More than 5,000 residents and businesses living on the island Bailiwick of Jersey now have a choice of two Internet Service Providers – both supplying gigabit fiber optic broadband.

Jersey Telecom, a government-owned provider, has been removing obsolete copper wiring and replacing it with fiber to the home service that should reach the entire island by 2015. The fiber network is open to all competitors. JT charges £59.99 ($97.25) per month for gigabit speeds, but now caps usage at just 100GB a month. Overlimit fees are around 50c per GB between the hours of 8am-midnight. Usage is unlimited during off-peak hours.

In addition to JT, Jersey customers who live on the remote Channel Island, a British Crown Dependency off the coast of France, can now also choose Sure Jersey, a privately owned ISP that offers unlimited use plans.

The fiber optic network is spreading to other Channel Islands, with significantly populated parts of Guernsey set to receive a fiber upgrade next.

Using traditional Return On Investment standards, Jersey would barely qualify for basic DSL service. The island has a population of just 100,000 residents, some spread far and wide in remote locations. Basic DSL service was supplied to customers in more densely populated communities, but speeds were often slow and congestion became a major problem, especially at night.

The local government determined Jersey’s broadband needs could best be met by upgrading to government-owned infrastructure that private businesses could lease to sell service. Much like public roads benefit private companies that use them to transport goods, JT’s fiber network is designed to help bolster the island’s digital economy.

Since the introduction of gigabit fiber, new digital startups have launched on the island and others have moved their digital businesses to the fiber-enabled island. FeelUnique, launched from Jersey, has now become Europe’s largest online beauty retailer, employing over 150. Other businesses on the island have launched software ventures for the health care and education markets, banking/investment products and services, and 3D printing ventures. Having a wide broadband pipe has helped anchor digital businesses to the island because moving elsewhere leaves many with little better than substandard DSL or an enormous price tag for a customized new fiber build.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/JT Fiber Has Arrived 2013.mp4[/flv]

Residents of Jersey talk about how fiber broadband has changed their online experience. (2 minutes)

 [flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Digital Jersey Limited – Vision 2014 from Digital Jersey.mp4[/flv]

Digital Jersey released this video showing the group’s vision on how to leverage gigabit fiber broadband to boost the island’s digital economy in 2014. (3 minutes)

Powell

A former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission turned top cable lobbyist rang the warning bell at an industry convention this week, recommending America’s cable operators hurry out usage caps and usage-based billing before a perception takes hold the industry is trying to protect cable television revenue.

Michael Powell, the former head of the FCC during the Bush Administration is now America’s top cable industry lobbyist, serving as president and CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA). From 2001-2005 Powell claimed to represent the interests of the American people. From 2011 on, he represents the interests of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and other large cable operators.

Attending the SCTE Cable-Tec Expo 2013 in Atlanta, Powell identified the cable industry’s top priority for next year: “broadband, broadband, and broadband.”

The NCTA fears the current unregulated “Wild West” nature of broadband service is ripe for regulatory checks and balances. The NCTA plans to prioritize lobbying to prevent the implementation of consumer protection regulations governing the Internet. Powell warned it would be “World War III” if the FCC moved to oversee broadband by changing its definition as an unregulated “information service” to a regulated common carrier utility.

Powell is very familiar with the FCC’s current definition because he presided over the agency when it contemplated the current framework as it applies to DSL and cable broadband providers.

While Powell has a long record opposing blatant Net Neutrality violations that block competing websites and services, he does not want the FCC meddling in how providers charge or provision access.

Powell believes some of cable’s biggest problems come from bad marketing.

Powell disagreed with statements from some Wall Street analysts like Craig Moffett who earlier predicted the window for broadband usage-based limits and fees was closing or closed already.

Powell does not care that consumers are accustomed to and overwhelmingly support unlimited access. Instead, he urged cable executives to “move with some urgency and purpose” to implement usage-based billing for economic reasons, despite the growing perception such limits are designed to protect cable television service from online competition.

“I don’t think it’s too late,” Powell said. “But it’s not something you can wait for forever.”

Powell pointed to the success wireless carriers have had forcing the majority of customers to usage capped, consumption billing plans and believes the cable industry can do the same.

The NCTA president also described many of the industry’s hurdles as marketing and perception problems.

The cable industry, long bottom-rated by consumers in satisfaction surveys, can do better according to Powell, by making sure they are nimble enough to meet competition head-on.

Powell described Google Fiber as a limited experiment unlikely to directly compete with cable over the long-term, and with a new version of the DOCSIS cable broadband platform on the way, operators will be able to compete with speeds of 500-1,000Mbps and beyond. He just hates that it’s called DOCSIS 3.1, noting it wasn’t “consumer-friendly” in “a 4G and 5G world.”

Kevin Hart, executive vice president and chief technology officer of Cox Communications joked the marketing department would get right on it.

An enterprising reader of the Broadband Reports‘ AT&T Forum stumbled on proposed pricing for AT&T’s faster speed services for U-verse and, presumably, their planned fiber-to-the-home rollout in Austin, Tex.:

The prices are no bargain in comparison to the $70 a month Google charges Kansas City residents for 1,000/1,000Mbps service, but on the lower end, AT&T’s 45Mbps U-verse option is comparable to Time Warner Cable’s 50/5Mbps tier, which now sells for $65-75 a month on a one-year promotion:

Time Warner Cable’s latest broadband offers

CenturyLink is seeking “greater flexibility” to set its own prices, terms and conditions of service without a review by Washington State regulators, even as its broadband customers complain about bait and switch Internet speeds and poor service.

Three years after the Monroe, La., based independent phone company purchased Qwest — a former Baby Bell serving the Pacific Northwest — CenturyLink continues to lose customers to cell phone providers and cable phone and broadband service. Since 2001, CenturyLink and its predecessor have said goodbye to 60 percent of their customers, reducing the number of lines in service from around 2.7 million to just over 1 million.

CenturyLink is apparently ready to lose still more after upsetting customers with a notice it intended to seek deregulation that could lead to rising phone bills.

Docket UT-130477, filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) proposes to replace currently regulated service with what CenturyLink calls “an Alternate Form Of Regulation.” (AFOR)

If approved, CenturyLink will “normalize” telephone rates in Washington State, language some suspect is “code” for a rate increase. For CenturyLink customers in cities like Seattle, Spokane, and Tacoma, the maximum rate permitted for basic phone service for the next three years will be $15.50 (unless a customer already pays more), before calling features, taxes, and surcharges are applied. Most observers, including the state regulator, suspect CenturyLink will limit rate hikes to $1-2 if approved. A higher increase might provoke more customers to leave.

Washington residents already pay the nation’s second highest taxes on wireless service. Now landline customers also pay more. (Graphic: The Spokesman)

“We don’t think they can do much because, in our view, all (a big rate increase) is going to do is accelerate people dropping the landline into their homes,” Brian Thomas, a spokesman for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission told The Spokesman-Review. “A lot of people are cutting the cord.”

Frontier Communications, which previously won its own case for deregulation within its service areas including Everett, Wenatchee, and Tri-Cities, raised rates about $1 beginning this month.

A spokesman for the company confessed Frontier’s phone service is becoming obsolete.

“It’s safe to say plain old telephone service is in the process of becoming archaic for some people,” Frontier’s Carl Gipson said. “Five years from now, it will be almost – but not quite – extinct.”

Every rate change seems to provoke a review of whether landline service is still necessary.

Earlier this year, CenturyLink jumped on board legislation that purposely increased phone rates by several dollars a month by removing the sales tax exemption on residential telephone service. Wireless companies did not enjoy the same exemption and sued for parity.

A confidential settlement with state regulators made Washington phone customers, instead of telecom companies, liable for the sales tax starting in August. As a result, some residential phone bills went up at much as $5 based on retroactively charged sales tax.

Customers sticking with CenturyLink often say it is the only broadband provider in rural towns across the state. Although better than satellite broadband, the lack of regulatory oversight and technology investments have allowed CenturyLink to sell Internet speeds it cannot provide to customers.

At a hearing held this week by the San Juan County Council, members criticized CenturyLink officials on hand for selling fast service but delivering slow speeds to the group of islands between the mainland of Washington State and Vancouver Island, B.C.

Hughes

“Last night I did a speed test at my house and I am paying for 10Mbps but only getting 4.74Mbps,” complained Councilman Rick Hughes (District 4 – Orcas West). “I am paying for 10 and I am only getting 5Mbps, so how is that fair? There has been a ton of frustration over the last two years we have worked on this broadband issue. Everywhere I go and every meeting I talk to all I hear is complaints about CenturyLink. No matter what they are paying for, it’s a poor broadband connection to the end customer.”

CenturyLink provides broadband to 88% of the territory the company serves in Washington. Like most telephone companies, CenturyLink relies on DSL in much of its footprint and has upgraded central offices, remote equipment, and the telephone lines that connect them. On the San Juan Islands, most customers used to receive 1-3Mbps, but CenturyLink claimed at this week’s hearing it spent billion on infrastructure improvements that can now deliver faster Internet service across the state. In San Juan County, CenturyLink claims:

• 58% of all qualified addresses were upgraded to 10-25Mbps;
• 66% now qualify for more than 10Mbps (but less than 25Mbps) versus 46% prior to upgrades;
• 29% of customers now qualify to sign up for 25Mbps service.

CenturyLink warned the council its speed claims were not to be taken literally, noting DSL “speed is dependent on distance from equipment; speeds drop quickly as distance increases.”

Hughes told CenturyLink officials residents appreciated the investment, but customers were still disappointed after being promised higher speeds than actually received.

“When people call customer service, there is always an excuse about why there is a problem,” said Hughes. “If people are paying for something, they want to receive it.”

“For our long-term financial interests in this county, we need to have reliable 10-25Mbps service to customers on any part of the islands,” Hughes added. “My goal has always been 90+ percent should be able to get 25Mbps or better connectivity in the county.”

The problem for CenturyLink is the amount of upgrade investment versus the amount of return that investment will generate. San Juan County is disconnected from the mainland and collectively house only 15,769 residents. But it is also the smallest of Washington’s 39 counties in land area, which can make infrastructure projects less costly.

CenturyLink committed to continue investment in its network “where economically feasible.”

San Juan County’s Orcas Power & Light Cooperative (OPALCO), a member-owned, non-profit cooperative electric utility may have a partial solution to the problem of meeting Return on Investment requirements.

OPALCO originally proposed a hybrid fiber-wireless system designed to reach 90% of the county with a $34 million investment, to be built over two years. When completed, all county residents would pay a $15 monthly co-op infrastructure fee and a $75 monthly fee for broadband and telephone service. To gauge interest, OPALCO asked residents for a $90 pre-commitment deposit. By the annual meeting in May, the co-op admitted only 900 residents signed up and it needed 5,800 customers to make the project a success.

Some residents balked at the high cost, others did not want wireless broadband technology, and some local environmental activists wanted OPALCO to focus on clean, affordable energy and avoid the competitive broadband business.

The lack of commitment forced the co-op to modify its broadband plans, offering a “New Direction” to residents in June 2013.

OPALCO elected to stay out of the ISP business and instead announced a public-private initiative, providing fiber infrastructure to existing service providers. In effect, the co-op will cover the cost of building fiber extensions where CenturyLink is not willing to invest. For a $3-5 million investment from the co-op, ISPs like CenturyLink will be able to commission OPALCO to build fiber in the right places to make DSL service better. CenturyLink would have non-exclusive rights to the fiber network and would have to pay the co-op a service lease fee.

Unlike ISPs in other communities that have shunned publicly funded fiber infrastructure, CenturyLink says it will contemplate a trial — buying bandwidth from OPALCO instead of enhancing its own fiber middle mile network — to test what level of improved service CenturyLink can offer customers.

Regardless of CenturyLink’s plans, OPALCO is moving forward installing limited fiber connections as part of an effort to develop a more modern electric grid.

“Our data communications network brings exponential benefit to our membership,” OPALCO notes. “It includes tools that allow the co-op to: control peak usage and keep power costs down, remotely manage and control the electrical distribution system, manage and resolve power outages more efficiently, integrate and manage community solar projects and improve public safety throughout the county.”

There are some drawbacks, reports Wally Gudgell from The Gudgell Group.

“It will take longer to implement, and will impact fewer businesses and households,” Gudgell writes. “While about two-thirds of the islands will eventually be covered, more remote areas will have to work with a local ISP and potentially pay more for service.  DSL coverage for homes that are further than 15,000 feet from CenturyLink fiber-served distribution hubs will be challenging. Some homeowners may need to pay for fiber to be run to their homes by Islands Network (fiber direct is costly, estimated at $20/foot).”

Frontier Communications believes it can win back disconnected customers, many taking their business to competing cable companies, with marketing offers that avoid tricks, traps, and hidden fees.

Frontier executives told investors on a recent quarterly results conference call that the phone company was adding new broadband customers poached from local cable operators, unusual as DSL market share has eroded in favor of cable broadband.

“A lot of folks in [the markets we inherited from Verizon] took cable because that was the only game in town, and it didn’t mean that they liked their cable operator,” said CEO Maggie Wilderotter. “We did surveys in these markets, 75% of their customers don’t like them and 50% of them said they’d be willing to switch for the right offer.”

Wilderotter said a significant part of the phone network it acquired from Verizon was initially not compatible with broadband service. Frontier’s market share in broadband was predictably low until it expanded broadband service in those areas.

Wilderotter: Most of our customers are satisfied with 6Mbps broadband.

As the invests in its broadband facilities, market share has improved, as have speeds in some areas.

“Forty percent of our footprint has 20Mbps today, so we’ve continued to invest even though 80% of what we sell is 6Mbps and if we look at the usage patterns of our customers, it’s under 6Mbps on a monthly basis,” said Wilderotter. “Somewhere between 12 and 40Mbps is probably going to be the sweet spot of what we’re going to have to build to but we put in the right backbone in order to make that happen.”

Frontier claims its entire middle mile network between central office facilities and individual neighborhoods has been upgraded with fiber, giving Frontier added capacity.

Wilderotter told attendees at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference that Frontier will continue the practice of selling simplified pricing packages that de-emphasize temporary discounts and high value awards like Apple gift cards or television sets. The company renewed its current commitment not to leverage modem fees, impose lengthy contracts, or offer temporary discounts that expire midway through a term commitment.

“Our current bundles really resonate well,” said Frontier chief operating officer Dan McCarthy. “It gives people predictability, it doesn’t really require commitment from a price protection plan, and there are no hidden fees.”

Price seems to matter a lot to Frontier customers.

“It isn’t always about speed for customers — 80% of the customers’ sales that we have today are for more the basic speed level of 6Mbps,” said McCarthy. “They have the ability to take 12 or 20Mbps max in many cases but they still choose 6Mbps. It’s really more about service, it’s about the price value equation, it’s about simplicity and really not having surprises.”