Google Fiber is more than the experimental publicity/political “stunt” many large cable companies and Wall Street investors have suspected since the search giant first announced it would build a 1,000/1,000Mbps fiber to the home network.

BTIG Research, which follows the telecom sector for large institutional investors and investment managers, says there is a lot more to Google Fiber than many initially thought.

If Google’s fiber project expands outside of Kansas City, it could ultimately transform the business model of broadband in the United States. It already has generated unease for Time Warner Cable, which has resorted to knocking on doors to preserve its customer relationships.

It is one thing to consider Google Fiber from a New York City office and another to see it working on the ground. BTIG’s Rich Greenfield and Walt Piecyk decided to travel to Kansas City to investigate the new fiber service first-hand.

“We believe Google Fiber will accelerate rapidly, changing consumer habits in its territory,” they concluded. “While it is very early in Google Fiber’s life, we fully expect Google to build out more markets after they perfect the broadband and TV offerings in Kansas City.”

There is ready-made demand, judging from the 1,100 cities that asked Google Fiber to set up shop locally. Local governments recognize their telecommunications future has been largely monopolized by one cable and one phone company, and it is important for that to change. Some have taken steps to build their own networks, others will throw a parade if Google does it for them. Reasoning with the likes of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and Verizon — among several others — has not gotten world class broadband at a reasonable price. Instead, many incumbent players have used their market power to raise prices, restrict usage with unnecessary usage caps, and retard innovation.

Google may prove to be the only force large and aggressive enough to throw a monkey wrench into the comfortable business plans and conventional wisdom about how broadband should be packaged and sold in this country. Community owned providers have shown they can deliver superior service and pricing, but face deep-pocketed incumbents that can use predatory pricing to save customers in one market while raising prices on captive customers in others. Incumbent providers also have successfully advocated for protectionist bans on publicly-owned broadband in a number of states. Washington regulators have thus far been largely supine and disengaged when asked to address the challenges consumers face from rising bills for more restricted service.

BTIG’s own research is a marked departure from the usual dismissive attitude incumbents and Wall Street have paid to the Google project. Greenfield himself acknowledges that the investment and business media communities typically respond with three reactions when one mentions Google Fiber:

• “Is it a sustainable business with those economics?”
• “How much cash are they blowing?”
• “Who cares about what they are doing in a couple of relatively small cities such as the Kansas Cities?”

But such thinking underestimates Google’s potential much the same way Yahoo! and AltaVista did with their dominant search engines a decade ago. The biggest mistake one could make is to assume Google just wants to be another competing cable or phone company. It goes far beyond that.

Greenfield believes Google is seeking to become an integral part of the communities it serves, equal in stature to the cable and phone companies, but without their reviled reputation.

But the most significant change Google brings is a challenge to the current business model of consumer broadband.

Phone and cable companies first monetized broadband speeds. The faster the speed chosen, the higher the price. The earnings power of broadband gradually increased as more Americans signed up for service and the costs to provide it declined. But as cable TV margins continue to erode, the money to cover the difference has come from broadband, which has seen regular, unjustified rate increases since 2010. Not content with monetizing broadband speed alone, many providers are also attempting to monetize broadband usage with usage limits and/or consumption-based billing schemes. A recent Wall Street Journal article estimated 90 percent of the price consumers pay for Internet access is profit.

With that kind of profit margin, the economics of Google’s ambitious fiber project do not look as unfavorable as some on Wall Street suggest.

Greenfield calls Google’s 1 gigabit speeds insanely low-priced at $70 a month. He’s right when one considers current pricing models of incumbents. At Time Warner Cable’s current pricing (50/5Mbps service for $99 a month), the cable company would charge consumers $1,980 a month for 1,000/1,000Mbps service, assuming they could actually deliver it. Upstream speeds above 5Mbps might cost even more. Cable television, which used to be the core service offered by cable companies, is almost an afterthought for Google. It can be added for $50 more per month, which is actually cheaper than many competing providers charge for a similar package.

Greenfield feels Google has an aspirational goal for its Kansas City network.

“In Kansas City, Google has a customer facing service with employees who are part of your community, trucks that come to your house and customer service reps that answer your questions when you need help,” Greenfield notes.

On that basis, Google can reboot itself into an entirely new entity in Kansas City, offering much more than a broadband service and a search engine.

Google’s sleek network box.

Greenfield notes Google Fiber has been carefully developed to break away from the familiar experience one has with the phone and cable company:

• The home terminals and DVR equipment more closely resemble a sleek Apple product, not a Motorola/Cisco set top box that has looked largely the same since the 1990s;
• The installation experience has been streamlined — the external network interface on the side of the customer’s home does not require anyone to be home during the installation, reducing the time needed for a customer to sit around while service is installed inside;
• In-home equipment envisions a more integrated IP-based network future with Ethernet and Wi-Fi connectivity, a centralized storage device which acts as an enhanced whole house DVR, and a minimalist TV box that can be hidden — no more unsightly hulking set top boxes. It represents a home entertainment network that goes far beyond what the competition is offering.

These factors deliver a positive customer experience, if only because Google paid attention to complaints from cable and telephone subscribers and decided to do things differently.

Other traditional business model busters noted by Greenfield:

• Google will deliver 6/1Mbps budget priced Internet for a $300 one time fee (payable in $20 installments) which includes an in-home router, breaking through the digital divide and getting Google’s infrastructure into homes that simply cannot afford traditional cable or phone company broadband. It blows away the current “lite” offering sold by cable and phone companies with much better speeds at a far lower price;
• Google is working with charitable organizations to help the poorest get broadband for even less, through donations and other fundraising;
• Google leverages the community as a crowd-sourced marketing engine. Word of mouth advertising and competition among different neighborhoods helps drive the expansion of the network. Even if a consumer has no interest in the service, many fight to see it in their neighborhoods for the benefit of local community institutions who will receive free hookups;
• Every new customer signed up for two years’ service receives a free Nexus tablet. The tablet is sold as the service’s “remote control,” but it is capable of much more;
• No data caps, no speed throttling. With just two speed tiers, Google has completely discarded the speed-based and usage-based business models for broadband.

A Nexus 7 tablet comes free with the service (and a two year commitment)

So what exactly does BTIG think is Google’s master plan? Greenfield suspects Google is not recouping its initial investment or costs with their current pricing model, but that may not matter. Google may earn profit in other ways.

A 33% increase in the number of homes with broadband could be a substantial boost for Google search and YouTube, earning Google additional revenue. Improved broadband available to an entire household guarantees people will spend more time online, especially with no data caps or slow speeds. Enormously faster upload speed promotes more content sharing, which in turn means more time online with services like YouTube. A home tablet enables even more broadband usage, according to Greenfield.

As broadband speeds improve, advertisers can expose web visitors to more attractive, multimedia rich advertising not easily possible on slower speed connections. That could let Google tap into a greater share of the $60 billion TV ad market, especially for YouTube videos.

Finally, Greenfield suspects the more Google develops brand loyalty, the more successful it will be pitching consumers and businesses on services of the future.

Greenfield notes there are still bugs and features to be worked on, particularly with Google’s TV offering, but the company will have plenty of opportunities to manage those before it introduces Google Fiber elsewhere.

The implications of an expanding fiber to the home universe in the United States under Google’s price model could deliver a potent punch to incumbents like Time Warner Cable. So far, the cable company has only faced satellite dish competition for television, a technologically inferior AT&T U-verse, which will never have the capacity Time Warner has so long as the phone company still relies on any significant amount of copper wiring, and Verizon FiOS, which has disengaged from a price war with the cable company and is raising prices.

The writing is already on the wall, at least in Kansas City. Greenfield relays that Time Warner has been going all-out to improve its own customer service. One customer noted Time Warner Cable came to his house twice in recent weeks, without a scheduled service call, to check on the quality of his Internet speeds and to make sure the customer was happy.

In some neighborhoods, Time Warner is going door to door to interact with customers, something not done since cable operators first knocked on doors 30 years ago to introduce you to their service.

Google Fiber could ultimately force the end of one more legacy the cable industry has earned itself over the past few decades: customers loathing its service and prices.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google Fiber Demo by BTIG’s Rich Greenfield and Walt Piecyk 11-23-12.flv[/flv]

BTIG’s Rich Greenfield and Walt Piecyk experience Google Fiber in Kansas City.  (3 minutes)

Cadillac prices for some sports networks you pay for whether you watch or not. (Early Summer 2012 – Prices have since risen for some networks)

About 50 percent of your monthly cable television bill covers the cost of live sporting events and the networks that cover them, and the price is not going down anytime soon.

At least $21 of that bill is split between more than 50 national and regional channels covering every imaginable sport.

What customers may not know is that a handful of self-interested giant corporations and major sporting leagues have successfully bid up the price to carry those events using your money.

The Philadelphia Inquirer took a hard look at spiraling sports programming costs last weekend, discovering a lot of cable subscribers are paying for sports programming they will never watch.

“Here is a little old lady who wants to watch CNN,” Ralph Morrow, owner of Catalina Cable TV Co. in Avalon, Calif., a 1,200-subscriber system, told the newspaper. “But I can’t give it to her without $21 a month in sports.”

In the last 20 months, some of the biggest names in sports programming including Comcast/NBC, Fox, ESPN, CBS, and Turner have agreed to collectively pay $72 billion in TV rights to air pro, college, and Olympic events over the next decade. Costs are anticipated to soar to $100 billion or more once those contracts come up for renewal.

To cover the growing expense, the pay television industry’s business model insists that every subscriber must pay for sports networks as part of the “basic package” whether they watch or not. Nothing fuels annual rate increases faster than sports programming, and there is no end in sight.

Many contracts specifically prohibit operators from selling their networks “a-la-carte” or in special “sports tiers” that carry extra monthly fees.  Any additional costs are quickly passed onto subscribers in the form of regular rate hikes.

Charlie Ergen from Dish Networks suggests at the current pace of sports programming rate increases, it won’t be long before subscribers will face cable bills up to $2,000 a year, just to watch television.

If you don’t believe him, consider estimates from NPD Group, which predicts the national average for cable TV bills could reach $200 a month as soon as 2020. That is up from the already-high $86 a month customers pay today, after all costs and surcharges are added up.

It was not always this way. As late as the 1980s, the overwhelming majority of marquee sporting events were televised on “free TV” networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC. For decades, major broadcast networks largely had only themselves and the economics of advertiser supported television to consider when submitting bids to win carriage rights.

With the advent of cable sports networks, supported by dual revenue streams from both advertising and subscriber fees, ESPN eventually amassed a back account large enough to outbid traditional broadband networks. If another network moves in on ESPN’s action, the cable network simply raises the subscription fee charged to every cable subscriber to up the ante.

Broadcasters have enviously watched this dual revenue stream in action for several years now, and have recently insisted they be treated equally. Today, cable operators face demands for similar monthly payments from television stations and their network owners. In effect, customers are paying both sides to outbid one another for sports programming.

Consider ESPN as a case study in sports programming inflation. From 1989-2012, ESPN rates increased 440 percent. Today, every cable subscriber pays at least $5.13 for ESPN alone. In fact, the actual amount is considerably higher, because ESPN has successfully compelled most cable and satellite programmers to also carry (and pay for) several additional ESPN-branded networks also found on your lineup.

But why do cable companies agree to pay astronomical fees for sports networks, only to later alienate customers with annual rate hikes?

First, because customers watch sports. If a cable company does not carry the network showing a game or team a customer wants to see, that company will likely hear about it, either in a complaint call or cancellation.

Second, watching live sporting events is not easy for a cord-cutter. With fewer games appearing consistently on broadcast television, a cord cutting sports fan risks missing the action only available from a pay television provider.

In a defensive move, many cable and satellite companies assume the more live sports a  provider offers, the lower the chance a sports enthusiast will consider canceling service.

Cross-ownership also muddies the water for consumers. Comcast, the largest cable operator in the country, has an obvious self-interest loading its systems up with its own sports programming and compelling customers to pay for it.

Comcast owns about a dozen regional sports networks, NBC, NBC Sports Network and Golf.

Other large cable operators are concluding if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. Time Warner Cable found one lucrative reason to own its own sports networks: its ability to charge competing cable and satellite providers sky high prices to carry that programming.

Time Warner is asking fellow cable, telco, and satellite providers to pay $3.95 a month for its SportsNet English and Spanish language networks, which feature the Los Angeles Lakers. For good measure, the same cable company that routinely complains about being forced to pass on mandatory sports programming costs from others insists companies place both of their sports channels on basic lineups, which guarantees every subscriber will also pay the price for two more sports channels, one in Spanish, they may have no interest in watching.

As much as 90 percent of your monthly broadband bill represents pure gross profit for your phone or cable provider, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Cable executives and analysts say that about 90% of the money cable operators charge for broadband goes straight to gross profits, since there are minimal operational costs for providing Internet service.

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Most of the expenses incurred by cable operators that today dominate the broadband market came from cable system upgrades that began in the early 1990s to accommodate the introduction of digital cable television and other services like digital cable radio, expanded pay-per-view and on-demand features, home security, telephone service, and the launch of cable broadband.

Most of those upgrades were paid off years ago, and the costs of bandwidth and network upgrades to handle increased data demands are proving to be both incidental and declining.

What has not declined is the price consumers pay for service.

Among Canada, the USA, Japan, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, Americans pay the highest prices and are seeing the largest rate increases for Internet access, especially after 2011, according to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission which tracks global broadband pricing.

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Bell has the perfect gift for themselves this holiday season: significant rate increases on phone, broadband and television service that will leave some customers paying at least $120 more a year for service.

Stop the Cap! reader Alex Perrier shared the bad news with us:

“What a great Christmas gift,” Perrier writes. “With few exceptions, all Bell home services get a ‘price update.'”

Home phone customers may be in for some bill shock if they happen to use on-demand calling features or directory assistance. Some of those rates are increasing by more than 500%.

Home phone packages

The monthly fee for all Bell Home phone packages (Home phone Lite, Home phone Basic, Home phone Choice, Home phone Complete) are increasing by $2.03 effective January 1, 2013.

Long distance plans

Features

Effective January 1, 2013, the price of Home phone pay-per-use calling features (Last Call Return, Busy Call Return and Three-Way Calling) will increase by $0.45 to $2.95 per use. The monthly cap on Home phone pay-per-use calling features will also increase to $29.50

Effective January 1, 2013, Directory Assistance will increase by $0.50 to $3.00 per use.

Bell TV

Bell Internet

Note: Bell Internet 5 and Bell Internet 5 Plus are excluded from the price increase.

Despite making revenue growth the top priority at Frontier Communications, the company still managed to lose 3% in year over year revenue as another 51,800 customers pulled the plug on their Frontier landline and slow DSL service.

Frontier’s latest quarterly earnings showed a net income rise to $67 million, a major improvement over $20.4 million earned during the same quarter last year. The earnings improvement comes from reduced operating expenses, down 12 percent to $977.3 million and rate increases for certain Frontier markets in less-competitive areas.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter told investors the company has been reviewing accounts obtained from Verizon Communications, scrutinizing for “unnecessary credits, adjustments, and discounts, ” and systematically eliminating them.

“We’ve got a number of [ex-Verizon] customers that have been with us at a very, very, very low price point; they’ve been on promotions,” said Donald Shassian, Frontier’s chief financial officer. “They’ve been in existence for years and never got curtailed. And once we converted [those customers] onto [Frontier’s billing system], we identified those.”

Frontier’s plan for future growth is a temporary transition away from expanding broadband service into unserved areas, instead focusing on speed upgrades and service improvements where Frontier already serves.

Frontier: Speed upgrades “help dispel the myth that DSL technology cannot keep up with customer demand.” Faster speeds support IPTV as well.

Frontier has targeted investment on improving speeds and network capacity for customers currently stuck with 1-3Mbps traditional DSL service. Frontier is using its fiber-based middle mile network and more advanced forms of DSL to dramatically increase broadband speeds. According to company officials, 64% of Frontier’s exchanges are now equipped with VDSL2, with speeds up to 40Mbps. At least 73% have equipment capable of bonded ADSL2+ with speeds up to 20Mbps. The target for Frontier’s fastest speeds are commercial customers. By the end of this year, 71% of Frontier’s exchanges will support carrier Ethernet service up to 1Gbps for business accounts.

Most Frontier residential customers will see more modest speed improvements. During the third quarter, Frontier expanded its higher speed offerings with more to come:

• 20Mbps service is now for sale in 34% of its national service territory. By year end, 40% will have access and 52% by 2013;
• 12Mbps service is now available to 48% of its network footprint. By the end of the year, 51% of homes will have access and 60% in 2013;
• 6Mbps is now available to 67% of Frontier-served homes, with 74% expected by year end and 80% by 2013.

“We’re seeing 100Mbps delivery in vendor labs and that should be a reality in the next 12 months in our markets,” Wilderotter said. “This should help dispel the myth that DSL technology cannot keep up with customer demand.”

Wilderotter noted that the latest network upgrades might eventually support television service.

“We think we have the opportunity to offer an IPTV-type service in many of our markets, to many of our customers,” said Wilderotter. “In our labs, we’re doing some experimentation on the DSL platform with certain types of technologies that compress the data stream, so we could actually offer a very good video experience at 6Mbps or above. We’ll be doing some experimentation with that in 2013.”

New Products, More Simplified Pricing, Bigger Promotions

To better compete with cable, Frontier has simplified many of their broadband packages, eliminating the modem rental fee and other hidden surcharges for customers. Wilderotter noted the cable industry has recently started to “nickle and dime” customers with modem rental fees and surcharges, something Frontier has also charged customers in the past.

Frontier is now staking a position in simplified pricing.

“So when a customer gets a quote of $39.99 for broadband, it includes the modem, it includes surcharges, it includes everything,” Wilderotter explained. “So they’re not surprised when they get their bill. And we think that’s a huge value selling point for our product set.”

But simple pricing is not always lower pricing.

Increases in broadband service pricing, a hike in the Subscriber Line Charge, and other surcharges introduced for departing customers helped add to the company’s bottom line. But Frontier insists it adjusts rates only after considering the competitive environment.

“You don’t necessarily see us do price increases on broadband across the board,” explained Shassian. “We also believe that the price increases should be associated with increased value to the customer, too. So in some cases, it’s incremental speeds and capability.”

In an effort to upsell current customers, and even more importantly “win back” those who left, Frontier has introduced an aggressive new promotion that will reward subscribers with up to a $450 Apple gift card when committing to a new two-year contract. The value of the gift card ranges depending on how many services a customer chooses.

Stop the Cap! found Frontier pitching a triple play promotion in Tennessee for $87.99 a month with a $450 Apple gift card for new or returning Frontier customers. The bundle includes 6Mbps DSL, Frontier residential phone service with features and long distance service, and DISH Networks’ America’s Top 120 satellite service.

But there is fine print, including a two year service agreement with a $400 early termination fee for phone and broadband service, a DISH cancellation fee of $17.50 for each month remaining in a two year contract, at least $85 in “setup fees,” a $9.99 “broadband processing fee” if a customer disconnects service, and an online bonus credit a customer has to remember to request within 45 days of service activation.

Other Frontier Developments This Quarter

• Frontier began deploying the FCC Connect America Fund proceeds during the quarter to bring broadband to 92,877 new Frontier homes;
• A wireless partnership trial with AT&T began on October 8 in Washington and Minnesota. The discounted package bundle is only available to customers who also maintain Frontier broadband service;
• Over 203,000 Frontier customers signed up with legacy partner DirecTV saw their satellite service unbundled from their Frontier bills this quarter. Frontier chose DISH Networks as its satellite partner back in 2011, and the company has encouraged its old DirecTV customers to consider switching to DISH;
• Business customers constitute 52% of Frontier customer revenues. Frontier expects more than 66% of total customer revenue to come from broadband service;
• Frontier’s Simply Broadband, a broadband-only product, used to include a free landline. Not anymore;
• Frontier will begin accelerating promotions for its Apple Store gift card starting this week;
• Hughes Net Satellite service was integrated into Frontier’s systems and is pitched to customers as Frontier Satellite Broadband. It will be targeted to 750,000 households that cannot access wired broadband service from Frontier.