Shammo

Verizon’s vision of broadband economics depends on the technology used to provide the service, according to some insights shared by the company’s chief financial officer at yesterday’s Deutsche Bank Access Media, Internet & Telecom Conference.

Fran Shammo outlined two strategies the company is using to profit from its broadband services. For wireless, Verizon has “flipped the model” from the traditional voice plan that starts with a bucket of voice minutes towards monetizing broadband usage instead. Today, customers buy plans that focus on anticipated data usage with unlimited voice and texting thrown in. But marketing broadband on Verizon’s fiber optic FiOS network is markedly different because the company is focused on speed over consumption.

“We are now shifting into concentrating on the broadband piece of that product, and the speed that the fiber to the home can give you we believe can’t be matched with anyone,” Shammo told an audience primarily made up of Wall Street analysts and investors. “We have a superior product.”

Shammo explained Verizon intends to “monetize speeds” that fiber broadband is capable of providing. That is important because Verizon FiOS now represents 70 percent of Verizon’s wired business, as traditional landline revenue continues to decline.

That is welcome news to broadband advocates that prefer current pricing models based on broadband speeds, not usage. Verizon FiOS intends to capitalize on its superior speed to differentiate itself from the cable competition, especially when some of those competitors are slapping usage limits on their customers.

Another important new revenue source for Verizon comes from switching legacy DSL users to FiOS technology.

In 2012, Verizon commenced its copper-to-fiber migration in FiOS areas. At least 200,000 homes formerly served by copper-based DSL were transitioned to fiber. In 2013, Verizon plans to migrate another 300,000 customers. When customers are switched to the fiber network, their former DSL speeds remain the same, but now Verizon’s marketing department has an opportunity to target upgrade offers for faster speeds.

“We give them the choice to start upgrading that speed [to] 15, 25, or 50Mbps,” Shammo reports. “What we are seeing is people are willing to pay for that additional speed, so we can monetize that fiber network more.”

However, Shammo reiterated that beyond what Verizon has already committed to in FiOS agreements with local municipalities, Verizon plans no additional expansion of FiOS in 2013.

The foundation for future profits come from data usage.

Unintended Consequences of Share Everything: Customers do an end run around Verizon’s “device fee.”

The conference also provided new insights into Verizon’s Share Everything wireless plans and the company’s other strategies.

Shammo admitted customers have done an end run around the “device fee” for multiple add-on devices.

Verizon expected mobile wireless-enabled tablet sales would increase as the cost to add a tablet to a Verizon Wireless account no longer required a separate data plan. But Verizon’s “device fee,” charged for each device connected to a Share Everything plan, has backfired. Customers are instead adopting Verizon’s “Mi-Fi” wireless hotspot device or other tethering solutions. Customers can then connect up to five Wi-Fi enabled devices through the hotspot and bypass paying multiple device fees that range from $5-20 per device.

Living Off the Revenue from a 3G Network Verizon Has Stopped Expanding, Improving

Shammo also noted Verizon has stopped further investments in its 3G wireless network.

“We are not investing any more capital in that network other than to keep it up and running, so no more coverage [expansion] capital, no more capacity [expansion] capital,” Shammo said. “If I can keep that network up and running that just generates more [revenue] for us.”

Verizon plans to keep a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service except in areas where it has existing agreements to deliver service.

Verizon’s Plans to Reduce Device Subsidies, Discounts

Customers have grown to expect a free or low-cost upgrade to a new smartphone every two years. But wireless companies find the costs of fronting device subsidies troubling because it affects the short-term bottom line. As wireless providers trim discounts, tighten upgrade policies, raise prices, and introduce new upgrade and activation fees, the $200-400 device subsidy recouped over the life of a two-year service contract remains a fat target for pruning.

But Verizon and other cell phone companies do not want to cut plan prices that are now inflated by $10-15 a month to cover paying back phone subsidies. The best of both worlds: eliminating device upgrade discounts –and– keeping prices the same for wireless service, banking the extra revenue as profit.

Verizon’s current solution is a middle-ground approach that gradually reduces device subsidies while hoping increased competition among device manufacturers will lower retail prices. For the consumer, that means prices will remain generally the same. But for Verizon, it means higher revenue from paying out lower subsidies while being able to maintain current pricing.

“I am a believer that over the next two to three years subsidies will start to decrease just because of the ecosystem,” said Shammo.

Verizon’s conversion to LTE means the day of a pure LTE-only smartphone is not far off. It will not include added-cost chips to support legacy technology, particularly older data networks and CDMA.

Wall Street Pressures Verizon to Talk Customers into Less-Costly (Anything but an iPhone) Smartphones

Brett Feldman, an analyst at Deutsche Bank who moderated the question and answer session with Shammo pointedly noted the Apple iPhone is the most-costly phone to subsidize.

“Are there things you can do with your sales force where you would proactively incentivize them to maybe sell different devices,” asked Feldman.

“It is critical that we don’t do that,” Shammo explained. “What is more important for us is a customer walks out with a phone that they will be happy with and not return under our 30-day guarantee. Because the worst thing that can happen for us is for me to incent a salesperson to get you into a phone thinking you are going to like and in three days you come back because you don’t. Now I’ve just subsidized two smartphones because that phone you used I can’t resell as a new phone.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBS Chattanooga Fastest Broadband in America 2-28-13.flv[/flv]

Chattanooga’s gigabit fiber network demonstrates local government works. The fiber to the home network has already brought $400 million in investment dollars and more than 6,000 new jobs to the area. At the same time, both Comcast and AT&T are working to lobby state legislatures to ban these kinds of public networks from ever getting off the ground. CBS News profiles EPB Fiber. (6 minutes)

You paid for it, but you can’t access it.

Once again, taxpayers are underwriting expensive state-of-the-art fiber broadband networks that are strictly off-limits to residential and business customers living with substandard broadband on offer from the phone and cable company.

The Obama Administration’s big plans for broadband expansion have proved underwhelming for consumers and businesses clamoring for access across rural America. Local media reports deliver false promises about improved broadband access from new fiber networks under construction. But all too often, these expensive, high-capacity networks go underutilized and offer service only to a select few institutional users.

Case in point: Last week, the expensive Iowa Communications Network (ICN) went up for sale to the highest bidder.

At least $320 million taxpayer dollars have been spent on more than 8,000 miles of fiber connecting government buildings, schools, and healthcare facilities. Your tax dollars paid for this network, but unless your kids go to a school connected to ICN or you happen to work for a government agency, you are not allowed to use it.

One state legislator admitted even at the best of times, ICN never exceeded more than 10 percent of its available capacity. What an incredible waste of a precious resource!

In a recent public-relations effort, ICN has been used by military families videoconferencing with their loved ones serving overseas. But for the rest of Iowa, the network hasn’t done much of anything to improve Internet service in homes or businesses.

The Iowa Communications Network is off-limits to ordinary Iowans.

David Roederer, director of the Iowa Department of Management said the idea was never to let the state serve as an Internet provider, a fact that makes life wonderful for the state’s dominant telecommunications companies. But the decision has left rural Iowa in a broadband ditch.

“The vision was this would be something available in all 99 counties […] It would connect the schools and institutions in places that the private marketplace wasn’t,” Roederer told the Sioux City Journal. “We don’t buy satellite or cable television for everybody.”

But that is like arguing the state should only build roads and bridges for a select handful of government-owned or institutional vehicles, not those driven by the ordinary taxpayers who paid for it.

Too many politicians remain completely out-of-touch with what broadband really represents: critical infrastructure for the 21st century digital economy.

The city of Bettendorf only did marginally better, eventually allowing businesses on their fiber network while keeping local residents away. Capacity is hardly a problem: Bettendorf’s fiber network did little more than help the city manage traffic signals before they admitted a few business customers.

Butch Rebman, president and chief operating officer of Central Scott Telephone told The Quad City Times consumers don’t need fiber broadband speeds.

Apparently someone does. Bettendorf’s fiber network is now being upgraded to provide up to 10Gbps service, but it remains off-limits to local residents, raising questions about the commercial vendor that only sells to area businesses.

City administrator Decker Ploehn claims businesses use more broadband than residential homes (a ‘fact’ not in evidence), and that there were already companies specifically targeting the residential market. Those providers have performed so well that local citizens petitioned to access to the city network instead.

Think about that for a moment. A significant number of Bettendorf residents in red state Iowa preferred buying broadband service from the government, not America’s worst-rated cable operator Mediacom. So much for proclaiming private companies always do it better.

Meanwhile in Illinois, local officials are hurrying to spend $15.6 million in federal taxpayer funds on the Central Illinois Regional Broadband Network — another institutional network designed for the exclusive use of schools, local governments, and hospitals.

…but not people and businesses.

Scott Genung, director of telecommunications and networking at Illinois State University says the network’s leaders never planned to compete or undersell what other broadband servers are providing. Instead, their plan is to deliver high-capacity, high-speed broadband to rural Illinois. But taxpayers who are paying for the network are being bypassed, even when the fiber cable supplying the service hangs on utility poles in their front yards. Apparently, for the rural consumer, DSL from the phone company is plenty good enough.

In the community of Normal local officials admit they, like everyone else, are currently stuck with very slow DSL service. But Normal city manager Mark Peterson is celebrating CIRBN’s potential benefit to 52,000 local residents — which include connecting local fire stations, municipal swimming pools and the local water plant.

While those uses may be beneficial,  none of them are likely to boost the digital economy of Normal. There will be no entrepreneurial development of new online businesses that require a higher speed network than the local phone company will provide. Only the most limited at-home tele-learning courses will be available, and no improvements in broadband are forthcoming for home-based businesses and telecommuters. Local residents will continue to drift along at whatever snail-speed service is on offer from private companies that see more profit investing in larger communities.

Although these networks provide measurable benefits to the institutional users they serve, the fact remains they can be obscenely expensive on a per-user basis. Since our tax dollars fund these networks at a time of budget-busting deficits, would it not make better financial sense to open these networks up for public use? If a local community decides they want to provide better service than the local phone and cable company utilizing these networks, why not let them? If a community does not want to spend the money but a neighborhood agrees to pay for connectivity and wiring, why not allow them?

Restricted-use institutional fiber broadband has too often resulted in vastly oversized networks that go underutilized. It is time taxpayers have the right to use networks that they paid to build, particularly in rural areas where the only alternatives are stonewalling phone and cable operators who charge top dollar for bottom-rated service, if they provide service at all.

Netflix has released figures for January ranking Internet Service Providers delivering the best viewing experience for viewing Netflix’s catalog of online video titles.

At the top is Google Fiber, which comes as little surprise considering Google provides 1,000/1,000Mbps service to its limited number of customers in Kansas City.

Suddenlink saw the greatest improvement. The mostly-rural and small city cable provider jumped five points in January’s ratings, scoring 3rd. Cablevision’s Optimum broadband service jumped ahead of three rivals to score second place.

Time Warner Cable and Cox remained in the middle, while AT&T U-verse demonstrated that the benefits of a fiber network end when the remaining copper wire to the customer’s home comes into play. U-verse performed only marginally better than the DSL services of independent phone companies like Windstream and CenturyLink. Frontier managed some minor improvement, now scoring 14th place out of 17.

The worst performers: DSL services from both Verizon and AT&T and Clearwire’s 4G WiMAX network, which scored dead last.

Stop the Cap! reader Paul writes to share his dilemma with AT&T U-verse:

I have had AT&T U-verse broadband for three years and although the company has a 250GB usage cap, they have a completely dysfunctional measurement tool. It has never worked. AT&T tells me I should not be concerned about my Internet use for billing purposes. It seems pretty clear to me AT&T’s -only- interest in capping usage is, in fact, for billing purposes. If you ask customer service about why AT&T caps wired usage, they claim it provides a better user experience for everyone. But nowhere does AT&T ask customers to consider what they are doing with their Internet accounts. If this was really about congestion, why not ask customers to conserve broadband resources?

With AT&T, one of the largest phone companies in the country, it was never about congestion and still is not. This is about money, pure and simple. Their usage meters don’t work right, their billing penalty is a huge $10 fee for 50GB of usage (why not $0.20 per gigabyte?), and their service has tons of capacity once it gets onto their fiber network at the link up the street. Who are they kidding?