Netflix today released statistics showing Frontier Communications was America’s worst ranked wired Internet Service Provider, ranking at the bottom for quality and speed when using Netflix’s streamed content.

Only Clearwire, a heavily-throttled wireless provider scored worse than Frontier Communications.  This says nothing good about Frontier considering they are a wired provider.

Charter Cable scored highest — a surprise from a company that scores near the bottom in Consumer Reports broadband rankings:

Charter is in the lead for US streams with an impressive 2667 kilobits per second average over the period. Rogers leads in Canada with a whopping 3020 kbps average.

Canada’s higher speed performance comes even as providers claim they need to implement Internet Overcharging schemes to handle congestion on their networks — congestion not apparent from Netflix’s online video performance. Perhaps Canadians have been already grown accustomed to avoiding too much online video.

Netflix promises to release their streaming performance statistics on a monthly basis. Track your ISP from the charts below:

Netflix USA Speed Rankings

Netflix Rankings for Canada

(Our reader Paul sent us a news tip about this story.  You can send yours using the Contact Form linked above.)

Studies find few surprises for cable and phone companies that pay for them.

Internet plans with term contracts, usage limits, and other pricing tricks are good for consumers and save them money over comparable unlimited usage plans.

That is the conclusion of a new study from the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten and James Riso’s “study,”Residential and Business Broadband Prices, Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants,” claims to have taken a comprehensive look at 25,000 plans offered across North America, Europe and the Pacific to make their case that a residential service plan with a 10GB monthly usage cap would save consumers 27 percent over the price of a comparable unlimited plan, as long as data use stays below the cap.  They also suggest additional savings can be had if consumers lock themselves into term contracts with service providers (most of which carry hefty fees to exit early.)

These results suggest that the unlimited data plans typically offered by most U.S. wireline broadband providers may not be optimal for many consumers. The details of capped plans matter, and how an individual user is affected depends on the base price, allowed data usage, and consequences for exceeding the cap. Nevertheless, because capped plans are—all else equal—cheaper than unlimited plans, many consumers, particularly the low-volume users, are likely to pay less for broadband with data caps than they would for plans offering unlimited data transfer.

Wallsten and Riso make much of AT&T’s recent decision to end unlimited usage for wireless broadband, suggesting that consumers are saving money with new, low-use plans over the company’s old unlimited pricing.  The authors claim close to 70 percent of iPhone users consume less than 200 MB per month, which is the cap for AT&T’s cheaper data plan.

But the authors concede that usage is growing — rapidly in the case of online video, which sets the stage for consumers saving money today, but facing serious overlimit charges on their bills tomorrow:

Some analysts, however, remain concerned that these plans make video streaming impractical given the bandwidth it consumes, could eventually cost consumers more as they use their wireless devices more intensively, and generally make it less likely for wireless to become a viable substitute for wireline broadband. To be sure, while Figure 3 shows that the vast majority of users consume small amounts of data today, it also shows per user mobile data consumption growing quickly, so the number of people who exceed the caps could increase significantly in a relatively short period of time.

Major U.S. wireline providers have not yet introduced metered pricing successfully, though, as shown above, it is common in other countries. An experimental metered pricing plan by Time Warner Cable garnered strong reaction, prompting one group to demand that Congress ―investigate ongoing metered pricing practices to determine the impact on consumers. Some in Congress did, in fact, hold hearings on the plans. In response to this backlash, Time Warner Cable canceled its experiment.

Despite the political reaction, all consumers are not inherently worse off or better off with metered pricing. Low-volume users are likely to be better off under metered plans and high volume users worse off. The net effect on any given consumer depends on his data use, the base price, how much data the base price allows, the price of data when exceeding the cap, and how much he would have paid for an unlimited plan.

Wallsten and Riso also admit several parts of their study are “incomplete,” and “lack data.” We would also include the facts they ignored whether consumers prefer unlimited plans, how customers would feel about a bill with overlimit fees attached, or whether the usage cap levels the authors note in their study are adequate.  They also completely ignore the critical issue of bandwidth cost trends and their relationship to consumer pricing.

But of course they would, considering the same providers who want these pricing schemes are paying the costs for the study.

Welcome to the world of Hired Gun Research.

Wallsten, in particular, has been singing the same cap-happy tune for several years now, churning out the same industry-financed conclusions about broadband.  Back in 2007, he delivered a piece trumpeted by the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute — two groups notorious for parroting corporate-friendly talking points.  Back then it was about Internet overloads and supporting Internet toll booths for “congestion pricing” after Comcast got caught secretly throttling broadband customer speeds.

Dave Burstein of DSL Prime notes most consumers don’t like caps, lock-in contracts, or speed throttles.

“Policymakers should normally assume that imposing caps generally results in negative consumer welfare. The small efficiency gains don’t come close to making up for a second rate Internet,” Burstein writes. “Everyone is better off with a robust, unthrottled Internet. It allows for an important form of video competition and market access for innovative new net offerings. It’s a better experience for the user and hence more people will be connected, a good thing.”

In this latest study, the two authors completely ignore some very important facts:

• Who sets the pricing for unlimited and usage-capped broadband?  Providers.  Do consumers save money from usage limited plans because of decreased provider costs passed along to consumers or pricing schemes that artificially inflate unlimited broadband pricing to drive customers to “money-saving” limited plans that teach usage restraint or expose consumers to dramatic overlimit fees?

• What are the trends for wholesale bandwidth costs and how does that trend comport with industry pricing schemes that have increased broadband pricing in the United States?  An honest study would reflect these costs are dropping… dramatically, and would introduce the very real question of whether unlimited broadband is a problem in search of a revenue-generating solution that would come from further monetizing broadband with so-called “consumption pricing.”

• What is the consumer perception of usage-limited broadband?  An important part of this equation is whether consumers want unlimited broadband service to be discontinued.  Every study to date not paid for by the providers themselves shows consumers are willing to pay today’s prices for the peace of mind they receive in not being exposed to limits or overlimit fees.  Wallsten and Riso touched on the consumer backlash, to a considerable part coordinated by Stop the Cap!, over Time Warner’s pricing scheme which would have tripled broadband pricing for an equivalent level of service.  But the authors charge on with their pro-cap conclusions regardless.

• Wallsten and Riso’s study only casually mentions the dramatically different paradigms of wireless and wireline broadband.  The former is delivered using technology that is recognized to have limitations that can only be seriously addressed with additional spectrum allocation that could take years to address.  The latter is already being mitigated by cable broadband technology upgrades, fiber optics, and improved backbone connections that often deliver much better access at a fraction of the price providers paid just a few years earlier.  Drawing comparisons between AT&T’s wireless broadband pricing and wireline broadband is dubious at best, especially since two companies largely control pricing and service for the majority of wireless customers in the United States.

• To prove its contention limited broadband service is “common in other countries,” the authors cite a Frequently Asked Questions article by Comcast trying to justify that company’s own usage cap to its customers.  So because Comcast’s PR department says it, it must be true.  In fact, in countries where usage capped broadband has been a traditional problem, consumer demand and public policy efforts have moved providers towards offering unlimited service plans to meet popular demand.  In fact, in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, governments have cited usage caps as a serious disadvantage to growth of the digital economy.  Consumers certainly agree.

Burstein adds:

Caps or other throttling measures are almost never imposed because of actual congestion problems (on large, wired networks.)  The caps would be at far higher levels if they were, like Comcast’s 250 gigabytes. The usual explanation is bogus. The typical consumer advocate believes the caps are about preventing competition to the carriers’ own video package. That’s certainly common, but so is price discrimination to yield increased potential revenues. As Scott notes, price discrimination in a strongly competitive market can work out well for all concerned. With strong competition, the benefits flow through to consumers. Since competition in broadband is typically weak, I believe it far more often has little consumer benefit but is good for company profits.

The authors conclude that despite limitations on data available, “The policy implications, however, are clear.  Policymakers should not immediately conclude that data caps and other pricing schemes that differ from traditional unlimited plans are necessarily bad.”  Instead, the authors suggest pricing trends should be evaluated over time to identify the effects on prices, investment and usage.

Although that’s a point Burstein agrees with, we feel there is substantial evidence this debate is based not on experimental pricing to find new customers, but rather a defensive position to respond to an inevitable public backlash against Internet Overcharging schemes.  Providers are desperately looking for excuses to further monetize broadband, cut costs, and deliver an effective impediment to online video competitors using broadband networks to deliver alternative, less expensive services to consumers.

Policymakers should listen to their constituents, who are more than comfortable with today’s unlimited broadband experience.  Nobody objects to experimental low usage plans with discount pricing, but not at the expense of ending or repricing existing unlimited service into the stratosphere.  Today’s broadband industry earns billions in annual profits, even as their costs decline.  Providers have done considerable profit-taking in the last few years from their broadband divisions, slashing upgrades and other investments to keep pace with traffic demands.

Don’t want blazing fast fiber optic broadband speeds?  Unhappy with fiber optic quality video and want to go back to putting a satellite dish on your roof?  If the answer to either question is “yes,” Frontier Communications has good news for you.

The phone company, which assumed control of a handful of communities formerly served by Verizon’s fiber-to-the-home FiOS network, has announced it will begin marketing DSL and satellite TV services to its fiber customers.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter told investors on a third quarter results conference call that FiOS broadband could be too expensive.

Wilderotter noted Verizon would not allow customers in a FiOS neighborhood to buy DSL service, which leaves budget-minded customers behind.

“Now, FiOS starts at like 50Mbps and it’s very expensive. It’s like $50 a month for a customer. So they left a whole host of customers behind from an affordability perspective who didn’t need that kind of capability on broadband.” Wilderotter explained. “We have just over the last 30 to 60 days opened up DSL in all of the FiOS markets to give the customer choice. So the customer can choose whether they want FiOS broadband or they want high-speed Internet service, typically, and in those markets we’re offering around 6 to 7Mbps.”

Time Warner Cable occasionally runs promotions helping customers break free from Frontier's multi-year service contracts.

Of course, Frontier FiOS starts at 15Mbps — not 50, and that costs $50 a month for standalone service.  For $99, ($89 in Verizon FiOS areas), customers can get broadband, cable TV and unlimited phone service.  Frontier’s “Turbo” DSL service is priced at $40 a month for up to 7.1Mbps service.

Wilderotter also noted their FiOS customers can also choose to skip fiber video and go with DirecTV.

“We think that customers should be able to choose what kind of video they want,” she said. “We have aggressive offers in the market for both DirecTV and for FiOS video, but in our vernacular, what we care about is keeping the customer, getting the customer to take more products and services from us and making sure the customer is happy with the choice.”

Wilderotter said Frontier is prepared to tolerate more congestion on its DSL circuits than Verizon permitted, which opens the door to potential traffic slow-downs down the road.

“We’ve opened up in many of these locations the opportunity to sell high-speed service up to 95% capacity on the equipment that we have out in the field. Verizon had set a parameter at 75%,” Wilderotter said.

The company continues to study whether Frontier FiOS is worth maintaining or expanding outside of the Verizon territories where it was originally constructed.

“We are still evaluating it from a financial perspective and a customer perspective, and from a cost perspective and a revenue perspective,” Wilderotter told investors. “In terms of what that does for us overall, what it does for churn, how much does it really cost to extend this capability in the markets that we’re in today — we think that analysis and evaluation will go on through the first quarter [of 2011] and then we’ll be able to make some [decisions] in terms of what we want to do with FiOS from an expansion perspective or a maintenance perspective.”

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter answered questions about broadband expansion and the impact of the fall elections on telecommunications policy in Washington. (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Frontier's largely rural service areas provide a captive audience for the company's DSL broadband service.

In the near term Frontier has several plans to get more aggressive in the marketplace to meet its target goal of losing only 8 percent of their customers per year — a goal that illustrates legacy phone companies are still on a trajectory towards fewer and fewer customers:

1. Don Shassian, executive vice president and chief financial officer of Frontier reports expansion of DSL remains a top priority for Frontier.  The company is on track to deliver access to 300,000 additional homes by the end of the year.  Verizon delivered access to 64 percent of Frontier’s acquired territories.  Frontier wants to get that number up to 85 percent.  But part of that target is not just expanding service to unserved areas.  It’s also trying to win back customers lost to other providers through promotions and incentives.
2. Frontier plans to resume aggressive promotions in the coming weeks and months, including its “free Netbook” promotion, which provides a Netbook computer to new customers signing up for several packages of services, committing to remain with Frontier for at least two years.
3. Frontier intends to push “price protection agreements” on as many customers as possible.  Their “Peace of Mind” program locks customers into multi-year contracts with stiff cancellation penalties.  Wilderotter noted: “I think, as you know, in our legacy markets, 96% of all of our sales are on a price protection plan and we have close to 60% of our residential customers on a one-, two- or three-year price protection plans. That number is below 15% in the acquired markets. So we’re also driving for price protection plans with every sale that we’re doing in these new markets as well.”  Such contracts dramatically discourage a customer from disconnecting Frontier, because fees for doing so can exceed $300 in some cases.  Frontier has been heavily criticized by some customers and State Attorneys General for deceptive business practices regarding contracts.

Frontier continues to enjoy a lack of solid cable competition in its largely rural service areas.  Shassian reports Comcast competes with Frontier in only about 32% of homes in some areas, Time Warner Cable in about 23%, and Charter below 15%.  With reduced competition, Frontier often represents the only broadband option in town.

Frontier is also spending an increased amount of time coping with copper thefts, especially in West Virginia where the company is warning would-be thieves it will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

“Damage to our facilities can affect communications access in an emergency, increase company costs and consumer rates, and disrupt community phone and broadband connections,” said Lynne Monaco, Frontier’s Director of Security. “When network connections are severed by copper thieves, it endangers customers and emergency responders and poses significant risks of personal injury and property damage.”

Just last week, West Virginia state police solved another copper caper that disrupted service for some customers.

The Charleston Daily Mail reports:

Stephanie Burdette of Charleston was arrested in connection with a copper wire theft.

Trooper A.B. Ward from the South Charleston detachment went to the Fishers Branch area of Sissonville last Thursday afternoon when a Frontier worker discovered a section of the communications line missing. The worker found that 300-feet of the 400-pair line, valued at about $5,000, was missing, according to a complaint filed in Kanawha Magistrate Court.

A trooper who had worked on a similar investigation told Ward to check the home of Ervin “Tubby” Page, 49, where troopers had previously found evidence of wire burning. Ward went to Page’s home, described as a Goose Neck travel trailer parked next to the Guthrie Agricultural Center in Sissonville, and found three burn barrels about 50 feet in front of the trailer. One of them was on fire.

Page’s girlfriend Stephanie Marie Burdette, 25, of Cross Lanes, was at the scene when the trooper arrived. Ward spoke to her then checked out the barrels where he found aluminum wrap, which is used to cover the copper communications wiring, and pieces of copper cabling, the complaint said.

Frontier customers are encouraged to report any suspicious activity around telecommunications equipment and facilities by calling the company’s toll free security line 1-800-590-6605. Anyone witnessing a theft in progress should not confront the suspects but should immediately call 911 and then call Frontier. Vehicle and suspect descriptions are very useful. This is a community safety problem, and the cooperation of the public is critical.

[flv width=”500″ height=”395″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Copper Thieves 11-15-10.flv[/flv]

WOWK-TV in Charleston covers Frontier’s difficulties with copper wire thieves across the state of West Virginia.  (1 minute)

You paid for "lightning fast" speed, but are you actually getting it? Find out!

In areas where limited competition between broadband providers has broken out, consumers are discovering their local providers advertising faster, higher priced tiers of Internet service.  But do you really get the speeds you are paying for?

There are a number of factors that can impact your speed — the quality of the lines to your home, whether you are accessing the Internet through a wireless connection, and how much congestion your provider copes with during peak usage times.  Here are some tips to consider:

If your speeds are simply awful — nearing dial-up at times —  especially when the weather is poor outside, you should first suspect a problem with your connection.  Call your provider and request a line test to determine if there is an obvious fault with the lines running to your home or business.  The usual culprits are cracked cable fittings, worn out insulation, water getting into the wiring, or squirrels that have used your phone or cable line as a toothpick.  If the line test is not definitive, request a service call to check your lines.  Phone cables are especially prone to water damage, often inside terminal boxes located well off your property.  Cable TV lines suffer from corrosion, insulation that has fallen away or cracked, or fittings that need replacement.  If critters have chewed through the outer cable, you will often also see the results on your television with a downright lousy picture.  The biggest problems always seem to appear in the spring and fall during major climate transitions.

If you notice speeds are much slower during the early evening and weekends and you are on a cable connection, your cable company has probably oversold service in your neighborhood and too many users are trying to share the line at the same time.  Cable companies can divide up the traffic by splitting the neighborhood’s connection back to the cable company in half.  The upgrade is usually done at a box or facility somewhere in the neighborhood, not at your home.  If this prime time slowdown occurs on a DSL or fiber connection, chances are the provider doesn’t have a wide enough pipeline to the Internet to accommodate customer demand in that town or city.

A squirrel's favorite chew toy may be your broadband cable or phone line.

Also remember that DSL connections from the phone company are sensitive to the distance between your home and the phone company’s central office.  Don’t pay for higher speed tiers of service if your phone line simply refuses to support those speeds.  Downgrade your service to a speed level you can realistically expect to receive in your home.

If you access the Internet over a wireless connection from a router, a major speed logjam can occur if your Wi-Fi signal faces interference from neighbors sharing the same wireless channel.  Sometimes just running a microwave oven can obliterate certain wireless connections or significantly slow them down.  If your signal strength meter shows poor or fair reception, try reorienting your wireless router.  The higher you can place the router and keep it free of obstructions the better.  Walls, floors, and even metal filing cabinets can degrade wireless signals.  Many wireless routers have two antennas.  Try orienting one antenna vertically and the other horizontally and see if it makes a difference.  Sometimes moving a router across the room can make a significant difference.  You can also try changing wireless channels if you routinely see a large number of neighbors’ Wi-Fi connections all piling on the same channel you use.

The best way to gauge what kind of Internet speeds you are getting is to perform a free speed test at different times of the day.  Your service provider may have its own test website to visit (try Googling the name of your provider, your nearest city and “speed test” in a one sentence search).  Broadband Reports has several different speed tests to try as well.

If you are not getting what you are paying for, be sure to complain and get some money back.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KNXV Phoenix Qwest and Cox may charge your for faster Internet speed, but is your broadband really that fast 8-24-10.flv[/flv]

KNXV-TV in Phoenix explains how to make sure you are getting the Internet speeds you are paying for with some free speed test websites.  (2 minutes)

You've used too much, and now we have to charge you more... a lot more.

No matter where you live, work or play — be it Seoul, Korea, Manchester in England, or Oklahoma City — there is one thing consumers in all three cities will readily agree on: hatred of broadband data usage caps.

Those are the findings of a brand new survey conducted by GfK NOP in association with Reuters News in Britain.

Nearly 1,000 consumers were asked what they would do if confronted with their Internet provider implementing usage limits and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  More than half said they would be shopping for a new provider.

Not surprisingly, regardless of whether a consumer uses wired or mobile broadband, few believe usage caps are anything more than price gouging by providers to rake in additional revenue.  Many of these company’s biggest-spending-customers are unhappy to learn their provider is back looking for more money in return for less service.

The survey found users of smartphones such as the Apple iPhone care more about their mobile data allowance than they do about their choice of operator or even handset brand.

The survey found that users of the iPhone, Google Android phones or Research in Motion’s BlackBerry — typically, those who spend the most — are far more likely to switch operators to find better data deals.

More than half the users of these devices said they would switch to get a higher mobile data allowance.

Adjusted to take account of the fact that consumers do not always do what they say they will, GfK NOP esimated that 24 percent of contract customers using smartphones would actually switch operators.

Such a stampede would ring panic alarms inside any wireless carrier, but one company in particular faces some serious consequences for delivering years of bad service at high prices.

According to market research firm Morpace, nearly one-half of AT&T’s iPhone customers will seriously consider jumping ship if and when Verizon offers their own version of the wildly popular Apple smartphone.

At least 34 percent of current iPhone owners are resisting upgrade offers from AT&T that require a two-year contract renewal.  They’d rather wait until the iPhone is available on any network other than AT&T.

Even worse, should Verizon introduce their version of the iPhone in the coming year, nearly a quarter of AT&T customers (including those without the iPhone) are “somewhat or very likely” to dump AT&T immediately and head for Verizon.

In addition to complaints about lousy network performance, AT&T smartphone owners who spend the most with the carrier absolutely loathe AT&T’s new data usage limits implemented this past June.

“Experienced smartphone users who understand the benefits of using the Internet on the move and use services to help them in their day-to-day lives simply can’t live without mobile data,” says GfK/NOP analyst Ryan Garner, one of the report’s authors.

“They don’t want to be thinking about their data allowance and possible costs of over-running every time they open their browser or click on an app.”

Although AT&T told their customers and the media the new data-limited plans were going to save many customers money and have no impact on the rest, that is not what AT&T’s Chief Financial Officer Rick Lindner told Wall Street bankers and shareholders on a conference call last month.

“We believe over time, based on how much data they use, they will then begin to migrate up to [more costly] higher tiered plans,” Lindner said.

AT&T is well aware customers are already packed and ready to abandon ship, which is why the wireless provider has introduced a series of impediments to keep customers anchored in place.  Waived upgrade rules permitted most iPhone owners to upgrade to the latest iPhone 4 model this summer at the promotional price, in return for a two-year contract extension.  Customers seeking an end to their relationship with AT&T will find divorce an expensive proposition.  The company nearly doubled the contract early termination fee for smartphone owners June 1st.  Your exit price: up to $350.

Why construct more of these if providers can get you to use less and pay more in the process?

Reuters notes the biggest driver towards the introduction of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps is the quest for additional revenue.

Most Western carriers have frozen or cut capital expenditure in the last two years as they prioritise maintaining the dividends prized by investors — meaning the modernisation of networks has been largely put on ice.

Meantime, they say they can no longer afford physically or financially to support unlimited data usage, and are banking on the fact that most consumers will barely notice data caps that are in any case far more generous than average data usage.

Stop the Cap! has been reporting that fact for at least two years now.  Usage limits are never about saving money for customers or making consumers pay for what they use.  They are about increasing profits at the same time providers continue to reduce investments to maintain and upgrade their networks.  Providers routinely report they are spending countless billions on network infrastructure, but neglect to mention those investments are not keeping up with subscriber growth and, in many cases, are actually decreasing year-by-year.  The self-perpetuating problem of network congestion that inevitably follows then becomes an excuse to charge customers more money for usage-limited service.

Reuters confirms that many western carriers have business plans that would be familiar to any neighborhood drug dealer – hand out plentiful cheap samples, get customers hooked, and then gradually reduce the supply while also raising the price.

In Europe, Scandinavian operator TeliaSonera is betting that the superiority of its next-generation LTE network, the world’s first, will allow it to offer premium services — at premium prices.

“When a service like this is entering the market, you normally more or less give it away for free, and so we did with mobile data,” Hakan Dahlstrom, the company’s head of mobility services, told investors last month.

“After a while… to meet the customer’s need for cost control; that is when you have flat rate. And then after some time the user understand how these services work and how it suits them, and you start charging for speed and volume.”

Yet not every provider has found success in alienating and overcharging their customers for increasingly important connectivity.

Reuters found Japan and Korea’s more advanced and mature data networks have already been down the road of usage restrictions, and found they didn’t solve network congestion issues — only provider investments in upgrades did:

Japanese operators NTT DoCoMo, KDDI and Softbank have stuck to flat rates — with discounts for months in which customers use less data — while encouraging them to use more Wi-Fi to take pressure off the mobile networks.

In Korea, carriers are returning to unlimited data plans because of heightened competition while investing heavily to upgrade their networks — a move that Western counterparts are unlikely to be able to avoid for much longer.

SK Telecom, South Korea’s top mobile carrier, last month said it would offer unlimited data services and free mobile Internet calls for customers paying 55,000 won ($46.40) and over in monthly service charges.

Of course, both Korea and Japan maintain more oversight by public officials over critical network infrastructure vital to both nations’ economies.  Neither government allows unregulated monopolies or duopolies in their midst — convinced they’ll deliver the least amount of service they can for the highest possible price they can get away with. In other words — today’s marketplace model in much of Europe and North America.