PC Magazine has declared fiber to the home service America’s fastest broadband technology, and among larger providers, Verizon’s FiOS once again took top honors for delivering the fastest and most consistent broadband speeds.

Over the past nine months, the magazine’s readers have been conducting regular speed tests using their personal broadband connections. The magazine found fiber optics remains the best current technology for delivering cutting-edge broadband service, with an average speed rating for FiOS reaching 29.4/16.7Mbps. Since PC Magazine readers were subscribed to various speed tiers while conducting the tests, the magazine’s ratings do not measure the fastest possible speeds on offer from different providers. Verizon’s most-popular service bundle includes 15/5Mbps service, heavily weighting Verizon’s speed rating which is capable of even faster speeds with their 50-300Mbps premium service tiers. But on average, consistently fast speeds kept them in the top spot.

Cable broadband technology was the second-best choice, depending on how cable operators implement it. Cable companies depend on a singl, shared broadband pipeline in each neighborhood. DOCSIS 3 upgrades allow a cable operator to vastly expand that pipeline by “bonding” several channels together to increase the maximum bandwidth. Cable operators that combine the latest technology with the smallest number of customers sharing a connection do the best.

Midcontinent Communications (better known by customers as Midco), achieved first place nationwide. The company, which serves customers in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Wisconsin, took top honors with an average speed of 24.7/4.4Mbps — the best of any cable operator.

Ratings sometimes show the level of investment made by cable operators in their network. A sudden boost in average speeds is a sure sign a cable operator is rolling out network upgrades. A speed decline can expose a cable company trying to oversell an already constrained network. Charter Cable, which has routinely gotten poor ratings in Consumer Reports’ rankings, showed dramatic improvement in PC Magazine’s ratings, achieving third place with an average speed increase from 15Mbps to 18.5Mbps. But while the added speed is nice, the company’s usage caps are not. Conversely, WOW!, which achieved top scores in Consumer Reports’ ratings, scored towards the bottom of PC Magazine’s tests.

Comcast, which last year trumpeted its high rankings in controversial ads claiming to deliver the fastest broadband in the nation has now been overrun by both Midco and Charter. Comcast Xfinity is now in sixth place, hardly the fodder for any future ad campaign.

Cox Cable actually lost ground since last year, with average speed now down to 14.8Mbps. The bottom four: Time Warner Cable, Mediacom, WOW!, and Suddenlink — are all hampered by slow upload speeds and more anemic “take-rates” on higher speed broadband plans with the speeds on offer. With fewer premium speed customers, average speed ratings take a hit from the larger proportion of customers sticking with standard service.

Phone companies barely appeared in the magazine’s top ratings. AT&T’s U-verse could not even make the top-15. While 25Mbps was adequate when U-verse was first deployed, the broadband speed race has quickly overshadowed the company’s fiber to the neighborhood service, which still relies on home phone lines and antiquated copper infrastructure in the immediate neighborhood.

Phone companies still offering traditional ADSL on almost all-copper networks turned in even more dismal results — most too low to rate. Only Frontier’s adopted FiOS network kept them in the rankings in the overall broadband “slow zone” in the Pacific Northwest, along with CenturyLink’s acquired ADSL2+ and bonded DSL networks built by Qwest.

ISPs that perform poorly typically criticize the methodology of voluntary speed tests as the basis for speed and performance ranking. Most criticize the apparent lack of consistency, random sampling, the possibility rankings may be weighted in certain geographic areas, and may mix a disproportionate number of customers with standard or premium level speeds to unfairly boost or diminish average speed rankings. But overall, PC Magazine’s rankings show some technologies superior to others. If a customer has a choice, finding a fiber to the home provider is likely to provide an improvement over what the cable company offers, but the differences between phone company DSL and cable broadband are even starker.

The FCC speed test program, conducted by SamKnows, takes more regular snapshots of broadband quality from volunteer panelists. Your editor’s home broadband connection from Time Warner Cable is profiled above, showing results from January-September 2012

Frontier’s headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Frontier Communications has boosted speeds for some customers in 28 communities in Appalachian Ohio, but Stop the Cap! readers report actually qualifying to get faster broadband can be hit or miss.

Frontier has deployed ADSL2+ bonding technology in several exchanges throughout the region, which means customers can potentially double their current broadband speeds. The company says it will now sell residential customers up to 12/2Mbps and business customers up to 15/2Mbps DSL.

“With Frontier’s recent deployment of the latest broadband technology, residential customers can get the speeds they need to stream high-definition videos, run multiple devices, do online gaming and surf the net without lag,” said Dave Davidson, senior vice president and general manager for Frontier’s Ohio operations. “The ADSL 2+ Bonding technology also allows us to offer business customers super-fast speed that’s perfect for sending large files and for videoconferencing.”

The communities where Frontier recently deployed technology for increased broadband speeds in Appalachian Ohio include:

• Central Ohio — Logan
• Eastern Ohio — Bowerston, Byesville, Cambridge, Cooperdale, Flushing, Freeport, Knoxville, Lowell, Lower Salem, North Georgetown, New Philadelphia
• Southern Ohio — Albany, Athens, Portsmouth, Guysville, Wellston, Idaho, Jackson, Lucasville, New Marshfield, Otway, Pomeroy, Shade, Piketon, Wellston
• Southwest Ohio — Felicity, Manchester

But several Stop the Cap! readers in Ohio told us even though their communities are on Frontier’s upgrade list, they still don’t qualify for anything above 3-5Mbps service.

Comcast last week told Wall Street three important facts:

1. They have plenty of capacity to handle increasing broadband traffic and can deliver faster speeds;
2. They are reducing the amount of money they invest in broadband;
3. They are still moving forward on usage caps and usage billing experiments.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts told investors the company was well positioned to handle increasing broadband traffic and monetize its usage.

Wall Street liked what it heard. Valuentum Securities Inc., called themselves “big fans of Comcast’s cash flow generation.”

“We’re big fans of the firm’s Video and High-Speed Internet businesses because both are either monopolies or duopolies in their respective markets,” Valuentum concludes. “Further, we believe that both services have become so sticky and important to consumers that Comcast will be able to effectively raise prices year after year without seeing too much volume-related weakness.”

An other way to raise prices is to cap broadband usage and charge customers extra for exceeding their allowance, a plan Comcast has begun testing.

“As you know we announced two different flavors of plans,” Roberts said. “One was capacity linked with the tier that subs are buying and [the other] was just being able to buy blocks of capacity.”

Roberts is referring to Comcast’s pricing experiments now being rolled out in markets like Nashville. The tests will determine whether customers will pay higher prices for different tiers of broadband based on variable speed and usage allowances or whether a flat cap with an overlimit fee is the better way to go.

Roberts

“[Hard] caps are gone,” Roberts said. “We raised the amount people could consume to 300 gigabytes as a base limit. We have not announced the markets for the roll outs yet but I would expect something shortly.”

Comcast used to have a 250GB hard cap which, if exceeded, could result in termination of a customer’s account. Now the company is pondering whether a consistent 300GB cap with an overlimit fee is a better choice.

But Roberts also acknowledged Comcast has plenty of capacity and flexibility to adjust its broadband offerings to compete.

“[…] We have a great network that has tremendous flexibility and capacity to offer more speeds than we offer today and we’re constantly hoping that new applications and needs develop,” Roberts said in response to a question regarding potential competition with Google Fiber.

Comcast added 156,000 new high speed data customers, an 8% increase, over the last quarter. At the same time, the company lost 176,000 video subscribers.

The importance of Comcast’s broadband service was underlined by the fact broadband revenue was the largest contributor to cable revenue growth in the second quarter, with revenue increasing 9%. Comcast attributes that to rate increases, a growing number of new broadband customers, and the 27% of current subscribers upgrading to higher speed services.

Comcast does not and will not have to spend a growing amount of its capital on its broadband service. Comcast cut spending on its network by 5% in the second quarter to $1.1 billion. That represents 11.4 percent of cable revenue earned by Comcast. So far this year, capital expenditures have dropped 2.4% to $2.2 billion — 11.2% of its total revenue.

These days, much of Comcast’s capital expenses support the company’s expansion into business services. The company also expects considerable reductions in spending from completion of its transition to digital — freeing up capacity on existing cable systems instead of spending money to upgrade them. For the full year, including its business services expansion, Comcast expects spending on its own network to be flat.

Comcast’s new X1 platform (Image courtesy: BWOne)

In other Comcast developments of note:

• In June Comcast rolled out its new X1 cloud based set top platform in Boston and is currently launching X1 in Atlanta. Comcast is marketing the upgraded platform first to HD Triple Play customers, who can upgrade for a one-time installation fee. The company plans to roll out the new upgraded platform in five major markets by the end of this year, with a greater expansion in 2013;
• Comcast has increased broadband speeds, particularly in competitive markets, for no additional charge;
• Streampix now offers twice as many titles as the product offered at launch in February;
• Comcast has rolled out its marketing partnership with Verizon Wireless to 22 markets nationwide;
• The company’s ongoing rebranding under the Xfinity name now has a new catchphrase: Xfinity — The Future of Awesome;
• Nearly 75% of Comcast’s customers now take at least two products and almost 40% are signed up for the company’s triple play package;
• Comcast has saved more than $8 million by reducing the number of occasions the company will send technicians to customer homes. The cable company is heavily promoting self-install kits, which has brought a 65% increase  in the number of customers who install Comcast equipment and services themselves.

Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) are incensed about efforts by CenturyLink to win waivers from the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America rural broadband funding program that could leave WISPs facing new competition from CenturyLink made possible by surcharges paid by phone customers nationwide.

At issue is a filing from CenturyLink before the FCC that would allow the phone company to “change the rules,” according to critics. One of CenturyLink’s most prominent arguments is that WISPs have data caps that inconvenience customers. But CenturyLink buries the fact it has usage caps of its own in a footnote.

“The waiver application we filed … would allow CenturyLink to spend tens of millions of dollars to bring more broadband services to more rural and high-cost customers who do not have reasonable access to broadband service today,” CenturyLink said in a media release. “These funds would be provided by the FCC’s Connect America Fund, as well as additional investment dollars would be provided by CenturyLink. If the waiver application is approved, CenturyLink will build needed broadband services to thousands of homes in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon and several other states.”

CenturyLink claims WISPs charge considerably more for service, suffer from line-of-sight restrictions which could leave many rural customers without service, have limited spectrum which keeps broadband speeds to a bare minimum and often forces customers to endure stringent data usage caps.

The waiver request would allow CenturyLink to receive and use federal Connect America funds to deploy its DSL service to rural customers already served by WISPs if two conditions are met:

• The state where CenturyLink would spend the money has not independently verified the coverage area of the wireless ISP and objective data opens the door to an argument that a WISP cannot adequately service areas where they claim coverage;
• The WISP imposes unusually high prices ($720/yr or more) or severe usage caps (25GB per month or less).

Chuck Siefert, CEO of the Montana Internet Corporation (MIC), a WISP, argues CenturyLink has no case, and is attempting to modify the rules to accomplish its own objectives rather than adhering to the original goals of the program — to deliver broadband to the rural unserved:

CenturyLink is simply raising an old protest in a new venue. Having been designated as eligible for almost ninety million dollars of the Connect America Program (CAP), it wishes to have the opportunity to use more than a third of that as it chooses, rather than as the Commission designated after input and analysis from all parties. The Rubicon has been crossed with respect to this issue: unserved areas are those that are not served by fixed wireless providers.  Regardless of CenturyLink’s opinion of the quality of service provided, these areas have been deemed served by the Commission and CAP incremental support may not be used to build out broadband in these areas. CenturyLink is certainly capable of using other funding to build out in these areas; the Commission has not precluded that.

CenturyLink’s complaints that WISPs often come with data usage caps is ironic because CenturyLink is now imposing usage caps on its own broadband service. CenturyLink argues data caps expose the limitations inherent in wireless broadband in their filing with the FCC:

Satellite broadband also often comes encumbered with restrictive data caps. The same is true of many of the WISPs subject to this waiver request. They impose on their users highly restrictive data caps of less than 25 GB per month. Indeed, two of the WISPs impose a cap of just 5 GB per month.

It is no surprise that these WISPs would impose such unusually low caps; like satellite providers, they must ration out their highly constrained capacity among the various end users who compete for it. WISP broadband capacity—unlike the customer-specific links in DSL-based broadband—is shared by all customers within a given wireless cell or sector.

This means that the more customers a WISP persuades to sign up, the worse the average service quality gets for all customers unless the WISP sharply limits how much customers may consume.

That imperative may be an unavoidable consequence of the WISPs’ technology, but it further underscores the need to give the affected consumers a robust broadband alternative.

Siefert claims CenturyLink’s assertions about the quality of its DSL service, pricing, and performance simply fall short of the truth, and MIC does better by its customers.

Pricing

CenturyLink charges a $134.89 non-recurring charge plus $29.99/mo for “up to 1.5Mbps” DSL service, plus “up to” $99.95 for professional installation. CenturyLink’s DSL modem costs $99 and has a one-year warranty.

Siefert claims MIC charges $30/mo for “bursting speeds up to 10Mbps” and $250 for technician installation, but the company offers regular installation promotions that cost $99. MIC warrants its equipment for the life of the service and charges no fee for service calls as long as the customer is current on their bill.

But Stop the Cap! found speeds and pricing less advantageous than Siefert might have the FCC believe. For instance, MIC’s $30 tier only guarantees 384kbps with speed “bursts” up to 10Mbps. Getting committed 2Mbps service runs $55 a month with the same “bursting” speed of 10Mbps. We also found CenturyLink willing to negotiate installation charges, and the company frequently discounts or even waives them if a customer signs up for a multi-service package.

Data Caps

CenturyLink now imposes a 150GB usage cap on customers with 1.5Mbps service or slower, 250GB for customers at higher speeds.

MIC claims it does not even monitor individual customer usage. Siefert says data use limitations are found in the terms and conditions of its service and are imposed only when a customer creates a problem for other users on the network.

“Rather than strictly applying data caps, MIC’s policy is to contact its customers and explain the impact their usage has on other customers,” Siefert explains. “As a small provider in a local community, MIC is able to do this in a way that a carrier like CenturyLink cannot. CenturyLink’s representations regarding transfer caps imply that WISPs arbitrarily and automatically shut a customer down once the cap is reached. This assertion is not based on evidence and is not an accurate statement of MIC’s approach to the caps. CenturyLink’s argument that WISPs operate like satellite and therefore WISPs service areas should be categorized as unserved areas based on how transfer caps are used fails.”

Stop the Cap! found different information on MIC’s website, however, including a 20GB monthly data cap and a $15/GB overage charge. Siefert’s submission to the FCC may suggest the published cap is a guideline more than a rule.

Performance

CenturyLink still uses T1-level circuits (1.5Mbps) to connect at least some of their remote D-SLAMs, according to Siefert, which helps the phone company extend DSL service to homes and businesses far away from the company’s central office. The net result is that customers fight for the bandwidth on an insufficient backhaul, which dramatically reduces speeds during peak usage times. In Helena, Montana CenturyLink “daisy-chains” D-SLAMs to support customers over a single T3 line, creating latency problems, packet loss, and further reductions in speed and performance.

MIC is capable of providing a total of 252Mbps per distribution site. The incoming next generation of wireless technology will increase that to 1.4Gbps. Additional distribution sites can divide the traffic load similar to how new cell towers can reduce demand on other nearby towers.

Speeds

CenturyLink sells speeds “up to” a certain level without guaranteeing customers will actually get the speed they are paying to receive. Siefert says CenturyLink customers in Montana currently can manage up to 7Mbps in some areas.

MIC says it can commit to its customers they can receive 10-40Mbps (and 80Mbps by the end of 2012) over its wireless network.

Independent Netindex.com suggests MIC does offers faster service on average than CenturyLink provides in Montana:

• Montana (statewide average): MIC 5.04Mbps vs. CenturyLink 3.8Mbps
• Helena: MIC 5.08Mbps vs. CenturyLink 2.73Mbps

The Wireless Internet Service Provider Association says their members are not eligible for federal Connect America subsidies, and most wireless providers are privately financed operations built with the support of their rural customers.

Said Richard Harnish, WISPA’s executive director, “We find it hard to believe that a company like CenturyLink that gets millions of dollars in federal support now wants more free money to overbuild unsubsidized rural broadband networks that WISPs already successfully operate. To do this, CenturyLink has attempted to discredit the taxpayer-funded National Broadband Map and invent its own standards in an effort to show that they should receive more than $30 million in additional subsidies.  Our strong opposition reflects WISPA’s view that CenturyLink’s arguments are factually and technically flawed.  We thank the other associations, state agencies and WISPs that support our views.”

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)