(Image courtesy: FCC.com)

The Department of Justice today announced it had achieved a settlement with Verizon and four major cable operators regarding their efforts to establish a cross-marketing agreement to sell each other’s services, sell wireless spectrum, and develop a technology research joint venture.

Despite criticism that the deal represented a strong case for marketplace collusion that would reduce competition between Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home service and cable company offerings, the Justice Department signed off on a series of deal revisions it defends as protective of competition and consumers. Among them is a time limit for the cross-marketing deal and restrictions on where Verizon Wireless can cross-market cable company services.

“By limiting the scope and duration of the commercial agreements among Verizon and the cable companies while at the same time allowing Verizon and T-Mobile to proceed with their spectrum acquisitions, the department has provided the right remedy for competition and consumers,” said Joseph Wayland, acting assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “ The Antitrust Division’s enforcement action ensures that robust competition between Verizon and the cable companies continues now and in the future as technological change alters the telecommunications landscape.”

The proposed settlement forbids Verizon Wireless from selling cable company products in areas where its FiOS service is available. That is a major reversal from the original agreement between Verizon and Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox and Bright House Networks which restricted Verizon Wireless from marketing FiOS. Under the original deal, Verizon Wireless stores could effectively only sell cable company products, never FiOS. The Justice Dept. will still permit Verizon Wireless to sell cable service, but supposedly not at the expense of the fiber service.

The agreement also specifies that Verizon Wireless can sell cable service in areas where it currently markets DSL only until the end of December 2016, renewable at the sole discretion of the Justice Dept. Antitrust lawyers were concerned Verizon would be unlikely to expand its FiOS network or improve DSL service in areas where it could simply resell cable service.

Justice lawyers also put a similar time limit on the technology joint venture, making sure any collaborative efforts don’t impede competition.

The settlement also approves of Verizon’s proposed acquisition of spectrum from the cable companies and T-Mobile USA’s contingent purchase of a significant portion of that spectrum from Verizon.

The deal has been signed off by Justice lawyers, the companies involved, and the New York State Attorney General’s office. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski also weighed in separately with a positive press statement about the agreement.

But consumer advocates remain concerned that the deal does nothing to enhance competition and allows the companies involved to enjoy a new era of competitive detente from a stable and predictable marketplace. Verizon still has little incentive to innovate its DSL service, free to pitch cable service in those areas instead, and without robust changes to the marketplace where FiOS is sold, cable operators have little to fear from Verizon’s stalled FiOS rollout and recent price increases.

Parts of the agreement may also prove confusing to consumers. An important concession prohibits Verizon Wireless from selling any cable service to a street address that is within the FiOS footprint or in any neighborhood store where Verizon FiOS is available. Consumers likely to receive broadly marketed special offers that offer bundled discounts could be frustrated when they are prohibited from signing up because of where they live.

This concession also requires both Verizon and cable operators collaborate to share information about where Verizon FiOS competition exists currently and where it will become available in the future, so that unqualified customers are not sold cable service in violation of the agreement. That represents valuable information for cable operators, who will receive advance notification that customer retention efforts may be needed in areas where Verizon’s fiber optic service is scheduled to become available for the first time.

Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to Lawrence M. Frankel, Assistant Chief, Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed settlement upon finding that it is in the public interest.

Phillip Dampier

While tech fans in Kansas City rejoice over 1Gbps broadband for $70 a month, the average broadband user will think long and hard about the prospect of paying $840 a year for broadband at any speed.

That is why Google Fiber-delivered broadband in and of itself is not a cable/phone company-killing proposition.

We too easily forget our friends and neighbors that seem clueless satisfied with their 3Mbps DSL account from AT&T that they were sold with a phone line package for around $60 a month. Web pages slow to load and constantly-buffering multimedia? In their world, that means “the Internet is slow today,” not their provider.

Phone and cable companies have the internal studies to back up their claims that price matters… a lot. Those who treat the Internet as a useful, but not indispensable part of their life are going to be a tough sell at $70 a month. In fact, it is my prediction many future income-challenged and older customers will splurge on Google’s free-after-paying-for-installation 5Mbps service, satisfied that speed is currently “good enough” for the web browsing, e-mail, and occasional web video they watch on their home computer.

That is why Google was smart to offer the ultimate in “budget Internet.” Free after the $300 installation fee (thank goodness for the interest-free budget $25 payment plan) is far better than $20-25 a month for 1-3Mbps service many cable and phone companies offer their “light users.” It also brings Google’s fiber into the customer’s home, a perfect way to up-sell them later or offer other services down the road.

But the smartest move of all was Google’s very-familiar quasi-triple play package price point — $120 for broadband and television service (they really should bundle Google Voice into the package and cover the phone component for those who still want it). With the phone and cable company charging upwards of that amount already for after-promotion triple-play service, the sticker shock disappears. It’s no longer $70 for broadband, it’s $120 for everything. That is a much easier sell for the non-broadband-obsessed.

It also provides Google a critically-important broadband platform to roll out other services, including those that will appeal to customers who don’t have the first clue what a megabit or gigabit is all about. They don’t really care — they just want it to work and deliver the services they want to use hassle-free.

For Google Fiber to prove a profitable proposition, the search engine giant has to:

• Find a way to manage the huge infrastructure and installation costs, especially bringing fiber lines to individual homes. Middle-mile networks with fiber cables that string down major roadways, but ultimately never connect to individual homes and businesses are far less expensive than providing retail service. Google’s $300 installation fee is steep, but manageable with payments and even better when customers commit to a multi-year contract to waive it;
• Offer the services customers want. An incomplete cable television package can be a deal-breaker for many customers who demand certain sports or movie channels. Although younger customers may not care a bit about cable television service, they also may not be able to afford the $70 broadband-only price. Google will need to attract families, and most of them still subscribe to cable, satellite, or telco TV. They are also the most grounded customers, an attractive proposition for a company dealing with high infrastructure expenses that will take years to pay off. It’s harder to cover your costs selling to a customer still in school and likely to move after they graduate in a few years;
• Sell customers on the hassle and inconvenience of throwing out the incumbent provider in favor of fiber, which will require considerable rewiring. It is one thing to express dissatisfaction with the local cable or phone company, it is another to take a day off from work to return old equipment and have unfamiliar installers in your home to provision fiber service. Some don’t want the hassle or lost time, others won’t switch until they get around to cleaning their messy house or apartment before they invite Google inside;
• Deliver an excellent customer service experience. Google’s current level of support for its web-based services would never be tolerated by a paying broadband/cable customer. Google will have to learn as they go in Kansas City, but first impressions can mean a lot;
• Expansion to get economy of scale. It is highly likely Google Fiber is a marketplace experiment for the company, and one it will study for a long time before it decides where to go next. Google’s “beta” projects are legendary and long, and if their fiber experiment does prove successful (or at least potentially so), the company will need to expand it rapidly to enjoy the kinds of vendor discounts a super-player can negotiate.

Verizon FiOS is the largest fiber to the home network in the United States. Their “take rate” of customers willing to sign up for the service has not exactly put incumbent cable companies into bankruptcy, even with $300-500 reward debit rebate cards and ultra-cheap introductory rates. Motivating subscribers to switch has never been as successful as theory might suggest. But Verizon has also shown other providers they can hard-negotiate significant discounts on hardware and equipment, and price cutting sessions have become ruthless.

At least Google has set its targets at reasonable levels. Only between 5-25% of eligible families have to commit to signing up for service in each “fiberhood” for Google to proceed with service rollout in that immediate area. That’s a realistic target with all of the factors necessary to deem the project a success.

Indianola, Iowa has relied on community-owned and non-profit Indianola Municipal Utilities (IMU) to deliver gas and electric service to the community of 15,000 for more than 100 years. Now customers in south-central Iowa will soon be able to purchase broadband service from the utility as it prepares to open its fiber-to-the-home network to residential customers.

Partnering with Mahaska Communication Group (MCG), IMU will be in the triple-play business of phone, broadband, and cable television by October.

Iowa’s public broadband network has served institutional and large commercial users since being installed in the late 1990s. But residential services were not available until recently.

Wholesale service comes primarily from Iowa Network Services via a SONET protected fiber optic ring, with redundant access going from and to Indianola. Multiple direct connections to Tier 1 backbone providers also ensure reliability and speed.

MCG intends to compete against cable providers like Mediacom and phone companies that include CenturyLink and Frontier Communications. MCG will market three broadband services in Indianola:

• 25/25Mbps – Available for as little as $5/month when bundled with a triple-play package including phone and television service;
• 50/50Mbps – Targeting homes with multiple users.  Download a 2 GB movie file in 1 minute;
• 100/100Mbps – For multiple users with high bandwidth demands and business customers. Download a 2 GB file in 30 seconds.

The triple play package, including 25/25Mbps broadband, TV and phone service will sell for $99.95 a month. That is the ongoing rate, not an introductory teaser that expires after 6-12 months. Standalone broadband customers can purchase 25/25Mbps for $39.95 a month. Upgrading broadband speed will be fast and affordable: $5 a month extra for 50/50Mbps service, $10 a month more for 100/100Mbps service.

Mediacom charges considerably more for its broadband service, which has vastly slower upstream speeds and usage caps. CenturyLink locally provides 1-3Mbps DSL service for many customers in the area.

MCG promotes its forthcoming service as a vast improvement over what phone and cable companies sell locally:

• The network is locally owned and operated and their employees live and work in the region. MCG does not use offshore call centers for customer support;
• MCG has no contracts, term commitments, or early cancellation penalty fees;
• No usage limits or speed throttles — and the speeds are fast in both directions;
• No introductory prices that leave customers with a higher bill after 6-12 months.

The municipal utility says it welcomed other Internet Service Providers, including CenturyLink and Mediacom, to sell services over their public fiber network. Neither provider has shown any interest.

[flv width=”640″ height=”450″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Indianola Iowa Fiber 3-29-10.flv[/flv]

Introducing Indianola, Iowa and its new community-owned fiber to the home network, an important upgrade for a community 15 miles from Des Moines. (4 minutes)

Otero

When a former labor leader suddenly starts advocating for the interests of AT&T and other super-sized telecommunications companies, even as AT&T’s unionized work force prepared to strike, the smell of Big Telecom money and influence permeates the air.

Jack Otero, identified in the Des Moines Register as “a former member of the AFL-CIO Executive Council and past national president of the AFL-CIO’s Labor Council for Latin American Advancement,” penned a particularly suspicious love letter to deregulation that might as well have been written by AT&T’s director of government relations:

[…]Industries — like broadband Internet — are thriving and creating innovations. Tossing a regulatory grenade into these businesses could wreck markets that create value for consumers and jobs for workers.

The United States is one of the most wired nations in the world. More than 95 percent of households have access to at least one wireline broadband provider, and the vast majority can connect at speeds exceeding 100 Mbps. And monthly packages start as low as $15. That means more families can go online to improve their job skills, look for work or help the kids with their school assignments.

More choices and higher speeds — the signs of a vibrant market — are the product of private investment, not public dollars. Internet service providers have invested over $250 billion in the last four years alone. This has created roughly half a million jobs laying fiber-optic and coaxial cable.

But some squeaky wheels are demanding heavy-handed regulations that would move our broadband Internet to the European model, where taxpayers have to subsidize outdated networks with slow speeds. Some want broadband providers to be required to lease their networks to competitors at discounted prices — as they do in Europe. But lawmakers in both parties agree that this policy, tried in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, failed miserably.

Others argue that broadband Internet providers should not be able to impose a small surcharge on the tiny percentage (less than 1 percent) of consumers who download hundreds of movies and tens of thousands of songs every month — effectively the data usage of a business. They say these fees discriminate against online video companies like Netflix. But that’s silly. More than 99 percent of users can watch plenty of Apple TV or Netflix without approaching the lowest data allotment. Without tiered pricing plans, the rest of us would have to underwrite these super-users.

Okay then.

Otero’s Fantasy World of Broadband sounds great, only it does not exist for the vast majority of Americans. Are most of us able to connect at speeds exceeding 100Mbps?

If you happen to live in a community served by a publicly-owned broadband provider Otero effectively dismisses, you can almost take this fact for granted.

Some of America’s most advanced telecommunications providers are actually owned by the public they serve in dozens of communities small and large. EPB Fiber, Greenlight, Fibrant, Lafayette’s LUS Fiber, among others, deliver super-fast upload and download speeds at very reasonable prices while the giant phone and cable companies offer less service for more money.

The only major telecommunications company with a wide deployment of fiber-to-the-home service is Verizon Communications.

You cannot easily buy residential 100Mbps service from Time Warner Cable, AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, FairPoint, or a myriad of other telecom companies at any price, unless you purchase an obscenely expensive business account. From the rest, 100Mbps service typically sets you back $100 a month.

Otero’s quote of affordable $15 broadband is not easy to come by either. It usually requires the customer to qualify for food stamps or certain welfare programs, have a family with school-age children, a perfect payment history, and no recent record of subscribing to broadband service at the regular price.

The only people who believe America is the home of a vibrant market for broadband service are paid employees of telecom companies, paid-off politicians, or their sock-puppet friends and organizations who more often than not receive substantial contributions from phone or cable companies. The fact is, the United States endures a home broadband duopoly in most communities — one cable and one phone company. They charge roughly the same rates for a level of service that Europe and Asia left behind years ago. Broadband prices keep going up here, going down there.

Simply put, Mr. Otero and actual reality have yet to meet. Consider his nonsensical diatribe about the impact of the “heavy-handed” 1996 Telecommunications Act, actually a festival of mindless deregulation that resulted in sweeping consolidation in the telecommunications and broadcasting business and higher prices for consumers.

Otero is upset that big companies like AT&T and Verizon originally had to open up their networks in the early 1990s to independent Internet Service Providers who purchased wholesale access at fair (yet profitable) prices. Those fledgling ISPs developed and marketed third-party Internet service based on those open network rates. Remember the days when you could choose your ISP from a whole host of providers? In some markets, this tradition carried forward with DSL service, but for most it would not last.

The telecommunications industry managed to successfully lobby the government and federal regulators to change the rules. Phone companies did not appreciate the fact they had to open their networks for fair access while cable operators did not. So in 2005, the FCC allowed both to control their broadband networks like third world despots. Competitors were effectively not allowed. Wholesale access, where available, was priced at rates that usually guaranteed few ISPs would ever undercut the cable or phone company’s own broadband product.

The lawmakers who believed open networks represented awful policy were almost entirely corporate-friendly or recipients of enormous campaign contributions from the telecom companies themselves.

So which market is actually on the road to failure?

The LCLAA couldn’t do enough to help AT&T swallow up competitor T-Mobile USA.

The American broadband business model is a firmly established duopoly that charges some of the world’s highest prices and has rapidly fallen behind those “failures” in Europe.

In the United Kingdom, BT — the national phone company, is required to sell access at the wholesale rates Otero dismisses as bad policy. As a result, UK consumers have a greater choice of service providers, and at speeds that are increasingly outpacing the United States. Nationally backed fiber to the home networks in eastern Europe and the Baltic states have already blown past the average speeds Americans can affordably buy from the cable company.

Even Canada requires Bell, the dominant phone company, to open its network to independent ISPs selling DSL service. Without this, Canadians would rarely have a chance to find a service provider offering unlimited, flat rate service.

Otero’s final, and most-tired argument is that data caps force “average” users to subsidize “heavy” users. In fact, as Stop the Cap! reported this week, that fallacy can be safely flushed away when you consider the largest ISPs pay, on average, just $1 per month per subscriber for usage, and that price is dropping fast. The only thing being subsidized here is the telecom “dollar-a-holler” fund, paid to various mouthpiece organizations who deliver the industry’s talking points without looking too obvious.

The Des Moines Register omitted the rest of Mr. Otero’s industry connections. We’re always here to help at Stop the Cap!, so here is what the newspaper forgot:

• Mr. Otero is a board member of Directors of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute (USHLI), a group funded in part by AT&T and Verizon;
• He is the past president of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, a group that enthusiastically supported the anti-competitive merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA;

Mr. Otero has a side hobby of penning nearly identical editorials with largely these same broadband talking points. One wonders what might motivate him into writing letters to the Des Moines Register, the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Gainesville Sun, the Star-Banner, and the Ledger-Inquirer.

Otero may have a case for plagiarism, if he chooses to pursue it, against Mr. Roger Campos, president of the Minority Business RoundTable (the top cable lobbyist, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association is labeled an MBRT “strategic partner” on their website). Campos uses some of the exact same talking points in his own “roundtable” of letters to the editor sent to newspapers all over the place, including the Ventura County Star, the Leaf Chronicle, and the Daily Herald.

An Australian Internet Service Provider that caps customer usage and charges extra if you want to exceed your allowance has taken to the company’s blog to argue that usage caps are fair, even as their customers start departing for competitors offering unlimited service.

iiNet chief technology officer John Lindsay defends the company’s usage-based billing scheme, which charges more than $30 a month for DSL service with a 20GB usage cap.

“Service providers in favour of a two-speed Internet argue that there is limited capacity on the Internet and that those using the most bandwidth by delivering rich content or transferring large files should pay more,” wrote Lindsay. “In Australia, we have a different business model for the Internet. ISPs operate on a pay-as-you-go model, which also shapes the consumer market. Here, consumers can choose a plan with upload and download quotas to fit their usage and pay according to their needs – the more you use, the more you pay.”

Lindsay

Unfortunately for Lindsay, an increasing number of Australians don’t agree and are switching to providers like TPG and Dodo, which have become enormously popular selling flat rate, unlimited broadband service.

Lindsay warns that if Australia adopts the flat rate service model popular in the United States, a Net Neutrality debate will be sparked as customers discover ISPs are unable to handle the traffic and start prioritizing their own content.

“Operating a quota based business model ensures we’re not responsible for policing activity online – our customers pay a fair price for the services they receive and we can focus on more important issues than where their traffic is coming from,” Lindsay argues. “While US providers argue about a two-tier system, our priority is to provide awesome customer service and ensure our customers enjoy a seamless experience online, whatever it is their Internet connection means to them.”

Of course, Lindsay’s characterization of the American broadband landscape is fact-challenged, because most broadband providers have plenty of capacity to deliver content. Some simply want to earn a new revenue stream from content producers for managing that traffic, even though paying customers already compensate them for that service.

Australia’s data caps have traditionally been onerous because of the higher costs and limited capacity of underseas cables that handle traffic inside and out of the Pacific Basin. But Australians have complained about the low caps for years — so loudly that the Australian government has made construction of a super-capacity fiber to the home network a national priority for the country as international capacity also increases.

Customers were not fooled by Lindsay’s rhetoric.

“This is nonsense,” wrote Lachlan Hunt. “Australia’s model of capped usage limits with higher prices for higher caps, and of ISPs including yourself offering free zones where such data doesn’t count towards the monthly quota is exactly the problem that Net Neutrality advocates aim to deal with. It treats data from companies who choose to partner with you to get their content in the free zone as privileged compared with everyone else, and similarly with other ISPs.”

Hunt complains iiNet’s caps were “ridiculously low” and interfered with his career in the web development industry. Today he lives and works in Europe, where usage caps are increasingly a thing of the past.

“I’m really hoping that you will eventually wake up and realize that usage caps go together with Non-Neutral internet, and with the introduction of the [national fiber to the home network], which brings both higher speeds and capacities, you should be able to lower prices, abolish usage caps and offer a fair model with pricing tiers based on the chosen speeds.”

Stop the Cap! also addressed Lindsay:

[…] We have learned dealing with this issue for several years that ISPs are terrified of their own argument if carried to its fullest extension. If iiNet wants customers to fairly pay for only what they use, they should be billing them on exactly that basis. A flat charge per gigabyte — no allowances/quotas, no penalty overage fees or speed throttles, no wasted, unused quota at the end of the month.

But they don’t dare. If you charged $1/GB (still a crime-gouge compared to the wholesale price), those customers currently paying $30 for up to 20GB service might suddenly be paying $5-15 instead.

[…] If you asked your customers whether they prefer unlimited service or your current cap system, most will clamor for unlimited, even if it costs them a bit more, just for the peace of mind of never facing overage charges or speed throttles.

This argument has never been about capacity. It’s about what it always is about: money.