Phillip Dampier

While tech fans in Kansas City rejoice over 1Gbps broadband for $70 a month, the average broadband user will think long and hard about the prospect of paying $840 a year for broadband at any speed.

That is why Google Fiber-delivered broadband in and of itself is not a cable/phone company-killing proposition.

We too easily forget our friends and neighbors that seem clueless satisfied with their 3Mbps DSL account from AT&T that they were sold with a phone line package for around $60 a month. Web pages slow to load and constantly-buffering multimedia? In their world, that means “the Internet is slow today,” not their provider.

Phone and cable companies have the internal studies to back up their claims that price matters… a lot. Those who treat the Internet as a useful, but not indispensable part of their life are going to be a tough sell at $70 a month. In fact, it is my prediction many future income-challenged and older customers will splurge on Google’s free-after-paying-for-installation 5Mbps service, satisfied that speed is currently “good enough” for the web browsing, e-mail, and occasional web video they watch on their home computer.

That is why Google was smart to offer the ultimate in “budget Internet.” Free after the $300 installation fee (thank goodness for the interest-free budget $25 payment plan) is far better than $20-25 a month for 1-3Mbps service many cable and phone companies offer their “light users.” It also brings Google’s fiber into the customer’s home, a perfect way to up-sell them later or offer other services down the road.

But the smartest move of all was Google’s very-familiar quasi-triple play package price point — $120 for broadband and television service (they really should bundle Google Voice into the package and cover the phone component for those who still want it). With the phone and cable company charging upwards of that amount already for after-promotion triple-play service, the sticker shock disappears. It’s no longer $70 for broadband, it’s $120 for everything. That is a much easier sell for the non-broadband-obsessed.

It also provides Google a critically-important broadband platform to roll out other services, including those that will appeal to customers who don’t have the first clue what a megabit or gigabit is all about. They don’t really care — they just want it to work and deliver the services they want to use hassle-free.

For Google Fiber to prove a profitable proposition, the search engine giant has to:

• Find a way to manage the huge infrastructure and installation costs, especially bringing fiber lines to individual homes. Middle-mile networks with fiber cables that string down major roadways, but ultimately never connect to individual homes and businesses are far less expensive than providing retail service. Google’s $300 installation fee is steep, but manageable with payments and even better when customers commit to a multi-year contract to waive it;
• Offer the services customers want. An incomplete cable television package can be a deal-breaker for many customers who demand certain sports or movie channels. Although younger customers may not care a bit about cable television service, they also may not be able to afford the $70 broadband-only price. Google will need to attract families, and most of them still subscribe to cable, satellite, or telco TV. They are also the most grounded customers, an attractive proposition for a company dealing with high infrastructure expenses that will take years to pay off. It’s harder to cover your costs selling to a customer still in school and likely to move after they graduate in a few years;
• Sell customers on the hassle and inconvenience of throwing out the incumbent provider in favor of fiber, which will require considerable rewiring. It is one thing to express dissatisfaction with the local cable or phone company, it is another to take a day off from work to return old equipment and have unfamiliar installers in your home to provision fiber service. Some don’t want the hassle or lost time, others won’t switch until they get around to cleaning their messy house or apartment before they invite Google inside;
• Deliver an excellent customer service experience. Google’s current level of support for its web-based services would never be tolerated by a paying broadband/cable customer. Google will have to learn as they go in Kansas City, but first impressions can mean a lot;
• Expansion to get economy of scale. It is highly likely Google Fiber is a marketplace experiment for the company, and one it will study for a long time before it decides where to go next. Google’s “beta” projects are legendary and long, and if their fiber experiment does prove successful (or at least potentially so), the company will need to expand it rapidly to enjoy the kinds of vendor discounts a super-player can negotiate.

Verizon FiOS is the largest fiber to the home network in the United States. Their “take rate” of customers willing to sign up for the service has not exactly put incumbent cable companies into bankruptcy, even with $300-500 reward debit rebate cards and ultra-cheap introductory rates. Motivating subscribers to switch has never been as successful as theory might suggest. But Verizon has also shown other providers they can hard-negotiate significant discounts on hardware and equipment, and price cutting sessions have become ruthless.

At least Google has set its targets at reasonable levels. Only between 5-25% of eligible families have to commit to signing up for service in each “fiberhood” for Google to proceed with service rollout in that immediate area. That’s a realistic target with all of the factors necessary to deem the project a success.

Our friends at Broadband Reports have managed to get at least one confirmation of a leaked slide from an internal company presentation outlining major changes in Comcast’s broadband service and speeds, but initially only in areas where Verizon’s fiber to the home network FiOS has given the cable operator a run for the money.

The biggest changes will be price reductions for customers signed to triple play packages and fast speeds from the cable company. Comcast sees an opportunity to exploit Verizon’s recent price increases for its FiOS broadband offerings, and hopes new, lower-priced broadband will hold and possibly even win back customers.

The new pricing is anticipated to take effect in early 2013 in FiOS areas, but “most of Comcast’s markets” will see these prices by the end of next year. Customers who do not bundle other services will pay a $15 surcharge.

As Karl Bode points out, Verizon’s rate increases have made FiOS a difficult sell for standalone basic broadband. Verizon FiOS’ entry level 15/5Mbps service is now priced at $70 a month.

The new pricing information does not include references to usage caps. Comcast has announced it is testing 300GB usage caps with overlimit fees in some markets.

• Comcast Basic (5/2Mbps): $29/month
• Comcast Performance (25/5Mbps): $49/month
• Comcast Preferred (50/10Mbps): $69/month
• Comcast Extreme (100/25Mbps): $99/month
• Comcast Premier (300/75Mbps): $119/month

The CWA’s Verizon-Cable Company Deal Monster

While Verizon customers in more than two dozen towns and communities around Boston can enjoy fiber optic broadband service today, residents inside the city of Boston cannot buy the service at any price. It is largely the same story in Syracuse, Buffalo, and Albany, N.Y., and Baltimore, Md.

With Verizon’s fiber network FiOS indefinitely stalled, local community leaders and union workers are more than a little concerned that Verizon is spending time, money and attention promoting a deal with the cable industry — its biggest competitor.

The Communications Workers of America is stepping up its protest of a proposed deal between Verizon’s wireless division and large cable operators including Comcast and Time Warner Cable that would result in cross-marketing agreements that sell cable service to Verizon Wireless customers and wireless service to cable customers.

The union is urging the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to stop the deal because, in their view, it will destroy any further expansion of fiber optic-based FiOS, reduce competition, and raise prices for consumers.

The union notes that cable operators are not being asked to promote Verizon’s FiOS network, only Verizon Wireless’ phone services. Verizon Wireless, which barely mentions FiOS service in many of its wireless stores, would suddenly be promoting Comcast and Time Warner Cable instead.

The odd-network-out is clearly Verizon’s fiber optic FiOS service, which was originally envisioned as a competitor against dominant cable operators. But when the economy tanked, Verizon stalled fiber deployment, agreeing only to wire areas where the company already concluded negotiations with local officials. That leaves urban population centers in the northeast (except New York City) stuck with the cable company or Verizon’s DSL service, which has been become increasingly difficult to buy.

Verizon countered the deal would be good for consumers, especially those buying cable packages.

“We believe these agreements will enhance competition, allowing Verizon Wireless to take market shares from other wireless companies, while allowing cable companies to more vigorously compete by enabling them to offer wireless services as part of a triple or quad-play package of services,” the company said in a statement.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA TV Ad Behind Closed Doors.flv[/flv]

The Communications Workers of America launched this new ad — “Behind Closed Doors” — last week in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Pennsylvania media markets. (1 minute)

But union workers in FiOS-bypassed communities like Binghamton, N.Y. suggest customers will simply be on the short end of Verizon’s stick. They note the nearest city where Verizon is deploying fiber optics is suburban Syracuse — more than 70 miles to the north.

BALTIMORE: Left behind as FiOS spreads to six surrounding counties

BOSTON: No Internet revolution

ALBANY: The Empire State’s capital city has no FiOS

BUFFALO: Hit hard by the digital divide

SYRACUSE: Surrounded by high speed—but none for the city

[flv width=”580″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WBNG Binghamton Union Fights Verizon Deal 8-8-12.mp4[/flv]

WBNG reported on a CWA-sponsored protest against Verizon’s deal with cable companies in FiOS-deprived Binghamton, N.Y.  (1 minute)

Otero

When a former labor leader suddenly starts advocating for the interests of AT&T and other super-sized telecommunications companies, even as AT&T’s unionized work force prepared to strike, the smell of Big Telecom money and influence permeates the air.

Jack Otero, identified in the Des Moines Register as “a former member of the AFL-CIO Executive Council and past national president of the AFL-CIO’s Labor Council for Latin American Advancement,” penned a particularly suspicious love letter to deregulation that might as well have been written by AT&T’s director of government relations:

[…]Industries — like broadband Internet — are thriving and creating innovations. Tossing a regulatory grenade into these businesses could wreck markets that create value for consumers and jobs for workers.

The United States is one of the most wired nations in the world. More than 95 percent of households have access to at least one wireline broadband provider, and the vast majority can connect at speeds exceeding 100 Mbps. And monthly packages start as low as $15. That means more families can go online to improve their job skills, look for work or help the kids with their school assignments.

More choices and higher speeds — the signs of a vibrant market — are the product of private investment, not public dollars. Internet service providers have invested over $250 billion in the last four years alone. This has created roughly half a million jobs laying fiber-optic and coaxial cable.

But some squeaky wheels are demanding heavy-handed regulations that would move our broadband Internet to the European model, where taxpayers have to subsidize outdated networks with slow speeds. Some want broadband providers to be required to lease their networks to competitors at discounted prices — as they do in Europe. But lawmakers in both parties agree that this policy, tried in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, failed miserably.

Others argue that broadband Internet providers should not be able to impose a small surcharge on the tiny percentage (less than 1 percent) of consumers who download hundreds of movies and tens of thousands of songs every month — effectively the data usage of a business. They say these fees discriminate against online video companies like Netflix. But that’s silly. More than 99 percent of users can watch plenty of Apple TV or Netflix without approaching the lowest data allotment. Without tiered pricing plans, the rest of us would have to underwrite these super-users.

Okay then.

Otero’s Fantasy World of Broadband sounds great, only it does not exist for the vast majority of Americans. Are most of us able to connect at speeds exceeding 100Mbps?

If you happen to live in a community served by a publicly-owned broadband provider Otero effectively dismisses, you can almost take this fact for granted.

Some of America’s most advanced telecommunications providers are actually owned by the public they serve in dozens of communities small and large. EPB Fiber, Greenlight, Fibrant, Lafayette’s LUS Fiber, among others, deliver super-fast upload and download speeds at very reasonable prices while the giant phone and cable companies offer less service for more money.

The only major telecommunications company with a wide deployment of fiber-to-the-home service is Verizon Communications.

You cannot easily buy residential 100Mbps service from Time Warner Cable, AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, FairPoint, or a myriad of other telecom companies at any price, unless you purchase an obscenely expensive business account. From the rest, 100Mbps service typically sets you back $100 a month.

Otero’s quote of affordable $15 broadband is not easy to come by either. It usually requires the customer to qualify for food stamps or certain welfare programs, have a family with school-age children, a perfect payment history, and no recent record of subscribing to broadband service at the regular price.

The only people who believe America is the home of a vibrant market for broadband service are paid employees of telecom companies, paid-off politicians, or their sock-puppet friends and organizations who more often than not receive substantial contributions from phone or cable companies. The fact is, the United States endures a home broadband duopoly in most communities — one cable and one phone company. They charge roughly the same rates for a level of service that Europe and Asia left behind years ago. Broadband prices keep going up here, going down there.

Simply put, Mr. Otero and actual reality have yet to meet. Consider his nonsensical diatribe about the impact of the “heavy-handed” 1996 Telecommunications Act, actually a festival of mindless deregulation that resulted in sweeping consolidation in the telecommunications and broadcasting business and higher prices for consumers.

Otero is upset that big companies like AT&T and Verizon originally had to open up their networks in the early 1990s to independent Internet Service Providers who purchased wholesale access at fair (yet profitable) prices. Those fledgling ISPs developed and marketed third-party Internet service based on those open network rates. Remember the days when you could choose your ISP from a whole host of providers? In some markets, this tradition carried forward with DSL service, but for most it would not last.

The telecommunications industry managed to successfully lobby the government and federal regulators to change the rules. Phone companies did not appreciate the fact they had to open their networks for fair access while cable operators did not. So in 2005, the FCC allowed both to control their broadband networks like third world despots. Competitors were effectively not allowed. Wholesale access, where available, was priced at rates that usually guaranteed few ISPs would ever undercut the cable or phone company’s own broadband product.

The lawmakers who believed open networks represented awful policy were almost entirely corporate-friendly or recipients of enormous campaign contributions from the telecom companies themselves.

So which market is actually on the road to failure?

The LCLAA couldn’t do enough to help AT&T swallow up competitor T-Mobile USA.

The American broadband business model is a firmly established duopoly that charges some of the world’s highest prices and has rapidly fallen behind those “failures” in Europe.

In the United Kingdom, BT — the national phone company, is required to sell access at the wholesale rates Otero dismisses as bad policy. As a result, UK consumers have a greater choice of service providers, and at speeds that are increasingly outpacing the United States. Nationally backed fiber to the home networks in eastern Europe and the Baltic states have already blown past the average speeds Americans can affordably buy from the cable company.

Even Canada requires Bell, the dominant phone company, to open its network to independent ISPs selling DSL service. Without this, Canadians would rarely have a chance to find a service provider offering unlimited, flat rate service.

Otero’s final, and most-tired argument is that data caps force “average” users to subsidize “heavy” users. In fact, as Stop the Cap! reported this week, that fallacy can be safely flushed away when you consider the largest ISPs pay, on average, just $1 per month per subscriber for usage, and that price is dropping fast. The only thing being subsidized here is the telecom “dollar-a-holler” fund, paid to various mouthpiece organizations who deliver the industry’s talking points without looking too obvious.

The Des Moines Register omitted the rest of Mr. Otero’s industry connections. We’re always here to help at Stop the Cap!, so here is what the newspaper forgot:

• Mr. Otero is a board member of Directors of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute (USHLI), a group funded in part by AT&T and Verizon;
• He is the past president of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, a group that enthusiastically supported the anti-competitive merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA;

Mr. Otero has a side hobby of penning nearly identical editorials with largely these same broadband talking points. One wonders what might motivate him into writing letters to the Des Moines Register, the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Gainesville Sun, the Star-Banner, and the Ledger-Inquirer.

Otero may have a case for plagiarism, if he chooses to pursue it, against Mr. Roger Campos, president of the Minority Business RoundTable (the top cable lobbyist, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association is labeled an MBRT “strategic partner” on their website). Campos uses some of the exact same talking points in his own “roundtable” of letters to the editor sent to newspapers all over the place, including the Ventura County Star, the Leaf Chronicle, and the Daily Herald.

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.