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.”

While perusing the latest investor conference call with Time Warner Cable executives, this question from the always-admiring Craig Moffett at Sanford Bernstein & Associates popped up, directed at Rob Marcus, president and chief operating office (underlining ours):

Craig Moffett – Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division

[…] Rob, I know how competitive you are. As you look at the results at Comcast and their greater success in — particularly in the video product, I’m sure it has to sort of get the competitive juices flowing. Can you talk more about where that is on your priority list? And what are the levers that you think you can pull to improve the results in basic video?

Robert D. Marcus – Time Warner Cable

Yes. So let me start by saying, I don’t really want to take anything away from Comcast performance, they had a nice quarter. And I think the fact that both we and they posted really good results this quarter probably speaks most to the fact that we’re in a terrific business, so that’s point number one. Second, I always sort of shy away from these comparisons between the two of us on any particular metrics given that there are differences in our disclosure practices.

[…] The truth is, I want to win, but I want to win relative to the guys we’re facing in the markets that we’re competing with. So all of the initiatives I described in my prepared remarks really relate to our performing even better than we have been, independent of any comparisons you might make to Comcast. So we’re hard at work on product, we’re hard at work improving our marketing. I think we’ve made great strides there. We’re definitely doing things on the customer service side to make doing business with us easier and better. And we’re always trying to improve on logistical things like improving sales processes and retention processes. So you’re right in characterizing me as competitive. I absolutely want to win. And I think we’re initiating the right processes to get there.

It’s just one more fact of life for American cable subscribers — cable companies never compete against each other. Comcast has carved out its territory, Time Warner Cable has theirs. The two will never meet in head-on competition.

So we’re wondering just how “competitive” Time Warner Cable (and Comcast) really are. Apparently not much, based on the hearts and flowers moment cable executives have praising the financial performance of each other.

Public Knowledge, a public interest, pro-consumer group, has filed a petition calling on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce conditions imposed on the Comcast/NBC-Universal merger dealing with Comcast’s usage caps policy.

The group wants the FCC to investigate the legality of Comcast’s decision to exempt its own online video service from the usage caps Comcast is reintroducing on its broadband customers:

In evaluating the merger, both the FCC and the Department of Justice recognized that a combined Comcast/NBC-Universal would have an enhanced motive to discriminate against unaffiliated online video services that might compete with Comcast’s pay-TV cable service.  Because Comcast controls their subscribers’ connection to the internet, and subscribers could use that very connection to access video services  not controlled by Comcast, Comcast has the ability to manipulate those internet connections in a way that would disadvantage video competitors.

Specifically, Public Knowledge accuses Comcast of violating FCC condition G.1.a.:

“Neither Comcast nor C-NBCU shall engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or prevent any MVPD or OVD from providing Video Programming online to subscribers or customers.”

The group argues that unfairly applied usage caps impact Comcast’s online video competitors. Customers will choose the service that does not eat away at their monthly broadband usage allowance, making competitors operate on an unfair playing ground.

The group has raised questions about the industry’s movement towards Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles and has repeatedly requested the FCC question how data allowance levels are developed, evaluated, and evolve over time.

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)

Believe it or not, Google Fiber has not always been headline news in Kansas City. Outside of a few stories in early spring about zoning and installation matters, local media (particularly television) has mostly given back page treatment to Google’s new fiber network since the city was first chosen in March, 2011.

That all changed last Thursday when television, radio, and newspaper reporters flooded a converted yoga studio in midtown Kansas City to attend Google Fiber’s unveiling. Many stations aired live reports on-site and devoted time during their afternoon and evening newscasts to explain what the service is all about, starting with what it will cost — $70 a month for 1Gbps service (or paying a flat $300 for 5/1Mbps service for the next seven years). Adding television brings the final price to $120 a month. Google considers landline phone service a dead-end business, and won’t bundle a telephone option, but customers can use Google Voice to make and receive most calls for free.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KMBC Kansas City Google announces details of Google Fiber service 7-26-12.flv[/flv]

KMBC reports on the introduction of Google Fiber, what it will cost Kansas City residents, what it means for the city as whole, and when and how service will be installed.  (3 minutes)

Kansas City, Mo., Mayor Sly James said Google Fiber was more of an opportunity than a gift for Kansas City.

“We now have an opportunity to take a giant step and if we don’t it’s all on us,” James said.

KCUR Radio in Kansas City explores some of the public policy and institutional changes Google Fiber can bring the area with the advent of gigabit broadband. Mike Burke, Missouri co-chair, and Dr. Ray Daniels, Kansas co-chair of the Mayors’ Bistate Innovation Team talks about what changes Google Fiber could bring to health care, education, government, and more.  The Mayors’ Bistate Innovation Team recently released a report titled “Playing to Win in America’s Digital Crossroads,” a playbook for capitalizing on ultra-high-speed fiber in Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri. (Some of the specific details discussed in the program turned out to be outdated after last Thursday’s announcement introducing the service.)  (June 6, 2012) (52 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Some in the media seemed disappointed Google spent a considerable amount of time selling the entertainment-oriented element of its service — namely the television lineup and the equipment that comes with it, and less on the educational and transformational nature of gigabit broadband. But many in the audience didn’t need an explanation of what 1,000/1,000Mbps service will mean for them.

Reviewing the coverage shows a predictable response:

• Those under 30 want it today and won’t think twice about paying $70 to get it;
• Those running businesses that depend on the web also want it, and are slightly perturbed Google will only sell to residential customers at first;
• Families with young children want the service because they feel it will be a game-changer for their children’s education and future career;
• Income-challenged residents are concerned about the cost, but are happy to discover Google has an affordable option for them to participate in the wired world;
• Older residents seem preoccupied with the price and consider the television lineup even more important than broadband speed;
• Schools, libraries, health care, and non-profit groups are thrilled with the prospect of getting free or deeply discounted service;
• Incumbent providers are putting on a brave face, relying on what they feel is excellent customer service, local ties to the communities they service, and a current customer base that may be reluctant to switch.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Introducing Google Fiber 7-26-12.mp4[/flv]

Google Fiber has arrived in Kansas City, and neighborhoods will compete to see who gets the gigabit broadband service first. KCTV in Kansas City reports. (3 minutes)

Google Fiber’s free 5/1Mbps service is another embarrassment to big cable companies like Comcast which offer less service for more money.

The Kansas City Star needlessly fretted about the remaining digital divide of Internet “have’s” and “have-not’s,” as Google launched a competition between neighborhoods to determine where to install the service first.

So far, many poorer urban core neighborhoods are expressing interest in Google fiber at a slower rate than middle- and higher-income neighborhoods.

It’s important now for efforts to reach out to help the lower-income neighborhoods rally so the access doesn’t become a new dividing line.

The newspaper is concerned by Google’s fiber map showing many minority, inner-city neighborhoods have yet to receive a single commitment from a resident willing to pre-register for the service. But Google is not running a competition to exclude anyone. It is surveying interest to ensure it has a working business model to sustain its fiber broadband operation. Overshadowed by the gigabit broadband announcement is the fact Google is also including a real solution for the income-challenged — an entry-level 5/1Mbps broadband option that will cost just $300 (payable in $25 installments) that guarantees service with no additional payment for seven years.

That is a broadband solution far superior to the afterthought programs on offer from Comcast and a handful of phone companies that only deliver a fraction of the speed, at a higher price, to those who meet a byzantine set of requirements. It is yet another embarrassment for Kabletown, which would not have even offered the service had the government not made it a condition for approving the mega-merger of NBC-Universal and Comcast.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Neighborhoods Compete for Fiber 7-26-12.flv[/flv]

KCTV visits some of the neighborhoods competing to be the first to get Google Fiber. Reaction from residents varies from those willing to canvas neighborhoods to get people to pre-register to others who will consider switching providers only if the price is right.  (4 minutes)

One Star columnist likened Google Fiber to a public works project that threatened to go bad pitting neighborhoods against one-another, rich against poor:

The more educated, middle- to upper-income neighborhoods in southwest KC and in midtown were signing up for first crack at the service.

Meanwhile, the neighborhoods without as many computers and without the income to afford the $70 or $120 proposed monthly charges for Google Fiber were signing up at far slower rates.

None of that means Google Fiber won’t be a big success.

But let’s not pretend there won’t be winners and losers with this advance in technology.

If Google Fiber narrows that digital gap – and makes more information available more quickly to more people to help boost the economy of KC – that’s all for the good.

However, being able to hook up eight computers in a house so people can be more entertained doesn’t set my world on fire.

Let’s remember Google Fiber is intended to be a for-profit business run by a for-profit corporation. Star columnist Yael T. Abouhalkah might have been more comfortable had he advocated for a community-owned broadband solution committed to serving every neighborhood, everywhere. Google Fiber is not that, at least not now. The alternatives from AT&T and Time Warner Cable have not solved the digital divide either. Giving away effectively-free 5/1Mbps broadband for seven years might.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Fiberhoods 7-26-12.mp4[/flv]

Google’s Fiberhoods are likely to win fiber service for the more high-tech areas of Kansas City, among the first to pre-register. Google’s Kevin Lo explains those areas most committed to getting the service will also win free fiber connections for their neighborhood’s schools, health care facilities, and public safety buildings.  KCTV reports. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Benefits of Google Fiber 7-26-12.mp4[/flv]

KCTV explores what Google Fiber could mean for local schools who can utilize the faster connections for distance and remote learning.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDAF Kansas City Customers Put Google Fiber to the Test 7-28-12.flv[/flv]

WDAF in Kansas City covers Google Fiber’s weekend “Open House,” inviting residents to experience what gigabit broadband is really like, and letting them see and sample the company’s broadband and television service.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSHB Kansas City Northland business owners react to Google Fiber limitations 7-26-12.mp4[/flv]

KSHB in Kansas City covers the reaction of local business owners elated and frustrated by the arrival of Google Fiber, which will open the door to new online innovation once Google begins selling to commercial customers (and if you are lucky enough to work in a Google Fiberhood.)  (2 minutes)