United Arab Emirates

While North American broadband providers complain about the costs of wiring America’s rural expanse, the United Arab Emirates is on track to deliver 100 percent of its citizens with high speed broadband service by the end of next year.

The UAE made fiber optic broadband a priority, despite the fact the individual emirates that make up the federation are often separated by vast, rural salt pans, sand dunes, and mountain regions.

Sultan Bin Saeed Al Mansoori, UAE’s Minister of Economy told attendees at the Abu Dhabi Telecoms CEO Summit that despite the fact the country is already a mature market for telecommunications products, healthy competition is driving providers to temporarily reduce revenue expectations as they invest heavily to deliver better service to the UAE’s 8.3 million residents.

Broadband providers in the UAE already deliver a vastly superior experience than most customers in North America receive, and the country is currently measured as the world’s fifth fastest by Akamai.  The average broadband connection speed in the UAE exceeds 25Mbps, and that is before fiber-to-the-home service becomes available to nearly every home in the Emirates.

Al Mansoori

Providers are spending considerable sums of money to improve their networks to deliver faster, more reliable service to even the most rural communities.

”Customers definitely have gained from this diversity,” noted Al Mansoori.  “For operators, revenues have dropped in the short term but I understand this was something anticipated, and which the industry is well-equipped to eventually absorb.”

The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) reports 2011 may be the biggest year ever in communications spending, with the world’s fastest growing telecommunications markets being in the Middle East and Africa.

The UAE’s largest phone company, Etisalat, is now a major player in 18 markets across the Middle East and North Africa and has over 100 million customers.

Al Mansoori noted that fiber-to-the-home service was best equipped to deliver UAE world-class broadband service at an affordable rate to consumers.  He further recognized that robust competition inspired the country’s telecommunications companies to choose that technology to best compete with other players in the market — wired and wireless.

“Superior infrastructure that enables social and economic growth that keeps the UAE in the forefront of technology is an integral part of our development vision,” he declared.

Phillip 'Not Picking Up What Moffett Puts Down' Dampier

Tech, business, and even a few mainstream media outlets have been booking Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett as an independent observer of all-things-broadband, without revealing he literally has a vested interest in boosting profits for the telecommunications industry.

The latest of Moffett’s heavily-slanted ideas appeared over the weekend on ZDNet, where Larry Dignan’s Between the Lines column used one of Bernstein’s “research notes” to provoke readers into a discussion about Internet Overcharging:

Metered broadband access is inevitable and may even be good for adoption of speedy Internet access.

That’s the argument from Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett in a research note. Moffett sets the scene:

• The FCC’s open Internet push allows for metered broadband.
• AT&T has introduced usage caps across its wireline business. DSL customers are limited to 150 GB of monthly consumption. U-Verse subscribers get 250 GB, or the same as Comcast. Users will be charged an extra $10 a month if they exceed the cap and it’s $10 per 50 GB after that.
• AT&T has already introduced tiered wireless plans.
• Time Warner Cable has a few usage based pricing pilots underway.

Moffett

Nowhere in Dignan’s column does he disclose Moffett is a paid Wall Street analyst working for the interests of investor clients of Sanford Bernstein who want to maximize the value of their telecommunications stocks.  Moffett’s long history of statements about industry pricing reflect those interests, which are often very different from those of most consumers.  Moffett’s world view: anything that brings in more revenue is good for shareholders (rate hikes, metered billing), anything that drives down shareholder value is not (infrastructure upgrades, pricing cuts, customer defections).

On that basis, Moffett has been called a “cable stock fluffer” by our friends at Broadband Reports for his relentlessly pro-cable industry commentary, even while ridiculing transformational projects like Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network for being “too expensive” and not delivering enough return on shareholder investment.  Consumer Reports delivers the opposite view: high marks for Verizon FiOS, mediocre to lousy marks for most of the nation’s cable operators.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with Moffett doing his job on behalf of his paying clients, using his views outside of that context — particularly when those interests go undisclosed — is journalistic malpractice.

Oh, and Time Warner Cable abandoned their usage-based pricing pilots in 2009 after customers declared war on the cable company.  Those darn customers, ruining the industry’s plans!

The rest of Moffett’s research note doesn’t get much better in the “true facts”-department:

The goal of moving to usage based pricing is not to undermine competition from Netflix (or anyone else… although it certainly wouldn’t be good news for Internet video). And it is most decidedly not to simply “raise prices for broadband” as Public Knowledge or New America would have it (although it might well do precisely that, too). Instead, it is nothing less than to re-align the entire business model of today’s infrastructure providers with the next generation of communications… so that broadband providers might stop fighting against the tide and embrace it instead.

With usage based pricing, broadband providers, and Cable operators in particular, can create an “iso-profit” curve, where the amount they make from a physical connection is about the same whether someone uses that connection for linear video or, alternatively, web video. The goal is not to stifle competition, but instead to create indifference not just to the end state of video by-pass, but indeed for all points along the way. The adoption of usage based pricing would be transformational to the debate for Cable operators, inasmuch as it would essentially indemnify them against all potential outcomes.

Moffett represents his interests, not yours.

Yet some of Moffett’s earlier statements would seem to argue with himself.

For instance, back in March Moffett was making plenty of noise about AT&T’s caps precisely targeting video providers like Netflix:

Moffett believes usage caps have everything to do with stopping the torrent of online video.  He notes AT&T’s caps are set high enough to target AT&T customers who use their connections to watch a considerable amount of video programming online.

“Only video can drive that kind of usage,” Moffett writes.

Moffett has repeatedly predicted any challenge to pay television models from online video will be met with pricing plans that eliminate or reduce the threat:

“[I]f consumption patterns change such that web video begins to substitute for linear video, then the terrestrial broadband operators will simply adopt pricing plans that preserve the economics of their physical infrastructure,” Moffett said. “Of course, any move to preserve their own economics has far-ranging implications. Any move towards usage-based pricing doesn’t just affect the returns of the operators, it also affects the demand of end users (the ‘feedback loop’).”

The only thing usage-based pricing indemnifies is the industry’s confrontation with revenue-eroding cable-TV cord-cutting.  And Moffett knows this, although he would probably give rave reviews to bringing similar usage-based-billing to cable television packages, which would charge you for every show you watched on top of your monthly bill.

These pricing models, already firmly rooted in Canada, have done nothing to bring the “next generation of communications” to our neighbors to the north.  Indeed, Canada’s ranking in broadband continues its decline as large cable and phone companies pocket the profits instead of committing to wholesale upgrades of their networks to deliver the kind of service increasingly common in Europe and Asia.

But the real laugh out loud moment comes last: Moffett’s prediction that AT&T’s usage pricing will increase broadband adoption.  Perhaps that’s true if you prefer telecommunications companies abuse you, but as we’ve documented over the past three years, these pricing schemes never save anyone money — they just increase the price of your service while decreasing the value of it.

Ten Turkish cities are getting major speed upgrades from their fiber-to-the-home provider Turkcell, which announced this week they are doubling the speed of their basic plan and introducing 1Gbps service.

“Through our investments, amounting to nearly $890 million U.S. dollars over the past three years, Turkcell Superonline has continued to pioneer the fiber-optic era in Turkey,” said Turkcell CEO Süreyya Ciliv.  “Now we are proud to provide a 1,000Mbps Internet speed service in Turkey.”

Superonline General Manager Murat Erkan announced current budget plan customers would get free speed upgrades from 10Mbps to 20Mbps, with no rate change.  Budget plan customers can choose from a usage-limited plan offering 4GB of monthly usage for $18 a month, or unlimited use for $31.

Higher speed unlimited use packages are already available, including 50Mbps for $63 a month and 100Mbps for $126 a month.  The new 1Gbps package is pricey by any consumer’s standard — $634 a month, but even at business rates is a bargain for any company paying for dedicated data circuits. Turkcell even offers a pay-as-you-go Internet package for many of their speed tiers.  Pay $3.17 a month for the connection and around $5 per gigabyte of usage.  On vacation or away for an extended period?  Just pay the connection fee — no usage charges.

Fiber service is currently available in Adana, Ankara, Antalya, Bursa, Istanbul, Izmir, Gaziantep, and Kocaeli.  Two additional cities will be wired by the end of 2011.

For the rest of Turkey, ADSL, bonded ADSL, and some ADSL 2+  service predominates, with speeds ranging from 2-16Mbps.  Unlimited and usage quota packages are available starting at around $18.40 a month.  The first six months of service are provided at a special discounted rate of $6.33.

In comparison, American cable company ISPs charge an average of $40-50 a month for 10/1Mbps service, $50-60 for 20/1Mbps service, and $99 a month for 50/5Mbps service.

Copps

Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps believes that when private companies drop the broadband ball, local communities should have the right to pick it up and run their own community-owned Internet providers.

Copps delivered his remarks yesterday at the annual conference of the SouthEast Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, a group representing the communications needs and interests of local governments and the communities they serve.

Copps told the audience in Asheville, N.C., broadband is no longer simply a nice thing to have.  It’s now an essential service for many Americans whose work, education, civic involvement, and entertainment increasingly depend on a fast, reliable, and affordable broadband connection.

According to the commissioner, the fact that many communities still don’t have it comes from the mistaken notion that private providers will deliver the service in areas where return on investment requirements are unlikely to be met:

As most of you know, I have been pushing municipal broadband for a long, long time.

When incumbent providers cannot serve the broadband needs of some localities, local governments should be allowed–no, encouraged–to step up to the plate and ensure that their citizens are not left on the wrong side of the great divide. So it is regrettable that some states are considering, and even passing, legislation that could hinder local solutions to bring the benefits of broadband to their communities. It’s exactly the wrong way to go. In this context, too, our previous infrastructure challenges must be the guide.

The successful history of rural electrification, as one example, is due in no small part to municipal electric cooperatives that lit up corners of this country where investor-owned utilities had little incentive to go. Those coops turned on the lights for a lot of people! You know, our country would be a lot better off if we would learn from our past rather than try to defy or deny it.

Copps is now the second FCC Commissioner to defend municipal broadband.  Commissioner Mignon Clyburn has repeatedly expressed similar concerns about private companies trying to restrict public broadband development.

Stop the Cap! readers will recall we pulled the plug on Frontier Communications with the disconnection of our landline back in early February.  After at least 25 years doing business with Rochester Telephone Corporation, later Frontier-Global Crossing, later Frontier-Citizens Communications, we had enough.  Frontier Communications has done nothing of merit for the metropolitan Rochester, N.Y., area since the late 1990s.  Their DSL broadband service is handily beaten in quality, reliability, and price by cable competitor Time Warner Cable, and Frontier’s lack of willingness to invest in something better for their largest service area of nearly one million people in western New York has left us cold.  After a one week experiment with Frontier’s DSL service in 2009, we dropped the service like a hot potato after it achieved an underwhelming 3.1Mbps in the town of Brighton, less than one mile from the Rochester city line.

In early February, our last remaining service — the landline — was transferred to Time Warner Cable.  But even on the way out the door, Frontier continued to disappoint.  After more than two months (and two invoices later), Frontier had still not refunded our credit balance of $26.09.  We’re a long way from Rochester Telephone, a well-regarded predecessor to Frontier which traditionally enclosed a refund check with the final bill.  Frontier makes you wait, and wait, and wait some more, reminding you they owe you money with repetitious “do not pay – credit balance” invoices for long-terminated service.

More than two months after disconnecting service, our refund check finally arrives!

On Monday, the refund check finally arrived, in an obscure envelope resembling one of those PIN reminders banks send you.  After tearing away three sides of perforated strips, there it was — $26.09 from Frontier Communications.

The long wait is hardly a random glitch.  Stop the Cap! covered the story of a Frontier customer in California who waited several months for the phone company to refund her just over $15, and just this evening we heard from one of our regular readers in Rochester disappointed by Frontier’s hardly-rapid refund policy.

The only good news is that we weren’t overbilled on the way out the door, as one Elk Grove, Calif. customer was — to the tune of $680.

To Frontier we say goodbye and good luck (and we’ll be cashing that check faster than you sent it).