Dish Network is planning to introduce 5Mbps nationwide satellite broadband service after its partner company EchoStar successfully launched the satellite that will host the new service.

Bloomberg News reports Dish will introduce the service in late September or October this year and intends to market it in areas where DSL or cable broadband has been spotty or unavailable.

Dish’s broadband service will use its new EchoStar 17 satellite launched in July. The satellite can technically support download speeds up to 15Mbps, but Dish wants to start with slower speeds to maximize the number of potential customers the satellite can accommodate, which the company estimates can be as high as two million.

With an estimated 8-10 million Americans currently bypassed by broadband, Dish may have little trouble establishing a substantial customer base, if the service works as advertised. Past satellite broadband ventures have traditionally offered slow speeds and draconian “fair usage policies” which strictly limit how much customers can use the service.  The services are not cheap either.

EchoStar’s vice president of investor relations Deepak Dutt said the newest generation of satellite broadband services offer much faster service and higher capacity by an order of magnitude. But average usage per subscriber has also risen, providing a challenge for satellite broadband providers that may lack the capacity to sustain high bandwidth content, especially streaming video.

Dish already offers up to 12Mbps satellite broadband through a marketing partnership with Carlsbad, Calif.-based ViaSat, Inc. But ViaSat’s service is limited to certain geographic regions in the United States. Dish insiders say their service with EchoStar will compliment, not replace their deal with ViaSat, and will expand coverage nationwide.

The combination of broadband and satellite television may make it possible for Dish to sell new bundled packages that can compete with phone and cable companies. Dish also claims to be waiting for Federal Communications Commission approval to use its wireless spectrum to offer mobile Internet and phone service, which could also be included in a future bundled offer.

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)

Despite repeated provider claims that usage-based billing will save customers money on their broadband bill, new evidence shows the exact opposite is true. Broadband prices for metered broadband across Canada are rising, not falling, and now outpace pricing in the United States.

The reason for more costly broadband? Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and so-called usage billing, which providers have uniformly implemented on both wired and wireless broadband in most parts of the country.

A new study from PricewaterhouseCoopers finds Canadian consumers now pay 3.9% more for broadband than American consumers do, and prices are expected to increase another 9% by 2016 — from the average $38.43 paid last year to $45 for usage-capped broadband.

Usage billing has been profitable to Canadian providers like Rogers and Bell, with broadband revenues up 17.5% last year as consumers adopted higher priced plans to accommodate their monthly usage.

Canadian providers have also systematically reduced or “re-tiered” usage allowances, engineering service upgrades for customers trying to avoid costly overlimit fees.

“Canada’s broadband fees were lower than those in the United States in 2007-09, but as a result of large increases during the past two years, the average Canadian broadband subscriber paid more in 2011 than the average U.S. subscriber did,” says the report.

Bandwidth caps have allowed Canadian providers to now charge premiums to high bandwidth users, according to the report. Rising use among all broadband customers “should continue to put upward pressure on pricing.”

In the United States, providers are having a more difficult time implementing similar usage caps and overlimit fees, primarily because of consumer-organized backlash.

AT&T’s march towards monetizing data usage has just gotten a twist with a new idea from the company to develop “a toll-free wireless Internet” where app makers foot the bill for your data usage.

First appearing in a Wall Street Journal article, John Donovan, AT&T’s executive for network and technology, suggested the new “app maker pays”-option will ease consumers’ fears about using high bandwidth apps that eat into AT&T’s data allowances.

“A feature that we’re hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivalent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage,” Donovan said at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. “It’d be like freight included.”

Critics of the idea pounced immediately, calling AT&T’s latest plan the realization of former CEO Ed Whitacre’s dream that content producers “can’t use [AT&T’s] pipes for free.”

Harold Feld, legal director at consumer group Public Knowledge thinks he’s got AT&T’s number:

Just to be clear, here is what AT&T Wireless is doing:

1. Create an artificial scarcity with an arbitrary bandwidth cap for its wireless services;

2. Charge users who exceed this arbitrary bandwidth cap;

3. Claim to do consumers a favor by letting the ap developer pay for exceeding the arbitrary bandwidth cap.

Which cuts to the heart of the problem in wireless, IMO. The argument in favor of a wireless capacity cap is, in a nutshell, “wireless is different from wireline because the physics imposes bandwidth limitations.” In the presence of these bandwidth limitations, we need a rationing scheme of some kind. Bandwidth caps are a neutral way of rationing and encourage app developers to write more efficient applications — thus improving the system overall.

The problem with this argument is it is impossible at present to determine just how true or false it actually is. I referred above to AT&T’s bandwidth cap as arbitrary. As far as I (or any outside observer) can tell, AT&T just selected a number and said “this is where we impose a cap.” You can buy a higher cap on a monthly basis, or can pay as you go above the cap in the form of overages.

AT&T has no worries about data tsunamis and "exafloods" when app makers or consumers are willing to pay more.

In fact, AT&T’s journey away from unlimited access to their wireless network is well underway.  Just two years ago, customers paid $30 a month for unlimited data on a smartphone.  Then AT&T ended “unlimited” access, imposing a 2GB usage cap on their most popular wireless data plan.  Now AT&T is looking to monetize its wireless traffic even further as customers grow more reticent about using high volume applications that could threaten one’s usage allowance.

Despite AT&T’s ongoing drumbeat America is in the midst of a wireless bandwidth crisis, the ‘national emergency’ is over as soon as someone — anyone other than AT&T — opens their wallet and agrees to pay more for data traffic.  Then the sky is the limit.

The logical inconsistencies of a company crying for more mobile spectrum concurrently envisioning new ways to monetize high volume wireless traffic (eg. large file downloads, online video, etc.) exposes the hollow center of  Internet Overcharging.  The “exaflood”/data tsunami only seems to threaten AT&T’s network when content producers and/or consumers are not paying extra for every kilobyte.

As Stop the Cap! has argued before, AT&T is increasingly  in the bandwidth shortage/rationing business.

The company underspent on its network, balked at the price tag to upgrade capacity (but had no trouble planning to pay substantially more to acquire T-Mobile), and now complains it has to charge higher prices because the federal government blocked its merger and the FCC won’t hand over additional spectrum.

There are two approaches to fat profits in the broadband business these days:

1. 

   A Proud Member of: Team Rationing for Profit

   Team Innovation: Believe in your product and nurture its growth with upgrades, innovation, and pricing that guarantees an enthusiastic and loyal customer base;

2. Team Rationing for Profit: Leverage your dominant market power by rationing your product, charging higher prices for less service.  Monetizing usage controls traffic growth, reducing the expense of upgrading your network. With limited competition, even alienated customers face few alternative choices and a steep early termination exit fee.

Based on statements from AT&T’s Donovan, AT&T is a firm believer in the latter.

“There’s a view of an entitlement that says that any impediment to riding over the top of our network is inherently wrong, is un-American,” Donovan said, adding AT&T needed to find creative ways to deal with and profit from surging mobile-data use.

Feld thinks it says something else.

“This new plan is unfortunate because it shows how fraudulent the AT&T data cap is, and calls into question the whole rationale of the data caps,” Feld said. “Apparently it has nothing to do with network management.  It’s a tool to get more revenue from developers and customers.”

Phillip "Wants a High Fiber Diet" Dampier

Believe it or not, there are still some people out there who believe wireless broadband, as it exists today, is the future of high bandwidth communications in North America.  Forget DSL, forget cable, forget fiber optics, they say.  Technology like 4G and WiMax are “far superior” and cheaper.

To be fair, most of the people advocating the technology Sprint is in the process of abandoning have a vested interest in stopping fiber broadband projects.  That is because while Verizon continues to sit on its hands expanding its excellent FiOS fiber-to-the-home service, some of the most aggressive fiber projects in the country are being built by your local town, city, or village government.  It’s community-owned broadband, by and for the people in your own area.  Large telecom interests that have always refused to deliver fiber service (or pretend to by using the word ‘fiber’ while not bringing a single strand to your home) have it in for potential competitors that are willing to provide the advanced fiber technology they won’t.

So why aren’t big phone and cable companies providing this level of service?  In a word, money.  Their shareholders don’t like the initial cost of deploying fiber to the home service, even though the technology is superior to what reaches your home today, is infinitely expandable without stringing new cables across town, and can support money-making applications developers and providers have not even dreamed of yet.  With a pervasive lack of competition, there is nothing to overcome Wall Street’s conclusion that fiber doesn’t deliver fast enough profits to justify the initial expense.

When you take Wall Street out of the equation, especially in the telecom sector, the math works very differently.  While the phone and cable company is probably telling you “no,” companies like Google are saying yes in Kansas City.  So are municipally-owned rural co-operative phone and cable companies.  Communities deciding broadband is too important to leave to the phone companies that deliver half their residents 1-3Mbps DSL and call it a day are saying yes to fiber optics as well.

Overseas, fiber networks are being built in countries in Eastern Europe where the economics would never make sense by Wall Street standards, yet residents (and perhaps more importantly new digital economy businesses) are now getting Internet speeds of 100Mbps or better.  The next countries that could import good-paying American jobs might be Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria.

So what does it take to adapt to this reality in North America?  Providers that are willing to make a long term investment in fiber broadband — one that may take a few extra years to pay back, but will generate dividends like increased employment, capacity to provide better, faster service, more reliable networks, and earning a piece of the action powering North America’s new digital economy.  If they won’t listen, tell your elected officials to support policies that promote additional competition and back community broadband expansion that can make all the difference between 3Mbps DSL and 100Mbps fiber.

[flv width=”640″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fiber is Better.flv[/flv]

Watch and share this video with friends and family to educate them about the infinite possibilities of fiber optic broadband and learn why it is superior to usage-capped wireless, slow speed DSL, satellite fraudband, or lopsided cable “High Speed Internet” broadband that delivers high speed in only one direction. (3 minutes)