Even as DOCSIS 3 cable technology continues to roll-out across cable systems now offering faster Internet speeds, the next generation of cable broadband is on the way, reportedly capable of delivering up to 10/2Gbps service.

CableLabs’ DOCSIS 3.1 project will be the subject of a special panel at an upcoming cable engineer conference later this month.

“DOCSIS 3.1 specification development is a significant milestone on the industry’s road map to next-generation services,” said CableLabs chief technology officer Ralph Brown. “Our SCTE Cable-Tec Expo panel will identify the motivations, requirements and key technology building blocks under development with the collaboration of the vendor community.  DOCSIS 3.1 solutions will provide both residential and commercial cable customers with faster data rates — both upstream and downstream — that support increasingly compelling broadband services.”

The DOCSIS 3 standard allows cable operators to bond multiple channels to support faster speeds.

The new standard will incorporate changes in how cable spectrum is utilized for broadband, vastly expanding potential bandwidth. Although the standard can support gigabit broadband speeds, nobody expects cable companies to offer those speeds in the near term.

Instead, providers are more interested in addressing their upstream speed limitations. From the earliest days of cable broadband, the assumption was that customers would care far more about downstream speeds and consider uploading an afterthought. The result was a network that prioritized download speed. But as users continue to upload more multimedia content and embrace cloud storage, slow upload speeds are starting to aggravate customers.

DOCSIS 3.1 is rumored to de-emphasize the current QAM modulation cable operators use for broadband in favor of more robust technologies such as orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM), already used by the wireless industry. Unlike interference/noise-prone QAM, OFDM uses much smaller subcarriers that work better in noisy signal conditions. Although coaxial cable is capable of delivering a large amount of spectrum to cable operators, all of it cannot be practically used because of external interference from electrical equipment, broadcast radio and television signals, and other sources. Error-correcting technologies can let operators use more of their available spectrum without reducing the quality of service to customers.

The study group working on DOCSIS 3.1 is also reviewing the incorporation of “low density parity-check” (LDPC) error correction that would efficiently improve noise rejection over today’s Reed-Solomon approach. Combining OFDM and LDPC could improve spectral efficiency up to 25 percent.

The cable industry is pressuring the study group to preserve backwards compatibility with the older DOCSIS 3.0 standard just now coming into widespread use. Some industry insiders predict cable operators will keep today’s QAM modulation for downstream speeds while boosting upstream speeds using OFDM.

Cable operators across the country are gradually moving away from analog service in favor of digital with the ultimate goal of an entirely IP-based network for television, phone, and broadband. The pressure is on for DOCSIS 3.1 to help accelerate that transformation, but most industry experts don’t believe the new standard will be finalized until at least the middle of 2013, with at least 6-12 months before equipment shows up supporting the finalized standard.

Anger management failure at the Time Warner Cable store

I always wondered why some Time Warner Cable stores maintain a very visible security presence, often with a uniformed guard stationed in plain sight. This morning, I got my answer.

While visiting a local cable store to exchange a set top box, I ended up behind five other customers, with just a single representative on duty. Seated on the provided couch, I was well-positioned to hear the issues of customers in line before me. It was the usual pattern — a bunch of late-payers wondering how much of their $400 past due cable bill they needed to pay to reconnect service, a customer exchanging a troublesome remote control or turning in unneeded equipment, and one older “gentleman” who clearly spent his morning preparing for a personal indictment of Time Warner’s customer service.

He was in line right before me. I should have realized there was going to be a problem, considering he spent 15 minutes muttering under his breath and mocking the representative’s answers to other customers as he waited his turn.

His moment finally arrived, and he unleashed.

“How do you people sleep at night,” was his opening. “Time Warner Cable sucks.”

And they’re off….

For at least 10 minutes, the woman behind the counter took a relentless verbal, often personal lashing.

Phillip “Next in line after Mr. Angry” Dampier

“I worked for a utility company and I would have been fired if I ever provided service as bad as yours,” was quickly followed by “do you actually train your people?”

It seemed, in-between the insults, this particular customer lost cable service the other day, called Time Warner’s automated attendant, and was erroneously told there was no reported service problem in his area. Finally reaching a live person, the customer service representative quickly repeated that, despite protests that “the whole street is out.”

Over the course of the day, the perturbed customer repeatedly called Time Warner to give regular updates on their conclusion there was no problem.

“There were Time Warner trucks on my street and you people have the nerve to tell me there is no problem,” relayed the man. “I’m glad I don’t have your phone service because even your own people told me not to get it because it was unreliable. I would not have been able to even call you then.”

But the final indignation was the customer’s perception a Time Warner Cable employee ordered him to stay home for a service call the next day.

“How dare you tell me what to do. You people wasted my time and yours and I never had this problem with Dish when I had them,” he lectured. “I don’t know how you guys even stay in business with crappy service like that and you lie to your own customers.”

The employee behind the counter had evidently been well-seasoned by prior encounters with angry customers. While never telling the man she understood his concerns, she did repeatedly tell him she was not the one telling him the things that obviously had upset him.

Other customers watching the display further back in line began to leave the store, noting the man showed no signs of drawing his angerfest to a close.

“I should just go back to Dish,” repeated the man. “You people are just awful and you always have been and you should be ashamed.”

For a few moments, there was silence as the representative looked up information about the customer on her computer. That was her big mistake.

“I am going to back my truck up and just chuck my cable box through your window for all it is worth,” as the relative calm of the eye of Hurricane Angry Guy had now passed on by. “Screw all of you.”

Having self-satisfied himself with his venting, he stormed off slamming the store door open as hard as he could.

“Customer #110 is now being served at window 2,” proclaimed the automated voice.

That was me. I hesitantly approached the desk.

Initially defensive, the customer service person cut me off the moment I took a breath to speak and tartly asked for my phone number.

It should be obvious to any reader here that I am a relentless critic of some of the policies and decisions made by the management of large cable and phone companies like Time Warner Cable. I am also a customer, so technically I could feel entitled to unleash my concerns about the industry as a whole on any employee of the cable company. But that would be wrong.

Taking your frustrations out on a customer service representative that had nothing to do with creating a problem will not solve the problem. Hurling a tirade of personal, verbal abuse is simply unacceptable.

If Time Warner Cable made the mistake, calmly discussing the problem without yelling at the representative would have probably netted the customer a customer courtesy credit and an apology. Asking the representative what she could do to alleviate or compensate for a problem gives them a chance to help. Putting them under a state of siege is a sure way to shut them down, hoping you will leave as quickly as possible.

In short, nobody deserves to be treated the way this representative was this morning.

Being affable got me a lot farther. The representative’s initial defensiveness quickly dissipated and she went out of her way to address concerns and even offered things I did not request. When it was all over, I thanked her for her help and she returned the courtesy wishing me a great day.

Some people believe being difficult and browbeating customer service will get them satisfaction. But I have found that remembering the “three P’s” of customer <-> customer service interaction work far better:

1. Be polite. If you have a problem with your provider, don’t assign blame to the one person that might be able to alleviate the problem. Calmly explain what the company did wrong in your eyes and empower and encourage the customer service agent to be your ally to resolve the problem. Making things personal puts anyone on the defensive, which guarantees less interaction, not more. Treat people the way you expect to be treated.
2. Be persistent. If the offered solutions don’t work for you, let them know in a calm voice that their suggested resolution is insufficient. Ask them if there is anything else they can do to resolve an issue or compensate you. If they seem unable to help, ask them if a supervisor could.
3. Be persuasive. Reminding a customer service agent you appreciate their help and that, as a long standing customer, you want to preserve a positive attitude about your provider gives them the incentive to go further for you. If necessary, remind them that a happy customer stays a customer. An unhappy one leaves and tells everyone they know. Keep things business-like and keep your anger in check.

Phillip “Tollbooths are not innovation” Dampier

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski last week wrote a guest editorial on TechCrunch espousing the benefits of faster broadband networks, but the advances he celebrates often come with innovation-killing usage caps and overlimit fees he continues to ignore.

We feel the need – the need for speed. As Tom Friedman and others have written, in this flat global economy a strategic bandwidth advantage will help keep the U.S. as the home and most desired destination for the world’s greatest innovators and entrepreneurs.

[…] But progress isn’t victory, particularly in this fast-moving sector. Challenges to U.S. leadership are real. This is a time to press harder on the gas pedal, not let up. The first challenge is the need for faster and more accessible broadband networks. We need to keep pushing because our global competitors aren’t slowing down. I’ve met with senior government officials and business leaders from every continent, and every one of them is focused on the broadband opportunity. If we in the U.S. don’t foster major investments to extend and expand our broadband infrastructure, somebody else will take the lead.

We need to keep pushing because innovators need next-generation bandwidth for next-generation innovations – genetic sequencing for cancer patients, immersive and creative software to help children learn, ways for small businesses to take advantage of Big Data, and speed- and capacity-heavy innovations we can’t yet imagine.

We need to remove bandwidth as a constraint on our innovators and entrepreneurs. In addition to steadily increasing broadband speed and capacity for consumers and businesses throughout the country, we need – as we said in our National Broadband Plan – “innovation hubs” with super-fast broadband, with speed measured in gigabits, not megabits.

[…]Some argue the private sector will solve these challenges itself, and that all government has to do is get out of the way. I disagree. The private sector must take the lead, but the public sector has a vital though limited role to play.

Among the policy levers government needs to use is the removal of barriers to broadband buildout, lowering the costs of infrastructure deployment with new policies like “Dig Once” that says you should lay fiber when you dig up roads. The President recently issued an Executive Order implementing this idea, suggested in our Broadband Plan. Government must promote competition, which drives innovation and network upgrades.

We must ensure the Internet remains an open platform that continues to enable innovation without permission.

Genachowski

Genachowski’s vision for faster broadband has the noble goal of maintaining competitiveness with the rest of the world and putting the United States back on top in broadband rankings and innovation. But while hobnobbing with his industry friends at recent industry conventions, he may have gotten too close to one of the biggest impediments holding us back — big cable and phone companies merrily working their magic to create a comfortable duopoly with pricing and service plans to match.

Back in the late 1990s, most cable operators thought of broadband as an ancillary service easy enough to operate, but probably hard to monetize. Just like digital cable radio services like Music Choice and DMX, “broadband” would likely appeal only to a tiny subset of customers.

“Back in the 1990s, Time Warner was primarily a TV company in a TV industry.  Broadband then was an innovating and radical thing, and a lot of people thought it was stupid and wouldn’t work,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said in April, 2009.

The launch of “Road Runner” was not the most auspicious marketing effort undertaken by the cable operator. In fact, the service was rarely targeted for price adjustments, hovering at around $40 a month for a decade.

When the Great Recession hit the United States, something unexpected happened. Cable operators discovered people were willing to cancel their cable and phone services, but not their broadband. In fact, as high bandwidth online video became an increasing part of our lives, the cable industry realized they were in the catbird seat to deliver the best broadband experience, and be well-paid for it. With little competition, increasing prices brought little risk and, thanks to the insatiable drive to boost revenue and reduce costs, implementing usage caps to control “excess” usage and costs were within their grasp.

In 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, only a handful of ISPs had usage caps. Now most providers, with the exception of Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cablevision, and a handful of others, all have usage allowances and overlimit fee Internet Overcharging schemes to further pad their bottom lines.

Innovation: Rationing Your Internet Experience — Stick to e-mail and web pages.

Genachowski has completely ignored the growing pervasiveness of usage caps, and even excused them as an experiment in marketplace innovation. But limits on broadband usage will also limit the broadband innovation revolution he wants, especially when most Americans have just one or two realistic choices for broadband service:

1. Usage caps are the product of artificial scarcity. Rationing Internet usage, even with now-pervasive cost-effective upgrades like DOCSIS 3, simply does not make sense (but it will make dollars). Cable operators are switching off analog television service to free up bandwidth to provider faster Internet speed and fatten the pipeline that delivers it. They have plenty of capacity, but continue to proclaim they must limit usage for “fairness” reasons, without providing a single shred of evidence to prove the need for usage caps. Consumers will self-ration just to avoid the prospect of being cut off or handed a bill with overlimit fees.
2. Usage caps make faster speeds irrelevant. Selling customers premium-priced, super fast broadband speed is hardly compelling when accompanied by usage caps that constrain the benefits of buying. Why pay $20-50 more for faster speeds when customers cannot take practical advantage of them. Customers using their Internet service to browse web pages and read e-mail have no interest in upgrading to 30+Mbps. Customers streaming video or moving large files do.
3. Usage caps retard innovation. Google’s new 1Gbps fiber optic network was built on the premise that usage caps were unnecessary on a fiber-based network and would retard innovation. Developing the next generation of innovative apps that Genachowski celebrates will never happen if developers are discouraged by Internet usage toll booths and stop signs. The cost to provide the service is not largely dependent on customer usage. It is the initial price of last mile infrastructure that really matters. Both cable and phone companies have reduced their investments to upgrade their networks, and AT&T and Verizon both contemplate getting rid of their rural landlines. Most cable operators paid off their networks years ago.
4. Usage caps create a whole new digital divide.  Time Warner Cable’s discounted Internet Essentials program delivers only a $5 discount with a harsh 5GB usage cap. For an income-challenged home compelled to switch to a provider’s budget plan, the result is a different Internet experience than the rest of us enjoy. Imagine if your home broadband account was limited to 5GB a month. What online services would you have to avoid to stay under the provider’s limit? Traditionally, operators sell the lowest speed tiers with the lowest usage allowances. Slower speeds already offer a disincentive to use high bandwidth services, but many providers typically drive that disincentive home even harder with a paltry allowance that will cost plenty to exceed.
5. Usage caps harm our broadband standing. While Genachowski celebrates increasing broadband speeds, he ignores the fact the rest of the world is moving away from usage caps even as the United States moves towards them. Both Australia and New Zealand elected to construct their own national fiber networks in large part because the heavily usage-capped experience was holding both countries back. Usage caps are a product of a barely competitive market.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bandwidth Caps 7-2011.flv[/flv]

Tech News Today debunks providers’ claims that usage caps are fair and control those who “overuse” their networks, noting the same phone companies (AT&T) pushing for usage caps are also moving voice calling to unlimited service plans. (August, 2011) (4 minutes)

Comcast has agreed to provide cable service to 540 homes on Chappaquiddick Island, but only if residents agree to cover part of the cost, which Comcast estimates will be $1,526 per home, assuming everyone offered the service signs up.

Martha’s Vineyard, with Chappaquiddick Island to the east

The cable company has been at odds with town officials in Edgartown, which is responsible for negotiating franchise agreements for six Massachusetts island communities and Edgartown itself. Comcast said it would cost $1.58 million to wire up the small island, and it wants residents to pay $824,000 of that.

The cable company also wants residents to pay extra for connections if their homes lie more than 250 feet from the primary cable Comcast intends to wire across the island. Beyond that, customers will pay Comcast’s usual rates for cable TV, phone, and broadband service.

Edgartown wants Comcast to cover the island towns that surround it, and the company in turn has routinely claimed there were insufficient customers available to recoup the costs of the investment.  But attitudes have softened now that Comcast’s franchise is up for renewal.

Local officials issued a request for proposals in February, 2011 to a variety of cable operators that might be interested in serving Martha’s Vineyard, of which Chappaquiddick is a part. As anticipated, Comcast — the incumbent, was the only company that responded.

But after an extended back and forth, Comcast seemed willing to relent, if someone split the tab.

Local residents have had mixed reactions to the proposal. Some wonder why they should have to foot the bill for a company that will earn $8 million annually from customers on the various nearby islands. Others are willing to pay, but in installments.

Edgartown town administrator Pam Dolby wants a more detailed breakdown of the cost estimate of $1.58 million to wire just over six square miles of the island.

Despite industry propaganda touting an “unlimited broadband future” (possibilities, that is, not an end to usage caps) and good sounding headlines about robust competition in the broadband market, the reality on the ground isn’t as rosy.

Americans looking for a better deal for broadband are largely stuck negotiating with the local cable company or putting up with less speed from the phone company to get a cheaper rate.

That is hardly the “success story” being pushed by the Mother of All Broadband Astroturf Front Groups, Broadband for America. BfA, backed by money from some of America’s largest telecom companies calls today’s marketplace “dynamic” and “rapidly changing.” For them, competition is not the problem, the way we define competition is.

Tell that to San Jose Mercury News columnist Troy Wolverton, whose dynamic and rapidly changing Comcast cable bill has now reached $144 a month, and threatens to go higher still when his two-year contract expires.

Wolverton is a case study of what an average American consumer goes through shopping around for broadband service. Despite assertions of a vibrant, competitive Internet access paradise from groups like Broadband for America, Wolverton found very little real competition on the menu, despite being in the high tech heart of Silicon Valley.

Valley residents can typically choose between AT&T and Comcast, if they have any choice at all. Neither company offers a great deal for consumers.

Comcast offers faster speeds at considerably higher prices that can be reduced somewhat by signing up for a costly triple-play service. AT&T’s prices are lower, but its service is slower and is based on a technology that in my experience is less reliable.

So it goes for millions of Americans who face the same dilemma: take a higher-priced package from the cable company or settle for less from the phone company. With the exception of Verizon FiOS, most large telephone companies still rely on basic DSL service to deliver broadband. AT&T’s U-verse and CenturyLink’s Prism are both fiber to the neighborhood services that deliver somewhat faster speeds than traditional DSL, but also have to share bandwidth with television and traditional phone service, leaving them topped out at around 25Mbps.

Wolverton could not believe his only choices were Comcast and AT&T, so he visited the California Broadband Availability Map, one of the state projects earnestly trying to identify the available choices consumers have for broadband access. Despite California’s vast size, it quickly became apparent that even companies like AT&T and Comcast largely don’t deliver broadband outside of cities and suburbs. Several smaller, lesser-known providers emerged from the map that were open to Wolverton, which he explored with less-than-satisfying results:

In addition to Comcast and AT&T, it listed Etheric Networks, which offers a wireless Internet service directed at home users that’s based on Wi-Fi technology, and MegaPath, which offers Internet access through a variety of wired technologies, including DSL.

After further research I found that neither of those companies was a legitimate option. MegaPath can’t deliver residential service to my house that’s faster than 1.5 megabits per second. Etheric, which focuses on business customers, offers a service level with speeds of up to 22 megabits per second, but it costs a cool $400 a month.

Other non-options for Wolverton included the highly-rated Sonic.net, which in his neighborhood is entirely dependent on AT&T’s landlines for its DSL service. That was a no-go, after Wolverton discovered he would be stuck with 3-6Mbps service. Clearwire also offers service in greater San Jose, but not at his home in Willow Glen.

That left him back with AT&T and Comcast.

But that is not really a problem in the eyes of industry defenders like Jeffrey Eisenach, managing director and principal at Navigant Economics and an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School. Navigant is a “research group” that counts AT&T as one of its most important clients. The firm provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues cover for clients trying to sell their agenda. Navigant’s “experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.”

Eisenach goes all out for the broadband industry in his paper, “Theories of Broadband Competition,” which throws in everything but the kitchen sink to defend the status quo:

• The cost of broadband service is declining;
• The duopoly of cable and phone companies are still competing for customers and introducing new services;
• Competition can take the form of provider innovation (ie. providers compete by offering a better services, not lower prices);
• Wireless competition is accelerating, citing LightSquared and Clearwire as two conclusive examples of competition at work;
• The cost of service on a per-megabit basis has declined.
• Competition in today’s broadband market delivers ancillary benefits not immediately evident when only considering the customer’s point of view;

Eisenach’s pricing proof stopped in 2009, just as cable providers like Time Warner Cable began raising broadband prices. TWC’s Landel Hobbs to investors: “We have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data.” (February, 2010)

Eisenach has appeared at various industry-sponsored evidence touting his views of broadband economics and competition that later turns up as headline news on Broadband for America’s website. But just as Wolverton’s initial optimism finding other choices for broadband faded with reality, so do Eisenach’s conclusions:

1. Eisenach’s evidence of broadband price declines stops in 2009, coincidentally just prior to the recent phenomena of cable broadband rate increases, which have accelerated in the past three years;
2. Competition still exists in urban and suburban markets, as long as phone companies attempt to stem the tide of landline losses, but it’s largely absent in rural markets and in decline in others where companies “reset” prices to match their cable competition. AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon’s FiOS both effectively ended their expansion, leaving large swaths of the country with “good enough for you” service. Cable operators have even teamed up with Verizon Wireless to cross-market their products — hardly evidence of a robustly competitive marketplace;
3. Innovation can take the form of services customers don’t actually want but are compelled to take because of bundled pricing or, worse, the decline in a-la-carte add-ons in favor of “one price for everything” models. Verizon Wireless set the stage for providers of all kinds to consider mandatory bundling for any product or service that can no longer deliver a suitable return on its own. For customers already taking every possible service or fastest speed, this pricing  may deliver lower prices at the outset, but for budget-focused consumers, compulsory packages or high prices on a-la-carte services assures them of a higher bill;
4. Eisenach’s examples of competition are a real mess. LightSquared is bankrupt and Clearwire has shown it cannot deliver an equivalent broadband experience for customers and throttles the speeds of those perceived to be using the service too much. Other wireless providers typically limit customer usage or cannot deliver speeds comparable to wired broadband;
5. While the cost per megabit may have declined in the past, cable providers are still raising prices, and as Google and community-owned providers have illustrated, delivering fast speeds should not cost customers nearly as much as providers continue to charge, with no incentive to cut prices in the absence of equally fast, competitive networks;
6. While broadband may open the door for additional economic benefits not immediately apparent, competitive broadband would further drive innovation and reduce pricing, delivering an even bigger bang for the buck.

Wolverton recognized taking a promotional offer from AT&T will temporarily deliver savings over what Comcast charges, but he would have to set his expectations lower if he switched:

I’m reluctant to switch to AT&T. [U-verse] Max Plus is the fastest level of service it offers at our house, but with a top speed of 18 megabits a second, it’s significantly slower than Comcast’s Blast. Speed matters to us, because my wife and I often share our Internet connection, and we frequently use it to transfer large files such as apps, videos, photos or songs to or from the Net.

[…] What’s more, as the FCC outlined in another recent report, Comcast does a better job of delivering the speeds it advertises than does AT&T.

What’s worse in my book is that AT&T’s U-verse’s Internet service is a version of DSL. It’s faster than regular DSL, because the copper wires in your house and neighborhood are connected to nearby high-speed fiber-optic cables. Even with that speed boost, though, I’m hesitant to go back to any kind of DSL service, because my wife and I suffered through years of unreliable DSL service from AT&T predecessor PacBell and then EarthLink, which piggybacked on AT&T’s lines.

Wolverton also objected to Comcast’s bundled pricing scheme, which delivers the best value to customers who sign up for broadband, television and phone service. Wolverton does not need a landline from AT&T or Comcast, and would like to drop the service. He’s not especially impressed with Comcast’s TV lineup (or pricing) either. But he noted if he switched to broadband-only service, Comcast would effectively penalize him with a broadband-only rate of $72 a month, exactly half the current cost of Comcast’s triple-play package.

In a later blog post, Wolverton confessed he liked Comcast’s broadband service and speeds, and with the carefully-crafted pricing the cable and phone companies have developed, he expected to remain a Comcast customer given his choices and pricing options, which are simply not enough.