Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal’s not-living-in-the-real-world editorial page strikes again.

The commentary pages have always been the weakest part of the Journal, primarily because they screech pro-corporate talking points in contrast to the more balanced reporting in the rest of the newspaper.

Mr. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. decided to distort broadband reality (again) in yesterday’s edition with a glowing commentary on how wonderful broadband providers are in his piece, “Springtime for Broadband.” The only thing missing was a border in fine print labeled, “Sponsored by Verizon, AT&T, and your cable company.”

While your Internet bill is being hiked at the same time your provider is slapping usage limits on your connection, Jenkins dismisses consumer-fueled complaints about broadband price gouging, assaulting Net Neutrality, and overall poor customer service as part of Washington’s “broadband policy circus.”

Charges fly hourly that Google or some other company is guilty of gross insult to net neutrality (that sacred principle nobody can define). Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has introduced legislation to regulate data caps and Internet pricing. Law professor Susan Crawford, until recently a White House technology adviser, clearly craves to be America’s next go-to talking head on broadband. Lately she’s been everywhere calling for a crackdown on the competing “monopolists” who supply Internet access.

How dare they complain, decries Jenkins in a robust defense of the 21st century version of the railway robber barons.

Comfortably playing patty cake with provider-fed talking points from the industry echo chamber, Jenkins is ready for battle, facts or not.

But wireless providers have invested big money to deploy high-speed mobile networks, and fixed and mobile are inevitably beginning to compete. The latest evidence: Australia recently predicted that up to 30% of households will go the all-wireless route and won’t be customers for its vaunted national broadband project.

Jenkins

Not exactly. The basis for this 30% figure is the National Broadband Network’s own business plan, which warns –if– the company raised prices to a maximum theoretical level, up to 30 percent of its customers would rely on wireless instead… by the year 2039. That is 26 years from now. You have nothing better to do in the meantime, right?

In fact, conservative critics of the fiber network, some defending the big wireless cell phone industry in Australia, have suggested fiber optics is a big waste of money because “wireless is the future.”

That old chestnut again.

“Now you can present a bulletin without touching a typewriter … it’s just there on the computer system, you don’t need a reel to reel tape recorder. I’ve got a touchscreen in front of me. Back then I had a big cartridge deck,” said Ray Hadley on 2GB radio. “Can you imagine the advances in technology in the next 26 years? I can’t. I can’t comprehend it. By the time they finish the NBN, it could be superseded by something we don’t even know about.”

NBN Myths, a website set up to tackle the disinformation campaign from political and industry opponents has one simple fact to convey: “Despite what you may have read from certain clueless commentators, there is not a single country or telecommunications company anywhere in the world that is attempting to replace fixed networks with wireless in urban areas, or even planning to do so in the future.”

Which would you rather have?

Even Telstra, the biggest telecom company in Australia scoffs at such a notion, noting a growing number of its customers have both wired and wireless service, and they do not depend on one over the other.

Research firm Telsyte found that 85 per cent of Australians want speeds of 50Mbps or higher, speeds impossible for wireless to offer. In fact, when the NBN fiber network became available to Australians, almost half the current users as of October last year had chosen an even-faster 100Mbps plan option. But Australians also want mobile broadband, and they are signing up for that as well.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics notes the number of mobile broadband Internet connections also grew by around 40% in Australia between 2009 and 2010. But here is the Achilles heel of wireless: it cannot deliver the same speeds or capacity, and providers charge high prices and deliver low usage caps. As a result, the wireless industry has pulled off a coup: they earn enormous revenues from networks they have successfully rationed. The total amount of data downloaded over Australia’s wireless networks actually fell on a per user basis, despite the growth in customers.

Much of Jenkins’ commentary is spoon-fed by the industry-funded Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which produces industry-sponsored studies designed to tell America all is well in our broadband duopoly.

In the latest federal survey, the average broadband speed in America is up to 15.6 megabits per second, from 14.3 a year earlier. Nearly half of customers who six months ago made do with one megabit or less have now moved up to higher speeds. Since 2009, the U.S. has gone from 22nd fastest Internet to the eighth fastest.

The 15.6Mbps figure comes from the Federal Communications Commission. The statistics about our global speed ranking come from Akamai’s voluntary speed test program. Other studies rate America much lower. More importantly, while providers in the U.S. try to squeeze out more performance from their copper networks, other countries are laying speedier fiber networks that are destined to once again leapfrog over the United States. Most charge less for their broadband connections as well.

Jenkins also quotes the ITIF which touts 20 million miles of fiber were laid in America last year. But the ITIF, when pressed, will admit the majority of that fiber was “middle mile” connections, institutional or business network fiber you cannot access, or fiber to cell towers. Fiber to the home expansion has stalled, primarily because Verizon has suspended expansion of its FiOS network to new areas after Wall Street loudly complained about the cost.

Jenkins argues that if we leave providers alone and stop criticizing their growing prices, declining competition, and fat profits, the marketplace will suddenly decide to invest in network upgrades yet again.

“The day may come when even Verizon, which visibly soured on its $23 billion FiOS bet, rediscovers an urge to invest in fixed broadband infrastructure to meet growing consumer lust for hi-def services,” writes Jenkins.

Would Wall Street rather see providers invest in network upgrades or return profits to shareholders? Investment expansion in the broadband industry comes when a company senses if they do not spend the money, their business will be swept away by others that will. Cable broadband threatens telephone company DSL, so AT&T cherry-picked communities for investment in its half-measure U-verse fiber to the neighborhood network. Google Fiber, should it choose to expand, will be an even bigger threat to both cable and phone companies. Municipal fiber to the home networks upset the incumbent players so much, they spend millions of ratepayer dollars in efforts to legislate them out of existence.

Jenkins’ view that giving the industry carte blanche to do and charge as it pleases to stimulate a better broadband future is as fanciful as NBN critics in Australia suggesting fiber upgrades should be canceled in favor of waiting 20+ years for improved wireless to come along.

He even approves of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, calling it proper price discrimination in a “fiercely competitive” environment to defray a network’s fixed costs.

Do you think there is fierce competition for your broadband dollar?

Broadband’s fixed costs are so low and predictable, it literally calls out consumption pricing as just the latest overreach for enhanced profits. As Suddenlink’s CEO himself admitted, the era of big expensive cable upgrades are over. Incremental upgrades are cheap, the costs to offer broadband are declining, so it is time to reap the profits.

Jenkins closes with one recommendation we can agree with: “A low-tech way to stir up broadband competition would be to relax the regulatory obstacles to the actual physical provision of broadband.”

We can start by scrapping all the state laws the industry lobbied to enact that prohibit community-owned broadband competition. If big cable and phone companies won’t provide communities with the quality of broadband service they need to compete for 21st century jobs, let those communities do it themselves.

Residents of some cities north of Dallas are in the unique position of being able to choose between two phone companies and at least one cable operator for television, phone, and broadband service.

AT&T U-verse competes head to head with Verizon’s advanced FiOS fiber to the home service in communities like Allen, Plano, and Frisco, Tex.,  because of franchising agreements that opened to door for both companies to compete in overlapping territories.

The aggressor was Verizon, which took advantage of Texas’ statewide video franchise law to “overbuild” its FiOS fiber operation into AT&T’s landline territory, particularly in affluent Frisco and Allen.

Verizon got interested in the area in 2008 because of the population boom and housing growth in North Texas. It was easy to lay fiber in the large housing developments under construction. When the economy crashed along with the housing market during the Great Recession, Verizon’s investment and interest in expanding FiOS declined. Today, some areas have access to both Verizon FiOS and U-verse from AT&T, as well as at least one cable operator. Other areas, especially in unfinished planned neighborhoods, only have access to only one provider, AT&T.

Verizon’s decision to overbuild and face AT&T was a decision to target investment into some of the richest areas in the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex. Lower income areas often have neither service, as Verizon has focused efforts north of the city and AT&T U-verse is still not available in certain areas of downtown Dallas.

Scored first place again this year.

Consumer Reports has released its 2013 ratings for broadband service providers, showing independently owned cable companies and fiber optic broadband services from companies large and small deliver the best bang for the buck.

WOW, a small cable operator serving limited areas of the country yet again achieved first place in the ratings, appearing in the May issue. Verizon and Frontier’s FiOS fiber networks rated #2 and #5 respectively. (Frontier acquired its fiber to the home network from Verizon in 2009.)

In general, cable broadband service scored considerably better than telephone company DSL. Wireless broadband did more poorly, with Verizon’s 4G LTE network in 23rd place. Satellite scored worst, with both ViaSat and Hughes among the bottom three.

Verizon’s ongoing speed boosts assure the company of high ratings for its FiOS fiber network.

Mediacom once again took honors as America’s worst cable company. This year, it managed to score even worse than ViaSat, formerly WildBlue. Other bottom dwellers: FairPoint DSL, AT&T DSL, Frontier DSL, Charter Cable and Comcast Cable.

Compared with last year, few companies saw dramatic improvements or declines, despite glowing press releases touting improvements and investment.

Time Warner Cable, which scored 19th last year dropped to 20th place this year.

TDS, an independent phone company, managed a surprising 5th place score last year, despite only giving most of its customers DSL service. This year it is in eighth place.

Cablevision, which faced criticism for an overburdened broadband network last year managed almost no change in ratings this year, despite a measurable improvement in service.

Consumer Reports’ ratings are largely based on customer perceptions shared with the magazine in its annual questionnaire. CenturyLink may have delivered an improved experience for its customers between 2012 and 2013. Last year the phone company was in 18th place. This year it improved to 11th place.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Verizons Fios Gaining Market Share 3-4-13.mp4[/flv]

Bob Mudge, president of consumer mass business markets at Verizon Communications, Inc., has reaffirmed Verizon FiOS has no plans to implement usage caps or consumption billing on its fiber to the home broadband customers. Mudge also told Bloomberg News that broadband speed really does matter. Nearly 50 percent of FiOS customers have chosen to upgrade to at least 50Mbps service, which is priced just $10 higher than its entry-level 15Mbps plan. Mudge also talked about changes Verizon is making for FiOS installations in New York City. Twenty-five so-called “Magic” buses will replace 250 single technician trucks, transporting teams of technicians to small businesses and homes in and around the Big Apple.  (6 minutes)

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.”