Commercial providers and their pals in the legislature will go to any length — even lie — to protect their cozy duopoly, charging high rates for poor quality service.

That fact of life has been proven once again in the state of Tennessee, where an effort to expand EPB Fiber — a community owned fiber network — to nearby communities outside of Chattanooga, was killed thanks to a lobbying blitzkrieg by Big Telecom interests.

The “Broadband Infrastructure for Regional Economic Development Act of 2011,” supported by chief sponsor House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, (R-Chattanooga), is dead after telecom industry lobbyists unleashed a full court press to stop the legislation from passing into Tennessee law.

The bill would have permitted EPB and five other municipal electric services that have or are developing broadband infrastructure to expand service up to 30 miles outside of their service area, where appropriate, to meet the needs of businesses or consumers.

With the legislation, EPB could bring its 1 gigabit fiber broadband service to Bradley County, home to a future Amazon.com distribution center.  Amazon already operates a huge warehouse in Hamilton County, where it was able to obtain EPB’s super-fast broadband service.  According to Harold DePriest, EPB President and CEO, Chattanooga’s fiber network is helping sell the city as a high-tech mecca for business, where broadband connectivity is never a problem.

DePriest says EPB’s network has been a proven job-creator, and Amazon.com’s ongoing expansion in the region is just one example.

Chattanooga residents and businesses now have the fastest broadband service in the southern United States, at prices often far less than what the competition charges.  Expanding EPB’s success to other parts of Tennessee represents a major threat to the likes of Comcast and AT&T, the state’s dominant telecom companies.

EPB provides municipal power, broadband, television, and telephone service for residents in Chattanooga, Tennessee

Lobbyists fought the bill off with some whopper tall tales about the “horrors” of community broadband.

Some Republican lawmakers friendly to Comcast and AT&T’s point of view have bent their philosophical positions on government and regulation into logic pretzels.  One has even called for EPB to be regulated by Tennessee’s Regulatory Authority, a body many state Republicans feel is about as helpful as a tax increase.

Despite that, there was Rep. Curry Todd (R-Collierville) at a recent hearing telling fellow lawmakers EPB and other community providers should be regulated by the TRA to protect ratepayers from the “loss of tremendous amounts of money coming out of taxpayers’ pockets.”

Does Todd think Comcast and AT&T should also be regulated?  Of course not.  Nobody should protect consumers from AT&T’s and Comcast’s relentless rate hikes.  Todd cannot even get his facts straight.

After 19 months, EPB has 25,500 customers — far ahead of its projections, and is well ahead of its financial plan, according to DePriest.  So much for being a “financial failure.”

Rep. Curry Todd has trouble with the facts, but has no problem counting campaign contributions amounting to more than $12,000 from Comcast, AT&T, the state cable lobby and other telecom companies

On cue, the same cable industry that tried to sue EPB Fiber out of existence is now comparing the Chattanooga fiber network to Memphis Networx, a disastrous effort by that city to build a public-private wholesale fiber optic network only business and institutions could directly access.  It’s hard to earn critical revenue from consumers when you run a wholesale network.  Even harder when you build it just before the dot.com crash.

EPB sells its service directly to business and consumers, so it gets to keep the revenue it earns, paying back bondholders and delivering earning power.

Stop the Cap! reader John Lenoir notes some of the local tea party groups are also being encouraged to oppose EPB’s efforts to expand.

“Just as Americans for (Corporate) Prosperity is lying about North Carolina’s community broadband, these corporate front groups are also engaged in demagoguery over EPB in Tennessee,” Lenoir says.  “In addition to the usual claims EPB represents ‘socialism,’ the locals are also being told EPB wants to use their fiber network to run smart meters, which some of these people suspect are spying on them or will tell people when they can and can’t use their electric appliances.”

Lenoir in unimpressed with the telecom industry arguments.

“AT&T’s opposition is downright laughable, considering this company raised its rates on U-verse and will slap usage limits on every broadband customer in a few weeks,” Lenoir adds.  “We thank God EPB is here because it means we can tell AT&T to stick their usage limits and Comcast can take their overpriced (and usage limited) broadband somewhere else.”

Lenoir thinks EPB should embarrass both AT&T and Comcast, but since neither company feels any shame in his view, it’s more about business reality.

“Why do business with AT&T or Comcast and their gouging ways when you can sign up for something far better and support the local community,” Lenoir asks.

AT&T spokesman Chris Walker complains that the phone company is somehow faced with an unlevel playing field in Tennessee, despite the legislature’s repeated acquiescence to nearly every AT&T-sponsored deregulatory initiative brought before it.  The company wants a “level playing-field” statute like the very-provider-friendly (it should be — it was written by them) one currently before the North Carolina state Senate.

Comcast questions whether anyone needs 1 gigabit service, but the cable company’s Chattanooga vice president and general manager Jim Weigert told the Times Free Press it could deliver 1 gigabit service… to business customers… assuming any asked.

DePriest questions that, noting Comcast tops out its broadband service at 105Mbps, and only for downstream speeds.  Comcast upload speeds top out at 5Mbps.  EPB can deliver the same upstream and downstream speeds to customers and do it today.

Rep. Avila with Marc Trathen, Time Warner Cable's top lobbyist (right) Photo by: Bob Sepe of Action Audits

Over the course of an hour this afternoon, North Carolina’s Senate Finance Committee discussed the implications of H.129, legislation proposed, written, and lobbied by Time Warner Cable and some of their phone friends across the state.

On hand was Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable), who tried to turn her competition-busting bill into an emotional epiphany about jobs and the benefits private providers bring to a state now ranked dead last in broadband.

Pass me a tissue.

Nobody doubts Ms. Avila is looking out for the interests of the state’s big cable and phone companies.  Unfortunately for her district, she isn’t looking out for the broadband interests of her constituents, forced to pay some of America’s highest prices for low end service.

As Avila pals around with lobbyists from Time Warner Cable and the state’s cable trade group (more lobbyists), consumers in places like Orange County in north-central North Carolina see themselves on broadband maps but find they cannot actually get service from any providers.

As the hearing progressed into two-minute statements from parties interested in the outcome, the disconnect between well-paid lobbyists and corporate front groups like Americans for Prosperity with elected officials and consumers on the ground surveying a bleak broadband landscape said a lot.

Cable companies and their lobbyist friends sought to portray community broadband projects as fiscal failures — one suggested that was a global reality, despite the fact many countries have embarked on nationwide broadband plans that directly involve government to help build infrastructure.  The global leader in broadband, South Korea, is a perfect example.  With collaboration between the government and the private sector, Korea will have 1 gigabit broadband service across much of the country within a few years.  That’s because South Korea does not believe broadband is simply a convenience, they see it as a social and economic necessity.

The other side sees it as a private moneymaker that can charge rapacious prices because it’s not an essential service.

Shining a bright light on this reality was Americans for Prosperity, who delivered their own speaker at today’s hearing.  As the group complained about government ‘overreach’ providing incentives in the 1930s for rural power and phone service, it quickly became apparent there are some in this debate willing to let rural Americans sit in darkness, without a phone line (much less broadband), to make a free market point: if private companies can’t or won’t deliver the service, you don’t deserve it and shouldn’t have it.

One wonders where this thinking will ultimately take us.  Will community gardens be opposed for taking vegetable profits away from private corporate farms?  Flea markets on public fairgrounds should be banned because they unfairly compete with eBay, Dollar Tree or a supermarket?  The irony is these “small government conservatives” are all for big government legislation to keep potential competitors at bay.  For them, broadband cannot be a locally-determined community project — just something you buy from a company that may or may not have an interest in serving you.

Just ask the gentleman from Orange County, who appeared as the final speaker.  He spent his two minutes complaining about faulty cable and phone company-provided broadband coverage maps that claim service where none exists.  After spending money on equipment, he learned CenturyLink had no interest in actually providing him with DSL.  In fact, when he asked both the phone and cable company when that might change, the impression he was left with was “never.”

Whether members of the state legislature understand the irony of CenturyLink spending a fortune making sure Orange County never delivers the broadband service the company won’t provide itself is something voters across the state will need to impress on them.

They should be told, in no uncertain terms, to oppose H.129 and leave community broadband alone in North Carolina.

Powell

Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell has been hired as America’s top cable industry lobbyist — taking over as president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

Powell’s tenure on the Commission started during the Clinton Administration after President Clinton signed the 1996 Communications Act into law, which brought sweeping deregulation and industry consolidation.  Powell’s appointment as one of two Republican commissioners came with an agenda for deregulation and competition.  Powell believed free markets were best equipped to manage telecommunications in the United States.

His regulatory record impressed President George Bush, who appointed him chairman of the FCC during his first term.  Powell’s service at the Commission was marked by good times for the telecommunications industry, which was rapidly consolidating even as it added new customers.  Broadband was a rapid growth industry and getting service to consumers was a priority.  Powell’s interest in broadband often walked over the interests of others regulated by the Commission.  Powell was a major proponent of the now-forgotten “broadband over power lines” concept, which alienated broadcasters and amateur radio operators because the technology used unshielded power lines which often reduced much of the AM and shortwave radio dial to a cacophony of digital noise where it was attempted.

Powell’s record was consistently pro-provider except in one area — he was a strong advocate of Net Neutrality, going as far as to fine Madison River Communications for blocking VoIP telephone service in 2005 – the first time the concept of Net Neutrality was enforced.

The NCTA is the cable industry's biggest lobbying group.

Later, he laid the foundation for a flawed mechanism to partially enforce Net Neutrality under an FCC policy that classified broadband as an “information service,” not a “telecommunications service.”  It was this policy that was the subject of a lawsuit by Comcast which objected to the policy framework as untenable and lacking in authority.  A DC Court of Appeals agreed and overturned the policy, setting the stage for the 2010 fight for Net Neutrality.

During the start of Bush’s second term, Powell left the FCC and quickly assumed membership on the Board of Directors at Cisco, an equipment manufacturer that also sells the theory of the “zettabyte era,” where a great wave of Internet usage could create Internet “brownouts.”  Cisco and other manufacturers have also closely aligned themselves with the large telecommunications companies who are among their best customers.

Powell today serves as “honorary co-chair” of the industry front group Broadband for America, perhaps America’s largest corporate astroturf telecom group supporting broadband policies favorable to the industry that pays for their operation, while purporting to represent consumer interests.

Kyle McSlarrow is the outgoing head of the cable lobby.

His assumption of leadership at the NCTA, replacing Kyle McSlarrow (who is headed to Comcast to run their DC lobbying operation) — a strong advocate of Internet Overcharging — is likely a natural fit for the cable industry agenda, with the exception of Powell’s “tarnished record” of supporting Net Neutrality.  But his anti-regulatory, pro-provider credentials go unquestioned by most in the industry.  The congratulatory well-wishes have come pouring in since the announcement earlier today:

Matt Polka, American Cable Association: “The American Cable Association congratulates former Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell on his appointment as NCTA’s new president and CEO. Everyone in the independent cable community wishes Michael the very best in his new position, and we look forward to working with him on the issues that are important to both large and small cable operators.”

Brian Roberts, Comcast: “We are thrilled that Michael Powell has accepted the position as CEO of NCTA. As a former FCC Chairman and advisor to Providence Equity, Michael brings unprecedented government and business experience to his new position. Michael is respected by the leaders of both the Senate and House, Republicans and Democrats, as well as the Administration and the business community. The cable industry is fortunate to have him as the new leader of our trade association.”

Gordon Smith, Nat’l. Assn. of Broadcasters: “NAB salutes the NCTA for its outstanding choice of former FCC chairman Michael Powell as its new president and CEO. I got to know Michael well during my tenure on the Senate Commerce Committee, and always found him to be thoughtful, engaging and a tremendous public servant. Though NAB and NCTA do not always agree on every issue, we look forward to working with Michael in the months ahead on public policy issues where we might find mutual agreement.”

The revolving door never stops turning as regulators take jobs with the industries they used to regulate.

Among consumer groups, Media Access Project and Public Knowledge tried to start off on a good note.  Andrew Schwartzman from MAP has a long history disagreeing with Powell during his time at the FCC, but still calls him a friend and looks forward to sparring with him in the future.  Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge said their group hopes he will “help the association realize the transition to a broadband economy will take many forms, as consumers wish to exercise choices of online services and service providers.”

Free Press was in no mood to ingratiate themselves with Powell.  Craig Aaron, Free Press Managing Director, issued a statement affirming this was indeed good news for the cable industry.

“If you wonder why common sense, public interest policies never see the light of day in Washington, look no further than the furiously spinning revolving door between industry and the FCC.

Former Chairman Michael Powell is the natural choice to lead the nation’s most powerful cable lobby, having looked out for the interests of companies like Comcast and Time Warner during his tenure at the Commission and having already served as a figurehead for the industry front group Broadband for America.

During his time as a public servant, Chairman Powell once dismissed the notion of a digital divide as no different from the Mercedes divide that afflicted him — after all, he said, not everyone who wants a Mercedes can have one.

Thanks in no small part to the policies he pursued at the FCC and to the cable lobby’s unyielding fight against any real competition in the broadband market, the digital divide is still with us. But today we can finally say, at least in Michael Powell’s case, that the Mercedes divide is closing.”

Here we go again.

You always know when a new year has arrived when another North Carolina legislator files a Big Telecom industry-written bill attacking community-owned broadband.

This year, the laughably-named “Act to Protect Jobs and Investment by Regulating Local Government Competition With Private Business” comes courtesy of Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Wake County), a former manager of the conservative think tank John Locke Foundation.

H.129 is remarkable for its legislative micro-management, coming from someone who claims to oppose big government meddling.

Among its requirements:

• Demands a public accounting for every community broadband network;
• Limitations on service to strict city boundaries;
• Prohibits contractual agreements with apartment and condo building owners that mandate municipal service for individual residents;
• Bans advertising and “promotion” of community-owned broadband networks on Public, Education, and Government access channels;
• Shall not price any component of its service below cost;
• Requires payment of a special tax equal to the amount of local property taxes and/or fees normally exempted for local government enterprises;
• Requires permission through an extended hearing process to win permission before delivering service to any area deemed “unserved”;
• Demands a laundry list of pre-conditions before obtaining permission to shop for financing.

Avila

Avila doesn’t mind putting government all over the backs of community-owned networks if they happen to compete with her friends at AT&T, Time Warner, and CenturyLink.

Let’s review this exceptionally provider-friendly piece of protectionist legislation.

First, Avila’s demand for an open accounting of community broadband projects provides a treasure trove of business intelligence for any competitor.  They can demand to open the books and gain critical subscriber information — what residents pay for service, who gets the service, and how much it costs to provide.  That’s pure gold for targeted marketing campaigns to win back customers with special offers municipal providers are banned from offering.

We’re calling a foul ball because Avila’s “fair and level playing field” doesn’t have room for fair play.  Private providers get to keep the secrets community-owned network are forced to reveal.  That, by design, puts municipalities at a competitive disadvantage and could help drive them out of business.  Remember, these networks are financed by privately obtained bonds, not taxpayer dollars.  Shouldn’t any such provider have the right to keep its business strategies secret?

Second, if banning mandatory service for renters and condo owners is such a great idea, why does Avila only limit it to community-owned networks?  The record is clear — private providers are increasingly signing agreements with property owners mandating cable television fees for residents.  Apparently Avila’s concept of fairness doesn’t include the actual companies found guilty of raising the rent.

Third, Avila bends over backwards for her cable and phone friends by tying the hands of municipal providers who want their networks to be commercially successful.  Time Warner has no problem injecting endless promotions for its own services not just on a handful of channels, but on virtually every channel on the lineup, often during nearly every commercial break.  Can municipal networks ban advertising from AT&T and Time Warner?  Of course not.  And the definition of “promotion” specified in Avila’s ad ban is vague.  If a town government meeting talks up the success of a community-owned network, has Avila’s law been broken?  Apparently censorship by government mandate is a-OK as long as it doesn’t target her Big Telecom friends.

Avila’s ban on setting pricing below cost is another giveaway to Time Warner and AT&T, who routinely deliver retention and new customer promotions that could be temporarily priced below cost to secure or maintain a customer relationship for a limited period of time.  Of course, Avila doesn’t require either company to open their books to find out exactly what it costs companies to provide these special pricing packages.  No municipal provider seeks to price service at a rate that puts the project out of business.  Time Warner Cable has been accused of delivering below-cost retention pricing to departing customers in Wilson, where GreenLight has been poaching the cable company’s customers for more than a year.  Avila’s hand-tying provision allows some companies in the marketplace to keep pricing flexibility while the municipal provider is forced to price service according to a state-dictated formula.  John Locke would be turning over in his grave if he heard about this planned economy-pricing.

Rep. Avila can certainly no longer claim to be for low taxes, because her bill would effectively raise them for community-owned networks.  Again, since these projects are almost always funded from private bond markets, not public tax dollars, slapping complicated tax formulas on municipal providers while continuing to permit special tax break deals for private companies (such as “payment in lieu of taxes” or special tax breaks/grants for Time Warner in return for job creation) shouldn’t work for most small government conservatives.  Shouldn’t they support lower taxes for everyone?  Instead, Avila seeks to hamper community network business models by punitively sticking them with taxes she would otherwise oppose for commercial providers.

Avila’s support for smaller, less regulatory-minded government must also be called into question with this bill’s ridiculously complicated regulations for serving unserved areas of the state (which also grants a special window to private providers to protest, which they will certainly do in just about any area of the state even partially suitable for a future project).  Her bill even demands 60-day delays, custom-tailored to allow industry lobbyists to gin up opposition and demagogue projects.  Since a commission will be involved in the decision making process and has to take into account opposition from private providers, all of the benefits of Avila’s legislation flow to the cable and phone industry, none to community-owned networks or individual consumers that will ultimately benefit from better service at lower prices.

Avila's idea of a level-playing field.

Avila destroys her own “level playing field” argument in language within her own bill:

“The city or joint agency making the application to the Commission shall bear the burden of persuasion.”

In other words, Avila offers a “level playing field” with an 11-foot electrified barbed wire fence surrounding it.  Unfortunately, municipalities won’t be the only ones shocked by Avila’s cable and phone company protectionism.

Ordinary consumers in communities like Wilson, exempted from the relentless annual rate hikes from Time Warner because of the presence of a municipal competitor won’t get to keep the savings if Avila has anything to say about it.  She wants you to pay full price for your cable service, and pay higher prices year after year.

Her claim that the legislation will somehow “protect jobs and investment” is specious at best.  Time Warner has not exited Wilson or Salisbury — two cities with a community-owned competitor.  In fact, Time Warner is on record welcoming competition.  In reality, these companies simply don’t welcome new choices from those providers that will actually deliver savings and better service to customers.

This anti consumer legislation brought to you by Time Warner Cable...

The cable industry’s flagellation against projects like GreenLight and Fibrant flips between calling them financial boondoggles not worth bothering about to unfair competition that will harm private investment.  AT&T’s protests, in particular, ring the most hollow.  This is the same company that wants deregulation to make it easier for new players like themselves to enter the marketplace.  Their U-verse service enjoys the benefits of statewide video franchising, which removes accountability to local governments.  Yet this same company lobbies for increased bureaucracy and regulation for some of their potential competitors.  Avila is only too happy to oblige.

As with every other piece of legislation we’ve seen on this subject from North Carolina, it’s yet another custom-written favor to big cable and phone companies and an attack on consumer interests across the state.  Generous campaign contributions from the telecom industry pay off only too well when state legislators allow these companies to write the bills designed to protect their turf.

For Time Warner Cable, the costs associated with sending selected legislators and their families to a recent delicious BBQ event in sunny San Diego to attend a sham “conference” sponsored by a corporate front group shows there are plenty of favors to be had all around, just as long as you support the company’s legislative agenda.

...and AT&T

Fighting this year’s anti-consumer legislation will be tougher than ever.  For the first time in 112 years, the corporate friendly North Carolina Republican party won control of the General Assembly.  For many members, the free market can do no wrong and anything government touches is bad news.  Many will reflexively support Avila’s legislation.  But any underserved county in the state knows the truth about today’s broadband in rural North Carolina — if local communities can’t step up and deliver the service, nobody will.  For these representatives, Democrat or Republican, concern should run high that Avila’s bill assures these areas of years of high prices, poor or no service, and status quo protection designed to keep the market exactly as it is today.  Considering how poorly North Carolina stands in national broadband rankings, standing still should never be an option.

Studies find few surprises for cable and phone companies that pay for them.

Internet plans with term contracts, usage limits, and other pricing tricks are good for consumers and save them money over comparable unlimited usage plans.

That is the conclusion of a new study from the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten and James Riso’s “study,”Residential and Business Broadband Prices, Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants,” claims to have taken a comprehensive look at 25,000 plans offered across North America, Europe and the Pacific to make their case that a residential service plan with a 10GB monthly usage cap would save consumers 27 percent over the price of a comparable unlimited plan, as long as data use stays below the cap.  They also suggest additional savings can be had if consumers lock themselves into term contracts with service providers (most of which carry hefty fees to exit early.)

These results suggest that the unlimited data plans typically offered by most U.S. wireline broadband providers may not be optimal for many consumers. The details of capped plans matter, and how an individual user is affected depends on the base price, allowed data usage, and consequences for exceeding the cap. Nevertheless, because capped plans are—all else equal—cheaper than unlimited plans, many consumers, particularly the low-volume users, are likely to pay less for broadband with data caps than they would for plans offering unlimited data transfer.

Wallsten and Riso make much of AT&T’s recent decision to end unlimited usage for wireless broadband, suggesting that consumers are saving money with new, low-use plans over the company’s old unlimited pricing.  The authors claim close to 70 percent of iPhone users consume less than 200 MB per month, which is the cap for AT&T’s cheaper data plan.

But the authors concede that usage is growing — rapidly in the case of online video, which sets the stage for consumers saving money today, but facing serious overlimit charges on their bills tomorrow:

Some analysts, however, remain concerned that these plans make video streaming impractical given the bandwidth it consumes, could eventually cost consumers more as they use their wireless devices more intensively, and generally make it less likely for wireless to become a viable substitute for wireline broadband. To be sure, while Figure 3 shows that the vast majority of users consume small amounts of data today, it also shows per user mobile data consumption growing quickly, so the number of people who exceed the caps could increase significantly in a relatively short period of time.

Major U.S. wireline providers have not yet introduced metered pricing successfully, though, as shown above, it is common in other countries. An experimental metered pricing plan by Time Warner Cable garnered strong reaction, prompting one group to demand that Congress ―investigate ongoing metered pricing practices to determine the impact on consumers. Some in Congress did, in fact, hold hearings on the plans. In response to this backlash, Time Warner Cable canceled its experiment.

Despite the political reaction, all consumers are not inherently worse off or better off with metered pricing. Low-volume users are likely to be better off under metered plans and high volume users worse off. The net effect on any given consumer depends on his data use, the base price, how much data the base price allows, the price of data when exceeding the cap, and how much he would have paid for an unlimited plan.

Wallsten and Riso also admit several parts of their study are “incomplete,” and “lack data.” We would also include the facts they ignored whether consumers prefer unlimited plans, how customers would feel about a bill with overlimit fees attached, or whether the usage cap levels the authors note in their study are adequate.  They also completely ignore the critical issue of bandwidth cost trends and their relationship to consumer pricing.

But of course they would, considering the same providers who want these pricing schemes are paying the costs for the study.

Welcome to the world of Hired Gun Research.

Wallsten, in particular, has been singing the same cap-happy tune for several years now, churning out the same industry-financed conclusions about broadband.  Back in 2007, he delivered a piece trumpeted by the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute — two groups notorious for parroting corporate-friendly talking points.  Back then it was about Internet overloads and supporting Internet toll booths for “congestion pricing” after Comcast got caught secretly throttling broadband customer speeds.

Dave Burstein of DSL Prime notes most consumers don’t like caps, lock-in contracts, or speed throttles.

“Policymakers should normally assume that imposing caps generally results in negative consumer welfare. The small efficiency gains don’t come close to making up for a second rate Internet,” Burstein writes. “Everyone is better off with a robust, unthrottled Internet. It allows for an important form of video competition and market access for innovative new net offerings. It’s a better experience for the user and hence more people will be connected, a good thing.”

In this latest study, the two authors completely ignore some very important facts:

• Who sets the pricing for unlimited and usage-capped broadband?  Providers.  Do consumers save money from usage limited plans because of decreased provider costs passed along to consumers or pricing schemes that artificially inflate unlimited broadband pricing to drive customers to “money-saving” limited plans that teach usage restraint or expose consumers to dramatic overlimit fees?

• What are the trends for wholesale bandwidth costs and how does that trend comport with industry pricing schemes that have increased broadband pricing in the United States?  An honest study would reflect these costs are dropping… dramatically, and would introduce the very real question of whether unlimited broadband is a problem in search of a revenue-generating solution that would come from further monetizing broadband with so-called “consumption pricing.”

• What is the consumer perception of usage-limited broadband?  An important part of this equation is whether consumers want unlimited broadband service to be discontinued.  Every study to date not paid for by the providers themselves shows consumers are willing to pay today’s prices for the peace of mind they receive in not being exposed to limits or overlimit fees.  Wallsten and Riso touched on the consumer backlash, to a considerable part coordinated by Stop the Cap!, over Time Warner’s pricing scheme which would have tripled broadband pricing for an equivalent level of service.  But the authors charge on with their pro-cap conclusions regardless.

• Wallsten and Riso’s study only casually mentions the dramatically different paradigms of wireless and wireline broadband.  The former is delivered using technology that is recognized to have limitations that can only be seriously addressed with additional spectrum allocation that could take years to address.  The latter is already being mitigated by cable broadband technology upgrades, fiber optics, and improved backbone connections that often deliver much better access at a fraction of the price providers paid just a few years earlier.  Drawing comparisons between AT&T’s wireless broadband pricing and wireline broadband is dubious at best, especially since two companies largely control pricing and service for the majority of wireless customers in the United States.

• To prove its contention limited broadband service is “common in other countries,” the authors cite a Frequently Asked Questions article by Comcast trying to justify that company’s own usage cap to its customers.  So because Comcast’s PR department says it, it must be true.  In fact, in countries where usage capped broadband has been a traditional problem, consumer demand and public policy efforts have moved providers towards offering unlimited service plans to meet popular demand.  In fact, in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, governments have cited usage caps as a serious disadvantage to growth of the digital economy.  Consumers certainly agree.

Burstein adds:

Caps or other throttling measures are almost never imposed because of actual congestion problems (on large, wired networks.)  The caps would be at far higher levels if they were, like Comcast’s 250 gigabytes. The usual explanation is bogus. The typical consumer advocate believes the caps are about preventing competition to the carriers’ own video package. That’s certainly common, but so is price discrimination to yield increased potential revenues. As Scott notes, price discrimination in a strongly competitive market can work out well for all concerned. With strong competition, the benefits flow through to consumers. Since competition in broadband is typically weak, I believe it far more often has little consumer benefit but is good for company profits.

The authors conclude that despite limitations on data available, “The policy implications, however, are clear.  Policymakers should not immediately conclude that data caps and other pricing schemes that differ from traditional unlimited plans are necessarily bad.”  Instead, the authors suggest pricing trends should be evaluated over time to identify the effects on prices, investment and usage.

Although that’s a point Burstein agrees with, we feel there is substantial evidence this debate is based not on experimental pricing to find new customers, but rather a defensive position to respond to an inevitable public backlash against Internet Overcharging schemes.  Providers are desperately looking for excuses to further monetize broadband, cut costs, and deliver an effective impediment to online video competitors using broadband networks to deliver alternative, less expensive services to consumers.

Policymakers should listen to their constituents, who are more than comfortable with today’s unlimited broadband experience.  Nobody objects to experimental low usage plans with discount pricing, but not at the expense of ending or repricing existing unlimited service into the stratosphere.  Today’s broadband industry earns billions in annual profits, even as their costs decline.  Providers have done considerable profit-taking in the last few years from their broadband divisions, slashing upgrades and other investments to keep pace with traffic demands.