Dispensing with “all-you-can-eat” data plans was the first step towards monetizing mobile broadband. Now some mobile operators are considering how to implement stage two: charging different pricing for different online applications to boost profits.

At the TM Forum Management World conference in Dublin, Ireland, mobile operators discussed managing and monetizing data usage, charging customers different rates for using various online services and applications. Total Telecom covered the conference and found mobile operators conjuring up new pricing schemes to maximize revenue opportunities.

Vikram Chadha, senior marketing director at United Arab Emirates-based Du, offered that mobile operators should bill for video traffic separately from standard data.

″Video is another beast,″ Chadha told the audience of executives. ″Operators need to look at video data in a totally different manner. It’s important to treat video as a different data element.″

Monetizing video streaming can “get high value out of that customer,” Chadha said.

Chadha

He also believes as general browser traffic declines, real money can be made charging different rates for customers accessing different apps. Providers could charge higher data pricing when customers use certain non-preferred apps, at the same time discounting traffic from apps that partner with wireless phone companies.

Chadha pointed to NTT DoCoMo’s partnership with Hulu. Both Hulu and the service provider market the service, with the one making the sale the beneficiary of most of the proceeds. That technically takes revenue away from Hulu and diverts it to NTT, which can engineer customized marketing efforts to target customers for the service.

But it does not stop there, according to Chadha. Mobile operators can generate even greater revenue by introducing Quality of Service (QoS) technology and billing customers extra for additional priority on the company’s wireless network, an important consideration for online video.

Chadha says his company now charges $1.25 for 30 minutes of video streaming from YouTube using “best available” network protocols. Customers who want to assure minimal buffering can buy a VIP Pass from Du for $2.50 for the same 30 minutes, and get priority on Du’s network.

″The [VIP pass customer] is assured of the bandwidth he gets and that gives the operator the opportunity to maximize his revenue,″ he said. ″[Apply] different QoS for different apps and you can charge differently. Or use location, and sell data more cheaply where networks are less congested, or at less busy times of day.”

Chadha’s worst enemy would be a strong Net Neutrality policy, which would prohibit operators from discriminating against or prioritizing different types of traffic. None of these pricing schemes would likely work if Du provided a flat rate mobile service either.

In the absence of such net protections, revenue and profit opportunities abound.

″Application-based charging is going to be very important and so is value-based charging,″ he predicted.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Business Booming in Chattanooga 5-29-12.flv[/flv]

While telecom industry-backed groups dismiss community broadband as a waste of taxpayer dollars and an excuse for customers to watch illicit videos and steal content, CNBC reports Chattanooga’s infrastructure improvements, including their gigabit fiber network owned by public utility EPB are contributing to the city’s enormous economic growth and falling unemployment rate. Private companies are pouring into Chattanooga and find a city ready to welcome them and meet their digital needs. Community broadband: a waste of taxpayer money or exactly the right fuel to power American cities into the 21st century digital economy?  (2 minutes)

Phillip Dampier

The Federal Communications Commission has announced the composition of its new Open Internet Advisory Committee to help track and evaluate the effects of the agency’s Net Neutrality policies, but has no member directly representing the interests of consumers.

The OIAC will focus on important Net Neutrality policies like transparency, reasonable network management practices, the differences governing policies for wired and wireless broadband, and issues like usage caps and speed throttling. But there are no voices on the committee that speak directly on behalf of end users — individual customers who use the Internet in their daily lives.

The FCC instead packed the panel with business, social policy and educational interests, many with direct financial ties to large telecommunications companies.

Selected members include:

• Harvey Anderson, Vice President of Business Affairs & General Counsel, Mozilla
• Brad Burnham, Founding Partner, Union Square Ventures
• Alissa Cooper, Chief Computer Scientist, Center for Democracy & Technology
• Leslie Daigle, Chief Internet Technology Officer, Internet Society
• Jessica Gonzalez, Executive Board, Media and Democracy Coalition; Vice President for Policy & Legal Affairs, National Hispanic Media Coalition (representing NHMC)
• Shane Greenstein, Professor and Kellogg Chair of Information Technology, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
• Russell Housley, Chair, Internet Engineering Task Force; Founder of Vigil Security, LLC (representing Vigil Security, LLC)
• Neil Hunt, Chief Product Officer, Netflix
• Charles Kalmanek, Vice President of Research, AT&T
• Matthew Larsen, CEO, Vistabeam
• Kevin McElearney, Senior Vice President for Network Engineering, Comcast
• Marc Morial, President & CEO, National Urban League
• Elaine Paul, Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning, The Walt Disney Company
• Jennifer Rexford, Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University
• Dennis Roberson, Vice Provost & Research Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology (representing T-Mobile)
• Chip Sharp, Director, Technology Policy and Internet Governance, Cisco Systems
• Charles Slocum, Assistant Executive Director, Writers Guild of America, West
• Marcus Weldon, Chief Technology Officer, Alcatel-Lucent
• Michelle Zatlyn, Co-Founder & Head of User Experience, CloudFlare

Missing are the voices of consumers who want an open Internet and do not believe in Comcast and AT&T’s definitions of “reasonable network management” that include Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and overlimit fees.

Consumers will instead have to depend on Internet businesses and institutions that coincidentally share an active dislike of traffic control measures, primarily for their own business reasons.

By excluding the consumer’s voice in policy debates, it is no wonder FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski increasingly seems amenable to the companies he is supposed to independently oversee — spending a considerable amount of time opening industry conventions with keynote speeches, reviewing lobbyist briefs about various communications issues, and talking directly with the corporate leadership of the companies involved. It is disturbingly clear he is listening less and less to consumers. A clear sign of that was his vocal support for the kinds of usage-based Internet pricing schemes that consumers generally loathe.

Genachowski and his staff need to spend more time listening to individual Internet users and the customers of providers and less time attending industry-sponsored events.

The OIAC is a good place to start. Consumers deserve a seat at the table in a debate that will impact every American Internet user.

Northern Minnesota's Paul Bunyan Communications is threatened by FCC reforms that they claim favor larger phone companies.

Northern Minnesotans will have to wait longer for broadband after a telephone co-op announced it was suspending its $19 million broadband expansion project because funding is being diverted to more powerful phone companies like AT&T and Verizon — neither of which have any concrete plans to improve rural wired broadband.

Bemidji-based Paul Bunyan Communications, which serves 28,000 hearty Minnesota customers, has been working on broadband expansion for several years, bringing broadband to customers who have known nothing except dial-up since the Internet age began. Only now the project is threatened because of well-intentioned plans by the Federal Communications Commission to expand rural broadband, but in ways that cater primarily to larger phone companies that lobbied heavily for the changes.

At issue is Universal Service Fund reform, which plans to divert an increasing share of the surcharge all telephone customers pay away from rural basic phone service and towards broadband expansion in rural America.

Paul Bunyan used their share of USF funding to scrap the company’s existing, antiquated copper-wire network in favor of fiber optics. Other phone companies have traditionally used the money to keep their existing networks running. Now the independent phone company says large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have successfully changed the rules in their favor, and will now benefit from a larger share of those funds, ostensibly to expand broadband to their rural customers.

Bissonette (Courtesy: MPR)

But neither AT&T or Verizon have shown much interest in rural broadband upgrades. AT&T, which recently announced it concluded its U-verse rollout in larger cities, has also thrown up its hands about how to deal with the “rural broadband problem” and plans no substantial expansion of the company’s DSL service.

Verizon also announced it had largely completed the expansion of FiOS, a fiber to the home service. Verizon has also been discouraging customers from considering its DSL service by limiting it only to customers who also subscribe to landline phone service.

Verizon Wireless has introduced a wireless home broadband replacement that costs considerably more than traditional DSL, starting at $60 a month for up to 10GB of usage.

As a result of the funding changes, Paul Bunyan is reconsidering plans to expand its broadband, phone and television services to Kjenaas and about 4,000 other residents in rural Park Rapids and a township near Grand Rapids.

It may also have to cut workers.

“It’s kind of ironic,” Paul Bunyan’s Brian Bissonette tells Minnesota Public Radio. “The mantra of these changes is to create jobs. It’s killing jobs.”

Minnesota Public Radio explores how rural Minnesota broadband is being threatened by a telecom industry-influenced plan to divert funding to larger companies like AT&T and Verizon for rural broadband expansion those companies have no plans to deliver. (May 23, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Six college towns will benefit from the nation’s first multi-community broadband gigabit deployment, thanks to $200 million in capital funding to get the broadband networks off the ground.

The Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program leverages local government, universities, private capital, and the public to jointly support and foster the development of new fiber optic networks.

The new program claims it will offer competitively-priced super-fast broadband through projects that will cover neighborhoods of 5,000-10,000 people and communities up to 100,000 in size.  Selection of the six winning communities will be announced between this fall and next spring.

“Gigabit Squared created the Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program to help select Gig.U communities build and test gigabit speed broadband networks with speeds from 100 to 1000 times faster than what Americans have today,” the company said in a statement.

“The United States is behind in the world for Internet speed,” said Mark Ansboury, Gigabit’s president and co-founder. “The goal is to help get us out front for a platform of innovation.”

That platform is certainly not forthcoming from the country’s largest broadband providers, who according to Ansboury have been pulling back on wired infrastructure upgrades in recent years, shifting focus to more profitable wireless networks.

Gigabit Squared defines the next generation of broadband Internet in terms of speed, declaring 2,000Mbps (2Gbps) as the target to achieve.

The winning projects will be sponsored by Gig.U members, which include:

• Arizona State University
• California Institute of Technology
• Case Western Reserve University
• Colorado State University
• Duke University
• Florida State University
• George Mason University
• The Georgia Institute of Technology
• Howard University
• Indiana University
• Michigan State University
• North Carolina State University
• Penn State University
• University of Alaska – Fairbanks
• University of Arizona
• University of Chicago
• University of Colorado – Boulder
• University of Florida
• University of Hawaii
• University of Illinois
• University of Kentucky
• University of Louisville
• University of Maine
• University of Maryland
• University of Michigan
• University of Missouri
• University of Montana
• University of Nebraska – Lincoln
• University of New Mexico
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• University of Oklahoma
• University of South Florida
• University of Virginia
• University of Washington
• Virginia Tech
• Wake Forest University
• West Virginia University

Blair Levin, executive director at Gig.U, believes private American telecom companies will always be constrained from delivering world class broadband comparable to South Korea or Japan because of Wall Street opposition to the investment required to construct them. In the eyes of investors, today’s slower networks, in their estimation, do just fine.

Gig.U believes that they have a solution, at least for towns with a sizable university system that can serve as host of the next generation broadband network:

First, any community that wants its residents to have access to a network that delivers world-leading bandwidth can do so. The barrier is not technology or economics. The barrier is organization; specifically, organizing demand and improved use of underutilized assets, such as rights of way, dark fiber, or in more rural areas, spectrum. The responses identified a multitude of ways local communities can improve the private investment case by lowering investment and risk, and increasing revenues for private players willing to upgrade or build new networks without budget outlays from the local government.

Second, the responses confirmed that university communities have the easiest organizing task and greatest upside. Their density, demographics and demand make the current economics more favorable for an upgrade than other communities. For example, the high percentage of the population in university communities living in multiple dwelling units makes the economics of an upgrade far more favorable than for communities composed largely of single-family homes. With the growing importance of Big Data for the economy and the society, university communities are the natural havens for such enterprises to be born and prosper. Through the Gig.U process, our communities are already exploring more than a half-dozen paths to achieve an upgrade; paths that will be replicable for others and will deliver a major step forward in providing America a strategic broadband advantage.

Outside of a handful of upstart private competitors like California-based Sonic.net, most fiber broadband expansion come from private companies like Google — building an experimental fiber-to-the-home network in Kansas City, community-owned broadband services coordinated by local town or city government, co-op telecommunications companies owned by their subscribers, or municipal utilities.

While those efforts are typically committed to the concept of “universal service” — wiring their entire communities — the Gig.U project targets funding only for networks in and around university campuses.

The New America Foundation builds on Gig.U’s premise in its own recent report, “Universities as Hubs for Next Generation Networks,” which argues affordable expansion of broadband can win community support when the public has the right to also benefit from those networks. While Gig.U’s approach suggests the project will target fiber broadband directly to the homes qualified to receive it, the New America Foundation supports the construction of mesh wireless Wi-Fi networks to keep construction costs low for neighborhoods targeted for service.

An earlier project in Orono and Old Town, Maine may afford a preview of Gig.U’s vision, as that collaboration between the University of Maine and private fiber provider GWI is already in its construction phase. For those lucky enough to live within range of the fiber project, broadband speeds will far exceed what incumbents Time Warner Cable and FairPoint Communications deliver. FairPoint has fought similar projects (and GWI specifically) for years.

Will private providers object to the Gig.U effort to win local governments’ favor in the six cities eventually chosen for service? History suggests the answer will be yes, at least to the extent local cable and phone companies demand the same concessions for easy pole access, reduced pole attachment fees, and easing of zoning restrictions and procedures Gig.U project coordinators expect.

Levin has stressed Gig.U projects are based on university and private funding sources, not taxpayer dollars. That may also limit how much objection commercial providers may be able to raise against the projects.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABI Bangor Orono Maine Getting Faster Service 5-16-12.flv[/flv]

WABI in Bangor previews the new gigabit broadband network being constructed in Orono and Old Town, Maine.  (2 minutes)