Suddenlink, one of America’s smaller cable operators, has been undergoing a transformation as it tries to meet expectations of today’s cable subscribers and match whatever phone company competition comes their way.  While some of the upgrades are customer-friendly, others pose ominous signs for the future — particularly with respect to Internet Overcharging broadband customers.

Let’s explore:

The Good — New Broadband Speeds, New DVR, New Investments

Suddenlink cuts the ribbon on its new store in El Dorado. (Courtesy: Suddenlink FYI)

In parts of Suddenlink’s service area, particularly in Texas, the company is moving most of its cable service to a digital platform.  This transition is designed to open up additional space for more HD channels, keep up with broadband demands, and open the door for additional on-demand programming.

In Nacogdoches, Suddenlink announced it was adopting an all-digital TV lineup.  Starting this week, the company is offering subscribers free digital adapters — also known as “DigitaLinks,” to enable continued viewing on analog television sets that do not have a set top box or digital tuning capability.  Every subscriber purchasing more than the broadcast basic package (that only includes local stations and a handful of cable networks) will either need a digital tuner-ready television, a set top box, or a DigitaLink device to continue watching.

What is good about this transition is that Suddenlink is not charging customers a monthly fee for the adapters, either now or in the future.  That contrasts with other cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable that have handed customers a set top box or a digital adapter they will begin charging for after a year or two.

Suddenlink expects to invest nearly $120 million this year in Texas, and by the end of the year will have invested nearly a half-billion dollars in the state since 2006.

Texas is extremely important to Suddenlink.  The third largest cable company in Texas serves about 450,000 households and approximately 27,000 business customers in Amarillo, Lubbock, Abilene, Bryan-College Station, Midland, San Angelo, Georgetown, Tyler, Victoria, Conroe, Kingwood and Nacogdoches.

Suddenlink's New TiVo DVR

The company has also lit new fiber connections to handle data communications, primarily for business customers, and is upgrading its broadband service to fully support DOCSIS 3, which will deliver faster speeds and less congested service.

Customers in the state are also among the first to get access to a new and improved DVR box built on a TiVo software platform.  Suddenlink’s “Premiere DVR” service ($17/mo) is now available in Midland, Floydada, Plainview, Amarillo, Canyon, and Tulia.

The Bad — “Suddenlink Residential Internet Service is for Entertainment” Purposes Only

The Humboldt County, Calif. Journal's "Seven-o-heaven" comic strip commented on Suddenlink's problems. (Click the image to see the entire strip.)

Do you take your broadband service seriously, or is it simply another entertainment option in your home?  If you answered the latter, this story may not be so surprising.

In Humboldt County, Calif., broadband users started noticing their favorite web pages stopped updating on a regular basis.  At one point, a blogger in McKinleyville noticed he couldn’t manage to post comments on his own website.  But things got much worse when several web pages started reaching customers with other users’ names (and occasionally e-mail addresses) already filled in on login screens and comment forms.

It seems Suddenlink started to cache web content in the far northern coastal county of California, meaning the first customer to visit a particular website triggered Suddenlink’s local servers to store a copy of the page, so that future customers headed to the same website received the locally-stored copy, not the actual live page.

But the caching software went haywire.

Web visitors began to receive mobile versions of web sites even though they were using home computers at the time.  Some were asked if they wanted to download a copy of a web page instead of viewing it.  And many others discovered websites were customized for earlier visitors.

While the caching problem was irritating, the privacy breaches Suddenlink enabled were disturbing, as was the initial total lack of response from Suddenlink officials when the problem first started in late January.

The Journal finally reached a representative who provided this explanation:

Suddenlink Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications Pete Abel knew that a cache system had recently been installed in Humboldt County, but was unaware of the particular problems reported by users. After speaking with the Journal and other Suddenlink employees, though, he released a statement explaining what appeared to have happened.

According to the release, the cache system was installed in Humboldt County on Thursday, Jan. 27 — the very day that users began experiencing problems — and was intended as an interim solution to relatively low Internet speeds in Humboldt County. The system, it said, was able to cache only unsecure websites — those which, unlike almost all reputable banking or commerce systems — do not encrypt communications. But the company eventually discovered the problems that its customers had been reporting and, having fruitlessly worked with its vendor to find a solution, turned the system off on Monday.

“The good news is that secure Web site pages will not have been cached,” Abel said in a follow-up call to the Journal. “And I have been assured 100 ways from Sunday that never would have happened.”

Andrew Jones, who runs a blog with his Suddenlink broadband account, tried to opt out of the web caching and received an interesting response, in writing, from a Suddenlink representative.  He was told he could not opt out of cached web pages with a residential account because, “the residential service is for entertainment only.”

Jones was told he would have to upgrade to a business account to escape the cache.

“If a small local radio station intermittently went off air for multiple days, the radio host would be apologizing and explaining the situation,” Jones wrote the Journal. “If a large utility company experienced sporadic power outages, people could hear a recording on a toll-free number to learn the cause and about ongoing repairs. What does an Internet provider do when web access becomes spotty and begins serving customers old copies of web pages? The company gets back to you in a couple days and suggests you pay more if you don’t like its recently degraded services.”

The Ugly — Suddenlink’s New Usage Meter Suggests 43GB is An Appropriate Amount of Usage for Standard Internet, 87GB is Plenty for Their $60 Premium Package

Although Suddenlink has not formally adopted an Internet Overcharging scheme of usage caps or metered billing, the company is sending automated e-mail messages to customers who exceed what they call “typical monthly usage for customers in your package.”  The e-mail tells customers they may be infected with a virus or someone else could be using your connection without your permission.  Boo!  For the uninitiated, this kind of message can bring fear that their computer has been invaded, either with malicious malware or the neighbor next door.

Customers have also received letters in the mail from the company telling them to check out their new “usage meter.”  Several have been sharing how much they’ve racked up in usage during the month on Broadband Reports.  One customer managed 243GB while another looking at the company’s super premium 107/5Mbps package managed a whopping 786GB.

Although the wording of the message has strenuously avoided telling customers they are wrong for this amount of usage, the implication is clear to many: they are counting your gigabytes and identifying the outliers.  One customer called it Suddenlink’s “You’re actually using your connection, and we really wish you wouldn’t”-message.

“No one with an ounce of sense would pay for a 20/3Mbps connection and only use 78 GB in a month. Let’s hope they’re just making cute suggestions, not easing us into a cap, because that just won’t fly,” wrote one West Virginia customer.

Another in Georgetown, Texas did the math and made it clear 43GB better not turn out to be a cap because it means customers can barely use the service they are paying for.

“It’s way too low. I got 10Mbps [service] because of price/value and not because I use less than 43GB,” he writes. “[Even] if I downloaded at 1.25MB/s for 30 days straight (1.25 * 2592000 seconds) I could [still] grab 3.164TB.”

Clyde (Courtesy: KUSH Radio/Donna Judd)

Meanwhile, some controversy over the quality of Suddenlink’s service during the upgrade process had some residents in Cushing, Okla., up in arms at a recent city meeting.  Lorene Clyde complained Suddenlink’s “new and improved” service is worse than ever.

“I’m tired of paying for a service I’m not getting,” Clyde said.  “And the Suddenlink commercials – they are like rubbing salt in a wound.”

KUSH-AM reporters were on hand to cover the event, noting Clyde was not the only one complaining.  The radio station noted that “the buzz around town echoes her sentiments – from the ‘mildly irritated’ to the ‘downright mad’ – citizens have been complaining.  Not only have they been complaining to Suddenlink – as difficult as that may be (the call center is in Tyler, Texas) – but to city leaders.”

What Clyde and others may not have realized is that Suddenlink officials were in attendance and were able to apologize for the problems, but a growing consensus among consumers and city leaders is that a broad-based refund for the poor service was warranted.

Commissioner Joe Manning said while he appreciated the promise to figure out the problem, it wasn’t good enough to just apologize and promise – that subscribers’ bills should be adjusted to reflect the poor service.

Commissioners Carey Seigle and Tommy Johnson agreed with Manning.  Seigle pointed out it would be “good P.R.” to give some sort of rebate across the board to subscribers while Johnson complained that the original “upgrade” was only going to take a few weeks and now 8 months later – things are not better, but worse, noted the radio station.

Suddenlink officials on hand said they did not have that kind of authority, but continued to promise things are going to get better.  “I pledge to you,” one said, “We will find it [the problem] and fix it.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJTV Lubbock Borrowing Wi-Fi 2-7-11.flv[/flv]

KJTV-TV in Lubbock, Texas talked with Suddenlink about the growing trend of neighbors “borrowing” neighbors’ unsecured Wi-Fi networks.  Other than the accidental recommendation that consumers should “invest in Internet spyware” to keep your computer safe, the report does a fair job of shining a light on a practice that could have financial consequences if the provider implements an Internet Overcharging scheme.  (2 minutes)

During the third day of hearings on usage-based billing, Mirko Bibic from Bell admitted that usage-based billing “prevents [other ISPs] from differentiating their offers from our own.”

That remarkable admission is exactly what independent Internet Service Providers have been arguing since the issue of wholesale usage-based billing was first proposed by Canada’s largest broadband supplier.

Independent providers have managed to carve out a niche supplying primarily residential DSL customers with flat rate usage plans, made possible because of wholesale access provisions assured under Canada’s telecommunications regulations.  As Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron have systematically imposed usage limits on their residential customers (and occasionally lowered them), consumers seeking better value have found it from smaller ISPs that still offer unlimited access.

As Bell frets over its inability to reap retail revenue from customers departing for other providers, the idea of imposing usage-based billing on wholesale accounts ends that revenue erosion once and for all.  As Bell admits, it forces every provider in Canada to charge the same high prices they do for Internet access.

Canada’s telecom regulator, the CRTC, still cannot define what a “heavy user” is, and neither could Bibic.  But with these pricing schemes, now they don’t have to.  Imposing higher prices with vague promises that the resulting revenue will expand Canada’s broadband networks is eerily familiar to what Time Warner promised residents in several major cities, and then didn’t deliver.

In western New York, the cable company promised a new generation of blazing fast speeds on a world class broadband network, as long as customers agreed to pay up to $150 for unlimited residential service per month.  The old price was $50.  But the cable company provided those upgrades in other cities instead — without usage based pricing.  No wonder residents were furious.  After two weeks of protest, Time Warner threw in the towel.

Two years later, the promised upgrades are finally slated to arrive, long after being made available in most large cities in New York State.

Provider-promised bait and switch broadband upgrades merely represent sucker bets, and no one except the provider wins.

If Bell gets its way, there will be no reason for anyone to do business with an independent service provider.  They’ll be forced to charge increased prices, sometimes even higher than Bell itself.

Despite promises from AT&T and their astroturf friends that telecom deregulation would result in lower prices for Ohio residents, the company announced this week it was -increasing- prices for basic landlines — the service Ohio’s poorest rely on most from the phone giant.

AT&T Ohio residential customers are receiving notices with their recent bills that effective Jan. 7, monthly service will increase by $1.25, the maximum amount allowed under Ohio’s new deregulation law.  Before taxes, fees, and surcharges, Ohio phone rates for basic residential service will increase from $14.25 to $15.50.

It’s the fourth rate hike in four years for Ohio landline customers who were promised savings as a result of telecommunications deregulation.

But in fact AT&T’s lobbyists recommended and got language in the legislation that actually reduced the competitive test required for AT&T to win approval of rate increases.

Under old Ohio law, AT&T had to show they had at least five competitors in a service area; today that number has been reduced to just two, leaving virtually the entire state wide open to unfettered rate hikes.

“It is unfortunate residential consumers will have to pay more for basic landline service, especially during these difficult economic times,” Consumers’ Counsel Janine Migden-Ostrander told the Times-Reporter.

The Ohio Consumers’ Counsel tried to have the rate increase rolled back, arguing under the new law, AT&T Ohio failed to show proof that even two competitive services are available.

But AT&T’s lobbyists made sure the company really did not have to respond, because the new law provides for automatic approval if Ohio’s Public Utility Commission fails to deny rate hike requests within a 30 day window.  In this case, they did not rule on the Consumer Counsel’s appeal within 30 days, which effectively ceded the issue to AT&T’s favor.

While large numbers of Ohio residents continue to drop landline service in favor of cell phones or phone service from the cable company, Ohio’s rural and poor consumers are the least likely to cancel landline service, and face the brunt of the rate hikes, even as they cannot buy (or afford) products like U-verse AT&T said would be possible with statewide deregulation.

Ontario County, N.Y. has completed its 200-plus mile fiber ring and is now open for business… at least for area businesses that want commercial accounts.

But the county’s Office of Economic Development has no intention of building a 21st century fiber network that consumers can’t use — it wants fiber-to-the-home service for every resident.

The formerly rural Finger Lakes county has become an economic growth spot in western New York, with urban sprawl from nearby Rochester and new high-technology businesses attracted by the area’s relatively low taxes and pro-technology attitude.

The high tech fiber ring is the most recent example of the county’s growth-oriented philosophy.

Axcess Ontario, a public-benefit corporation established to oversee the project, built the ring well under its $7.5 million budget.  In the end, the whole project ended up costing just $5.5 million.

The project benefited from faster than expected contracting work and the installation of a natural gas pipeline, through which some of the county’s fiber travels.  Much of the rest is attached to utility poles that stretch across the county’s rural farmlands and small cities, towns and villages.

Now complete, the project is capable of delivering ultra-fast service from cities like Geneva and Canandaigua to the wine-growing region of Naples, to the outer ring towns like West Bloomfield, Victor, Manchester, and Phelps.

Ontario County, N.Y.

“Our mission from the outset was to ensure that every community in Ontario County had access to fiber, no matter how remote that community might be, geographically speaking,” said Geoff Astles, chairman of Axcess Ontario’s board of directors. “We’re proud to say that not only have we accomplished that piece, but we’ve done it under budget.”

The county says the network is open to all-comers, and eight companies are currently using the network themselves or reselling access to commercial businesses that need the capacity fiber brings.  Among them — Verizon Wireless; TW Telecom; Finger Lakes Technologies Group and its sister company, Ontario Telephone Co.; WavHost; Clarity Connect; OneStream Networks; Layer 8; and Integrated Systems.

But nothing prevents a residential service provider from hopping on board, if they’re interested in providing wiring from the fiber ring to individual homes.

“We’re working with several service providers who now have plans to bring fiber to each individual residence,” Michael Manikowski of Ontario County’s Office of Economic Development says. “That’s a little bit down the road. It’s a fairly complicated technical thing that we have to attract other partners to come to the county to help us.”

“The concept of ‘fiber to the home’ is the ultimate game-changer,” said Axcess Ontario CEO Ed Hemminger. “Once residents have fiber to the home, everything changes. Someone who wants to work from home or start a home-based business can do so with ease. Not only will they have instant access to the online global marketplace, but they’ll also have confidence that their home-based Internet connection will be as fast, as reliable and as competitively priced as any office-based system. Imagine conducting videoconferences on your iPad with business partners halfway across the world, all from your living room or your back deck.”

“This project is going to make a difference in the lives of residents and business-owners for the next 25 years,” he said.

Among those reportedly interested: Frontier Communications, which runs limited fiber to some of the county’s new housing developments, but currently does not leverage that technology to deliver broadband faster than traditional DSL accounts the company sells elsewhere in the region.  Time Warner Cable also covers the more populated areas of county through its Rochester/Finger Lakes division.

Individual communities inside the county could also decide to build their own community fiber service for residents, if they are willing to wire individual homes.

Residential fiber service has rarely attracted commercial service providers, convinced the technology is overkill for most consumers.  Some also balk at the capital costs, which are considerably higher than existing copper phone wire or running coaxial cable to homes for traditional cable service.  But many communities suffering from very low speed DSL service and not well served by cable-TV find doing it themselves can deliver service that commercial companies may never provide.  Without the immediate need for quick returns on investment, towns and villages clamoring for faster broadband can finally have it, without the expense of building and running their own fiber ring.

Axcess Ontario threatens to deliver service better and faster than what is on offer further north in much larger Monroe County, which includes Rochester.  That’s because Ontario County’s advanced fiber network could ultimately scrap Frontier’s obsolete copper wire landlines and call out the incremental, slow upgrades from Time Warner Cable.

The Ontario County fiber ring is a nationally recognized broadband model. Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the John F. Kennedy School of Government this fall recognized the fiber ring as a “Bright Idea” — a promising, innovative solution that can assist other communities as they face their own challenges. And earlier this year, county officials met with the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C., to educate FCC officials about the fiber ring and how it can be implemented elsewhere in the country.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHAM Fiber Ring in Ontario County 12-29-10.flv[/flv]

WHAM-TV in Rochester reports Ontario County’s new community-owned fiber ring could eventually deliver fiber to the home service to every resident in the county.  (2 minutes)

Studies find few surprises for cable and phone companies that pay for them.

Internet plans with term contracts, usage limits, and other pricing tricks are good for consumers and save them money over comparable unlimited usage plans.

That is the conclusion of a new study from the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten and James Riso’s “study,”Residential and Business Broadband Prices, Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants,” claims to have taken a comprehensive look at 25,000 plans offered across North America, Europe and the Pacific to make their case that a residential service plan with a 10GB monthly usage cap would save consumers 27 percent over the price of a comparable unlimited plan, as long as data use stays below the cap.  They also suggest additional savings can be had if consumers lock themselves into term contracts with service providers (most of which carry hefty fees to exit early.)

These results suggest that the unlimited data plans typically offered by most U.S. wireline broadband providers may not be optimal for many consumers. The details of capped plans matter, and how an individual user is affected depends on the base price, allowed data usage, and consequences for exceeding the cap. Nevertheless, because capped plans are—all else equal—cheaper than unlimited plans, many consumers, particularly the low-volume users, are likely to pay less for broadband with data caps than they would for plans offering unlimited data transfer.

Wallsten and Riso make much of AT&T’s recent decision to end unlimited usage for wireless broadband, suggesting that consumers are saving money with new, low-use plans over the company’s old unlimited pricing.  The authors claim close to 70 percent of iPhone users consume less than 200 MB per month, which is the cap for AT&T’s cheaper data plan.

But the authors concede that usage is growing — rapidly in the case of online video, which sets the stage for consumers saving money today, but facing serious overlimit charges on their bills tomorrow:

Some analysts, however, remain concerned that these plans make video streaming impractical given the bandwidth it consumes, could eventually cost consumers more as they use their wireless devices more intensively, and generally make it less likely for wireless to become a viable substitute for wireline broadband. To be sure, while Figure 3 shows that the vast majority of users consume small amounts of data today, it also shows per user mobile data consumption growing quickly, so the number of people who exceed the caps could increase significantly in a relatively short period of time.

Major U.S. wireline providers have not yet introduced metered pricing successfully, though, as shown above, it is common in other countries. An experimental metered pricing plan by Time Warner Cable garnered strong reaction, prompting one group to demand that Congress ―investigate ongoing metered pricing practices to determine the impact on consumers. Some in Congress did, in fact, hold hearings on the plans. In response to this backlash, Time Warner Cable canceled its experiment.

Despite the political reaction, all consumers are not inherently worse off or better off with metered pricing. Low-volume users are likely to be better off under metered plans and high volume users worse off. The net effect on any given consumer depends on his data use, the base price, how much data the base price allows, the price of data when exceeding the cap, and how much he would have paid for an unlimited plan.

Wallsten and Riso also admit several parts of their study are “incomplete,” and “lack data.” We would also include the facts they ignored whether consumers prefer unlimited plans, how customers would feel about a bill with overlimit fees attached, or whether the usage cap levels the authors note in their study are adequate.  They also completely ignore the critical issue of bandwidth cost trends and their relationship to consumer pricing.

But of course they would, considering the same providers who want these pricing schemes are paying the costs for the study.

Welcome to the world of Hired Gun Research.

Wallsten, in particular, has been singing the same cap-happy tune for several years now, churning out the same industry-financed conclusions about broadband.  Back in 2007, he delivered a piece trumpeted by the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute — two groups notorious for parroting corporate-friendly talking points.  Back then it was about Internet overloads and supporting Internet toll booths for “congestion pricing” after Comcast got caught secretly throttling broadband customer speeds.

Dave Burstein of DSL Prime notes most consumers don’t like caps, lock-in contracts, or speed throttles.

“Policymakers should normally assume that imposing caps generally results in negative consumer welfare. The small efficiency gains don’t come close to making up for a second rate Internet,” Burstein writes. “Everyone is better off with a robust, unthrottled Internet. It allows for an important form of video competition and market access for innovative new net offerings. It’s a better experience for the user and hence more people will be connected, a good thing.”

In this latest study, the two authors completely ignore some very important facts:

• Who sets the pricing for unlimited and usage-capped broadband?  Providers.  Do consumers save money from usage limited plans because of decreased provider costs passed along to consumers or pricing schemes that artificially inflate unlimited broadband pricing to drive customers to “money-saving” limited plans that teach usage restraint or expose consumers to dramatic overlimit fees?

• What are the trends for wholesale bandwidth costs and how does that trend comport with industry pricing schemes that have increased broadband pricing in the United States?  An honest study would reflect these costs are dropping… dramatically, and would introduce the very real question of whether unlimited broadband is a problem in search of a revenue-generating solution that would come from further monetizing broadband with so-called “consumption pricing.”

• What is the consumer perception of usage-limited broadband?  An important part of this equation is whether consumers want unlimited broadband service to be discontinued.  Every study to date not paid for by the providers themselves shows consumers are willing to pay today’s prices for the peace of mind they receive in not being exposed to limits or overlimit fees.  Wallsten and Riso touched on the consumer backlash, to a considerable part coordinated by Stop the Cap!, over Time Warner’s pricing scheme which would have tripled broadband pricing for an equivalent level of service.  But the authors charge on with their pro-cap conclusions regardless.

• Wallsten and Riso’s study only casually mentions the dramatically different paradigms of wireless and wireline broadband.  The former is delivered using technology that is recognized to have limitations that can only be seriously addressed with additional spectrum allocation that could take years to address.  The latter is already being mitigated by cable broadband technology upgrades, fiber optics, and improved backbone connections that often deliver much better access at a fraction of the price providers paid just a few years earlier.  Drawing comparisons between AT&T’s wireless broadband pricing and wireline broadband is dubious at best, especially since two companies largely control pricing and service for the majority of wireless customers in the United States.

• To prove its contention limited broadband service is “common in other countries,” the authors cite a Frequently Asked Questions article by Comcast trying to justify that company’s own usage cap to its customers.  So because Comcast’s PR department says it, it must be true.  In fact, in countries where usage capped broadband has been a traditional problem, consumer demand and public policy efforts have moved providers towards offering unlimited service plans to meet popular demand.  In fact, in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, governments have cited usage caps as a serious disadvantage to growth of the digital economy.  Consumers certainly agree.

Burstein adds:

Caps or other throttling measures are almost never imposed because of actual congestion problems (on large, wired networks.)  The caps would be at far higher levels if they were, like Comcast’s 250 gigabytes. The usual explanation is bogus. The typical consumer advocate believes the caps are about preventing competition to the carriers’ own video package. That’s certainly common, but so is price discrimination to yield increased potential revenues. As Scott notes, price discrimination in a strongly competitive market can work out well for all concerned. With strong competition, the benefits flow through to consumers. Since competition in broadband is typically weak, I believe it far more often has little consumer benefit but is good for company profits.

The authors conclude that despite limitations on data available, “The policy implications, however, are clear.  Policymakers should not immediately conclude that data caps and other pricing schemes that differ from traditional unlimited plans are necessarily bad.”  Instead, the authors suggest pricing trends should be evaluated over time to identify the effects on prices, investment and usage.

Although that’s a point Burstein agrees with, we feel there is substantial evidence this debate is based not on experimental pricing to find new customers, but rather a defensive position to respond to an inevitable public backlash against Internet Overcharging schemes.  Providers are desperately looking for excuses to further monetize broadband, cut costs, and deliver an effective impediment to online video competitors using broadband networks to deliver alternative, less expensive services to consumers.

Policymakers should listen to their constituents, who are more than comfortable with today’s unlimited broadband experience.  Nobody objects to experimental low usage plans with discount pricing, but not at the expense of ending or repricing existing unlimited service into the stratosphere.  Today’s broadband industry earns billions in annual profits, even as their costs decline.  Providers have done considerable profit-taking in the last few years from their broadband divisions, slashing upgrades and other investments to keep pace with traffic demands.