Not a problem

Who knew America’s largest cable and phone companies were in the broadband shortage business?

Broadband evangelist Craig Settles has been as outraged about this year’s crop of anti-broadband legislation as we have here at Stop the Cap!

He wrote about the implications of allowing state laws to be changed in favor of the big cable and phone companies in a piece published by GigaOM that details where these anti-community Internet bills are coming from:

This push is brought to you by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group of corporate lobbyists who ghostwrite state bills behind closed doors that their pocket legislators then push on the floor. This “model” of anti-muni broadband legislation contains wording that is replicated in these latest bills and newspaper op-eds that attack community broadband.

Many of the nation’s largest phone and cable companies funnel funds into ALEC, and even sponsor wine-and-dine trips for state legislators and their families as part of a comprehensive effort to get their foot (and later proposed legislation) in the door.

Download this archive of ALEC-written and sponsored state legislation/policies affecting telecommunications and IT.  (16mb .zip file)

Few state legislators fully realize the implications of some of these measures, which can hamstring their state’s broadband networks into “good enough for you” broadband, as determined by Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and others.

ALEC’s dog-and-pony show opens with its corporate backers enhancing their campaign contributions to legislators likely to support their agenda.  ALEC’s lobbyists can then provide “boilerplate” templates for legislation that can be slightly modified and introduced at the state level for consideration.

With a significant increase in campaign contributions targeting friendly legislators, community broadband suddenly becomes a hot topic at the statehouse.

Legislators do not work alone to pass these measures.  As we’ve seen in other states, industry-backed lobbying firms deliver a comprehensive set of support services for the campaign to stop community broadband competition:

1. Talking points for legislators and others opposed to municipal Internet;
2. Professionally produced mailers that can be distributed to every home in a community bashing community networks;
3. Sample letters to the editor intended for local newspapers and easy-to-send letters to legislators asking them to support anti-broadband legislation;
4. Help from seemingly “independent” outside groups that criticize such networks, without disclosing their funding comes, in part or whole, from the cable or phone company.

Settles

Being hoodwinked by the companies that want these kinds of bills passed leave your community’s broadband needs entirely in the hands of providers that have performed so poorly in some cities, local governments have decided they have to provide the service themselves.  Settles illustrates the obvious:

This isn’t about unfair competition by local government. When Wilson’s 12-person IT department can plan, build and manage a network that can deliver speeds (up to a gig) 20 times faster than the best Time Warner Cable offers, that’s competing with superior technology. When Comcast customers switch to Chattanooga’s gig network because of their public utility’s better customer service, that’s competent competition. When tiny Reedsburg, Wis. refuses to compete against the large cable company on price, but beats competitors by offering greater value such as a better selection of Internet services, they compete based on local credibility.

So U.S. communities have to ask themselves, are they going to stay stuck on the train or will they be zipping along at warp speed?

Providers and their industry friends will always argue that you don’t need gigabit broadband speed — what you get from your cable or phone company today is “fast enough.”  Some go as far as to argue current providers are equipped to deliver whatever service customers need, but the demand “just is not there.”

Big Problem.

But as we argued on GigaOM ourselves, the nation’s largest telecom companies have already proven they apparently cannot meet the demand that exists today.  That is because an increasing number of them have started to slap arbitrary usage caps and other limits on their customers’ broadband usage.  Customers don’t want these Internet Overcharging schemes, yet they persist because of what providers effectively admit is a broadband shortage on their networks.

So for a city like Chattanooga, Tenn., which of the following providers should be punished (and potentially even banned) for being in the broadband business:

1. AT&T, which delivers around 6-7Mbps DSL in suburban Chattanooga or up to 24Mbps on its U-verse platform with 150GB/250GB usage limits respectively;
2. Comcast, which delivers up to 50Mbps over cable broadband with a 250GB usage cap;
3. EPB Fiber, which delivers up to 1,000Mbps over fiber optics with no usage cap.

If you are AT&T or Comcast, clearly the provider that must be stopped is #3 — EPB Fiber.  After all, you can’t be in the broadband shortage business when the competitor next door offers a broadband free-for-all made possible from an investment in a superior network that exists to serve customers, not shareholders and investment banks.

While AT&T endures zoning-related delays to build out its fiber-to-the-neighborhood service U-verse, a scrappy anti-cap, pro-speed Internet provider in Santa Rosa has announced its intention to deliver gigabit speeds to San Franciscans over a fiber-to-the-home network that will begin construction early next year.

Sonic.net has been providing broadband services for years in northern California, using AT&T’s network of phone lines to deliver unlimited 20Mbps DSL service (including a phone line) for $40 a month.

Sunset District, San Francisco, Calif. (Courtesy: Stilfehler)

Now the company is branching beyond traditional DSL into fiber optics.  Sonic.net has already completed the first phase of its gigabit fiber network in Sebastopol, where it advertises 100Mbps service for $40 a month and 1000Mbps for $70 a month, both including phone service at no extra charge (two lines for the 1Gbps plan).

In San Francisco, Sonic plans to start with 2000 homes in the Sunset District, expanding its network to fully cover the city within five years.

Such a network could deliver serious competition to Comcast and AT&T, the currently-dominant providers.  AT&T’s U-verse buildout has been stalled over the need to install 768 large, unsightly metal cabinets on San Francisco street corners.  The company, as late as this summer, remains mired in zoning disputes and public protests.  Sonic’s fiber network will require similar equipment, and the San Francisco Chronicle reports Sonic filed its own application with the city Department of Public Works to install 188 cabinets, measuring 5 feet tall, starting next year.

Sonic may have a better chance if only because it does not have AT&T’s less-than-stellar reputation among some residents and customers who have been upset with the company’s wireless performance, and ongoing battles over cell tower placement.  Sonic.net CEO Dane Jasper tells the Chronicle:

“There is a huge demand in San Francisco for higher bandwidth services, and fiber is the only long-term way to meet this demand,” he said.

Given the fact that the company’s all-fiber network will bring “the fastest and cheapest” broadband service to the city, Jasper says he thinks the chances of overcoming the obstacles experienced by his larger rival are “pretty good.”

Sonic.net has gained a reputation for excellent customer service and vociferously opposes usage caps and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  The company has attracted the support of Google, which is using Sonic to manage its gigabit fiber network on the campus grounds of Stanford University in Palo Alto.

AT&T has previously dismissed fiber to the home service as too costly to provide, and has adopted in its place a fiber-to-the-neighborhood system that relies on traditional home phone wiring for the last part of its network.

Internet Overcharging schemes bring even more profits to a cable industry that already enjoys a 95% gross margin on broadband service.

At least one major national cable company plans to implement a usage-based billing system in the coming year, predicts Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett.  Bloomberg News quotes Moffett in a piece that thinly references Time Warner Cable as that operator, whose CEO strongly believes in further monetizing broadband usage.

Moffett is among the chief cheerleaders hoping to see operators charge customers additional fees for their use of the Internet.

“In the end, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the cable industry,” Moffett said.

For customers, DISH Satellite chairman Charlie Ergen predicts it will lead to at least a $20 monthly surcharge for broadband users who watch online video, which could bring already sky-high broadband pricing to an unprecedented $70-80 a month, the same amount most cable operators now charge for standard digital cable-TV service.

The cable industry’s interest in being in the cable television business has waned recently as subscribers increasingly turn away from expensive cable packages.  Now companies that used to consider broadband a mildly-profitable add-0n increasingly see Internet access as the new mainstay (and profit center) of their business.

Time Warner Cable, for example, wasn’t even sure its entry in the broadband business in the late 90s would ever amount to much.  Fast forward a dozen years, and it is an entirely different story:

“We’re basically a broadband provider,” Peter Stern, chief strategy officer for New York-based Time Warner Cable, said Nov. 17 at the Future of Television conference in New York. “As a convenience for our customers, we package and distribute television and provide service around that.”

Bloomberg reports the cable industry profit margin on broadband is nearly 95 percent, a testament to the lack of competitive pressure on Internet pricing.  The industry is going where the money is to make up for increasing challenges to their video business, which currently “only” brings them a 60 percent profit margin.

Suddenlink, already enjoying a 12 percent increase in broadband revenue in the last quarter alone, is implementing its own Internet Overcharging scheme, charging $10 for every 50GB a customer exceeds their arbitrary usage allowance.  That, despite the fact CEO Jerry Kent admits Suddenlink’s broadband margins are double those earned from the cable company’s video business.

Complicit in the parade to Internet Overcharging is Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, who publicly supported usage-based pricing in public statements made last December.  Cable operators were fearful Genachowski might lump the pricing scheme in with the Net Neutrality debate.  Providers have since used Genachowski’s loophole in an end run around Net Neutrality.  If providers cannot keep high volume video traffic from competitors like Netflix off their networks, they can simply make using those services untenable on the consumer side by increasing broadband pricing, already far more expensive than in other parts of the world.

That is a lesson already learned in Canada, where phone and cable companies routinely limit usage and slap overlimit fees on consumers who cross the usage allowance line.  Canada’s broadband ranking has been deteriorating ever since.

Moffett - The chief cheerleader for Internet Overcharging

Bloomberg says such a pricing regime would discourage investment in online video products that currently are held responsible for some cable cord-cutting:

“It’s the reason why Apple or Google would inevitably be reticent about committing a significant amount of capital to an online video model,” Moffett told Bloomberg. “You can’t simply assume just because you can buy the content more cheaply, you can offer a product that’s cheaper to the end user.”

The only way around this might be video providers like Google getting into the broadband business themselves, something Google is experimenting with in Kansas City.  Google’s “Think Big With a Gig” project is partly designed to prove gigabit broadband delivered over a fiber network is practical and doesn’t have to be unaffordable for consumers.  It will also finally bring competitive pressure on a comfortable broadband duopoly, at least for residents in one city.

So far, video providers who depend on an Internet distribution model are not putting much money in the fight against usage-billing.  Instead, companies like Netflix are releasing occasional press releases that decry the practice.

“[Usage billing] is not in the consumer’s best interest as consumers deserve unfettered access to a robust Internet at reasonable rates,” Steve Swasey, a Netflix spokesman, said previously.

It is clear consumers despise usage pricing.  In every survey conducted, a majority of respondents oppose limits on their broadband usage, especially at today’s prices.  But that may not be enough to get companies like Time Warner Cable to back off.  The company has reportedly been quietly testing usage meters since last summer.  CEO Glenn Britt, with a considerable drumbeat of support from Wall Street analysts like Mr. Bernstein, has never shelved the concept of usage pricing, seeing it more lucrative than hard usage caps.  The company retreated from a 2009 plan to charge up to $150 a month for flat rate access after consumers rebelled over planned trials in Texas, North Carolina, and New York.

But without a solid message of opposition from consumers, and an about-face from an FCC chairman that should know better, they’ll be back looking for more money soon enough.

[Thanks to regular Stop the Cap! reader Ron for sharing the news.]

Providers establishing Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, so-called “consumption billing,” and speed throttles that force subscribers into expensive upgrades are planning for a growth industry in data consumption.

According to new research from a firm that specializes in market strategies, data usage is going up and fast.  Providers that seek to monetize that usage could win enormous new profits just sitting back and waiting for customers to exceed the arbitrary usage caps some companies are now enforcing with their customers and take the proceeds to the bank.

iGR says the demand for connectivity inside the home is at an all-time high, with the biggest growth coming from wireless Wi-Fi connections.  The more devices consumers associate with their home broadband connection, the greater the usage.

That is one of the reasons why providers are increasingly supplying customers with free or inexpensive Wi-Fi routers, to make the connections quick, simple, and potentially profitable down the road.

Comcast's Wireless Gateway: A Future Money Machine?

Comcast announced this week it would supply a free 802.11N “home gateway” free of charge to every new customer signing up for Blast!, Extreme 50 or Extreme 105 broadband service.  In addition to wireless connectivity for every device in the home, the Xfinity Wireless Gateway also includes a built-in cable modem and phone service adapter.  Time Warner Cable strongly encourages new DOCSIS 3 customers use their equipment for Wi-Fi service as well.  AT&T has included its own wireless gateway with U-verse for a few years now.

The offer is hard to refuse.  Nearly 80 percent of homes use wireless access, connecting cell phones, tablets, laptops, personal computers, game consoles, and even set top boxes that let customers stream video entertainment to their television sets.

iGR found average usage in heavily-connected homes at the all time high of 390GB per month.  By 2015, that will rise to more than 440GB per month.  Both numbers are well in excess of average consumption limits by providers like Comcast and AT&T, which top out at just 250GB per month.  Of course, not all Wi-Fi usage is based on traffic from the Internet.  Some users stream content between computers or devices within the home.  But the research is clear — usage is growing, dramatically.

Video is by far the biggest factor, according to iGR.  Their report, U.S. Home Broadband & WiFi Usage Forecast, 2011-2015, says the appetite for downloaded and streamed video is only growing.

Matt Vartabedian, vice president of the wireless and mobile research service at iGR, says home Wi-Fi has become inextricably woven into the personal, social and business fabric of today’s life.

Broadband is increasingly seen by consumers as an essential utility, as important as the home wired telephone, safe drinking water, and reliable electric and natural gas service.

Providers are positioning themselves to take advantage of the growth market in data by establishing what, at first glance, may seem to be generous (often inflexible) usage limits that remain unchanged years after introduction.  While only a handful of consumers may cross those provider-imposed thresholds at first, within a few years, it will be more uncommon to remain within plan limits, especially if you watch online video.

Time Warner Cable experienced another challenging quarter, continuing to lose cable TV customers who either drop or pare back their television service, often in favor of broadband.

The company reported losses of an additional 128,000 video subscribers during the third quarter, but is partly winning that revenue back with new broadband customers — 89,000 of them in the last three months.

“Broadband is a powerful service for which there appears to be unquestionable consumer thirst,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said on the investor call. “Over time, we will contribute more of our plant’s capacity to broadband.”

The company is also poised to expand its marketing to win new broadband customers away from their primary competition — telephone company DSL service.  Company officials remain confounded by customers who subscribe to Time Warner’s cable TV service and take broadband from “inferior” phone company-delivered DSL.  Time Warner will continue to target these customers with win-over promotions offering a year of Road Runner Standard Service at the $29.95 promotional price point.

For the company as a whole, this is the tenth consecutive quarter of year-over-year residential broadband revenue improvement, coming from a combination of higher-priced, faster speed tiers, price increases, and subscriber additions.  The company’s DOCSIS 3 upgrade has proven itself a winner for customers and the company, with 18 percent of Time Warner subscribers now choosing 30 or 50Mbps broadband services.

Wall Street expressed some concern about statements from CEO Glenn Britt that the company was going to expand capital spending on broadband to handle increasing demand, especially from online video.  That concern comes despite the fact the company’s “capital intensity” (spending) from January-September was the lowest in the history of the company.  The full year’s capital spending is on track to reach up to $3 billion, which is consistent with what the company spent last year.

Glenn Britt

So despite the plans to spend more on broadband, that spending is actually in line with previous years.

In response to an opening question from Deutsche Bank’s Doug Mitchelson, Britt delivered an extended explanation downplaying the company’s spending plans:

In a way, there’s nothing really new here. I think you’ve seen this trend for a while. Our broadband product is very strong.

As most people know, the usage of broadband is skyrocketing, as it has been for some time. And that means that we will need to spend more money on it. We have been already, both in capital and operating expenses.

The great thing about the Internet is lots of third parties dream up lots of new applications that require more speed and more bandwidth. And we anticipate that we’re going to have to devote more capacity to that over time. We will do that by gradually removing our analog signals from our — analog TV signals from our plan. We’ve been doing that over the last several years by migrating to digital using Switched Digital technology. And over the next several years, we’ll be going all digital in the TV space.

I don’t see this driving a dramatic change in our cap spending, I think, to the core of your questions. The spending has been going on for a while, and I think you’re seeing a change in mix. The video spending is going down over time. The business services is going to go up, although it didn’t this quarter. And you’re going to see the spending on broadband going up. But I don’t think the overall trajectory is mutually different.

This quarter, the company’s conference call seemed to embrace greater broadband usage, and pondering Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps or usage-based billing never came up.  But Richard Greenfield from BTIG alluded to usage in his questions to Rob Marcus, president and chief operating officer at Time Warner Cable.

“I think we’re somewhere in the 7GB a month [range] of downstream bandwidth on a median basis,” Marcus said. “The average is much higher given the disproportionate usage by our high-end users.”

There were plenty of other facts to be gleaned from this morning’s conference call:

TV

• Whole Home DVR service has been introduced nationwide.  In the coming year, Time Warner will begin deploying “home gateways,” which reduce equipment costs;
• Time Warner is testing improved cloud-based set top boxes with home networking capabilities in parts of Syracuse, Los Angeles and Dallas.  These boxes will expand across the country in 2012.  They offer better search capability and deliver an improved user experience;
• 60% of customers reject “triple-play” offers from Time Warner and choose either “single” or “double-play” service instead;
• Much of Time Warner’s revenue growth is coming from rate increases on programming, services, and equipment;
• TV Essentials, the smaller, less expensive video package, is now available in New York City and Northeast Ohio, as well as upstate New York. It will launch nationwide by year end.  Unsurprisingly, company officials admit the less-than-attractive channel lineup has resulted in the vast majority of customers calling about the offering taking the traditional video package instead;
• Customers continue to drop ancillary services to cut their cable bill.  The increasingly expensive DVR box is a new target for cutting, and premium movie channels, adult pay-per-view, and mini-pay services all continue to suffer significant declines in business;
• The Google-Motorola deal will likely have little impact on Time Warner’s set top boxes, which primarily come from Cisco and Samsung.

Broadband

• By the end of the year, Time Warner plans to offer an Android-based TV Everywhere application similar to the existing iPad application, which will also continue to be upgraded to include on-demand offerings;
• Time Warner will make their TV Everywhere service available on game consoles, smart TVs and PCs in the near future;
• New York City customers will soon be able to select from a range of local broadcast stations on the company’s iPad app.  Other markets will start to see local channels added to this app in 2012;
• Major parts of Time Warner’s capital investments this year are: building data centers in Charlotte and Denver, conversion to all-digital in Maine to make room for enhanced broadband, and the continued rollout of DOCSIS 3.0. The company is also continuing to spend significantly on wiring commercial buildings to sell services to business customers;
• TV Essentials customers will soon be offered a “lite user” slower speed discount broadband plan to accompany their video package;
• In Los Angeles, Wideband 50Mbps customers also get 2 gigabytes of 4G/3G mobile broadband for no additional monthly charge on the company-branded Clearwire service. For Turbo Plus and Wideband 30Mbps customers, they can get the same 4G/3G capability for an additional $10 a month. Standard and Turbo customers can get it for an extra $20.  The company’s mobile broadband add-on product has not enjoyed much success with paying customers, however.  Time Warner hopes the value-added bundling of mobile broadband will attract more interest.

Phone

• Cord-cutting is now impacting Time Warner “digital phone” service, too.  Customers are increasingly reluctant to purchase phone service from any landline provider.  Now Time Warner’s regular pricing is starting to cost them business.  Executives revealed Time Warner’s “digital phone” service costs the company $9.06 to provide.  They charge consumers $30.  With that kind of profit margin, the company admits it will have to get more aggressive in pricing to attract new customers (and potentially keep existing ones);
• Time Warner lost 8,000 residential voice line customers last quarter, cushioned by net additions of 13,000 business line customers;
• The company continues to show little interest in selling cell phone products or services, either owned by themselves or others.  Mobile data remains an exception.