Bruce

Charging usage-based pricing and monetizing your use of the Internet is key to enhanced profits and higher earnings as broadband becomes the key product for cable operators.

That is the view of Robert Bruce, president of the communications division of Rogers Communications, eastern Canada’s largest cable operator.

“[The Internet] is the key to the future of our business, hence monetizing the increased bandwidth usage will rapidly become the future across all our businesses, whether it is wireless or wireline,” Bruce told a financial analyst in response to a question about ongoing Internet rate increases from the cable company. “There are clearly some unlimited offers out there and we think they are fairly shortsighted as the Internet is the future of the business.”

Bruce believes there is plenty of room for future rate increases, especially as the cable company boosts Internet speeds and ends network traffic management, improving the perceived quality of Rogers’ Internet service.

“We have significantly enhanced the value of this product and over time it is our plan to monetize it accordingly,” Bruce explained to the analyst. “The price increase that you receive in the mail would have just been one step in the monetization that we think will continue as Internet service becomes the backbone product in the home.”

Rogers admits it will continue to lower the bar on customers with usage caps and higher broadband pricing.

Ironically, Rogers is currently offering its own unlimited use plans, primarily in response to a competing offer from Bell.

Dr. Michael Geist, a broadband industry observer and law professor at the University of Ottawa notes competition is the only thing keeping Rogers’ pricing and usage caps in check.

“If the Bell offer disappears, so will the Rogers plan,” Geist predicts. “With limited competition, favorable pricing plans will come and go, with executives anxious to increase prices and implement usage caps. The only solution is sufficiently robust competition that all players are continually forced to improve service and keep pricing in check to retain and attract customers.”

Rogers may tell the public Canadian broadband is robustly competitive but the company signals something very different to the investor community. With OECD data already showing Canada among the ten most expensive countries for broadband service in the developed world, Rogers is primed to raise prices even higher as it further tightens Internet usage caps.

Rogers’ improvements in its broadband service do not necessarily correspond with the company’s pricing power. As consumers increasingly consider Internet access an essential utility in the digital economy, Rogers is finding it can set prices as it likes and regularly increase them without effective subscriber backlash. With most Canadians buying service from the cable or phone company, if both providers avoid a pricing war, investors will be able to extract OPEC-like earnings from the barely regulated service.

Providers routinely claim rate increases are tied to costly upgrades, but Rogers’ own financial statements and comments to shareholders say otherwise. The cost to deliver broadband service in Canada is dropping, but the price charged for Internet access and the overlimit fees collected when customers exceed their usage limit will continue to rise as a growing percentage of company revenue now depends on broadband service.

Time Warner Cable is once again raising its broadband prices, reflecting the fact Internet access continues to be a “must-have” product with room to raise the cost without driving customers away.

On average Time Warner Cable customers in the northeast with broadband-only service will pay $3 more a month starting Aug. 9, according to public relations manager Joli Plucknette-Farmen. Customers now pay $51 a month for 15/1Mbps service. After the increase, customers will pay $54.99, not including the modem rental fee. In early 2010, customers were paying $39.95, around $15 less.

Time Warner Cable’s new broadband prices will range from $34.99 a month for Lite 1/1Mbps service to $104.99 a month for 50/5Mbps service.

The rate hike will likely spread across the rest of Time Warner Cable’s systems around the country over the summer and fall.

Plucknette-Farmen said the increase will help the company offer the best possible broadband service.

Not every customer will immediately face higher pricing. Customers on promotional pricing packages will remain unaffected until those offers expire.

Because Time Warner Cable increasingly prices its services on a customer-by-customer basis, assessing the full impact of rate changes is extremely difficult because customers can pay dramatically different rates for the same services. A Time Warner Cable customer paying regular prices for standalone Internet service will find their neighbors with bundled service packages paying much less and those with promotional/customer retention deals paying the lowest rates of all.

In 2012, Stop the Cap! wrote a guide for Time Warner Cable customers to negotiate a better deal for themselves. Readers report the method still works.

Just as in the United States, the promises made by satellite broadband providers are turning out to be too good to be true.

In Great Britain, commercial broadband providers have argued satellite Internet access is a better solution for rural residents because wiring out-of-the-way places is “too uneconomical.”

Despite promises of 20Mbps service from satellite operators, customers report actual speeds are well below 1Mbps at the times they actually want to use the Internet. Unlimited access is also increasingly a thing of the past, replaced with usage caps of 50-60GB, with unlimited usage from 11pm-7am.

Providers deny any serious problems, pointing to speed test tools developed and released by the ISPs showing speeds are theoretically great. But browsing the public Internet suggests otherwise.

Avonline customers have a very active ongoing discussion complaining that £65 satellite broadband should work better:

For past three weeks, the service takes a dive in the evening, I thought this started about 7pm but having tried it earlier, it’s more like 5pm and today about 4pm. Speed tests provided by Avonline suggest I am getting 20/5Mbps but all other tests suggest between 1 and 2Mbps download and ?? upload. Often their own speed test stalls on the upload altogether or eventually returns a result of 0.1Mbps or similar.

As a family, we come home from work and school and want to watch things online at a time to suit us as terrestrial TV is a bit dire. The service is unavailable at this key time and remains down until 1 or 2 am.

Unlimited customers paying £75 per month have been told they are “abusing” the service and that it has effectively run out of capacity and is oversold.

“Unfortunately we cannot do much about the bandwidth on the shared network during peak hours,” came one response from Tooway, another satellite ISP that recently disclosed it will only sell unlimited service to 20,000 customers and wants assurances customers are using their accounts for private, family, and personal use only before the overnight usage caps come off.

*-Only applies at 3am.

But even then, some customers say pervasive speed throttling accomplishes the same thing as a strict cap – it keeps customers away from the service. One Tooway customer shares his dissatisfaction:

The Fair Use policy posted by ToowayUK has only just been introduced. Prior to this there was just boilerplate language that boiled down to “we can do anything at any time” (not that different from the FUP language of any other ISP).

Of course what is really a joke here is that the “unlimited” service actually has a 60GB cap – the traffic management policy works just the same way if we go beyond 60GB as when a capped customer goes beyond their cap.

ThinkBroadband notes satellite ISPs may also have insufficient capacity back on earth, but later reports show satellite bandwidth capacity is also a growing issue:

The KA satellites carry many transponders, but these are usually spread out to cover the whole of Europe meaning that for any particular satellite there may only be 3 or 4 transponder beams for the whole UK, and as a transponder has a throughput limit of 475Mbps this could prove a bottleneck. Oddly the fact that the speed probe tests gave good results, suggests the issue may not be satellite capacity but rather the purchased amount of capacity from the ground station to the Internet at large.

Comcast’s discounted Internet service for the poor forces customers to jump through hoops to get the service and considers protecting revenue from existing customers more important than expanding the service to reach those who need it most.

Those are the views of John Randall, program manager at the Roosevelt Institute/Telecommunications Equity Project.

For $9.95 a month, those that can meet some complicated eligibility requirements and prove they are not existing Comcast customers are qualified for 3Mbps broadband service with a 768kbps upload rate. It represents a $30 savings off Comcast’s regular price — a considerable amount of revenue that Comcast is effectively forfeiting for the benefit of poor families who live in Comcast’s footprint.

Except Comcast isn’t actually “out” that much at all, argues Randall.

Of the 2.6 million households eligible for Internet Essentials from Comcast, only 150,000 have taken Comcast up on their offer. That represents only 5.8 percent of those eligible. In Comcast’s hometown — Philadelphia — there are just 3,250 families hooked up, which represents only 3.3 percent of those eligible.

Randall calls the program ineffective and says the onerous requirements to qualify (and re-qualify) are such a hassle, few families bother. What is worse, those families already sacrificing something else in their lives to get broadband service for the benefit of their school-age children are punished for their noble efforts — they are completely ineligible for Internet Essentials regardless of income or need because they are existing customers. Randall argues Comcast carefully constructed the program more as a public (and government) relations exercise than a charitable endeavor. Comcast zealously protects its existing revenues from being cannibalized by customers switching to the discount plan.

Some might argue that Comcast is managing the program with costs in mind, but Randall dismisses that as nonsense.

“Within its footprint (which spans 50 million households in 39 states– 45 percent of the US population), the cost for Comcast to connect additional households is vanishingly low,” says Randall. “With no additional network build needed, Internet Essentials represents almost pure profit for Comcast.”

Randall claims Comcast’s gross profit margin on its broadband service is around 95 percent where the network has already been built. At that rate, Comcast’s cheap Internet still delivers almost $18 million in additional income, and there is a promise of much more as soon as a customer defaults on a bill, misses a qualification deadline, or their children graduate. When any of these occur, Comcast will reset customers to regular rates.

“While most observers might assume that the program is an act of corporate generosity, it was originally conceived in the fall of 2009 as a way to turn a profit by offering slower connections to certain low-income households,” said Randall.

“These plans were temporarily tabled at the direction of Comcast lobbyist David Cohen, who knew that this type of program would be attractive to the FCC and thus useful as a bargaining chip. When the time came for negotiations over Comcast’s $13.75 billion takeover of NBC Universal, Comcast was able to offer something it was planning on doing anyway. In the end, the FCC was able to claim credit for forcing Comcast to implement a program to combat the digital divide, while in reality no arm-twisting was needed,” he added.

One of the biggest challenges of America’s digital divide is making affordable Internet access available. Cable companies in particular are prepared to wring even more money from their Internet customers in the form of higher prices, new and increasing equipment rental fees, and consumption billing schemes that charge more for less service.

But that isn’t the story elected officials receive from Congress.

The potential public relations benefits far outweigh any costs to offer the service. Randall notes Comcast had delivered the Internet Essentials message to over 100 members of Congress and more than 2,000 state and local officials. To broaden its outreach effort, Comcast also engaged leading intergovernmental associations at the state and local level such as the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and various other organizations of elected officials. On top of that, Comcast says that the impressions generated by media coverage of Internet Essentials launch events earned it “millions of dollars” worth of media.

What message don’t these public officials hear?

America is subjected to local broadband monopolies and duopolies that guarantee the lack of competition for high-speed Internet access.

“It earns Comcast good press while distracting regulators and public officials into thinking that changes in policy aren’t needed and that digital divide problems will somehow work themselves out on their own as a result of corporate generosity. In the long run, Comcast Internet Essentials will do no more than contribute to the delay of much-needed regulation,” concludes Randall.

Wisconsin Republicans are outraged AT&T and CenturyLink are not able to charge taxpayers and students more than double the price for broadband in schools and libraries.

Wisconsin taxpayers and students could face substantially higher taxes and tuition fees because Republicans prefer AT&T and other commercial Internet Service Providers deliver high-speed Internet access to schools and libraries, even if prices are more than double those charged by the existing non-profit, cooperative provider.

Last week, under growing pressure and criticism from Republican legislators and the potential threat of private litigation, the University of Wisconsin withdrew its contract with WiscNet, fearing a costly backlash that could interrupt the school’s educational and research missions.

Republicans in the state legislature forced a competition ban in the 2011-2013 budget directly targeting WiscNet, an institutional broadband provider serving 300 public schools, state agencies, and 15 of 17 Wisconsin library systems. They consider WiscNet a direct competitive threat to the business interests of AT&T and other telecommunications companies.

The loss of business from UW has raised questions about the ongoing viability of WiscNet’s operations, and has encouraged critics to continue the campaign against public broadband.

“Isn’t it a sad day when political pressures from telephone company lobbyists keep us from working together,” asked WiscNet Wire. “It’s frustrating, yet fascinating.”

Many of WiscNet’s members report that “going private” for Internet connectivity will more than double their costs. This was confirmed by Wisconsin’s Legislative Audit Bureau, which reported a member paying WiscNet $500 month for Internet service would face bills of $1,100 or more if provided by AT&T or other telecom companies.

Republicans have complained WiscNet’s close ties to the state university system and its efforts to resist the Walker Administration’s efforts to dismantle the institutional fiber network’s current operational plans border on unethical.

Cheerleading the Republicans are providers including AT&T and CenturyLink, both filing their own respective complaints (AT&T) (CenturyLink). Joining them is the Wisconsin State Telecom Association (WSTA), which represents Wisconsin’s independent rural phone companies like Frontier Communications.

William Esbeck, WSTA’s executive director, has been on WiscNet’s case for years. He said WiscNet’s recent victory in a procurement process to supply Internet service across the UW system was proof the bidding was rigged.

“The UW simply created a ‘request for proposals’ that matched what WiscNet was already doing,” said Esbeck.

Republican legislators joined Esbeck threatening hearings and unspecified repercussions for the “civil disobedience” on display by university officials attempting an end run around the Walker Administration.

“There have been repeated, flagrant violations of state law — intentional deception at a level that I just am flabbergasted by, even today — and no accountability for it whatsoever,” said state Rep. Dean Knudson (R-Hudson), at a recent budget committee hearing. Among Knudson’s biggest campaign contributors: the WSTA and CenturyLink.

In a May 23 letter sent to UW System president Kevin Reilly, state Sen. Paul Farrow (R-Pewaukee) accused UW officials of “mismanagement and unethical behavior,” saying they’d shown disdain for the legislature and contempt for the laws and directives it passed, reported Bill Lueders, the Money and Politics Project director at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

Among Farrow’s biggest campaign donors: TDS Telecom and the WSTA.

Both Farrow and Knudson are also known members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate financed group that produces anti-public broadband draft legislation for introduction by the group’s members. Both CenturyLink and AT&T are sponsors of ALEC, AT&T in particular.

The Walker Administration has given the UW System an extra six months to sever all ties with WiscNet.