From writing friendly reports defending Internet Overcharging to the FCC’s new chief economist — D.C.’s revolving door keeps on spinning for Professor Steven Wildman.

The Federal Communications Commission has proved that Washington’s revolving door enjoys perpetual motion with the announcement it hired a new chief economist who just three weeks earlier was peddling his findings favoring usage caps and consumption billing before a National Cable & Telecommunications Association gathering that paid for his research.

Professor Steven Wildman’s move from the cable industry’s go-to-guy for defending Internet Overcharging to a cushy new position at the FCC just weeks after shilling for the country’s largest cable industry lobbying group is shocking even by Washington’s standards.

Remarkably, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski praised this cheerleader of wallet-pilfering by saying “his deep economic expertise and problem solving abilities” are the perfect fit for an agency pressed with challenging initiatives – like charging you more for your broadband service and calling it “pro-consumer.”

There is no doubt Wildman has deep economic expertise — he has found success penning dubious research bought and paid for by an industry that expects his findings to echo their own talking points. His problem-solving abilities at fixing the facts around the cable industry’s agenda are also unquestioned.

But his research reports aren’t worth wasting your monthly usage allowance to download because they only tell part of the story.

At the December NCTA Connects event, Wildman was the darling of the cable industry echo chamber telling tall tales about the problems of broadband penetration in a country where providers enjoy up to 95 percent gross margins on broadband pricing:

“One of the key mechanisms through which positive welfare effects are realized is the crafting of lower-priced plans for users who otherwise might not take service, while users who have a more intensive demand for broadband are able to contract for more advanced services. We also showed that UBP has flexibility advantages for users whose data service needs vary over time. Because UBP creates an incentive to offer lower cost-lower usage plans to consumers who otherwise could not profitably be served at a unitary price, UBP can be an effective tool for promoting increased broadband penetration in the United States, a role that is enhanced by the fact that low price-low usage options reduce the financial risks to consumers thinking about trying broadband for the first time.”

“Tiered pricing also has benefits for the recovery of shared network costs and for network investment. Whereas investment decisions are also influenced by other factors, including the costs of extending networks, potential revenues, and overall economic conditions, we found that, other things equal, usage tiers will likely contribute to better cash flows and stronger incentives to invest in broadband plant, both to improve the quality of service for current customers and to extend networks into unserved and underserved territories.”

Wildman does not mention his cable benefactors earn a higher percentage of profit on broadband than oil sheikhs in the Middle East rake in charging $90+ for a barrel of oil. So it is unsurprising his analysis lacks one simple solution providers could use to differentiate their services and enhance broadband penetration: lower the price to compete. He also ignores the fact that true usage pricing would offer consumers a chance to pay only for what they actually consumed during a month, but those plans are not on offer anywhere.

Wildman ignores the real industry agenda: monetizing broadband usage to create even higher profits. The cable industry is well on its way, using the enormous market power enjoyed in the current monopoly/duopoly state of consumer broadband to preserve today’s near-extortionist pricing while trying to pick up customers currently unwilling to pay, charging for slightly discounted service that comes with a paltry usage allowance.

The meme that unlimited, flat rate broadband is somehow responsible for America’s broadband-unserved is a popular one at the FCC, where Chairman Genachowski has applauded usage based pricing as an “innovative” experiment that could change how broadband is marketed in the U.S. and promote its expansion.

While those in D.C. may live in a bubble populated by industry lobbyists, others do not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NCTA Connects The Pros and Cons of Broadband Peak Load Pricing Dec 2012.flv[/flv]

Message Confusion: While some in the cable industry still advocate usage pricing and caps as a matter of “fairness” and as a salve for peak time congestion, today’s advocates of usage-based billing appearing at a cable-industry event in December admit congestion is simply no longer a problem on wired networks. Sandvine’s Dave Caputo and Professor David M. Lyons of Boston College Law School dismiss the notion of congestion-based pricing only during peak usage, arguing congestion is no longer the real issue driving usage caps. That is why everyone must be subjected to higher priced, usage-capped broadband no matter what time of day they use the network. (3 minutes)

The inevitable outcome of “differentiated pricing” is charging consumers more to access popular websites, as is already the case in countries like Colombia.

Wildman argues that like car manufacturers that offer many different models ranging from basic to well-appointed with luxury extras, providers should be free to offer different types of plans to consumers.

Wildman’s auto analogy fails because consumers have more than a dozen different manufacturers to choose from, each making a range of different models. For broadband, the overwhelming majority of Americans have two choices: the cable and phone company. Unlike auto manufacturers that respond to consumer demand, broadband providers are hellbent on eliminating the overwhelmingly popular flat rate, unlimited option in favor of mandatory usage pricing and/or usage caps. It would be like telling auto-buyers that their Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, or Chevy Malibu no longer met the needs of manufacturers. Instead, you have one choice: the Toyota Yaris. But you can get it with heated leather seats, so what’s the problem?

Wildman also ignores the fact providers already sell different plans, based on different speeds. Customers with only light web use can select a cheaper, lower speed tier and never notice the difference. Heavier users buy up into premium speed tiers, paying higher prices to cover their additional usage and expectations of performance.

Providers have spent the last few years trying to justify adding a usage component to the pricing equation and Wildman is perplexed by public policy and consumer groups overwhelmingly hostile to plans that would leave current pricing largely intact and add an artificial usage cap. Considering who pays for his research, this is not too surprising.

Wildman’s style of “innovation” already exists in countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and in parts of Europe allowing everyone to witness what actually happens when these pricing schemes gain a foothold. Usage-based pricing has successfully boosted the profits of providers but has done nothing to expand rural broadband networks or offer customers big savings. When providers gorge on profits made possible in uncompetitive markets, the money goes straight into bank accounts or back to investors, not into capital spending to improve service or expand into areas deemed unprofitable to serve.

Customers despise usage caps so much that in Australia and New Zealand, the government has partially taken over rebuilding infrastructure with new fiber to the home networks and promoting international capacity expansion that will eventually banish usage pricing for good. In western Canada, Shaw Cable heard so much condemnation about usage caps during its listening tour, it greatly relaxed them. (The fact its biggest competitor Telus barely enforces their own caps didn’t hurt either.)

In the rest of Canada, independent ISPs have found a growing niche selling plans with considerably larger usage allowances or flat rate access. How did dominant providers like Bell (BCE) respond? They asked regulators to force the competition to stop selling flat rate service.

How Sandvine helps providers “innovate.” Alaska’s GCI implemented its draconian caps and overlimit fees using Sandvine’s Internet Overcharging technology.

Wildman’s report flies in the face of reality, and every so often the cable industry itself admits as much. Take the word of Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent, who runs a largely rural cable company that launched its own Internet Overcharging scheme:

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Unsurprisingly, that sentiment did not make it into Wildman’s analysis either.

Wildman

Financial reports from providers that have usage caps and those that don’t show the same remarkable trend: broadband expenses are way down, capital intensity is well within expected norms, and cable operators are not pouring their profligate earnings into expanding rural broadband.

That makes Wildman the consummate team player, and hardly the best choice for taxpayers who will cover his salary for a few years before he takes another trip through the revolving door back to his industry friends. When Americans wonder why Washington doesn’t seem to be living in the reality-based community, this is why. We can hardly expect Mr. Wildman to represent our interests when he has spent the last several years representing an extremely profitable industry reviled for its overcharging, poor service, and scheming, and will be more than welcomed back if he remembers his friends while working at the FCC.

This latest move represents another disappointment from Chairman Julius Genachowski, who increasingly appears to be warming up to a telecommunications industry he used to aggressively oversee at the start of his tenure.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NCTA Connects The Evolving Internet – Patterns in Usage and Pricing Dec 2012.flv[/flv]

Three weeks ago, the Three Musketeers of Internet Overcharging appeared at a cable industry-sponsored event promoting usage caps and consumption billing. Sandvine CEO Dave Caputo makes his living scaring providers and consumers about Internet growth and (conveniently) selling the equipment that manages the traffic “tsunami” with speed throttles and usage limits. Professor David M. Lyons of Boston College Law School calls usage pricing “second degree price discrimination,” a term he hopes the industry will rebrand into something less ominous and obvious. He argues selling broadband at incremental costs will never recover “fixed costs” for networks the cable industry itself admits have already been largely paid off. Professor Steven Wildman, now on the way to the FCC as its new chief economist, peddles research bought and paid for by the cable industry. They got their money’s worth. (1 hour, 9 minutes)

Phillip “Oh look, more industry-backed research in denial regarding unpopular usage caps and consumption billing” Dampier

It seems America’s biggest industry-funded broadband astroturf group, Broadband for America, thinks the New America Foundation completely misses the point of “new pricing strategies” like restrictive usage caps, costly consumption-based billing, and fiendishly high overlimit fees. In a hurry, they released this particularly weak argument favoring usage pricing:

A new report by the New America Foundation suggests that “dwindling competition is fueling the rise of increasingly costly and restrictive Internet usage caps” in the broadband sector. But as we’ve explained before, these experimental new pricing strategies are actually signs of competition in the market and ultimately benefit consumers.

In terms of competition between broadband service providers, a study by Boston College Law School Professor Daniel Lyons concluded “data caps and other pricing strategies are ways that broadband companies can distinguish themselves from one another to achieve a competitive advantage in the marketplace.” He also concluded these practices were not anti-consumer: “When firms experiment with different business models, they can tailor services to niche audiences whose interests are inadequately satisfied by a one-size-fits-all flat-rate plan.” Indeed, many consumers are no longer satisfied with one-size-fits-all rate plans. Since data usage by individual users can vary dramatically, imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to pricing would result in light data users subsidizing the use of heavier ones. As Michigan State University Professor of Information Studies Steven Wildman explains, not having usage-based pricing models “means that light users pay a higher effective rate for broadband service, cross-subsidizing the activities of those who spend more time online. With usage-based pricing, those who use more bandwidth contribute more toward the cost of building and maintaining broadband networks.”

Broadband providers should be free to experiment with usage-based pricing and other pricing strategies as tools in their arsenal to meet rising broadband demand on their networks. Moving forward, Lyons recommends instituting public policies that allow providers the freedom to experiment, in order to best preserve the spirit of innovation that has characterized the Internet since its inception.

Broadband for America thinks they are clever when they introduce “academic papers” that extend credibility to their arguments. No, Broadband for America, we get the point. Your benefactors want to charge customers more  money for less service and call that a fair deal.

The wheels driving their talking points start to fall off the moment one peaks under their covers:

1. Broadband for America (BfA) is America’s largest telecom industry front group, backed almost entirely by cable and phone companies and dozens of supporting groups that are typically funded by those companies, have telecom industry board members, or whose lifeblood depends on doing business with Big Telecom companies.

2. Experimental pricing plans that largely leave existing pricing in place –and– impose new service limitations is not a sign of competition that benefits consumers, it is proof of its absence. With today’s broadband duopoly, there is little risk imposing new fees or service restrictions when the only competition you have typically follows suit. There is no evidence that usage-based pricing is saving consumers money, particularly when broadband providers are using their marketplace power to further increase prices.

3. There is no evidence “many consumers are no longer satisfied with one-size-fits-all rate plans” for home broadband. In fact, the reverse has been proved conclusively, sometimes by industry-funded researchers.

4. With a 90-95% gross margin on broadband, there is plenty of room for price cuts –and– unlimited broadband, but why give those profits away when lack of competition doesn’t provide the necessary push. Instead, providers’ ideas of “innovative pricing” are always upwards and include usage limits, modem rental fees, and other restrictions.

5. The railroad industry argued much the same case in the early 20th century when communities complained about wide pricing disparity, depending on local competition. We all know what eventually happened there.

6. Full disclosure, as is too often the case, is completely lacking at BfA. So we’ve offered to help:

The “study by Boston College Law School Professor Daniel Lyons” is accurate. He is now a faculty member there. But BfA fails to disclose the study was actually produced on behalf of the Koch Brother-funded Mercatus Center, which specializes in industry-friendly position papers on deregulation. Lyons is also on the Board of Academic Advisers at the Free State Foundation, itself an industry-backed astroturf group that advocates on behalf of large telecom companies, among others.

His colleague Michigan State University Professor of Information Studies Steven Wildman is also an adviser at the Free State Foundation. He is also a bit more transparent about where the money comes from for his studies advocating usage-based pricing – the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the largest cable industry lobbying and trade group in the United States.

The only surprise Lyons and Wildman could have delivered is if they advocated against these Internet Overcharging schemes. But then they probably would not have been invited to present their findings at an NCTA Connects briefing last week entitled, “Connecting the Dots on Usage-Based Pricing.”

We at Stop the Cap! can connect the dots as well.

Top-rated WOW! only delivers service in a handful of cities in the midwest, but is getting larger after acquiring Knology.

Lawrence, Kansas can’t catch a break. While their neighbors in Kansas City are preparing for Google’s unlimited-use gigabit broadband, the three different owners of the area’s cable operation in the last three years have stuck local residents with usage caps as low as 5GB per month.

What began as Sunflower Broadband, formerly owned by the The World Company, which publishes the daily Lawrence Journal-World, has now been sold to a new owner that plans to leave the current caps in place.

Knology of Kansas Inc., a division of West Point, Ga.-based Knology acquired the Sunflower operation for $165 million in 2010. This week, WideOpenWest (WOW) announced it had completed a system-wide acquisition of Knology, including the former Sunflower system for $1.5 billion.

Consumers in Lawrence hoping for something better from one the nation’s top-consumer-rated cable operators will apparently have to wait. The company announced it was planning no immediate changes to its services or rates, said Rod Kutemeier, who currently remains general manager of the operation.

“Which means while Kansas City becomes a gigabit broadband city with unlimited-use broadband ranging in price from free to $70 a month, we’re stuck with this lousy cable operation that wants $53 a month for 18/2Mbps service with a nasty 50GB data cap and up to $1/GB overlimit fee,” says former Knology customer Sam. “I switched to U-verse, which is only mildly less criminal with their 250GB cap.”

Sam’s price represents standalone broadband service and includes Knology’s $5 monthly modem rental fee. If he purchased video service from the company, his broadband rate would be $10 lower.

Sunflower Broadband introduced one of the country’s first broadband Internet Overcharging schemes, limiting customers on the company’s lowest speed tier to 5GB of usage per month. The company later introduced devotees of unlimited, flat rate access to a reduced priority unlimited option for just shy of $60 a month, with no quoted speed or promise of performance.

Lawrence cable subscribers were hopeful the new owners would adopt pricing and service similar to what WOW offers elsewhere. WOW tells its other customers it does not impose usage limits or consumption-based billing of any kind. But that doesn’t hold true in Lawrence.

“They need to get rid of the current management which continues this ripoff scheme and bring in the same WOW mindset that gave them top ratings in magazines like Consumer Reports,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Sam.

WOW currently offers most customers broadband speeds of 2/1, 15/1, 30/3, and 50/5Mbps. Knology of Kansas offers service at speeds of 5/1, 18/2, and 50/5Mbps — all usage capped.

Pricing and packages for Lawrence, Kansas’ local cable company will remain the same… for now.

Moffett

I spend my days listening to Big Telecom company earnings conference calls so you don’t have to. On this morning’s call with Time Warner Cable investors, Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett raised his hand yet again for another round of questioning Time Warner Cable executives for news on when the company will begin gouging their customers with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage-based billing. It is rare when Moffett does not ask Time Warner about when it plans to get the Money Party started with even higher prices for the company’s broadband customers.

Both Rob Marcus (chief operating officer) and Irene Esteves (chief financial officer) do their best to assuage Moffett his dreams of usage pricing may still someday come true (we’ve underlined some important points):

Craig Moffett – Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division: Rob or Irene, maybe you could just update us a little bit on your latest thinking with usage-based pricing, what’s been happening in Texas? And with the cable modem fee, which is obviously not a step in usage-based pricing, does that put off anything that you would otherwise do in moving toward usage-based pricing over the next couple of months? How should we think about that?

Robert D. Marcus – president and chief operating officer: So we’re now in Texas, the Carolinas and the Midwest with usage-based pricing. [We’re planning to introduce it] in the Northeast [in] the next month or so. And I think by year-end, we’ll be 100% across the footprint with [usage pricing] available [on] Internet Essentials, as we call it. I think that although the customer uptake of Internet Essentials is still small, it’s a very important principle that we’ve established, one that usage and price relate to one another. And secondly, we think it’s very important that we give customers who use less a choice to pay less. And whether or not there is a significant uptake of the service, we think those are very important principles to have established. So we’re in no way reducing the emphasis on that product because the numbers are still relatively small.

Irene M. Esteves – chief financial officer and executive vice president: And as far as the modem fee, we’re looking at that as part of our overall pricing strategy on [High Speed Internet]. We shouldn’t think about it as separate and apart from what our customers are paying us for the overall service. We think  it makes sense given what the competition is charging.

Suddenlink is throwing a hissyfit over Frontier’s aggressive advertising.

Now come on, you are both pretty… slow that is.

Suddenlink Communications is crawling mad that Frontier Communications has been hammering the cable company over their broadband speeds, which PC Magazine this week proclaimed were nothing to write home about. The cable operator successfully challenged some of Frontier’s ads with the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

The group recommended Frontier cease making claims that its DSL service offers “dedicated” lines to the Internet in contrast to Suddenlink, which forces customers to share their connection with the whole neighborhood.

Frontier claims Suddenlink’s network can bog down during peak hours, while Frontier makes sure customers consistently get the speeds they pay for.

Many of the ads targeted customers in West Virginia, who regularly tell Stop the Cap! neither provider competing there offers particularly good service.

“Is Frontier kidding?,” says Shane Foster, a former Frontier customer in West Virginia. “I was supposed to be getting up to 6Mbps service and I was lucky to get 1.5Mbps at 2 am.”

Foster says he believes Frontier oversold its DSL network in his area, with speeds slowing even further during the evening and weekends when everyone got online. While Frontier may not require customers to share a line from their home to the company’s central office, congestion can occur within Frontier’s local exchange or on the connection Frontier maintains with Internet backbone providers.

“The technician sent to my house even privately admitted it,” Foster tells Stop the Cap!

Foster switched to Suddenlink, but he is not exactly a happy customer there either.

“Their usage caps suck, the service is slow, and their measurement tool is always broken,” Foster shares. “West Virginia doesn’t just get the bottom of the barrel, it gets the dirt underneath it.”

Frontier Communications says it has been making improvements in West Virginia and other states where it provides DSL broadband. Some areas can now subscribe to 25Mbps service because of network upgrades. Foster says he would dump Suddenlink and go back to Frontier, if they can deliver speeds the rest of the country gets.

“Sorry, but 1.5Mbps is not broadband and with their prices, tricky fees and contracts it is robbery,” says Foster. “They need to clean up their act and I’ll come back. I hate usage caps with a passion.”

Frontier says it will appeal the NAD’s decision. But Frontier might do better advertising its broadband service as usage cap free — something customers consistently value over those running Internet Overcharging schemes.