AT&T suddenly announced it was ready to build its own gigabit fiber network in Austin.

AT&T and Time Warner Cable report they are ready to make more investments in their operations in Austin, Tex. to compete with Google Fiber when it arrives in the middle of next year.

Time Warner Cable says it already operates a multi-gigabit fiber optic network — one residential customers cannot easily access or afford. Residential broadband speeds at the cable operator top out at 50/5Mbps in Austin, at a cost higher than what Google plans to charge for 1,000/1,000Mbps service. AT&T’s U-verse network maxes out at 24/3Mbps, assuming customers have good copper wiring between AT&T’s fiber in the neighborhood and their home.

“The cable and phone company providers have purposely confused their networks’ maximum speed capacity with real end-user speeds for years, and when that fails to convince they simply claim customers don’t need or want those speeds anyway,” says Stop the Cap! reader and Austin resident Sam Knoll.

Knoll is enthusiastic about giving Time Warner Cable the boot, partly to pay them back for their aborted consumption billing trial attempted in Austin in 2009.

“I am not completely convinced Time Warner Cable understands just how much damage they did to their reputation when they pulled that stunt, and I’m certain they will attempt it again if they have a chance,” Knoll said. “The best thing customers can do is switch to a provider that believes usage caps and consumption billing are the fraudulent ripoff we know them to be. Google already knows this.”

Some Time Warner Cable customers in Austin never forgot the company tried to meter Internet usage in a failed experiment back in 2009. (Image: The Austinst)

Competition from deep-pocketed Google could eventually transform the broadband business model for American providers, assuming Google builds its fiber network in enough cities to challenge the conventional wisdom that prices have plenty of room to grow with faster Internet access. The more customers that sign up for Google’s already-super-fast broadband, the more providers will have to compete with better and faster service.

But AT&T is not convinced. The company announced yesterday it was prepared to build a gigabit fiber network not just in Austin, but also in surrounding Williamson County, with plenty of caveats.

“[We will only build the network if] the demand is there and if we get the same terms and conditions as Google received,” said AT&T spokeswoman Tracy King.

AT&T told the Austin American-Statesman the company wanted a faster regulatory approval process and permission to only build its faster fiber network in neighborhoods where there is proven demand for the service. Current franchise agreements often compel providers to offer service throughout the community and prohibits “cherry-picking” customers in high-income or low construction cost areas.

An AT&T official told KEYE-TV he had no idea how much AT&T would charge for gigabit broadband. Google charges $70 a month in Kansas City.

Austin has promised cooperation with Google, although it is not extending tax breaks or grants to the search engine giant. Google will get easy access to Austin Energy’s municipally owned infrastructure including utility poles and rights-of-way.

Google is speculated to be building showcase fiber networks to embarrass incumbent cable and phone providers who typically sell standard broadband service with speeds of 6-15Mbps in most larger communities. Rural areas are lucky to have 3Mbps service, and often much less.

But if Google intended to force major upgrades by cable and phone companies across the country, it might be disappointed with the response so far from AT&T and Time Warner Cable. Both companies indicate they will invest in and upgrade their networks to compete, but only in the service areas where Google-style competition exists. For the rest of the country, phone and cable companies are prepared to continue with the current “broadband scarcity” business model that delivers upgrades only occasionally, often accompanied by usage limits, consumption billing, and/or higher prices.

“Google has proved that there is a business model for selling abundant bandwidth as opposed to a business model for allocating scarce bandwidth,” said Blair Levin, a former chief of staff of the Federal Communications Commission.

“They are saying this is not an experiment. It is a business,” Levin told the newspaper. “In Kansas City, Google did the country an enormous favor. They said, give us regulatory flexibility to design the business and give us access to city property so we can build a network to lower the cost.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380”]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KEYE Austin Competitor Chimes In After Google Announcement 4-9-13.flv[/flv]

KEYE in Austin talks with AT&T about their plans for a gigabit broadband network to compete with Google Fiber. The AT&T spokesman seemed more interested in pitching the company’s deregulation agenda and was short on specifics.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KXAN Austin What competition will Google Fiber face 4-9-13.mp4[/flv]

KXAN in Austin talked with Google competitors Time Warner Cable and AT&T about how they will respond to the Google Fiber challenge.   (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KVUE Austin Fiber Wars in Austin 4-9-13.mp4[/flv]

KVUE in Austin called Google’s entry into the city the opening salvo of ‘Fiber Wars,’ as AT&T promises its own gigabit network. Austin residents intend to take advantage of the competition to force providers to give them better deals to keep their business.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KXAN Austin Google Fiber Possibilities Google Insider 4-9-13.mp4[/flv]

KXAN explains the possibilities of gigabit fiber, but also asks a former Google insider why the search engine is getting into the broadband business.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTBC Austin Time Warner Cable Responds to Google 4-9-13.mp4[/flv]

KTBC was skeptical of AT&T’s sudden interest in gigabit broadband. “Gee, what a coincidence,” commented the anchor of Austin’s Fox affiliate.  (2 minutes)

AT&T 3G MicroCell

One of the core principles of Net Neutrality is that all Internet traffic is treated equally — nothing favored, nothing penalized.

AT&T does not seem interested in following that principle, as our regular reader James found out when reviewing the terms and conditions of AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme that limits DSL customers to 150GB of usage per month and 250GB for U-verse customers.

AT&T Wireless customers with the company’s 3G MicroCell that covers for AT&T’s network shortcomings are given special treatment if they also subscribe to the company’s wired broadband services: use of the MicroCell is exempt from the wired usage cap.

The MicroCell creates a mini “cell-tower” within the home for wireless devices that do not receive adequate indoor reception, powered by your home or office broadband connection. Customers with smartphones or other wireless devices can use the MicroCell to browse web pages, use apps, make and receive calls, or send and receive text messages without ever worrying about exceeding their DSL or U-verse broadband usage allowance. Want to access that content on your home computer? That does count against your cap.

“So data from another AT&T service which is sent over the same Internet connection as any other data traffic is excluded from the cap?  That sounds like a clear Net Neutrality violation to me,” says James.

From AT&T’s own FAQ:

“I have an AT&T 3G MicroCell. Since that utilizes my home broadband network to boost my wireless data signal, does that mean my wireless usage also counts against my wired broadband monthly data plan?

No, the wireless traffic from your AT&T 3G MicroCell does not count toward your monthly home broadband plan. Please register your AT&T 3G MicroCell account and your residential AT&T Internet account at www.att.com/internet-usage-MicroCell to help ensure accurate Internet usage billing. If you have broadband service with another provider, you do not need to register your account.”

The usage cap “free pass” does not extend to your wireless service plan, however. Despite using your home broadband connection, the use of the MicroCell still consumes monthly plan minutes and megabytes, unless you purchase extra add-ons. AT&T would argue it already charged you for your wireless usage, so it would not be fair to charge you again through your home broadband plan. But if you are not an AT&T broadband customer, that is exactly what happens if your local cable operator also has usage billing.

AT&T’s logic for implementing usage caps in the first place:

AT&T has experienced a dramatic increase in the amount of data that is sent and received over its wireline broadband networks. This dramatic increase is driven primarily by a small fraction of our customers. In fact, the top 2% of customers use about 20% of the total capacity on our network. A single high-traffic user can utilize the same amount of data capacity as 19 typical households. Lopsided usage patterns can cause congestion at certain points in the network, which can slow Internet speeds and interfere with other customers’ access to and use of the network.

Customers that blow through their allowance receive one warning and then a higher bill: a $10 overlimit penalty will apply and extends your usage allowance by 50GB. AT&T’s cost per gigabyte is estimated to be in the pennies.

Wyden

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has introduced legislation that would force Internet Service Providers to prove usage caps are designed to manage network congestion instead of monetizing consumer data usage.

The Data Cap Integrity Act would require the Federal Communications Commission to enact new rules forcing providers to justify their usage cap programs, create standards by how ISPs measure usage and to provide useful measurement tools to customers before they incur overlimit fees.

“Internet use is central to our lives and to our economy,” said Wyden. “Future innovation will undoubtedly require consumers to use more and more data — data caps should not impede this innovation and the jobs it creates.  This bill is intended to help consumers manage their data more effectively and ensure that data caps are used only to serve the legitimate purpose of addressing congestion.”

Wyden’s bill is an attempt to force providers to prove their contention that usage limits improve the user experience by preventing so-called “data hogs” from slowing down connections of other paying customers.

Wyden is also concerned that without uniform standards of data measurement, consumers could be blindsided with overlimit fees or even have their service cut off. In the past, providers have stuck customers with a variety of often inaccurate measurement tools that have under or over-reported usage, which can sometimes lead to higher bills. At present, no government agency has authority over the veracity of provider measurement tools, and most ISPs impose terms requiring subscribers to accept their word as final for the purpose of usage measurement.

The Oregon senator’s bill is the first measure regulating usage caps introduced in the Senate. In 2009, Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) introduced a measure in the House that would have banned most usage caps and usage-based billing without first applying a means test. Massa introduced the bill after Time Warner Cable attempted to impose a usage-billing scheme on customers in his district, which includes parts of the Rochester area.

Among the provisions in Wyden’s bill the FCC must enact and enforce within one year of its passage:

• A “truth in labeling requirement” that requires ISPs fully disclose the cost of their services, the true upload and download speed a customer will receive, and the presence of any speed throttles or usage limits;
• A ban on usage caps for any provider that cannot prove they are needed to control congestion and not simply discourage Internet usage;
• A penalty for providers that either do not provide suitable measurement tools or inaccurately measure usage leading to unjustified overlimit fees;
• A provider may not exempt certain content from its usage cap while imposing it on others.

Lyons

Wyden’s bill was introduced at the same time the nation’s largest cable lobbying group, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, sponsored an event defending usage limits and consumption billing. Two of the three experts speaking at the event declared peak usage limits or congestion pricing ineffective.

In fact, Michael Weinberg from Public Knowledge took note of the fact the cable industry now seems to admit it does not have a congestion problem:

“The most refreshing section of the [NCTA’s] study is the one that is not there,” Weinberg wrote. “There is no meaningful discussion of usage-based pricing as a tool to reduce network congestion or a suggestion that monthly data limits are a reasonable way to impact congestion. There is also no invocation of the mythical ‘data hog,’ a sinful creature that can only be punished with data caps. Hopefully, the omission is NCTA’s tacit admission of two things: that cable networks are not congested and, if they become so in the future, monthly caps will do little to address that congestion.

”

“I don’t think congestion is as big a problem in fixed broadband,” said Professor David M. Lyons of Boston College Law School at the NCTA event. “The latest broadband speed surveys that the FCC has come out suggests that there is not a whole lot of slowdown at peak periods on the fixed side.”

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.

Phillip “It’s hard to trust a group that so spectacularly flip-flopped on Internet policies when its benefactor AT&T changed its tune” Dampier

When Republican FCC Commisioner Ajit Pai turned up last week at a telecom symposium to warn a more activist FCC could ruin broadband providers’ efforts to charge consumers more money for less service, he was speaking to a very friendly audience.

The conservative Phoenix Center, which ran the event, has been spewing out industry-friendly “research reports” for years that attempt to justify the country’s sky-high broadband pricing. It also promotes a “hands-off” mindset on industry oversight, calling it common sense and consumer-friendly.

Unfortunately for the group and its supporting authors, it has a serious credibility problem — exposed as an industry-funded “think tank” operating as a mercenary research arm for AT&T and other phone companies. In fact, the same group that today generates endless research condemning Net Neutrality had a very different position in 2004 when it published an Op-Ed entitled, “Net Neutrality: Now More Than Ever.”

What changed? Its benefactor. In 2004, AT&T was a competing long distance carrier fighting local phone companies. Today it –is– one of those phone companies. With its Baby Bell owners controlling AT&T’s purse-strings starting in 2006, the Phoenix Center dutifully flip-flopped to maintain continuity with the ‘new AT&T,’ strongly opposed to most forms of broadband regulation.

So it comes as no surprise the Phoenix Center continues pumping out cheerleading “research reports” that attempt to bolster credibility to forces opposing Net Neutrality and supporting an Internet Overcharging free-for-all with the help of usage billing and caps.

One particular bit of nonsense that completely ignores marketplace reality came in Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George Ford’s report, “A Most Egregious Act? The Impact on Consumers of Usage-Based Pricing.”

For example, Ford argues:

A prohibition of differential pricing renders a single price that lies between the low price for the restricted service and the high price for the unrestricted service. Therefore, prohibitions against usage based pricing forces some consumers to pay more for services they do not want or use, while others are allowed to pay less for services they do. The prohibition, in effect, results in a transfer of wealth from one group of consumers to another, and profits are also reduced. Overall consumer welfare is diminished, even though some consumers are better off.

We’re number one… in prices, even with the increasing prevalence of usage-based pricing Ford believes benefits consumers. (Image: CRTC)

But Ford completely ignores the current conditions in today’s broadband market that have made it easy for providers to promulgate an unpopular end to flat rate, unlimited broadband in favor of a highly-flawed, usage-based billing policy:

1. Ford ignores the broadband market is essentially a duopoly for most consumers and effectively a monopoly in rural America. That gives providers what they call “pricing power,” the ability to increase prices at will and change pricing models because consumers are dependent on the service and have limited options to take their business elsewhere;
2. The only “transfer of wealth” involved here is from consumers to providers. While profits soar and costs drop, Ford complains that those using the service more are somehow subsidized by lighter users, when it fact providers enjoy a 90-95% gross margin on broadband. As Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt admitted, the most significant cost attributed on the cable company’s balance sheet for broadband comes from its backbone traffic costs, which are minuscule in contrast to the increasing prices the cable company charges for its broadband service;
3. Consumer welfare is reduced primarily from the high costs charged by providers, made possible by scant competition that would otherwise drive prices downwards, not from expenses associated with broadband traffic;
4. Ford is careful not to advocate for a true usage-based billing system that would be a revenue nightmare for his benefactors. In a strict usage-based pricing model, customers would pay a small fee for infrastructure, support, and equipment expenses and a variable charge based on actual usage. But no provider in the United States advocates for this system. Instead, providers force consumers into tiered broadband plans that include different usage allowances the vast majority of customers will either not exhaust or will exceed, which raises profits even higher with usage overlimit penalties. With no unused usage rollover, most customers are in the same position Ford claims will diminish consumer welfare: paying for service they do not want or use;
5. Most consumers favor unlimited, flat use plans even if they could save money with a usage-constrained pricing model. Since keeping customers happy with a more expensive unlimited plan they like instead of a lower priced plan they don’t want would seem to enhance provider profits. But Ford ignores this reality, perhaps understanding providers are actually laying the groundwork to broadly monetize Internet usage. Whether a provider adopts usage-based billing or a strict cap on usage, which is growing in most households, the inevitable result is still the same: more profits, less cost from constrained usage. Inevitably this will force customers into higher-priced, higher-profit upgrades that deliver a higher usage allowance, again something consumers simply do not want. This is already a reality in the wireless marketplace, and is well-acknowledged by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless.