Broadband transport costs continue to decline, at an accelerating pace, according to researcher Telegeography.

Prices to move data across the Internet continue to decline throughout the world. According to new data from TeleGeography’s IP Transit Pricing Service, price declines in most locations accelerated over the past year, at an accelerating pace. But none of those savings are showing up on customer bills. In fact, while providers have been increasing broadband prices over the past three years, their costs to provide the service continue to plummet.

“IP transit prices have reached extremely low levels in developed markets, but remain high in many developing markets and in countries that are remote from major IP transit hubs,” said TeleGeography analyst Erik Kreifeldt. “Nevertheless, few places remain where transit prices exceed $100 per Mbps. As carriers expand into emerging markets and establish new price floors in developed markets, global IP transit prices will continue to fall.”

The median monthly lease price for a full GigE port in London dropped 57 percent between Q2 2011 and Q2 2012 to $3.13 per Mbps, compared with a 31 percent decline compounded annually from Q2 2007 to Q2 2012. In New York, the comparable price dropped 50 percent to $3.50 per Mbps over the past year, and 26 percent compounded annually over the five-year period. Pricing for short term promotions and high capacities have dropped below $1.00 per Mbps per month.

DSL Prime‘s Dave Burstein says that translates to Internet backbone wholesale pricing of less than $0.50 per broadband customer per month in New York or London.

Burstein also notes router and switch prices are also matching the predicted pace of Moore’s Law, declining 25-40 percent per annum. With competition for backbone connectivity robust in North America, the reduced costs are passed along to large broadband providers, but not to customers.

Burstein reports that while Internet traffic continues to expand at “ferocious rates,” your broadband provider’s net cost has been generally flat or even down. In fact, he estimates that when providers add up the cost of backbone transport costs and moving traffic from their network to individual customers, they end up spending less than $1 per month on traffic per customer. But they charge you $40-50 or more for the service.

Burstein also notes that broadband usage has almost no impact on provider costs, whether they offer 3Mbps or 1,000Mbps service, have caps of 50GB, 500GB, or no caps at all.

“With bandwidth costs this low, we’re talking dimes or at most a couple of dollars per month to handle any likely traffic flow,” Burstein reports.

Even accounting for perennial predictions of data tsunamis from equipment manufacturers like Cisco, their own data shows the primary cost of Internet traffic per customer is falling, according to Burstein, even as data consumption increases.

An Australian Internet Service Provider that caps customer usage and charges extra if you want to exceed your allowance has taken to the company’s blog to argue that usage caps are fair, even as their customers start departing for competitors offering unlimited service.

iiNet chief technology officer John Lindsay defends the company’s usage-based billing scheme, which charges more than $30 a month for DSL service with a 20GB usage cap.

“Service providers in favour of a two-speed Internet argue that there is limited capacity on the Internet and that those using the most bandwidth by delivering rich content or transferring large files should pay more,” wrote Lindsay. “In Australia, we have a different business model for the Internet. ISPs operate on a pay-as-you-go model, which also shapes the consumer market. Here, consumers can choose a plan with upload and download quotas to fit their usage and pay according to their needs – the more you use, the more you pay.”

Lindsay

Unfortunately for Lindsay, an increasing number of Australians don’t agree and are switching to providers like TPG and Dodo, which have become enormously popular selling flat rate, unlimited broadband service.

Lindsay warns that if Australia adopts the flat rate service model popular in the United States, a Net Neutrality debate will be sparked as customers discover ISPs are unable to handle the traffic and start prioritizing their own content.

“Operating a quota based business model ensures we’re not responsible for policing activity online – our customers pay a fair price for the services they receive and we can focus on more important issues than where their traffic is coming from,” Lindsay argues. “While US providers argue about a two-tier system, our priority is to provide awesome customer service and ensure our customers enjoy a seamless experience online, whatever it is their Internet connection means to them.”

Of course, Lindsay’s characterization of the American broadband landscape is fact-challenged, because most broadband providers have plenty of capacity to deliver content. Some simply want to earn a new revenue stream from content producers for managing that traffic, even though paying customers already compensate them for that service.

Australia’s data caps have traditionally been onerous because of the higher costs and limited capacity of underseas cables that handle traffic inside and out of the Pacific Basin. But Australians have complained about the low caps for years — so loudly that the Australian government has made construction of a super-capacity fiber to the home network a national priority for the country as international capacity also increases.

Customers were not fooled by Lindsay’s rhetoric.

“This is nonsense,” wrote Lachlan Hunt. “Australia’s model of capped usage limits with higher prices for higher caps, and of ISPs including yourself offering free zones where such data doesn’t count towards the monthly quota is exactly the problem that Net Neutrality advocates aim to deal with. It treats data from companies who choose to partner with you to get their content in the free zone as privileged compared with everyone else, and similarly with other ISPs.”

Hunt complains iiNet’s caps were “ridiculously low” and interfered with his career in the web development industry. Today he lives and works in Europe, where usage caps are increasingly a thing of the past.

“I’m really hoping that you will eventually wake up and realize that usage caps go together with Non-Neutral internet, and with the introduction of the [national fiber to the home network], which brings both higher speeds and capacities, you should be able to lower prices, abolish usage caps and offer a fair model with pricing tiers based on the chosen speeds.”

Stop the Cap! also addressed Lindsay:

[…] We have learned dealing with this issue for several years that ISPs are terrified of their own argument if carried to its fullest extension. If iiNet wants customers to fairly pay for only what they use, they should be billing them on exactly that basis. A flat charge per gigabyte — no allowances/quotas, no penalty overage fees or speed throttles, no wasted, unused quota at the end of the month.

But they don’t dare. If you charged $1/GB (still a crime-gouge compared to the wholesale price), those customers currently paying $30 for up to 20GB service might suddenly be paying $5-15 instead.

[…] If you asked your customers whether they prefer unlimited service or your current cap system, most will clamor for unlimited, even if it costs them a bit more, just for the peace of mind of never facing overage charges or speed throttles.

This argument has never been about capacity. It’s about what it always is about: money.

Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) are incensed about efforts by CenturyLink to win waivers from the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America rural broadband funding program that could leave WISPs facing new competition from CenturyLink made possible by surcharges paid by phone customers nationwide.

At issue is a filing from CenturyLink before the FCC that would allow the phone company to “change the rules,” according to critics. One of CenturyLink’s most prominent arguments is that WISPs have data caps that inconvenience customers. But CenturyLink buries the fact it has usage caps of its own in a footnote.

“The waiver application we filed … would allow CenturyLink to spend tens of millions of dollars to bring more broadband services to more rural and high-cost customers who do not have reasonable access to broadband service today,” CenturyLink said in a media release. “These funds would be provided by the FCC’s Connect America Fund, as well as additional investment dollars would be provided by CenturyLink. If the waiver application is approved, CenturyLink will build needed broadband services to thousands of homes in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon and several other states.”

CenturyLink claims WISPs charge considerably more for service, suffer from line-of-sight restrictions which could leave many rural customers without service, have limited spectrum which keeps broadband speeds to a bare minimum and often forces customers to endure stringent data usage caps.

The waiver request would allow CenturyLink to receive and use federal Connect America funds to deploy its DSL service to rural customers already served by WISPs if two conditions are met:

• The state where CenturyLink would spend the money has not independently verified the coverage area of the wireless ISP and objective data opens the door to an argument that a WISP cannot adequately service areas where they claim coverage;
• The WISP imposes unusually high prices ($720/yr or more) or severe usage caps (25GB per month or less).

Chuck Siefert, CEO of the Montana Internet Corporation (MIC), a WISP, argues CenturyLink has no case, and is attempting to modify the rules to accomplish its own objectives rather than adhering to the original goals of the program — to deliver broadband to the rural unserved:

CenturyLink is simply raising an old protest in a new venue. Having been designated as eligible for almost ninety million dollars of the Connect America Program (CAP), it wishes to have the opportunity to use more than a third of that as it chooses, rather than as the Commission designated after input and analysis from all parties. The Rubicon has been crossed with respect to this issue: unserved areas are those that are not served by fixed wireless providers.  Regardless of CenturyLink’s opinion of the quality of service provided, these areas have been deemed served by the Commission and CAP incremental support may not be used to build out broadband in these areas. CenturyLink is certainly capable of using other funding to build out in these areas; the Commission has not precluded that.

CenturyLink’s complaints that WISPs often come with data usage caps is ironic because CenturyLink is now imposing usage caps on its own broadband service. CenturyLink argues data caps expose the limitations inherent in wireless broadband in their filing with the FCC:

Satellite broadband also often comes encumbered with restrictive data caps. The same is true of many of the WISPs subject to this waiver request. They impose on their users highly restrictive data caps of less than 25 GB per month. Indeed, two of the WISPs impose a cap of just 5 GB per month.

It is no surprise that these WISPs would impose such unusually low caps; like satellite providers, they must ration out their highly constrained capacity among the various end users who compete for it. WISP broadband capacity—unlike the customer-specific links in DSL-based broadband—is shared by all customers within a given wireless cell or sector.

This means that the more customers a WISP persuades to sign up, the worse the average service quality gets for all customers unless the WISP sharply limits how much customers may consume.

That imperative may be an unavoidable consequence of the WISPs’ technology, but it further underscores the need to give the affected consumers a robust broadband alternative.

Siefert claims CenturyLink’s assertions about the quality of its DSL service, pricing, and performance simply fall short of the truth, and MIC does better by its customers.

Pricing

CenturyLink charges a $134.89 non-recurring charge plus $29.99/mo for “up to 1.5Mbps” DSL service, plus “up to” $99.95 for professional installation. CenturyLink’s DSL modem costs $99 and has a one-year warranty.

Siefert claims MIC charges $30/mo for “bursting speeds up to 10Mbps” and $250 for technician installation, but the company offers regular installation promotions that cost $99. MIC warrants its equipment for the life of the service and charges no fee for service calls as long as the customer is current on their bill.

But Stop the Cap! found speeds and pricing less advantageous than Siefert might have the FCC believe. For instance, MIC’s $30 tier only guarantees 384kbps with speed “bursts” up to 10Mbps. Getting committed 2Mbps service runs $55 a month with the same “bursting” speed of 10Mbps. We also found CenturyLink willing to negotiate installation charges, and the company frequently discounts or even waives them if a customer signs up for a multi-service package.

Data Caps

CenturyLink now imposes a 150GB usage cap on customers with 1.5Mbps service or slower, 250GB for customers at higher speeds.

MIC claims it does not even monitor individual customer usage. Siefert says data use limitations are found in the terms and conditions of its service and are imposed only when a customer creates a problem for other users on the network.

“Rather than strictly applying data caps, MIC’s policy is to contact its customers and explain the impact their usage has on other customers,” Siefert explains. “As a small provider in a local community, MIC is able to do this in a way that a carrier like CenturyLink cannot. CenturyLink’s representations regarding transfer caps imply that WISPs arbitrarily and automatically shut a customer down once the cap is reached. This assertion is not based on evidence and is not an accurate statement of MIC’s approach to the caps. CenturyLink’s argument that WISPs operate like satellite and therefore WISPs service areas should be categorized as unserved areas based on how transfer caps are used fails.”

Stop the Cap! found different information on MIC’s website, however, including a 20GB monthly data cap and a $15/GB overage charge. Siefert’s submission to the FCC may suggest the published cap is a guideline more than a rule.

Performance

CenturyLink still uses T1-level circuits (1.5Mbps) to connect at least some of their remote D-SLAMs, according to Siefert, which helps the phone company extend DSL service to homes and businesses far away from the company’s central office. The net result is that customers fight for the bandwidth on an insufficient backhaul, which dramatically reduces speeds during peak usage times. In Helena, Montana CenturyLink “daisy-chains” D-SLAMs to support customers over a single T3 line, creating latency problems, packet loss, and further reductions in speed and performance.

MIC is capable of providing a total of 252Mbps per distribution site. The incoming next generation of wireless technology will increase that to 1.4Gbps. Additional distribution sites can divide the traffic load similar to how new cell towers can reduce demand on other nearby towers.

Speeds

CenturyLink sells speeds “up to” a certain level without guaranteeing customers will actually get the speed they are paying to receive. Siefert says CenturyLink customers in Montana currently can manage up to 7Mbps in some areas.

MIC says it can commit to its customers they can receive 10-40Mbps (and 80Mbps by the end of 2012) over its wireless network.

Independent Netindex.com suggests MIC does offers faster service on average than CenturyLink provides in Montana:

• Montana (statewide average): MIC 5.04Mbps vs. CenturyLink 3.8Mbps
• Helena: MIC 5.08Mbps vs. CenturyLink 2.73Mbps

The Wireless Internet Service Provider Association says their members are not eligible for federal Connect America subsidies, and most wireless providers are privately financed operations built with the support of their rural customers.

Said Richard Harnish, WISPA’s executive director, “We find it hard to believe that a company like CenturyLink that gets millions of dollars in federal support now wants more free money to overbuild unsubsidized rural broadband networks that WISPs already successfully operate. To do this, CenturyLink has attempted to discredit the taxpayer-funded National Broadband Map and invent its own standards in an effort to show that they should receive more than $30 million in additional subsidies.  Our strong opposition reflects WISPA’s view that CenturyLink’s arguments are factually and technically flawed.  We thank the other associations, state agencies and WISPs that support our views.”

Google formally announced its new fiber to the home service to residents of Kansas City today with game-changing pricing for broadband and television service.

For $70 a month, Google will deliver consumers unlimited 1Gbps broadband service. For an additional $50 a month, customers can also receive a robust television package consisting of hundreds of digital HD channels, and throw in a free tablet (they call it ‘the remote control’), free router, free DVR with  hundreds of hours of storage, and access to Google’s cloud backup servers.

Google has also found a solution to affordable Internet for poorer residents. The company is promising free 5/1Mbps service for up to seven years if customers will pay a $300 installation charge, payable in $25 installments.

Customers who agree to sign up for multiple services and a service contract can waive the $300 installation charge.

Google’s new service will roll out to different areas of Kansas City. Google has split neighborhoods into “fiberhoods” that consist of around 800 homes. In a masterful public relations and public policy demonstration, Google intends to show up the cable and phone companies who have repeatedly declared customers have no interest in fiber-fast broadband speeds by asking would-be customers to pre-register for Google Fiber, which will cost $10. Those “fiberhoods” with the largest number of pre-registrations will be the first to get Google’s new fiber service. At least 80 families (around 10%) of each “fiberhood” will have to be willing to sign up for Google to activate the service in each neighborhood.

Google hopes consumers will evangelize the possibilities of fiber broadband with friends and neighbors nearby and get them on board. If the telecom industry’s predictions of lukewarm interest are true, then Google won’t collect many $10 registrations and will not be able to publicize the number of customers who want nothing more to do with incumbent cable and phone companies. If Google is correct, they will have successfully proven America’s phone and cable companies have been dramatically overcharging Americans for service and large numbers are clamoring for a better choice.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google Fiber In Kansas City 7-26-12.flv[/flv]

Google’s formal introduction of Google Fiber in Kansas City this morning. Presentation begins at around the five minute mark.  (1 hour, 6 minutes)

Google has the goods to entice technology fanatics. Those signing up for television service will find Google has moved way beyond the traditional cable set top box that still won’t reliably record your favorite shows. Google will supply customers with:

• a free Nexus 7 tablet that will come pre-programmed to function as a remote control (but can be used for other things);
• a Bluetooth-based traditional remote;
• a combination set top box and DVR system that can record up to 500 hours of programming;
• a Wi-Fi enabled Gigabit router;
• an iOS (Android coming, of course) app that will let viewers manage everything over their tablet or mobile phone;
• a 2TB storage locker;
• a free terabyte of Google Cloud storage

But Google’s current television lineup does omit many popular cable networks, either in an effort to control programming costs or because the company has not completed negotiations with every programmer they want on the lineup. Among the missing:

• ESPN and regional sports networks
• Disney networks
• Turner networks like TNT, TBS and Turner Classic Movies
• Rainbow Networks’ AMC
• Time Warner-owned channels like HBO, CNN and TruTV
• Fox-owned networks like Fox News Channel and Fox Business News

Time Warner Cable’s response to Google’s network seems to indicate, publicly at least, they are not that worried.

“Kansas City has been a highly competitive market for a long time and we take all competitors seriously,” said spokesman Justin Venech. “We have a robust and adaptable network, advanced products and services available today, and experienced local employees delivering local service. We are confident in our ability to compete.”

AT&T lost 649,000 DSL customers in three months.

AT&T’s broadband customers are taking their business elsewhere as second quarter results show the phone company lost 649,000 DSL customers in the last three months, while only picking up 553,000 new U-verse Internet users to replace those leaving. The result was a net loss of nearly 100,000 broadband customers in a single quarter. The company also only managed to attract 155,000 new U-verse television customers away from satellite or cable operators during the quarter.

AT&T blames the losses on “seasonality” — code language for part-time residents, college students, and other fluctuations that occur as customers come and go. Total broadband connections dropped 0.2% for AT&T, with 16.43 million remaining customers.

Landline customers also continue to depart AT&T in droves. More than one million home phone customers pulled the plug on AT&T this quarter. AT&T has lost nearly 11 percent of their landline customers over the past year.

For those remaining, a combination of rate increases, cost cutting and fierce marketing of bundled packages of services are keeping revenue growing on both the residential and business side.

AT&T is getting closer to announcing a “rural landline solution,” which some analysts predict will be the company’s exit from the rural landline business.

Executives continue to hint the company is reviewing its future in the rural landline business. AT&T lobbyists have shepherded new laws in several states that would allow them to abandon rural landline customers where the company is no longer required to be “the carrier of last resort.”

AT&T U-verse is turning out to be not much of a threat to cable and satellite operators, only achieving a 17.3% penetration rate in areas where the service is available.

The real money for AT&T is being made in the wireless sector, where increasing prices, changes to service packages, and data usage-based billing are all paying off  — revenue for wireless data alone is up 18.8% to $1 billion during the second quarter. AT&T earned $14.3 billion from its wireless business in just the second quarter alone.

At the same time, the company is slashing investments in parts of its network and cutting employees.

Capital expenditures in the second quarter amounted to $4.48 billion, down 15% from the $5.27 billion AT&T spent a year ago. AT&T also cut its workforce by 6.4% since June 2011, with a reported 242,380 total remaining employees.

Despite the company’s talking points, AT&T’s upgrade fee is designed to slow down customers considering upgrading their smartphones.

In other highlights:

• Wall Street analysts are praising AT&T’s stricter upgrade policies and device upgrade fees. In fact, at least one analyst wants to see AT&T raise the fee to $50 for every phone upgrade. The fees discourage customers from upgrading their phones, which dramatically reduces AT&T’s costs. AT&T subsidizes phones for customers. The longer customers hold off from upgrading, the more revenue AT&T keeps for themselves and shareholders. AT&T has made it clear it will continue to “introduce discipline”  in the handset market to enforce “rational pricing,” which means customers will continue to see further reductions in device subsidies and face higher prices when upgrading phones.
• Much of AT&T’s investment will be in its LTE 4G network. AT&T’s spending on wireline services including U-verse is on the decline.
• AT&T admitted its policy of monetizing data usage for profit is well underway: “[We are getting] ourselves set up for revenues that are going to be tied to usage, which will then be tied to our capital requirements and a really profitable situation.”
• AT&T is aggressively pushing customers to upgrade to smartphones so they can earn additional revenue. “Smartphone subscribers now number 43 million and make [up] 62% of our total postpaid base. But smartphones accounted for 77% of postpaid sales during the quarter, showing continuing opportunity for growth. And when you look at our total smartphone base, we’ve added 9 million high-value smartphone customers in just the last 12 months.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT 2Q2012 Results.flv[/flv]

AT&T spins its 2nd Quarter results for shareholders in the best possible light. Although revenues are up, the number of customers leaving AT&T for other providers may challenge future growth and earnings. (4 minutes)