expect to get more than half of the customer’s business, on average, over the long run. Not only that, but competition will push down prices, so you’ll have to do more haircuts to recover the costs of construction. So you’ll be lucky to recover your initial investment within 8 years, and it could easily take more than a decade.

And things are even worse for the third or fourth barber who builds in a particular backyard. The fourth barber will be building in a yard that already has three barbers. He can only expect to attract 25 percent of the household’s business, and strong competition among barbers means his margins will be pretty thin. It’s hard to see how he could ever recover the costs of his investment.

Brushing away the hair-cutting analogy, Lee’s point is that it is wasteful and inefficient for competitors to overbuild new networks where others already exist. The phone and cable companies that dominate the marketplace today decry additional competition as a death blow to their business models, because with so many providers fighting for customers (by lowering prices and offering better service), not every provider can sustain a profit Wall Street investors expect quarter after quarter. This argument is particularly common when attacking those dastardly socialist community-owned broadband providers they say destroy private enterprise (while unconvincingly also warning they will always fail and cost taxpayers millions on the way down). It is also why Wall Street continues to beat the drum for additional consolidation in the wireless marketplace, where anything more than AT&T and Verizon Wireless represents too much revenue destruction.

Lee does make some valid points:

1. Infrastructure costs are the biggest expense in launching a new network, especially wiring the last mile to customers;
2. Verizon FiOS overestimated its potential market share and found it harder to turn a profit than first anticipated;
3. Other utilities have avoided building redundant networks (ie. you don’t have two companies providing their own electric, water, and gas lines).

When communities decide to offer their own broadband service, incumbent cable and phone companies spend big bucks to scare residents.

But Lee’s conclusion is entirely favorable to the industry he often defends — that is just the way things are and customers should not expect anything better.

Those arguments are usually also the basis for free market declarations that if a private company cannot find a way to deliver a service at a profit, then those left out will just have to do without.

Thankfully, despite Lee’s criticism of Google Fiber in Kansas City as “extremely wasteful,” the search engine company is perhaps best positioned of all to turn the industry’s common refrain against new competition on its head.

Every so often, a surprising third party shows up with the resources to ignore Wall Street’s conventional wisdom. Enter the deep pockets of Google Fiber or a bond-backed community provider threatening to deliver service far better than what a community currently enjoys. The predictable defense from incumbent providers:

• Nobody needs faster broadband speeds;
• Community networks are a government takeover of the Internet;
• Fiber optics are expensive and represent an unnecessary investment;
• Public broadband destroys private investment and jobs at incumbent commercial providers;
• This is just a political stunt, not a real effort at taking Internet speeds to the next level.

Without the kind of competition on offer from Google, community providers, and private providers like Verizon taking a chance on FiOS fiber optics, there would be no room for innovation in the marketplace.

Provider tolerance for today’s marketplace duopoly and the lackluster service that results is reminiscent of a joke told by President George W. Bush’s in 2000: “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier…just so long as I’m the dictator.”

It is easy for today’s comfortable duopoly providers to take shots at would-be competitors while dragging their feet on network upgrades. They have little to fear with Wall Street on their side, joining opposition to new competition as harmful to profits. Even Verizon Communications, one of the two dominant providers, quickly heard from analysts irritated with the infrastructure expenses involved upgrading to a fiber optic network. At the heart of that criticism was a sense it was an unnecessary expense, with no reason to change the safe and reliable status quo. Innovation that costs money is the enemy of Wall Street, unless competition warrants the investment.

Therein lies the key. Effective, disruptive competition demands companies do something different. Lee may be right that three companies cannot easily bring home the big profits. Wall Street may have to make do with less. In a competitive market, the player offering the least will be the first to innovate to keep or attract customers, or eventually close their doors. Those remaining will compete in turn to deliver the best possible service at the lowest possible price. That itself is a departure from the comfort zone enjoyed by phone and cable operators today where neither feels much pressure. Cable companies won’t ever compete with other cable companies and the same is true for phone companies. But if a company like Google arrives, the decade-long coffee break is over.

Want proof? Just look at cable operators struggling to keep video customers who are now finding alternatives with Netflix and online viewing. They are increasingly looking for ways to enhance the value of cable television by offering online viewing themselves. Even rate increases have slowed. If Netflix and cord-cutting were not factors, would cable companies have changed the way they do business?

Google’s marketplace disruption delivers for consumers.

Lee is right saying it is not easy to break into the broadband business. Only some might realize the same investors and Wall Street barons that dislike profit-eroding competition also often happen to be in the business of loaning money to finance new businesses. More than a few will turn those loans down as too risky to contemplate.

But here comes the rhetorical trap Lee’s argument gets ensnared in: If running redundant networks is wasteful and we still need competition, the logical solution would be to construct or nationalize one advanced network on which all providers would market their services. Why waste time and money on duplicate copper and coaxial networks when a single fiber to the home network could deliver improved service well beyond what the local phone and cable company can offer.

Isn’t the answer to run a single telecommunications line into customer homes (one preferably not controlled by any provider), and let competition bloom on that advanced infrastructure? That is the solution Australia has chosen, scrapping the country’s ancient copper wire phone lines in favor of one national fiber network. Most community providers also operate open networks that other cable and phone companies can utilize (but often petulantly refuse).

Somehow, despite the enormous savings possible from sharing or offloading network infrastructure expenses, I doubt providers will consider that the kind of innovation they want or need.

Frontier Communications is ready to deliver some customers faster DSL speeds in portions of West Virginia that have, until now, been stuck with 3-6Mbps from the phone company.

Residential and business customers in certain exchanges within Kanawha and Putnam counties can now upgrade to speeds up to 25Mbps for $54.99 a month, which Frontier claims also includes a combination modem-wireless router. Small business customers can get up to 40Mbps DSL service, where available.

Dana Waldo, senior vice president and general manager for Frontier’s operations in the state told the Charleston Daily Mail the company’s new Broadband Ultra and Ultimate DSL will be gradually extended within both counties by the end of this year. In order to sell faster DSL service, Frontier has to replace portions of its existing network with fiber optics and install new equipment to reduce the length of copper wire between the phone company and the customer.

Larger businesses in West Virginia are being marketed an even faster Metro Ethernet product, which can deliver gigabit speeds and beyond, for an exceptional amount of money.

The speed expansion, which covers both the city of Charleston and the growing suburbs to the west in Putnam County along Interstate 64 towards Huntington, is likely designed to curb customer defections to competing cable providers, which have delivered faster speeds in the rapidly growing region.

Frontier has not indicated when it plans faster broadband service for the rest of the state.

A homeless man’s mattress fire under a bridge in Massachusetts was enough to create the biggest telecommunications disaster for Verizon since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The fire melted fiber and damaged copper cables that represented the backbone of Verizon’s landline network in the region, disrupting phone, cable, and broadband service for thousands of Verizon’s customers in northeastern Massachusetts in late August. Now that service has been restored, the damages from the outage and its ripple effects are still being calculated as questions are being raised about how the company handles its communications network.

The damage went far beyond an inconvenience for Verizon customers:

• Area businesses were ripe for plundering with Verizon-dependent alarm systems out of service;
• Cell towers went down if they were connected by Verizon’s fiber optic network;
• Local law enforcement communication systems ceased to function in areas where Verizon provided the vital link between the dispatch center and transmitting facilities miles away;
• Banks and other local businesses closed down because Verizon-based connectivity was inoperable. That left ATMs throughout the region out of service and credit card transactions often impossible to manage;
• 911 systems in several communities had to transfer emergency calls to other 911 centers miles away;
• Even the Registry of Motor Vehicles locked their doors and shut down while the outage persisted over several days.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NECN Verizon telecommunications outage causes problems 8-31-12.flv[/flv]
NECN News reports on Verizon’s enormous Massachusetts service outage and how it impacted the lives of affected customers. (3 minutes)

Verizon’s landline network ultimately failed its Massachusetts customers on a scale the company admits it has not seen in a long time.

“It’s the biggest problem we’ve faced, nationally, other than 9-11,” Bill Wilson, area manager for Verizon, told the Eagle-Tribune. “This is the biggest problem we’ve had in 20 years.”

At the heart of the problem is Verizon’s lack of redundancy in its landline network. With fiber optic cables managing a larger share of broadband traffic, phone calls, and even Verizon’s television service, the loss of even a single fiber cable can disrupt service for hundreds or thousands of customers, many more than would be affected by a damaged copper cable.

State Sen. Barry Finegold (D-Andover) is questioning Verizon’s decision not to have a backup plan in place.

“So if there’s a fire there’s a redundant system in place so if one fails there’s another to back it up,” Finegold said.

Customers, particular those working from home, wholeheartedly agreed.

“I am appalled,” Shela Horvitz, a Verizon FIOS customer who lost her phone, Internet and TV service for days as a result of the fire, told the newspaper. “Can you say, ‘Single Point of Failure?’”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380”]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Eagle Tribune Verizon Talks to Media About Outage 9-2-12.flv[/flv]

Verizon officials show reporters what the fire did to their network and how they are going to restore service after a fire on Lawrence Central Bridge caused mass outages in the region. From the Eagle-Tribune. (4 minutes)

Verizon blames the entire affair on homeless people, who they say should not have been sleeping on top of their wires. The idea of network redundancy for Verizon’s landline network? “Cost prohibitive,” say company officials.

Joseph Zukowski, vice president for government affairs for the phone company, said the problem was so rare, it was comparable to a 100-year storm. He compared the outage with a natural disaster.

“We have extensive security measures to make the network as secure as possible,” Zukowski said. “We restrict building access and access to our cables. Nowhere on the list is a homeless guy lighting a match on a mattress. We’re not laying blame, but the best thing would have been not to have the tent city there.”

Local police acknowledge the bridge where the cables cross the Merrimack River is a popular spot for the local homeless to congregate, and they have attempted to control the problem. But nobody ever told them Verizon’s vital regional communications network infrastructure was at ground zero of the mattress fire.

“Going forward, if the stuff that’s there is so important, it really needs to be secured so nobody can get access to it,” said police chief John Romero.

Verizon has promised refunds for all affected customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Lawrence MA Bridge Fire Verizon Restoration 2012 9-1-12.flv[/flv]

A Verizon-produced video illustrates how the company is repairing its damaged network. The heat from the fire on August 27th melted and fused both fiber and copper cables, and the protective casings that house the cables.

Verizon: “The work to restore service is complex, given that technicians are splicing thousands of individual copper and fiber-optic connections in a very confined area under the bridge. The conduit structure that holds the cables, which was protected by a metal cage, was destroyed and needs to be replaced. Verizon crews have been working in 24-hour shifts since the fire to restore service for customers and will continue to do so until every customer is back in service.”  (2 minutes)

Lost more customers than it gained for the first time.

Phone companies depending on DSL to keep them in the broadband business are in growing trouble, unless they lack a nearby cable competitor. Subscriber numbers from nine different major phone and cable companies over the summer of 2012 show cable broadband continues to grow as customers cancel DSL service from their local phone company. But for rural customers, DSL often remains the only option. That leaves rural providers like Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyLink in better standing than larger companies like AT&T and Verizon.

Phone Companies

• AT&T‘s U-verse service is the only thing keeping AT&T broadband numbers on the rise. AT&T added 553,000 new U-verse customers during the summer and now serves 6.5 million customers on its fiber-to-the-neighborhood network. AT&T continues to lose DSL customers, primarily to local cable competitors.
• CenturyLink, Inc. has been upgrading its DSL service in several areas to better compete with cable broadband, and is also deploying a fiber-to-the-neighborhood service in select cities. The network upgrades are helping, bringing the company 18,000 new broadband customers. CenturyLink currently serves 5.76 million Internet customers nationwide.
• Frontier Communications has lost broadband customers in its larger service areas, mostly to cable, but those losses have been offset by its DSL expansion in rural areas that have never had broadband before. But the company only managed to add just under 6,000 new broadband customers during the last quarter, serving 1.78 million customers across the country.
• Verizon Communications: Verizon was willing to turn away potential DSL customers for the first time, as it discontinued selling DSL to those who don’t want Verizon landline service. That, and pervasive cable competition, meant Verizon only picked up 2,000 new DSL customers this quarter — the worst showing in four years. Verizon FiOS’ recent price hikes also cost the company some growth for its fiber to the home service,  but still earning a respectable 134,000 new customers (5.1 million total). Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, and Comcast have all managed to win back FiOS customers with attractive discount offers.
• Windstream Corp. faces cable competition in a number of its semi-rural service areas, and its DSL service has not been able to keep up with the growing speeds available to cable broadband subscribers. For the first time, Windstream reported it lost more customers than it added, losing 2,200 DSL subscribers. Windstream still has 1.36 million customers signed up for its broadband service.

Cablevision has won back some of its former customers who went with Verizon FiOS but do not like the recent rate hikes.

Cable Companies

• Cablevision, which serves mostly suburban New York City, New Jersey, and Connecticut added 25,000 new high speed customers, many coming back to the cable company from Verizon. Cablevision serves a relatively small geographic area, but a densely populated one. Nearly 3 million broadband customers have remained loyal to the cable company.
• Charter Cable picked up 37,000 new broadband customers, a number fleeing phone company DSL for Charter’s higher speed broadband services. Charter serves 3.8 million broadband customers.
• Comcast added 156,000 new customers to its roster of 18.7 million Internet customers, again mostly from former DSL customers.
• Time Warner Cable expanded with 59,000 new high speed customers, primarily from DSL disconnects. Time Warner provides service for 10.8 million broadband customers.

Faster

Frontier Communications customers in selected communities will be able to receive faster Internet speeds by the end of the year because of network upgrades.

In late July, Frontier president and chief operating officer Daniel J. McCarthy announced the company was refocusing investment on improving the broadband experience for its customers, mostly serviced by ADSL.

Frontier’s rural customers primarily receive broadband service at real-world speeds of 768kbps-3Mbps. At least 74% of those customers will be able to sign up for speeds of 6Mbps by the end of the year. In more urban areas, 51% of customers will be able to sign up for 12Mbps, 42% for 20Mbps. Business customers in selected areas can qualify for speeds up to 40Mbps.

The upgrades will not come for free, however. Customers will pay more for higher speeds.

McCarthy

Frontier Max (3Mbps in rural areas, 6Mbps in urban areas) starts at $34.99 per month. Customers can move up to the next speed tier for an additional $10 per month. For example, a Frontier Max customer can move up to Ultra service (10-12Mbps) for $44.99, or Frontier Ultimate (20-25Mbps) for $55.99 per month. Once customers upgrade to a premium speed level, the modem rental fee (up to $6.99 a month) is reportedly eliminated.

Frontier’s upgrades are based on adopting more advanced forms of DSL technology. Most Frontier customers currently receive ADSL service — one of the oldest and slowest forms of DSL. Frontier is managing to boost speeds by bonding multiple DSL connections together, switching to ADSL 2+, or upgrading to VDSL technology. The company is also broadening its fiber middle mile network, which can reduce the length of copper wiring between the company’s central offices and customer homes, improving potential speeds.

Customers who do not change their level of service may still receive some benefits from area upgrades, as actual speeds come closer to matching those advertised by the company.

In some areas, customers will receive telemarketing calls announcing newly available speed options. But customers can also call 1-800-921-81o1 to find out what is currently available.

Stop the Cap! recommends proceeding carefully when considering a plan change. Be sure to ask about all terms and conditions, including installation/upgrade fees, modem rental fee (if any), contract terms, and whether any additional services are required (Frontier may attempt to sell an added-cost online backup service, home networking equipment, or technical support services you may not need).