Bright House Networks, a cable company primarily serving Florida and other southeastern states says it has no plans to implement Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps or consumption billing.  But a company spokesperson went even farther, telling Tampa Bay Online the cable company was not even considering them.

Bright House, which relies on Time Warner Cable’s programming negotiators and sells broadband under the Road Runner brand, was among the only companies in Florida that was willing to go on record stating they were not considering limiting broadband customers.

Other providers were unwilling to follow Bright House’s lead:

• AT&T: “2 percent of our customers were using 20 percent of our bandwidth,” said an AT&T spokesman, so the company slapped 150GB usage limits on DSL customers, 250GB on U-verse customers.  The overlimit fee is $10 for every 50GB extra.
• Verizon Florida: “At this point, we’ve not implemented any usage controls or broadband caps.  We’ll continue to evaluate what’s best to ensure our customers get the highest quality broadband service for the best value,” the company said.  But it also added: “We’re continuing to evaluate usage-based pricing for our wireline broadband customers.”

“Bandwidth caps stifle consumer choice,” said Parul Desai, public policy counsel for Consumer’s Union.  Desai notes customers do not sign up for pricey high-speed FiOS broadband service from companies like Verizon just to read e-mail.  Customers who are willing to pay premium prices for super high speeds certainly don’t want a usage cap devaluing their broadband package.

Comcast, for example, uniformly limits consumption to 250GB per month, even on high speed plans delivering over 50Mbps service.

“It’s like building a rocket that you blow up after it reaches 250 feet into the air,” says Stop the Cap! reader Will in Tampa, who shared the article with us.  “What is the point of having 50 or 100Mbps service from any provider if they slap a limit on it like that.”

Will thinks customers will abandon higher speed packages in droves once they realize they really can’t use them.

“With some of these companies talking about caps around 40GB per month, you can’t even take your connection for a test drive,” he says.  “You might as well stick with basic speeds, just to remind and discourage you from putting yourself over their stupid limits.”

Desai suspects broadband companies will try limiting their customers, if only because they face few competitors consumers can use instead and they have video services to protect.  But she suspects some consumers will either abandon or seriously downgrade their broadband service and find other ways to trade large files and content.

“It’s not inevitable they’re going to succeed,” she told TBO. “People only find value in broadband because of what they can access with it. If more people feel constrained, they’ll start looking for another way.”

Arris' C4 CMTS

In the broadband speed race, no technology can deliver consistently fast upload and download speeds and offer ease-of-upgrades like fiber optics, but most of us won’t have direct access to the technology for years to come.  This week, the cable industry will attempt to suggest fiber upgrades may be unnecessary as it shows off some of the latest broadband technology at the industry’s trade show in Chicago.

Arris, a cable broadband equipment manufacturer, plans to demonstrate just how many “cable channels” it can bond together to build an enormous broadband pipeline, which the company claims will achieve “proof of concept” speeds as high as 4.5Gbps downstream and 575Mbps upstream.

Such a demonstration is impractical for actual use with today’s cable systems, because they lack enough free channel space to construct a pipe that large.  But the cable industry is betting heavily on DOCSIS 3 technology to keep them in the game as other technology threatens to win future online speed races.

At the heart of Arris’ cable broadband platform is its C4 Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS). The latest iteration, called Release 7.4, increases support for bonded channels, allows cable operators to manage the IP video demands of their subscribers, and also includes additional “intelligent network” enhancements to manage different types of broadband traffic.

Cable modem broadband technology is based on a “shared network,” meaning every customer connected to an individual CMTS is sharing the same individual broadband pipeline.  Before DOCSIS 3 technology, the maximum “raw bitrate” of that pipe was generally fixed at around 40Mbps — speed/bandwidth shared with every customer wired into that equipment.  If just a handful of customers used their broadband connection at the same time, speeds were consistently fast and reliable.  But during peak usage, too many customers could place demands on that pipe it could not sustain, and speeds for everyone began to drop.

Since most customers didn’t come close to saturating their broadband connection, hundreds of families safely shared the same pipe without noticeable speed declines.  But as high bandwidth applications like online video and file sharing grew, network engineers had to plan on fewer customers sharing the same connection or regularly split some customers off an overworked CMTS.

DOCSIS 3 technology solves many of these problems by letting cable operators “bond” multiple cable channels together to create a much larger, although-still-shared, pipe.  Arris says design improvements in its latest c4 CMTS also help manage the traffic that crosses it in the most efficient way possible to maintain a consistent user experience.

Because fiber optic competitors routinely win the broadband speed race, cable operators have to counter aggressive marketing strategies they themselves have used against dial-up and DSL service from the telephone company.  Demonstrating high speed results, even when completely impractical to deploy, still helps the industry’s marketing efforts against the competition, and delivers fodder for industry lobbyists used to counter claims by broadband advocates that other countries are deploying more advanced broadband networks that allow North America to fall behind.

Vincent, one of our regular Stop the Cap! readers sent along a link to a story about the decrepit state of American broadband: it’s a real mess for those who can’t get it, can’t get enough of it, and compare it against what other people abroad are getting.

Cracked delivers the top five reasons why American broadband sucks.  Be sure and read their take (adult language), but we have some thoughts of our own to share:

#5 Some of Us Just Plain Can’t Get It

Large sections of the prairie states, the mountain states, and the desert states can’t get broadband no matter how much they want it.  That’s because they are a hundred miles or more from the nearest cable system and depend on the phone companies — especially AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink, and Windstream to deliver basic DSL.  AT&T is trying as hard as possible to win the right to abandon rural America altogether with the elimination of their basic service obligation.  Verizon has sold off some of their most rural territories, including the entire states of Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia.  CenturyLink has absorbed Qwest in the least populated part of America — the mountain and desert west.

Frontier and Windstream are betting their business models on rural DSL, and while some are grateful to have anything resembling broadband, neither company earns spectacular customer ratings.

So long as rural broadband is not an instant profit winner for the phone companies selling it, rural America will remain dependent on dial-up or [shudder] satellite fraudband.

#4 Often There are No Real Options for Service (and No Competition)

Cracked has discovered the wonderfully inaccurate world of broadband mapping, where the map shows you have plentiful broadband all around, but phone calls to the providers on the list bring nothing but gales of laughter.  As if you are getting service at your house.  Ever.  Stop the Cap! hears regularly from the broadband-deprived, some who have had to be more innovative than the local phone company ever was looking for ways to get service.  Some have paid to bury their own phone cable to get DSL the phone company was reluctant to install, others have created super-powered Wi-Fi networks to share a neighbor’s connection.  The rest live with broadband envy, watching for any glimpse of phone trucks running new wires up and down the road.

Competition is a concept foreign to most Americans confronted with one cable company and one phone company charging around the same price for service.  The most aggressive competition comes when a community broadband provider throws a monkey wrench into the duopoly.  Magically, rate hikes are few and fleeting and speeds are suddenly much better.  Hmmm.

#3 Those Who Have Access Still Lag Behind the Rest of the World

We're #35!

This is an unnerving problem, especially when countries like Lithuania are now kicking the United States into the broadband corner.  You wouldn’t believe we’re that bad off listening to providers, who talk about the innovative and robust broadband economy — the one that is independent of their lousy service.  In fact, the biggest impediment to more innovation may be those same providers.  Some have an insatiable appetite for money — money from you, money from content producers, money from taxpayers, more money from you, and by the way there better be a big fat check from Netflix in the mail this week for using our pipes!

Where is the real innovation?  Community providers like Greenlight, Fibrant, and EPB that deliver their respective communities kick-butt broadband — service other providers would like to shut down at all costs.  Not every commercial provider is an innovation vacuum.  Verizon FiOS and Google’s new Gigabit fiber network in Kansas City represent innovation through investment.  Unfortunately Wall Street doesn’t approve.

Still not convinced?  Visit Japan or Korea and then tell us how American broadband resembles NetZero or AOL dial-up in comparison.

#2 Bad Internet = Shi**y Economy

The demagoguery of corporate-financed dollar-a-holler groups like “FreedomWorks” and “Americans for Prosperity” is without bounds.  Whether it was attacking broadband stimulus funding, community broadband endeavors, or Net Neutrality, these provider shills turned broadband expansion into something as worthwhile as a welfare benefit for Cadillac drivers.  Why are we spending precious tax dollars on Internet access so people can steal movies and download porn they asked.  Why are we letting communities solve their own broadband problems building their own networks when it should be commercial providers being the final arbiter of who deserves access and who does not?  Net Neutrality?  Why that’s a socialist government takeover, it surely is.

It’s like watching railroad robber barons finance protest movements against public road construction.  We can’t have free roads paved by the government unfairly competing with monopoly railway companies, can we?  That’s anti-American!

The cost of inadequate broadband in an economy that has jettisoned manufacturing jobs to Mexico and the Far East is greater than we realize.  Will America sacrifice its leadership in the Internet economy to China the same way we did with our textile, electronics, appliances, furniture, and housewares industries?  China, Japan and Korea are building fiber optic broadband networks for their citizens and businesses.  We’re still trying to figure out how to wire West Virginia for 3Mbps DSL.

#1 At This Point, Internet Access is Kind of a Necessity

The United Nations this week declared the Internet to be a basic human right.  Conservatives scoffed at that, ridiculing the declaration for a variety of reasons ranging from disgust over any body that admits Hugo Chavez, to the lack of a similar declaration for gun ownership, and the usual interpretation of broadband as a high tech play-toy.  Some folks probably thought the same way about the telephone and electricity around 1911.

Yes, the Internet can be frivolous, but then so can a phone call.  Cursed by the U.S. Post Office for destroying their first class mail business, by telephone directory publishers, and those bill payment envelope manufacturers, the Internet does have its detractors.  But should we go back to picking out commemorative stamps at the post office?  Your local phone and cable company sure doesn’t think so.  We don’t either.

A research report sponsored by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the nation’s largest cable lobbying group, has concluded that millions of broadband stimulus dollars are being wasted by the government on broadband projects that will ultimately serve people who supposedly already enjoy a panoply of broadband choice.

Navigant Economics, a “research group” that produces reports for its paying clients inside industry, government, and law firms, produced this one at the behest of a cable industry concerned that broadband stimulus funding will build competing broadband providers that could force better service and lower prices for consumers.

• More than 85 percent of households in the three project areas are already passed by existing cable broadband, DSL, and/or fixed wireless broadband providers. In one of the project areas, more than 98 percent of households are already passed by at least one of these modalities.

• In part because a large proportion of project funds are being used to provide duplicative service, the cost per incremental (unserved) household passed is extremely high. When existing mobile wireless broadband coverage is taken into account, the $231.7 million in RUS funding across the three projects will provide service to just 452 households that currently lack broadband service.

Navigant’s report tries to prove its contention by analyzing three broadband projects that seek funding from the federal government.  Northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Kansas, and southwestern Montana were selected for Navigant’s analysis, and unsurprisingly the researcher found the broadband unavailability problem overblown.

The evidence demonstrates that broadband service is already widely available in each of the three proposed service areas. Thus, a large proportion of each award goes to subsidize broadband deployment to households and regions where it is already available, and the taxpayer cost per unserved household is significantly higher than the taxpayer cost per household passed.

The cable industry funds research reports that oppose fiber broadband stimulus projects.

But Navigant’s findings take liberties with what defines appropriate broadband service in the 21st century.

First, Navigant argues that wireless mobile broadband is suitable to meet the definition of broadband service, despite the fact most rural areas face 3G broadband speeds that, in real terms, are below the current definition of “broadband” (a stable 768kbps or better — although the FCC supports redefining broadband to speeds at or above 3-4Mbps).  As any 3G user knows, cell site congestion, signal quality, and environmental factors can quickly reduce 3G speeds to less than 500kbps.  When was the last time your 3G wireless provider delivered 768kbps or better on a consistent basis?

Navigant also ignores the ongoing march by providers to establish tiny usage caps for wireless broadband.  With most declaring anything greater than 5GB “abusive use,” and some limiting use to less than half that amount, a real question can be raised about whether mobile broadband, even at future 4G speeds, can provide a suitable home broadband replacement.

Second, Navigant’s list of available providers assumes facts not necessarily in evidence.  For example, in Lake County, Minnesota, Navigant assumes DSL availability based on a formula that assumes the service will be available anywhere within a certain radius of the phone company’s central office.  But as our own readers have testified, companies like Qwest, Frontier, and AT&T do not necessarily provide DSL in every central office or within the radius Navigant assumes it should be available.  One Stop the Cap! reader in the area has fought Frontier Communications for more than a year to obtain DSL service, and he lives blocks from the local central office.  It is simply not available in his neighborhood.  AT&T customers have encountered similar problems because the company has deemed parts of its service area unprofitable to provide saturation DSL service.  While some multi-dwelling units can obtain 3Mbps DSL, individual homes nearby cannot.

Navigant never visited the impacted communities to inquire whether service was actually available.  Instead, it relied on this definition to assume availability:

DSL boundaries were estimated as follows: Based on the location of the dominant central office of each wirecenter, a 12,000 foot radius was generated. This radius was then truncated as necessary to encompass only the servicing wirecenter. The assumption that DSL is capable of serving areas within 12,000 is based on analysis conducted by the Omnibus Broadband Initiative for the National Broadband Plan.

Frontier advertises up to 10Mbps DSL in our neighborhood, but in reality can actually only offer speeds of 3.1Mbps in a suburb less than one mile from the Rochester, N.Y. city line.  In more rural areas, customers are lucky to get service at all.

Cable broadband boundaries were estimated based on information obtained from an industry factbook, which gathered provider-supplied general coverage information and extrapolated availability from that.  But, as we’ve reported on numerous occasions, provider-supplied coverage data has proven suspect.  We’ve found repeated instances when advertised service proved unavailable, especially in rural areas where individual homes do not meet the minimum density required to provide service.

We’ve argued repeatedly for independent broadband mapping that relies on actual on-the-ground data, if only to end the kind of generalizations legislators rely on regarding broadband service.  But if the cable industry can argue away the broadband problem with empty claims service is available even in places where it is not (or woefully inadequate), relying on voluntary data serves the industry well, even if it shortchanges rural consumers who are told they have broadband choices that do not actually exist.

Navigant’s report seeks to apply the brakes to broadband improvement programs that can deliver consistent coverage and 21st century broadband speeds that other carriers simply don’t provide or don’t offer throughout the proposed service areas.  The cable industry doesn’t welcome the competition, especially in areas stuck with lesser-quality service from low-rated providers.

The People’s Republic of China is accelerating its deployment of fiber optic broadband at the expense of DSL, according to a new report from market research firm Infonetics Research.

“The major story in the broadband aggregation equipment market this quarter is the dramatic drop in DSL ports in China, which points to operators there continuing their dramatic shift away from DSL,” said Jeff Heynen, directing analyst for broadband access at Infonetics Research.  “The first quarter is typically one of the slowest for DSL, but the seasonal effect was worsened by Chinese operators’ continued shift away from traditional [DSL].”

The Chinese broadband market is increasingly based on fiber networks, especially in larger cities where broadband demand is rapidly increasing. Worldwide spending on advanced broadband networks is being driven by broadband expansions in China, Japan, and Korea — all accelerating their fiber deployments. For Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE, the news is both good and bad.  Both companies profited from sales of EPON and GPON equipment which help power fiber networks, but lost plenty from the decline in spending on DSL technology.

The North American market has stalled, and is expected to remain in neutral until Verizon decides to re-initiate its FiOS buildout.  Broadband stimulus funding may also help boost spending, but most providers are relying on slow speed DSL to introduce rural America to broadband service.  In markets where providers are delivering fiber to the home, companies like Calix are reaping the rewards, with revenue up 222 percent this quarter, mostly earned from sales of Ethernet Fiber to the Home equipment.