[Image: The Verge]

Details remain sketchy, but The Verge and TMONews report the new plan will continue T-Mobile’s efforts to break free from the traditional 24-month upgrade cycle for phones offered by other carriers.

Although new by North American standards, providing an “equipment plan” is not unprecedented in Europe. O2 offers a “Refresh” plan specifically targeting likely early upgraders who want the latest devices and do not want to wait through a two-year upgrade cycle.

In North America, customers buy the phone at a subsidized price and then pay back that discount subsidy over the life of the traditional two-year contract (through artificially higher cell phone plan rates).

When one buys a phone on the O2 Refresh plan in Europe, the customer signs up for a 24-month equipment plan which covers both the cost of the phone, the Refresh feature and an airtime plan which covers everything else.

Customers who want to upgrade early simply pay off the remaining balance on their equipment plan (at a rate lower than the usual penalty fee) and upgrade the device at a discounted, new customer price.

T-Mobile has done away with the two-year contract most North Americans are familiar with, so the Jump plan will be different from O2’s Refresh Plan.

The Verge suggests T-Mobile will introduce a type of lease-to-own financing with Jump.

Customers will presumably pay a monthly fee to join the Jump “club” offering early upgrades. When a customer wants a newer phone, they might pay the same upfront fee a new customer would, but instead of being forced to pay off the full remaining balance due on their old phone, they would return it to T-Mobile and start a new financing arrangement for their next phone. If a customer keeps the phone until it is paid off, the customer would presumably own it.

CNET reports customers will also be provided with handset insurance, important if T-Mobile intends to keep an ownership interest in the phone until it is returned or paid off.

The details are forthcoming, but such a “lease-to-own” arrangement would still leave plenty of room for T-Mobile to recoup their costs, depending on how much they charge for the “upgrade anytime” feature.

The downside is that some customers may decide it is easier to pay off the remaining owed balance on a traditional T-Mobile financing contract and sell the phone to a third-party instead of sending it back to T-Mobile.

Attention broadband planners: Although broadband deployment strategies differ around the world, a new report decisively concludes there is only one network technology proven to meet the demands of broadband users both today and tomorrow: a national fiber optic network.

BuddeComm’s new report, “Global Broadband – Fibre is the Infrastructure Required for the Future,” looked at every technology from variations of DSL, cable broadband, satellite, and wireless and found only fiber optics capable of handling the capacity of data and applications that will be required to run cities and countries from today onwards.

The report found that fiber optic deployment faced a range of challenges, despite its obvious technological advantages. Political obstacles are among the biggest roadblocks facing fiber networks. A combination of concerns about the cost of wiring service to procrastination has held back many national broadband improvement projects, including those in Australia and New Zealand. Incumbent commercial providers in North America have also actively attempted to block public fiber networks to protect their own commercial interests.

BuddeComm concludes America’s biggest broadband problems come as a result of incumbent providers exercising undue market power and influence over elected officials to protect their commercial interests at the price of the public good.

The report concludes that decisive political leadership is essential to overcome many of the artificial obstacles which slow down or stop fiber broadband deployments.

“One can argue endlessly about what technologies should be applied and at what cost, but we believe that all signs point to Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) networks as the best future-proof solution,” the report concludes. “One can debate about whether it is needed in five, ten or fifteen years – and again that depends on some of the differences between countries – but in the end FTTH is the best final solution for all urban and many regional premises.”

The 21st century digital economy is powered by robust broadband, and growing demands for faster speeds are coming from the healthcare, energy, media and retail sectors. Healthcare uses include file transfers of high-definition medical imagery and teleconferencing. Smart Grid technology is being deployed by many power companies to develop more efficient means of distributing and conserving energy. Media and mass entertainment providers are moving to high bandwidth online video, and the retail economy markets products and services over modern broadband networks.

The implications for the global economy are enormous. More than 120 countries have formal broadband policies and many consider high-speed Internet access a national priority. In the last century, North America and western Europe were considered the dominant economic players, in part because they established and maintained infrastructure to support their manufacturing and service economies. But many of these countries are falling far behind in the 21st century digital economy, where countries like Japan and Korea, parts of eastern Europe, the Baltic States, and Scandinavia are taking the lead in infrastructure deployment.

“Broadband infrastructure is perceived by all to be critical for the development of the digital economy, healthcare, education, e-government and so on,” the report notes. “From a financial and investment point of view broadband infrastructure should be treated as utility infrastructure.”

The interests of the private sector are not always aligned with the public interest, particularly when it comes to spending capital on upgrading network infrastructure. The report recommends that governments step in and build a public fiber highway system on which all providers can offer services.

“A National Broadband Network (NBN) should be based upon an open network as this makes it possible to offer the basic infrastructure on a utility basis to content and service providers,” the report concludes.

The governments of Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and others are already moving in that direction, setting up broadband authorities to build fiber infrastructure dismissed as too expensive or unnecessary by commercial providers who answer first to financial markets, shareholders, and private banks.

Under most NBN plans, providers get access to the fiber network at wholesale rates and help recoup its cost.

Australia’s National Broadband Network is on the way.

Where politicians answer to the whims of the private sector before considering the public good, the report finds:

• Private cable companies, particularly in North America, will continue to support and incrementally upgrade their HFC networks, but new cable operators are more likely to deploy fiber at the outset, not coaxial copper cable. Network costs, efficiencies, and reliability are all in fiber’s favor. In Europe, cable broadband is regularly losing market share to faster fiber technology. The share of all broadband subscribers held by HFC networks across Europe fell from 26% in 2002 to about 11% by mid-2013;
• Private telephone companies that do not face robust competition will continue to rely on their existing DSL networks. In cities and larger towns, expect phone companies to eventually upgrade to VDSL fiber-to-the-neighborhood (and its variants) in the largest markets with the most competition. Rural areas will continue to receive less robust DSL service, particularly where no cable competitor provides service;
• Rural areas may receive fixed wireless or satellite broadband service, but this is not a solution for more populated areas.

Although the global economic downturn stalled many fiber network deployments and suppressed demand, the report finds broadband usage and demand for faster speeds are quickly accelerating. Some other highlights:

• Asia continues to be the leader in fiber optic deployment;
• Sufficient customer demand to make the investment in fiber worthwhile is increasingly likely once fiber service becomes widely available in countries like the Netherlands, China, France, Israel, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden;
• International connectivity in Africa remains a challenge, but fiber bandwidth is expected to more than double by 2014;
• The Middle East will see rapid growth in fiber broadband once international capacity constraints are eased.

Obtaining a copy of the full BuddeComm report is prohibitively expensive for consumers, priced at $995.

The mouthpiece of Big Telecom.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has looked and looked, and just does not see America’s broadband problems aptly described by industry critics including Susan Crawford, David Cay Johnston and Tim Wu. As far as the ITIF is concerned Americans have little to complain about with respect to broadband availability, speeds or pricing.

That finding is part of a new research paper, “The Whole Picture: Where America’s Broadband Networks Really Stand,” authored by Richard Bennett, Luke Stewart, and Robert Atkinson.

The report sniffs at critics complaining about uncompetitive, high-priced service, dismissing them as misguided “holders of a particular ideology or economic doctrine, which is Neo-Keynesian, populist economic thinking in this instance.”

Bennett, Stewart, and Atkinson, who have all penned pro-industry reports for years, prove another economic doctrine: the free market for industry bought-and-paid-for-“research” is alive and well.

The summary finding of the report:

Taking the whole picture into account, this report finds that the United States has made rapid progress in broadband deployment, performance, and price, as well as adoption when measured as computer-owning households who subscribe to broadband. Considering the high cost of operating and upgrading broadband networks in a largely suburban nation, the prices Americans pay for broadband services are reasonable and the performance of our networks is better than in all but a handful of nations that have densely populated urban areas and have used government subsidies to leap-frog several generations of technology ahead of where the market would go on its own in response to changing consumer demands.

Although the report is extensively footnoted to bestow credibility, once a reader begins to check out those footnotes, trouble looms:

1. Some footnotes lead the reader to business or Wall Street media reports, which can favor an industry point of view or extensively quote from executives and insiders;
2. Several certain critical assertions include footnotes that link only to the home page of the source, making it impossible to find the exact source material used;
3. Many footnotes come from earlier articles, position papers, and statements from the authors or others affiliated with the ITIF — hardly independent sources of information.

Bought and paid for research.

ITIF’s report is riddled with customized benchmarks the ITIF appears to have invented itself. Ars Technica caught one in the executive summary and questioned the relevance of measuring broadband adoption among “computer-owning households” at a time when an increasing number of Americans use broadband for video streaming on televisions, use smartphones, or rely on tablets for access.

We also noted the authors making several assertions without facts in evidence to support them. Among them is the unsupported notion that “the high cost of operating and upgrading broadband networks in a largely suburban nation” makes today’s broadband pricing understandable and fair.

In fact, the most significant costs borne by cable operators came during the early years of their initial construction — one, even two decades before broadband over cable was envisioned. When cable Internet service was introduced, it was praised for its relatively inexpensive start-up costs and its ability to deliver ancillary, unregulated revenue for cable operators. Those cable networks over which broadband is delivered have been paid off for years.

The authors avoid the actual financial reports of the largest phone and cable companies in their study, because as public shareholder-owned companies, they are obligated to disclose reality. Those financial reports show a consistent drop in capital expenses and infrastructure investment and a major increase in revenue and profits from broadband service. Cable industry executives have repeatedly asserted the reason they raise broadband prices is not because the costs to run their networks are very high, but rather because “they can.”

From there, Bennett, Stewart, and Atkinson play endless rounds of Statistics Scrabble.

Claim: America enjoys robust competition for broadband.

Phone Company

Fact: The cable industry has declared itself the victor for delivering high-speed broadband in the United States. DSL has long since given up competing on speed, and even AT&T’s hybrid fiber-copper U-verse platform is rapidly losing ground in the broadband speed race. Wireless and satellite plans are almost all slower and routinely cap usage, often to levels of just a few gigabytes per month.

The cable industry also won the right to keep its network to itself, not allowing third-party wholesalers on-demand access to resell broadband over those networks. Phone companies have been able to charge discriminatory wholesale pricing to access their networks, and only for certain types of connections.

Abroad, most networks are open to third parties on non-discriminatory terms. In places like the United Kingdom, customers have their choice of ISPs available over a traditional BT DSL line. In Asia, public subsidies and incentives helped push providers to construct fiber to the premises networks, but those networks are open access, helping spur competition and lower prices.

Domestically Time Warner Cable permits competitors like Earthlink on its network on a voluntary basis, but unsurprisingly Earthlink charges the same or higher prices for service that Time Warner charges once a six month promotion ends. That represents “competition” in name-only.

Claim: Most speed-test-based research rankings on broadband speeds around the world are wrong.

Cable Company

Fact: ITIF at one point makes the unfounded assertion that since many people only test their broadband speed when something seems wrong with their connection, most speed-test-sourced “actual speed” data is not very useful because there often is something wrong with a broadband connection when testing it, resulting in flawed data. This ‘picked out of the sky’ claim is one of the primary arguments ITIF makes about why broadband rankings (produced by those other than themselves) are irrelevant.

ITIF’s press release about its report makes the completely unsubstantiated assertion that “the average network rate of all broadband connections in the United States was 29.6Mbps in the third quarter of 2012; in the same period, we ranked seventh in the world and sixth in the OECD in the percentage of users with performance faster than 10Mbps.”

DSL customers may find a statistic rating America’s broadband speeds as better than one might expect to be less than useful when it only counts broadband connections faster than the average DSL user can buy themselves.

This cherry-picking may help the ITIF’s arguments look more credible, but it does nothing to improve your broadband speeds at home or at work.

Claim: Broadband provider profits average less than 2% annually.

Fact: Another clever statistic (poorly sourced as ‘from the home page of Bloomberg.com’ — check back with us when you find the original article yourself) that fails to tell the whole story.

We aren’t THAT profitable, really.

First, ITIF defines net profits specifically as “simply the difference between revenue and expenses.” But that definition may not account for a range of corporate accounting activities which can diminish net profits but still let the company walk away with high fives from Wall Street. Share buybacks or dividend payouts, acquisitions, costs and expenses from other divisions not related to broadband, etc., can all affect the bottom line and mask the enormous earnings and profit potential of American broadband.

Take Time Warner Cable, which has a 95 percent gross margin selling broadband. Broadband service is just one of three primary services sold by the cable operator. Broadband does not suffer from landline losses in the phone business or from escalating TV programming expenses. Broadband is clearly the most profitable service in Time Warner’s product arsenal because it occupies only a small part of the company’s wired infrastructure. Supplying broadband service also costs Time Warner relatively little money as a percentage of their earnings and has helped offset revenue loss from the television side of the business. Bandwidth costs have also declined year after year. Infrastructure upgrades are more than covered by pricing that has begun to creep up over the last few years. In effect, broadband earnings are covering for other products that are not selling as well.

ITIF’s claim that supplying broadband is costly and that current rates are justified just isn’t true.

Claim: Europe is behind the United States in broadband.

Fact: The one legacy network that both Europeans and Americans share in common is the copper wire basic telephone service. From there, telecommunications service diverged.

North Americans embraced cable television while much of western Europe (especially the UK) preferred direct-to-home satellite service. That difference set the stage for some significant broadband disparity. Cable broadband technology has proved more robust and reliable than DSL service. Phone companies that rely on basic DSL are falling behind in broadband speeds. Investment to bring fiber online is the only way these phone companies can stay competitive with cable broadband. Some countries with particularly decrepit telephone networks, especially those left over from the Communist era in eastern Europe, are being scrapped in favor of fiber to the home service. Many western European countries are incrementally introducing fiber to the cabinet or neighborhood service, which leaves the last mile copper phone wire connection in place.

This is why speeds in many eastern European countries and the Baltic states with full fiber networks are so high. Advanced forms of DSL are more common further west, using technologies like VDSL2+. But DOCSIS 3 cable upgrades (and those to follow) continue to leapfrog over telephone company DSL advancements. Speed disparity is often the result of fewer cable systems in Europe as well as the amount of fiber optics replacing basic telephone service infrastructure.

Despite that, many Europeans pay less, particularly for faster service, than we do. Plus, fiber optic upgrades are within the foreseeable future in many European countries. In the United States, fiber deployments are now crawling or stalled in areas served by AT&T and Verizon. Neither company shows much interest in spending money on further wired upgrades and no competitive pressure is forcing them to, especially as both phone companies increasingly turn attention to their wireless divisions for most of their earnings.

The kind of research produced by the ITIF is tainted as long as they don’t reveal who is paying for these research reports. As Stop the Cap! readers have learned well, following corporate money usually helps expose the real agenda of these so-called “think tanks,” which are created to distort reality and quietly echo the agenda of their paymasters with a veneer of independence and credibility.

Riding away with your phone subsidy.

T-Mobile USA has thrown down the gauntlet, announcing it intends to end the kind of phone subsidies that have allowed customers to pick up pricey smartphones like the iPhone for as low as $99, with a two-year contract.

Wireless subsidies have been part of the North American wireless experience for nearly two decades. In an effort to bring new customers on board, carriers wanted the upfront cost to consumers to be as low as possible. Until expensive smartphones arrived, consumers were assured they could get a new, cutting-edge phone at contract renewal time for very little money. Carriers tolerated the subsidy even for existing customers because the difference between the company’s cost and the amount consumers paid wasn’t large enough to negatively affect a carrier’s balance sheet.

Companies gradually earn back the subsidy over the course of a typical two year contract by artificially inflating prices for service plans and add-ons. Because wireless rates have been set with the assumption a customer has received a subsidized phone, it made sense to keep getting new equipment every two years, because customers pay for it on each monthly bill.

In most countries outside of North America, it works very differently. Most customers either pay for a phone outright or agree to finance its purchase through a wireless company, paying monthly installments for smartphones that often cost more than $600. Some companies offer more aggressive discounts if one agrees to a 1-3 year contract, but buyers still cover much of the cost themselves. In return, wireless companies abroad typically charge much lower rates for service and do not force people into lengthy contracts. Customers also find they can switch companies as easily as replacing a SIM card, activating an old phone on a new carrier’s network.

There are pros and cons to the subsidy model:

PROS

• Consumers get the latest phones at a reduced up-front cost up to every two-years;
• The subsidy win-back is collected gradually over the course of 24 months;
• Carriers aggressively compete on huge subsidies for popular phones;
• The reduced price of a subsidized phone brings reticent consumers into the market;
• Carriers have increased control over the equipment that is used on their network through price incentives;

CONS

• The subsidy model gives carriers an incentive to lock discounted phones to their network;
• Customers pay artificially higher prices for service, whether they take advantage of a subsidized phone offer or not;
• Consumers don’t realize the true cost of the phones and expect them to cost less than $200 regardless of their retail price;
• Customers are locked into lengthy contracts with stiff early termination fees to protect the subsidy win-back structure;
• Without a subsidy, equipment manufacturers would face natural market pressure to cut costs to remain affordable;

Legere

T-Mobile announced last week it was ending its phone subsidy program next year, and customers will be expected to bring their own phone, buy one at an unsubsidized rate, or finance a full price phone with the carrier. In return, customers will get a lower priced T-Mobile calling and data plan.

Some in the tech press are heralding the announcement as a consumer victory and a breakthrough for lower priced service plans. But before throwing the confetti, consider this.

T-Mobile is making customers bring or buy their own phones, but will still lock them into a two year contract with a $200 early termination fee.

T-Mobile’s retention of its contract plans might delineate the postpaid side of its business and its month-to-month, contract-free, prepaid business. But that does not mean much for customers.

John Legere, the new CEO of T-Mobile USA hinted the measure is designed to reduce customer churn — customers coming and going. Locking a customer in place with termination penalties assures shareholders customers are more likely to remain with T-Mobile for the life of their contract.

That represents a win for T-Mobile, but not for customers. Legere explained the benefits to investors:

“[We are going] to have a lower device subsidy obviously and overall value,” Legere told attendees at the Capital Markets Day Conference. “[… because of the] device margin — $200 to $250 — which we do not have to eat. Over a 24-month period [we get] a customer life value that is the difference between $550 on a Classic [traditional subsidy contract] plan and $600 on a Value [no-subsidy] plan.”

In other words, T-Mobile doesn’t have to front a device subsidy, still holds a customer with a two-year contract, and despite the lower-priced service plans, comes out $50 richer when the contract expires.  T-Mobile is essentially admitting it does not return the entire value of its former subsidy back to the customer.

What is more, T-Mobile may pave the way for other carriers to also drop handset subsidies, keep the traditional two-year contract, and only slightly lower prices.

Nothing peeves Wall Street more than the huge subsidy costs carriers pay up front to discount the latest smartphones. Getting rid of subsidies while only mildly adjusting prices could be the next hidden “price increase,” the perfect gift for an investor that demands higher revenue from every customer.

The United States scores 44th (Canada is 67th) in the global upload speed race. North Americans can take a moment (or two… or three… or four) and ponder the meaningfulness of statistics gathered by Net Index that explains why uploading that home movie to grandma last month seemed to take forever. Because it did.

The average upload speed in the United States is an embarrassing 4.05Mbps (and it stings even worse to realize your cable or phone company provider has probably locked you in even slower at 1-2Mbps for uploading content.) Canadian broadband advocates can’t even be seen in public. The country’s comfortable telco-cable duopoly gives consumers in the north just 2.35Mbps for upstream connectivity.

So who among the league of broadband nations has us beat? Countries that have barely survived civil conflicts bordering on all-out war, others plagued with bouts of starvation, and a handful whose currency can be counted into the thousands and it still wouldn’t be enough to buy you breakfast. But they can upload pictures of the restaurant you are not eating at far faster than you can.