Phillip “You Guys Need a Timeout” Dampier

AT&T and Time Warner Cable are complaining they have gotten a raw deal from Kansas City, Mo. and Kansas City, Ks., in comparison to the incentives Google was granted to wire both cities with gigabit fiber broadband.

“It’s time to modernize our industry’s rules and regulations…so all consumers benefit from fair and equal competition,” read a statement from AT&T.

“There are certain portions of the agreement between Google and Kansas City, Kan., that put them at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field,” said Alex Dudley, a Time Warner Cable spokesman. “We’re happy to compete with Google, but we’d just like an even playing field.”

The Wall Street Journal seemed to suggest Google was getting the keys to both cities, with grants of free office space and free power for Google’s equipment, according to the agreement on file with the cities. The company also gets the use of all the cities’ “assets and infrastructure”—including fiber, buildings, land and computer tools, for no charge. Both cities are even providing Google a team of government employees “dedicated to the project,” says the Journal.

The Google Fiber project was so desired that the local governments rolled out the red carpet. In Kansas City, Mo., for instance, the city is allowing Google to construct “fiberhuts,” small buildings that house equipment on city land at no cost, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The cities are discounting other services, as well. For the right to attach its cables to city utility poles, Google is paying Kansas City, Kan., only $10 per pole per year—compared with the $18.95 Time Warner Cable pays. Both cities have also waived permit and inspection fees for Google.

The cities are even helping Google market its fiber build-out. And both are implementing city-managed marketing and education programs about the gigabit network that will, among other things, include direct mailings and community meetings.

Several cable executives complain that the cities also gave Google the unusual right to start its fiber project only in neighborhoods guaranteeing high demand for the service through pre-registrations. Most cable and phone companies were required by franchise agreements with regional governments to build out most of the markets they entered, regardless of demand.

But the Journal missed two key points:

1. Time Warner Cable has been granted the same concessions given to Google on the Missouri side, and AT&T presumably will also get them when it completes negotiations with city officials on the matter.
2. Both cable and phone companies have the benefit of incumbency, and the article ignores concessions each had secured when their operations first got started.

The Bell System enjoyed a monopoly on phone service for decades, with concessions on rights-of-way, telephone poles and placement. AT&T was a major beneficiary, and although the AT&T of today is not the same corporation that older Americans once knew, the company continues a century-long tradition of winning the benefit of the doubt in both the state and federal legislature. AT&T has won statewide video franchise agreements that give the company the power to determine where it will roll out its more advanced U-verse platform, and enjoys carefully crafted federal tax policies that helped them not only avoid paying any federal tax in 2011 — the company actually secured a $420 million “refund” subsidized by taxpayers.

Cable operators also won major concessions from local governments under pressure from citizens eager to buy cable television. At the time, cable companies were granted exclusive franchises — a cable monopoly — to operate, an important distinction for investors concerned about the value of their early investments. Local zoning and pole attachment matters were either negotiated or dealt with legislatively to allow cable companies the right to hang their wires on existing utility poles. Franchise agreements permitted the gradual roll-out of cable service in each franchise area, often allowing two, three, or more years to introduce service. It was not uncommon for neighborhoods on one side of town to have cable two years before the other side could sign up. That sounds awfully familiar to AT&T U-verse today.

Google’s proposal to build a revolutionary broadband network delivering 1Gbps deserved and got the same type of treatment then-revolutionary phone and cable service won back in the day.

Time Warner Cable also won much the same treatment Google is now getting, and the cable operator has gotten $27,000 in fees refunded and will avoid another $100,000 in permit fees going forward. Time Warner Cable and Google will both receive free traffic control services during network construction — not that Time Warner Cable plans much of a change for customers in either Missouri or Kansas.

AT&T will likely also receive the same treatment, although it would be hypocritical of them to complain that Google gets to pick and choose where it provides service. Large swaths of Kansas City and suburbs are still waiting for U-verse to arrive, and many areas will never get the service. Cable operators had to wire a little further, but also benefited from years of monopoly status and network construction expenses paid off years ago when there literally was no competition.

Those paragons of virtue at Goldman Sachs are appalled Google has such a good relationship with Kansas City officials more than happy to have the gigabit speeds neither AT&T or Time Warner Cable would even consider providing.

Google’s rights “appear to be significantly more favorable than those cable, Verizon or any other fiber overbuilders achieved when striking deals with local governments in the past,” Goldman Sachs analyst Jason Armstrong told the Journal. “We’re surprised Time Warner Cable hasn’t been more vocal in its opposition.”

But then the cable company has secured most of the same benefits Google has, so why complain at all?

In fact, city officials had to browbeat Time Warner to modernize its network in ways it would have not done otherwise without the new agreement.

Both AT&T and Time Warner have every right to be concerned. Their substandard networks and high prices (along with a lousy history of customer service, according to national surveys) put them at a competitive disadvantage if Google does not make any major mistakes. Neither cable or phone company has made any noise about upgrading service to compete, and should customers begin to leave in droves, then both companies may actually have something to cry about.

The Wall Street Journal’s report on the concessions granted to Google wanders off into the Net Neutrality debate for some reason, and misses several important facts reviewed above.  (3 minutes)

Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service except in areas where it has existing agreements to deliver service.

Verizon Communications will not expand their FiOS fiber optic network beyond the current obligations the company has with communities where it presently provides service.

Verizon chief financial officer Fran Shammo told investors the company intends to wind down FiOS expansion once its contractual commitments to state and local authorities are met to reap the financial rewards of the fiber optic network it began building in 2006.

“At this point we won’t build beyond that, because at this point we have to capitalize on what we have invested,” Shammo told an investor at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference.

From 2014 beyond, Verizon plans to substantially decrease capital investments in its wired networks and continue to shift spending towards Verizon Wireless. Shareholders may also benefit from an increased dividend payout as the company’s balance sheet improves.

In real terms this means that Verizon will only expand FiOS where it previously signed agreements that allowed the company to gradually roll out its fiber optic network. Large sections of Verizon’s service areas, including major cities in the northeastern corridor, are not on the upgrade list and will not get the service.

Verizon’s experience and scale rolling out fiber to the home service over the past five years allowed the company to achieve a cost of  just $700 to reach each home, less than half the original estimated expense for fiber upgrades. But Verizon still considers the network too expensive to expand further.

Shammo also admitted Verizon is targeting its landline investments to bolster its more profitable wireless business.

“The fact of the matter is wireline capital — and I won’t give the number but it’s pretty substantial — is being spent on the wireline side of the house to support wireless growth,” Shammo said. “So the IP backbone, the data transmission, fiber to the cell, that is all on the wireline books but it’s all being built for the wireless company.”

Bruce Kushnick found no bump in construction expenses for FiOS after 2008 and no major increases in capital expenditures in general. In fact, Verizon, on average, spent more on construction from 2000 to 2004 than from 2005 to 2011, when FiOS construction was at its peak.

Bruce Kushnick from New Networks Institute has been tracking Verizon’s capital investments for the last decade and found Verizon was hardly hurting paying for FiOS network upgrades. In fact, Kushnick suspects much of the money to pay for FiOS came from a combination of ratepayer rate increases and diversion of investments intended to maintain Verizon’s existing landline network:

Whatever amount Verizon did spend on FiOS — and obviously it was a not insignificant amount — would therefore appear to have come out of the standard construction budgets that were supposed to be used to upgrade the lines that most Americans are still using for their phone service: the Public Switched Telephone Networks, or PSTN. It would seem that customers, including seniors, low income families, minorities and municipalities have been funding the construction of a cable service through the hefty monthly fees they pay for a dialtone and ancillary services. In some states this is actually illegal.

If Verizon did actually spend $23 billion, then it appears to have come at the expense of the traditional maintenance and upgrades of the utility plant — and the PSTN got totally hosed. At the very least, prices for basic phone service should have been in steep decline as one of the major costs, construction, was dramatically lowered.

Instead, Verizon was also getting rate increases specifically to pay for FiOS. For instance, Verizon persuaded New York officials to increase rates for “fiber optic investments,” where the only service that could use the fiber optic service was Verizon’s FiOS.

For instance, when New York State Department of Public Service Commission Chairman Garry Brown announced the approval of a $1.95 a month rate hike for residential phone lines in 2009, he said “there are certain increases in Verizon’s costs that have to be recognized.” He explained: “This is especially important given the magnitude of the company’s capital investment program, including its massive deployment of fiber optics in New York. We encourage Verizon to make appropriate investments in New York, and these minor rate increases will allow those investments to continue.”

Of course the states weren’t told that everyone would be charged extra for a service that only some people were going to get. In New Jersey, for instance, Verizon made a firm commitment to rewire the entire state with fiber optics — capable of 45 Mbps in both directions. It was supposed to be 100 percent completed by 2010. Instead, Verizon claims to have “passed” 1.9 million homes, representing 57 percent of the households in its territories — but “passed” may or may not mean that they can actually get service.

With Shammo reporting FiOS investments winding down by 2014, Verizon is not increasing the budget to maintain the copper infrastructure it will require non-FiOS customers to keep using for service. Instead, capital investments will continue to be spent supporting Verizon Wireless, although in lower amounts.

“So if you look at overall, I continue to say [investments] will be flat to down and I think we will be probably more slightly down than flat, and [CEO] Lowell [McAdam] and I are really starting to focus in on where we spend that investment and make sure that that investment returns on a shorter period of time,” Shammo said. “And that is really the focus. So what I like to say is that our ratio of CapEx to revenue will continue to decline.”

A N.J. State Commission report from June 2010 saw this coming two years earlier and noted:

“While it is possible for Verizon to extend service throughout its authorized territory, to an additional 155 municipalities in the state that are not included in its current application of 369 towns, Verizon has indicated it will now concentrate its capital expenditures, expected to be between $16.8 billion and $17.2 billion in 2010 on its wireless telephone network. Further FiOS expansion will be limited to increasing penetration in those communities where FiOS is currently available, according to the company.”

FiOS=Fiber Optic Service

Verizon Communications is quietly moving a growing number of their copper-based landline customers to the company’s fiber optic network FiOS, whether customers want the service or not.

Fran Shammo, Verizon’s chief financial officer, told investors at last week’s Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference Verizon was done repairing chronic copper landline problems in areas also served by FiOS.

Shammo noted Verizon was accelerating the pace of its shift to FiOS in areas where the network already exists, noting it now costs Verizon less money to install fiber than maintain its older infrastructure. As many as 15,000 customers were quietly switched to fiber service during the first quarter of this year, with at least 200,000 planned to be moved by the end of 2012.

Verizon has no immediate plans to switch copper landline customers with no service problems, but once the company gets two service calls during a six month window, Verizon will switch them to FiOS phone service free of charge.

That is precisely what happened when Jan Walkley began experiencing problems with her Verizon landline after Hurricane Irene tore through her Long Island neighborhood in the late summer of 2011.

“We had crackling episodes on the phone every time it rained hard, but by the time the Verizon repairman showed up, the problem was gone,” Walkley told Stop the Cap! “On the third visit, the repair guy joked I had ‘struck out’ with my old phone line and they wanted to upgrade me to FiOS for free.”

Complain too often about your landline and Verizon may show up and install FiOS for free.

“Getting off of that copper onto FiOS significantly reduces our operating costs,” Shammo explained to investors.

Shammo also disclosed Verizon has reduced the cost of installing fiber to the home down to a record low of $700 per household, which in some cases is now cheaper than sending repair crews to repeatedly fix aging copper infrastructure.

Walkley had contemplated FiOS when Cablevision last increased her rates, but she was unhappy with the installation fees Verizon charged for its fiber optic network.

“The promotional offers looked good, but the fine print said while installation was free, installing various outlets and setting up my home computer was not,” Walkley said. “Because of my landline problems, Verizon is giving me free installation for everything, including TV and Internet service if I want it.”

That is part of Verizon’s grand plan, according to Shammo.

“This will really start to benefit us two ways, quite honestly,” Shammo said. “One is what we are seeing is as customers convert to FiOS, […] once we connect them up to the Internet, they see the speed, they are buying up the bundle. So we are seeing accretion from these customers that we are migrating.”

Walkley is not sure what “accretion” means, but she knows a good deal when she sees it.

“It seems to me anyone who wants to avoid Verizon’s FiOS install fees should simply make sure to call them whenever their phone line has a problem and Verizon may consider you enough of a nuisance to cut your FIOS installation fees to zero just to get you off the phone,” Walkley said.

Despite industry propaganda touting an “unlimited broadband future” (possibilities, that is, not an end to usage caps) and good sounding headlines about robust competition in the broadband market, the reality on the ground isn’t as rosy.

Americans looking for a better deal for broadband are largely stuck negotiating with the local cable company or putting up with less speed from the phone company to get a cheaper rate.

That is hardly the “success story” being pushed by the Mother of All Broadband Astroturf Front Groups, Broadband for America. BfA, backed by money from some of America’s largest telecom companies calls today’s marketplace “dynamic” and “rapidly changing.” For them, competition is not the problem, the way we define competition is.

Tell that to San Jose Mercury News columnist Troy Wolverton, whose dynamic and rapidly changing Comcast cable bill has now reached $144 a month, and threatens to go higher still when his two-year contract expires.

Wolverton is a case study of what an average American consumer goes through shopping around for broadband service. Despite assertions of a vibrant, competitive Internet access paradise from groups like Broadband for America, Wolverton found very little real competition on the menu, despite being in the high tech heart of Silicon Valley.

Valley residents can typically choose between AT&T and Comcast, if they have any choice at all. Neither company offers a great deal for consumers.

Comcast offers faster speeds at considerably higher prices that can be reduced somewhat by signing up for a costly triple-play service. AT&T’s prices are lower, but its service is slower and is based on a technology that in my experience is less reliable.

So it goes for millions of Americans who face the same dilemma: take a higher-priced package from the cable company or settle for less from the phone company. With the exception of Verizon FiOS, most large telephone companies still rely on basic DSL service to deliver broadband. AT&T’s U-verse and CenturyLink’s Prism are both fiber to the neighborhood services that deliver somewhat faster speeds than traditional DSL, but also have to share bandwidth with television and traditional phone service, leaving them topped out at around 25Mbps.

Wolverton could not believe his only choices were Comcast and AT&T, so he visited the California Broadband Availability Map, one of the state projects earnestly trying to identify the available choices consumers have for broadband access. Despite California’s vast size, it quickly became apparent that even companies like AT&T and Comcast largely don’t deliver broadband outside of cities and suburbs. Several smaller, lesser-known providers emerged from the map that were open to Wolverton, which he explored with less-than-satisfying results:

In addition to Comcast and AT&T, it listed Etheric Networks, which offers a wireless Internet service directed at home users that’s based on Wi-Fi technology, and MegaPath, which offers Internet access through a variety of wired technologies, including DSL.

After further research I found that neither of those companies was a legitimate option. MegaPath can’t deliver residential service to my house that’s faster than 1.5 megabits per second. Etheric, which focuses on business customers, offers a service level with speeds of up to 22 megabits per second, but it costs a cool $400 a month.

Other non-options for Wolverton included the highly-rated Sonic.net, which in his neighborhood is entirely dependent on AT&T’s landlines for its DSL service. That was a no-go, after Wolverton discovered he would be stuck with 3-6Mbps service. Clearwire also offers service in greater San Jose, but not at his home in Willow Glen.

That left him back with AT&T and Comcast.

But that is not really a problem in the eyes of industry defenders like Jeffrey Eisenach, managing director and principal at Navigant Economics and an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School. Navigant is a “research group” that counts AT&T as one of its most important clients. The firm provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues cover for clients trying to sell their agenda. Navigant’s “experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.”

Eisenach goes all out for the broadband industry in his paper, “Theories of Broadband Competition,” which throws in everything but the kitchen sink to defend the status quo:

• The cost of broadband service is declining;
• The duopoly of cable and phone companies are still competing for customers and introducing new services;
• Competition can take the form of provider innovation (ie. providers compete by offering a better services, not lower prices);
• Wireless competition is accelerating, citing LightSquared and Clearwire as two conclusive examples of competition at work;
• The cost of service on a per-megabit basis has declined.
• Competition in today’s broadband market delivers ancillary benefits not immediately evident when only considering the customer’s point of view;

Eisenach’s pricing proof stopped in 2009, just as cable providers like Time Warner Cable began raising broadband prices. TWC’s Landel Hobbs to investors: “We have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data.” (February, 2010)

Eisenach has appeared at various industry-sponsored evidence touting his views of broadband economics and competition that later turns up as headline news on Broadband for America’s website. But just as Wolverton’s initial optimism finding other choices for broadband faded with reality, so do Eisenach’s conclusions:

1. Eisenach’s evidence of broadband price declines stops in 2009, coincidentally just prior to the recent phenomena of cable broadband rate increases, which have accelerated in the past three years;
2. Competition still exists in urban and suburban markets, as long as phone companies attempt to stem the tide of landline losses, but it’s largely absent in rural markets and in decline in others where companies “reset” prices to match their cable competition. AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon’s FiOS both effectively ended their expansion, leaving large swaths of the country with “good enough for you” service. Cable operators have even teamed up with Verizon Wireless to cross-market their products — hardly evidence of a robustly competitive marketplace;
3. Innovation can take the form of services customers don’t actually want but are compelled to take because of bundled pricing or, worse, the decline in a-la-carte add-ons in favor of “one price for everything” models. Verizon Wireless set the stage for providers of all kinds to consider mandatory bundling for any product or service that can no longer deliver a suitable return on its own. For customers already taking every possible service or fastest speed, this pricing  may deliver lower prices at the outset, but for budget-focused consumers, compulsory packages or high prices on a-la-carte services assures them of a higher bill;
4. Eisenach’s examples of competition are a real mess. LightSquared is bankrupt and Clearwire has shown it cannot deliver an equivalent broadband experience for customers and throttles the speeds of those perceived to be using the service too much. Other wireless providers typically limit customer usage or cannot deliver speeds comparable to wired broadband;
5. While the cost per megabit may have declined in the past, cable providers are still raising prices, and as Google and community-owned providers have illustrated, delivering fast speeds should not cost customers nearly as much as providers continue to charge, with no incentive to cut prices in the absence of equally fast, competitive networks;
6. While broadband may open the door for additional economic benefits not immediately apparent, competitive broadband would further drive innovation and reduce pricing, delivering an even bigger bang for the buck.

Wolverton recognized taking a promotional offer from AT&T will temporarily deliver savings over what Comcast charges, but he would have to set his expectations lower if he switched:

I’m reluctant to switch to AT&T. [U-verse] Max Plus is the fastest level of service it offers at our house, but with a top speed of 18 megabits a second, it’s significantly slower than Comcast’s Blast. Speed matters to us, because my wife and I often share our Internet connection, and we frequently use it to transfer large files such as apps, videos, photos or songs to or from the Net.

[…] What’s more, as the FCC outlined in another recent report, Comcast does a better job of delivering the speeds it advertises than does AT&T.

What’s worse in my book is that AT&T’s U-verse’s Internet service is a version of DSL. It’s faster than regular DSL, because the copper wires in your house and neighborhood are connected to nearby high-speed fiber-optic cables. Even with that speed boost, though, I’m hesitant to go back to any kind of DSL service, because my wife and I suffered through years of unreliable DSL service from AT&T predecessor PacBell and then EarthLink, which piggybacked on AT&T’s lines.

Wolverton also objected to Comcast’s bundled pricing scheme, which delivers the best value to customers who sign up for broadband, television and phone service. Wolverton does not need a landline from AT&T or Comcast, and would like to drop the service. He’s not especially impressed with Comcast’s TV lineup (or pricing) either. But he noted if he switched to broadband-only service, Comcast would effectively penalize him with a broadband-only rate of $72 a month, exactly half the current cost of Comcast’s triple-play package.

In a later blog post, Wolverton confessed he liked Comcast’s broadband service and speeds, and with the carefully-crafted pricing the cable and phone companies have developed, he expected to remain a Comcast customer given his choices and pricing options, which are simply not enough.

The Federal Communications Commission today approved a request from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the chief cable industry lobbying group, that will allow cable operators to acquire competing phone companies under certain circumstances, which the Commission says will increase competition.

“Acquisitions of competitive [phone companies] by cable operators often will strengthen facilities-based competition for telecommunications services, which will in turn provide customers with better service and functionality and lower prices,” the Commission ruled.

The FCC theorizes that when a community is served by two (or more) telephone companies, there will be no degradation in competition if the local cable operator acquires one of them. The Commission suspects most cable operators seek out competing phone companies that target business customers for commercial telephone service. The FCC believes that such acquisitions will enhance the cable company’s competing phone service. That, in turn, will theoretically force the dominant phone company to lower its prices to compete with a strengthened cable competitor.

But officials from Montgomery County, Maryland thought some of the FCC’s logic was short-sighted, noting cable companies have been substantially boosting investments in commercial services on their own, without buying the competition. Montgomery County officials worry the unintended consequence of fewer players in the market could be higher prices for residential customers:

“With this level of growth in commercial services revenues by cable companies, any new cable-[telco] merger might reduce competition by merging two competitors rather than “injecting” competition in a local marketplace as the [NCTA] claims,” the county’s legal team wrote. “And the impact on the local residential marketplace of any cable-[telco] merger can only serve to lessen competition for residential customers as the cable companies already are dominant wireline providers in their local residential markets. Thus, a declaratory order will not necessarily promote competitive market conditions at all, and could in fact facilitate a substantial decrease in competition.”