Chattanooga’s investment in community fiber broadband is beginning to pay dividends as the city benefits from an increase in high-paying, high-technology jobs.  Unfortunately for cities like Knoxville, Chattanooga’s gains are their loss.

“In a lot of places, you can get the same kind of high speed service as Chattanooga.  The difference is the price,” Dan Thompson of Knoxville-based IT company Claris Networks told Knoxville TV station WBIR.  “Connectivity there for us is about eight to ten times cheaper in Chattanooga than it is versus Knoxville or other cities.  That’s a huge deal when you’re comparing $100 a month or $800 a month.”

As a result, Claris is skipping the pricey service on offer from AT&T and Comcast and is moving jobs down I-75 to the city of Chattanooga, where publicly-owned EPB Fiber has invested in a fiber-to-the-home network that beats the pants off the competition.  Claris has found gigabit broadband in Chattanooga that can be installed in days at a fraction of the price charged by the companies they deal with in Knoxville.  Now Claris can invest the savings in bigger data centers and the jobs that come with them.

“Here in Knoxville and other cities, you may have to pay a premium to get speeds fast enough to support that,” Thompson said.

While companies like AT&T, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, and Comcast have had Chamber of Commerce support opposing community broadband in other states, Chattanooga’s local Chamber knows a good thing when it sees it.  Garrett Wagley, vice president of policy and public relations for the Knoxville Chamber, tells the Knoxville station investment in infrastructure is important when recruiting new businesses to town and keep existing ones growing.

Investment in high technology networks is an important topic for the evolving economies of the mid-south region.  Formerly dependent on tobacco farming, textiles, and manufacturing, states like Tennessee and the Carolinas are now investing to compete for high-technology, digital economy jobs.  Public investment in broadband comes as part of that effort, and typically only after appeals to existing commercial providers fail to bring necessary upgrades.

That “other places first” upgrade mentality continues to this day in states like South Carolina, which waited years for Time Warner Cable and local phone companies to deliver broadband speeds states further north have been receiving for several years.

For companies like Google and Amazon.com, the choice of where to locate regional data and distribution centers is often dependent on available infrastructure.  Chattanooga is in a strong position to argue it already has a broadband network in place that can meet the needs of any high-tech company, at prices too low to ignore.  Economic investment, jobs, and tax revenues follow.  Even better, much of the revenue earned by EPB Fiber stays in Chattanooga, paying off network construction costs and allowing the public utility to invest in smart-grid technology, which could benefit electric ratepayers as well.

Christopher Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks notes Chattanooga is not alone seeing significant job gains from investment in public broadband.  Just 100 miles to the northeast is Bristol, Virginia, another city that is transforming itself to support 21st century knowledge economy jobs.  Bristol’s public fiber network delivers service across most of southwestern Virginia, across an area long ignored or under-served by larger commercial providers.

For cities stuck with whatever AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable decide to offer, the trickling job migration to better-wired cities could eventually become a fast-running stream.  That’s why WBIR-TV questioned Knoxville city officials about why they abandoned consideration of their own public fiber network.

The City of Knoxville’s chief policy officer, Bill Lyons, told 10News there has been some discussion about constructing network infrastructure in the past.

“We did discuss this general topic very briefly early in the last administration and did not pursue it,” wrote Lyons.  “There was no systematic assessment, but rather a sense that the associated investment in infrastructure was not needed given the service that was already available.”

[…] “The question we as citizens need to ask is this something we’d be willing to spend money on,” said Thompson.  “I think you’d have to ask if you built this kind of network would more businesses come here.  And if they would, do the tax dollars [gained by attracting news business] offset the cost that we as citizens would have to pay.”

Good-enough-for-you broadband at take-it-or-leave-it sky high prices has been the state of broadband across the mid-south for years.  Unfortunately for Knoxville and other cities in Tennessee and the Carolinas, high-tech businesses are quickly discovering they don’t have to take it anymore.  What cities like Knoxville lose, Chattanooga gains.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WBIR Knoxville Chattanooga Fiber Attracts Jobs 12-27-11.mp4[/flv]

WBIR in Knoxville explores Chattanooga’s success in broadband, which is now starting to come at the expense of other Tennessee cities who don’t have the infrastructure to compete.  (3 minutes)

Customers of some of the largest cable, phone, and satellite companies will pay an average of 3-6 percent more for service in a series of rate increases taking effect between now and the end of February.

AT&T U-verse

If your introductory offer has expired, expect to pay more for just about everything as of Feb. 9.

Cable TV:

• U-family will increase from $54 to $57,
• U100 will increase for some from $54 to $59 and for others from $59 to $64,
• U200 will increase from $69 to $72/U200 Latino will increase from $79 to $82,
• U300 will increase from $84 to $87/U300 Latino will increase from $94 to $97,
• U400 will increase from $109 to $114,
• U450 will increase from $117 to $119/U450 Latino will increase from $127 to $129.

For high speed Internet customers who ordered their current speed before June 12, 2011, effective with the February 2012 billing statement, the monthly price for Basic will increase from $19.95 to $25, Express will increase from $30 to $33, Pro will increase from $35 to $38, Elite will increase from $40 to $43, and Max will increase from $45 to $48. If you are paying a monthly high speed Internet equipment fee for the Residential Gateway, the amount will increase from $4 to $6.

For Voice Unlimited, effective on February 1, 2012, the monthly price will increase from $33 to $35.

AT&T blames increased programming costs and “the cost of doing business” for the rate increases.  AT&T is increasing broadband pricing despite enjoying further cost reductions from their Internet Overcharging scheme implemented in 2011.

Comcast

Comcast implements rate increases at different times of the year throughout its national service area.  But a preview of what is forthcoming can be seen in south Florida and Minnesota, where Comcast’s new rates for 2012 have increased an average of 5.8 percent.  That comes after a 2 percent rate hike last year.  It’s a bitter pill for many customers to swallow, because Comcast has also been moving popular cable channels like Turner Classic Movies into the more expensive Digital Preferred package.  The price of that full basic package will now run just short of $85 a month. Customers in Minneapolis are staring down these new rates:

• Basic 1: no change in most franchise areas.
• Digital Economy: increases from $29.95 a month to $34.95 a month, or 16.7 percent.
• Digital Starter: increases from $62.99 a month to $66.49 a month, or 5.6 percent.
• Digital Preferred: increases from $80.99 a month to $84.49 a month, or 4.3 percent.

Comcast blames increased programming costs and upgrade expenses associated with its now completed DOCSIS 3 project.  Comcast also has converted many of its service areas to all-digital service, which has opened up additional room to sell more expensive broadband packages, add additional HD channels, and make room for new product lines relating to home automation and security.

Cox Cable

Broadband Reports readers are sharing anecdotal evidence Cox has begun its own 2012 rate increase campaign.  In Florida, cable TV rates are up yet again:

Prices for Cox TV and Cox Advanced TV will be as follows:

• Cox TV Starter will change from $19.55 to $22.85/mo.
• Advanced TV will change from $5.50 to $4.20/mo.
• Advanced TV Standard Definition receivers will change from $5.55 to $6.99/mo.
• Advanced TV High Definition, High Definition/DVR & DVR receivers will change from $7.45 to $7.99/mo.

Advanced TV Paks will change:

• Any 1 Pak (excluding Variety Pak) from $4.00 to $4.25/mo.
• Any 2 Paks (excluding Variety Pak) from $8.05 to $8.50/mo.
• Any 3 Paks from $12.00 to $12.50/mo.
• Variety Pak will be $4.00/mo.

Premium pricing will change:

• 1 premium channel from $13.99 to $14.99/mo;
• 2 premium channels from $23.99 to $24.99/mo;
• 3 premium channels from $30.99 to $34.99/mo;
• 4 premium channels from $36.99 to $44.99/mo.
• (Pricing for the 3rd and 4th Premium channels will be grandfathered at the current price for existing customers.)

Cox’s Preferred Internet tier is increasing from $49.99 to $53.99 a month.  Basic phone service increases from $11.75 to $13.18, and popular calling features like Caller ID are also increasing (from $5.95 to $9.00 per month).

Rates vary in different franchise areas.

DirecTV

The satellite TV provider will raise rates on Feb. 9 by 4 percent on average. Its costs are going up by more than that, the company said on its website: “The programming costs we pay to owners of TV channels will increase by about 10 percent.”

DirecTV defends its rate increase, noting it will introduce new features in 2012 that include more than 170 HD channels and the most 3D viewing options of any television provider.  The full breakdown is provided from DirecTV:

Consumer Tips

1. Customers who subscribe to bundled services will see the fewest rate increases.  The more services you bundle, the lower the typical cost of each component within the bundle.  It rarely pays to have one company as a TV provider and another delivering your broadband because standalone service pricing is increasingly the most expensive option.
2. Ask for an extension of your introductory or promotional rate.  Request pricing from the competition and be prepared to summarize it with your current provider when arguing for a lower rate.  If your current provider thinks you are serious about jumping to another provider, they may lower your rates to keep your business.
3. Be prepared to switch.  Cable companies base their retention offers on several factors: what the competition offers, how long you have been a customer (2+ years guarantees a better retention deal) and how you pay your bill.  If you are a late payer, expect a much more difficult time negotiating a lower rate.  You may encounter a brick wall if you are labeled a “flipper” that jumps between providers’ introductory pricing offers.  But even these customers will be welcomed back, with lower rates, when they inevitably return.  They just won’t get their promotional offer renewed.
4. Some companies reserve their most aggressive pricing for customers who actually schedule a disconnect or turn in their equipment.  Cable companies have gotten wise to empty threats from negotiating customers.  If you schedule a complete service disconnection two weeks in advance, some companies will take you seriously and call you with the most aggressive “win back” offers available, especially if you turned in your cable equipment.
5. Dump extras overboard.  Premium channel pricing has skyrocketed recently after remaining relatively stable for nearly two decades.  HBO is now at or above $15 a month in many areas.  As customers try to economize, premium movie channels are usually the first to go, and many cable operators are starting to lose preferred wholesale volume pricing discounts.  They are passing along new, higher prices to the dwindling number of premium customers left.  Scrutinize your cable bill carefully for potential savings.  Look for mini-pay tiers of HD channels you never watch, consider downgrading your “digital phone” package to local-only calling if you rarely make long distance calls, and consider tossing “Turbo” broadband speed packages that only incrementally increase download speed.  Many customers originally signed up to obtain higher upload speeds, but as cable companies boost speeds for all of their customers, the extra boost may no longer be worth the money.

Wall Street is encouraging Verizon Communications to sell off its landline telephone operations to clear a path for a potentially-profitable merger with British mobile phone company Vodafone Group Plc.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs Group are behind the research report, which suggests Verizon’s recent non-aggression treaty with Comcast and Time Warner Cable makes the sale of Verizon’s landline phone and FiOS fiber to the home network more likely. Verizon will earn a percentage of every cable TV/phone/broadband subscription sold, effectively making Verizon’s own wired network redundant. Potential buyers could include Frontier Communications, CenturyLink, or Windstream, which all have business plans that depend on landline networks fewer Americans are using.

Should Verizon clear away its legacy landline and FiOS networks, Goldman Sachs suggests, a merger with Vodafone would be a “clear fit” for the two companies.

“The remaining wireless and enterprise businesses would have faster growth and a clear fit with Vodafone’s assets and strategy, making it a more attractive merger partner,” Bloomberg News quotes from the report.

“Given that it no longer faces the threat of integrated cable competitors, Verizon could potentially spin off its remaining [landline] assets,” along with “large” pension and benefit liabilities, the Goldman analysts added.

Verizon would also eliminate its ongoing dispute with the two largest unions representing its landline workers — Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.  Both unions are still trying to negotiate a new contract with Verizon after a brief, but contentious, summer strike. Verizon Wireless is almost entirely non-unionized.

Vodafone’s share price has been rising recently, perhaps anticipating a potential merger that would give Vodafone a stronger hand in the U.S. marketplace.

Verizon’s investment in its landline network, along with interest in expanding its well-regarded FiOS fiber to the home service, has remained stalled for the past few years.  Recently, the company indicated an interest in moving away from fiber optics to serve broadband customers, and rely on its wireless LTE 4G network instead.

Verizon’s new CEO Lowell McAdam comes from Verizon’s wireless division, and has not shared his predecessor’s enthusiasm for fiber upgrades.

Merger Partner?

While the prospect of an all-wireless future for Verizon may seem good for shareholders, consumers are likely to pay the price:

1. The Justice Department is reviewing the antitrust implications of the non-aggression treaty between Verizon and its cable competitors;
2. The sale of Verizon’s landline network to an independent provider could doom the company’s fiber optic network and limit rural Verizon customers to 1-3Mbps DSL;
3. Verizon Wireless’ prices reflect its market share and lack of strong competition.  The company’s LTE wireless network, although fast, has suffered from reliability problems and is heavily usage-limited.  It may prove unsuitable as a home broadband replacement for rural customers;
4. Reduced competition for telephone, video, and broadband will likely result in higher prices for existing cable subscribers, too.

Verizon is hardly the first phone company to ponder getting out of the phone business.  AT&T has been lobbying to rescind rural universal service requirements for years.  If successful, AT&T could abandon its rural landline network and provide customers with higher-priced cell phone service instead.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Parody of Verizon Video.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s unionized workers are still fighting for a new contract, and released this parody video in response to a company-produced DVD mailed to union workers’ homes.  (3 minutes)

One of the things we have tried to teach readers over the last few years is how important it is to follow the money trail when encountering a group, politician, or researcher counter-intuitively arguing “up is down” or “right is left.”  So when a business columnist in the Press of Atlantic City slammed rural broadband as a service provided “to a group of people who mostly don’t want it,” we started digging:

The FCC claims this effort will give 7 million rural people reliable access to high-speed Internet connections. So the hundreds of millions of urban and suburban Americans who wish their Internet was faster and more reliable will pay for 2 percent of us to get just that.

Or maybe we’ll be paying for redundant, overpriced telecom work by companies that donate to rural politicians.

Federal stimulus spending in response to the recession already included $7.2 billion for this same purpose. An analysis by Navigant Economics of three big projects under that Broadband Initiatives Program found:

Even “areas in which very high proportions of households were already served by multiple existing broadband providers” were eligible for subsidized broadband work.

The author’s suspicion that money was involved in all this was correct, but he completely missed who was boarding the money train.

Navigant Economics, the “research group” that produced the inflammatory report slamming rural broadband funding, happens to count AT&T as one of its important clients.

The group, a subsidiary of Navigant Consulting, provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues to law firms, corporations and government agencies.

In fact, Navigant pitches its services to a range of corporate clients:

Navigant Economics provides economic analysis in litigation and regulatory proceedings involving competition issues. Our 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.

We provide economic analysis and testimony in connection with mergers and acquisitions and antitrust claims of:

• Anticompetitive horizontal agreements (price fixing, bid rigging, potential anticompetitive effects of joint ventures)
• Unilateral conduct (predatory pricing, refusals to deal, monopolization via patent fraud)
• Vertical restraints (exclusive dealing, requirement contracting, tying and bundling)

We also offer economic analysis and testimony on issues of price and rate of return regulation, mandatory access, quality of service, and benefit-cost analysis, with especial expertise in regulatory proceedings involving communications and the Internet (software and hardware sectors, network unbundling and “net neutrality” issues affecting telecom and cable firms, retransmission consent and other content-related issues, and the range of wireless spectrum issues) and all types of energy markets.

Phillip "Making Sense, Not Dollars" Dampier

The result is what critics refer to as “dollar a holler research” — bought-and-paid-for-results that coincidentally fit the framework of a client’s public policy agenda.  In this case, AT&T (among other phone companies) has fretted about broadband stimulus funding ever since the Obama Administration made it clear the industry would not collectively control the program or reward themselves at taxpayer expense.  In addition to criticizing the decision-making process, phone and cable companies have objected to numerous applicants who applied for grants to build networks serving communities those companies have ignored or under-served for years.

To say AT&T has no vested interest in the outcome of rural broadband would be the first major understatement of 2012.

Martyn Roetter with MFR Consulting said Navigant was giving a bad name to researchers.

“Navigant Economics as well as other economists in academia and the consulting profession seem increasingly prepared to support arguments in favor of their clients’ desires and goals regardless of whether they are reasonable or preposterous,” Roetter wrote. “Unfortunately this behavior tends to blur the distinction between (a) respectable advocacy with findings based on evidence and rational arguments and (b) indefensible nonsense, discrediting both academics and consultants.”

Navigant spent much of 2011 trying to convince regulators and the public that T-Mobile actually doesn’t compete with AT&T, so there should be no problem letting the two companies merge.  Readers win no prizes guessing who paid for that stunner of a conclusion.  Thankfully, the Department of Justice quickly dismissed that notion as a whole lot of hooey.

Navigant’s second ludicrous conclusion is that there is no rural broadband availability problem.  Navigant has a love affair with slow speed, spotty DSL (sold by AT&T) and heavily-capped 3G wireless (also sold by AT&T) as the Frankincense and Myrrh of rural Internet life.  With those, you don’t need any broadband expansion (particularly from a third party interloper).

“The notion that a nominal maximum speed in a shared radio access network is comparable to a nominal maximum speed of a fixed broadband line to a location is a striking example of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the very different operating characteristics and capabilities of these two transmission media,” Roetter soberly observed.

But he knows better.

Roetter

Kevin Post, columnist for the Press of Atlantic City, bought Navigant’s conclusions hook, line, and sinker and repeated them in the press.  In fact, he upped the ante parroting the time-honored provider argument that rural America doesn’t need 21st century broadband because, well, they just don’t want it:

This costly effort is aimed at bringing broadband to a group of people who mostly don’t want it, according to a 2010 Pew Internet survey.

Half of Americans who don’t use the Internet told Pew that the main reason is they don’t find it relevant to their lives.

Only one in 10 nonusers said they would be interested in starting to use the Internet sometime in the future.

Actually, the Pew Internet survey came well before Navigant’s outlandish conclusions, and didn’t directly address the rural broadband availability problem.  Instead, Pew was looking at broadband adoption rates, primarily in places that already have one or more broadband providers.  Pew found what providers have already realized themselves: broadband growth and adoption is slowing; everyone who wants the service in urban America already has it or wants it.  Those that don’t are typically older and lack computers or are too poor to afford the asking price.

Post’s suggestion that a Pew Study concluded rural America does not want broadband service is an exercise in fixing the facts.

That’s the magic of the Dollar-a-Holler Echo Machine.  Big telecom companies hire public policy consultants and researchers to find their way to “scientific” evidence proving their corporate agenda, and then feeds the “facts” and “research” to receptive reporters, astroturf “consumer groups,” and politicians to bolster their case.  It’s not AT&T suggesting there is no rural broadband problem — it’s Navigant Economics.

As Roetter writes, “A basic knowledge of wireless markets exposes the […] indefensible nature of the positions outlined above. A policy based on ‘tell me what you want to hear, pay me, and I will reproduce it all regardless of its merits’ is a disservice to professionals who try to remain objective and independent, i.e. professional.”

Ebenezer Scrooge could successfully serve as the CEO of any large telecommunications company these days, and the New York Times knows a Christmas tale of woe when it sees one.  That is why the venerable newspaper printed a Christmas Eve editorial blasting Verizon’s new “non-aggression treaty” with America’s largest cable companies that puts coal in the stocking for any Verizon customer waiting for FiOS fiber-to-the-home service.  The newspaper believes the days of FiOS are numbered:

Verizon — Verizon Wireless’s main shareholder — relieved itself of the need to expand FiOS, its high-speed, fiber optic network, beyond the 18 million homes it set out to reach six years ago, a rollout that cost $23 billion. For the other 114 million homes in the country, it can simply bundle its wireless service with the cable and wireline broadband services of its partners. The agreement between Verizon and the cable carriers includes a joint venture to develop technology to integrate the wireline and wireless platforms.

Verizon’s cable deals squashed hopes that cable carriers’ purchases of wireless spectrum would lead to more competition against the dominant players, AT&T and Verizon Wireless. And it puts in doubt whether FiOS will ever be a serious competitor to cable, reducing the likelihood that video transmitted over broadband could break up cable’s regional oligopolies.

[…] Verizon’s deals suggest a future in which cable carriers will get uncontested control of high-speed broadband into the home while AT&T and Verizon will get uncontested control over wireless. For consumers with expensive wireless plans, pricey bundles of cable channels and costly, slow broadband, this does not look like good news.

Verizon’s economic future lies in the lucrative world of wireless.  Its FiOS network was an expensive gamble to reinvent its antiquated telephone network to drive customers to keep their landlines and spent a hundred dollars more on video entertainment and super fast broadband.  Wall Street hated the price and loathed the potential for costly competition that would force earnings down through aggressive price-cutting.  In some markets, Verizon FiOS has forced Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable to be a little more generous with broadband speed and lighten up a little on the annual rate increases.

But convincing cable customers to switch remains a difficult proposition even when Verizon offers the superior service.  Verizon has not achieved the level of penetration it expected in many markets.  In short, people just don’t want to wait around for installers.  Besides, cable companies slash prices for customers threatening to depart.

Verizon’s deal with Time Warner and Comcast delivers Verizon Wireless desirable spectrum.  But the agreement to cross-market and cross-bundle product lines smacks of collusion, and is exactly the kind of turf protection that has kept cable companies from competing head-to-head with each other for more than three decades.  Is it more lucrative for Verizon to build out its FiOS network to compete or simply refer people to Time Warner or Cablevision for cable TV.  So long as cable doesn’t offer a competing wireless product, Verizon seems to think there is little harm done.

But for consumers, the absence of competition brings rate increases, reduced innovation, and declining customer service.

The one thing the telecom marketplace needs less of is the “take it or leave it” attitude that earned the scorn of cable customers everywhere.