Gone

After more than a decade of “beep, beep,” Time Warner Cable is retiring Geococcyx californianus, the ground foraging cuckoo better known as the Greater Roadrunner.

It’s all part of a “brand refresh,” Time Warner’s Jeannette Castaneda tells Fortune.  The idea is to “create excitement around the eye-ear symbol.”  For now, the “Road Runner” name will remain — just the mascot disappears.

When Road Runner was first introduced in 1995 in Elmira, N.Y., it was designed to be a localized high-speed online portal, originally called the “Southern Tier On-Line Community.” Portals were all the rage in the 1990s, designed to serve as a unified home page to help users find content more easily.  When the cable modem broadband service finally spread to other markets, it was branded ‘LineRunner.’

But Time Warner’s marketing people decided the company’s best strategy to convince users that paying at least double the price they were paying for dial-up was worth the investment when you considered how fast cable broadband service was, and how it would outperform any dial-up connection.  The cable company spent months negotiating with Warner Bros. to license the use of the roadrunner in the old Wile E. Coyote cartoons.  The company even changed the name of their broadband product to Road Runner to drive home the speed message.

The "eye-ear" branding that replaces it.

Over the years, Time Warner has blanketed customers in postcard mailers, advertising, and billboards showcasing their broadband mascot, but no more.  While Time Warner Cable would not provide exact reasons for the brand change, we suspect there are several factors involved:

1. The cost to license the roadrunner character from Warner Bros.  In 1998, regional Time Warner representatives shared that the licensing agreement with Warner Bros. was costly and complicated.  Warner Bros. maintains strict control over their licensed characters and how they are used.
2. In the past, emphasizing speed was essential in convincing consumers to drop their old provider for the cable company’s alternative.  But broadband penetration in most of Time Warner’s markets has already reached a high level and most of those still refusing to take the service are not going to be convinced by speed arguments.  For these holdouts, lack of interest and the cost of the service are the most important factors, and the roadrunner character does not speak to these concerns.
3. 

   Canis usagecapus

   The telecom industry, notably cable, has spent years trying to retire the phrases “Internet access” and “Internet Service Provider.”  They don’t even like the word “broadband.”  For them – it’s High Speed Internet (HSI) or “High Speed Online.”  They have put the words “high speed” in the very term they use to describe Internet access.

4. Time Warner Cable believes in their unified bundling of services.  They aggressively pitch all of them together at a discounted price and have de-emphasized the branding that used to be associated with individual package components.  For example, Time Warner didn’t retire the name “LineRunner” when they rebranded their cable modem service Road Runner.  They simply re-used the name for their telephone service.  Time Warner tested LineRunner in the Rochester, N.Y. market before ditching the product for a Voice Over IP service they now like to call “digital phone.”  Today, most of Time Warner Cable’s most visible ancillary branding is done for their triple-play packages.  Remember “All the Best?”

Fortune thinks the retirement of the roadrunner may also have something to do with the company’s desire to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme:

TWC, like other big ISPs, is a leading proponent of imposing bandwidth caps on its Internet users. Imagine the possibilities for illustrating articles about this topic – Wile E Coyote (perhaps wearing a TWC ballcap) tripping up the Road Runner with piano wire, or finally getting his revenge and hurling the obnoxious bird off a cliff.

Verizon Wireless is expected to enter the Alaskan mobile market sometime in 2013-2014, according to incumbent competitors, who expect Verizon’s largest impact will be to bleed AT&T of customers.

Alaska’s two primary local providers — Alaska Communications, Inc. (ACS) and General Communications, Inc. (GCI), are telling shareholders to relax because they don’t expect to see Big Red in the Alaskan market for at least 2-3 years.  Both companies reported net losses for the quarter, and GCI lost 2,400 subscribers recently when more than 4,000 soldiers at Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks were deployed to Afghanistan.

Both ACS and GCI have been using the current poor economic climate and their respective stockpiles of cash-on-hand to retire debt or reissue long-term-debt at more favorable low interest rates.  Both companies are also hurrying to outdo each other’s 4G wireless network deployments before Verizon Wireless shows up, making use of spectrum it acquired last August to enter the Alaskan market.  Government rules require Verizon to sign-on its new network by June 13, 2013.  But Verizon admits it will take up to five years after that to completely build a new network from scratch.

Right now, Verizon Wireless customers taking their phones to Alaska roam on ACS’ network, for which the company is compensated with an increasing amount of extra revenue.  ACS boosted earnings in part on that roaming revenue, even as it lost more of its own customers.  When Verizon switches on its own network, that roaming revenue will rapidly decline, but ACS executives reassured shareholders their knowledge and experience of construction seasons in Alaska guarantee Verizon won’t be able to get its network together until 2013 at the earliest.

But when Verizon opens their doors, Ron Duncan, CEO of GCI expects a hard fight on his hands.

“We recognize ultimately they’ll be a significant competitor, although I see AT&T share more at risk because Verizon’s main claim to fame when they get to Alaska is going to be devices. We’ll still outpace them on coverage. We’ll continue to be the only ones with statewide coverage,” Duncan said. “People who want to buy the coverage buy from us today; people who want devices buy from AT&T because AT&T gets much better devices than we do.”

Just months after Verizon announced they were headed north, both ACS and GCI accelerated plans to roll out respective “4G” networks for wireless customers, although each company is deploying different standards.

GCI

GCI’s cell phone network is a combination of some of its own infrastructure, the acquisition of Alaska Digitel, and a resale agreement to use parts of AT&T Wireless’ coverage it acquired from Dobson Communications Systems.  In and around Fairbanks, Anchorage, Glennallen, Valdez, Prudhoe Bay, Wasilla, and Kenai, GCI offers CDMA service.  In those communities and many other rural regions in western Alaska, GCI relies on AT&T Alascom GSM networks.  GCI pitches its CDMA network’s 3G wireless data capabilities, which offer faster wireless data speeds, if you can get coverage.  For wider coverage in Alaska’s smaller communities, GCI markets GSM phones, which currently only offer 2G EDGE/GPRS data speeds.  If you use a cell phone mostly for voice calls, the wider coverage afforded by GCI’s GSM network is a popular choice.  But if you want faster data, CDMA 3G data speeds are required.

Eventually, GCI’s 4G network may help deliver coverage and faster speeds in both urban and rural areas, particularly as GCI plans to invest up to $100 million to construct more of its own network, instead of relying on resale agreements and acquisitions.

GCI has chosen HSPA+ for 4G service on the GSM network, and will introduce the service in Anchorage later this month.  That’s the same standard used by AT&T and T-Mobile in some areas.  It’s not as fast as LTE service from Verizon Wireless, but is much cheaper to deploy because cell sites need not be linked with fiber optic cables — an expensive proposition.

ACS

Alaska Communications has a large 3G CDMA network in Alaska all its own.  Its coverage is primarily in eastern Alaska adjacent to major cities like Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks, and where it does provide 3G data coverage, the company claims it extends further out than GCI.  ACS doesn’t offer much coverage in small villages and communities in western Alaska, however.

ACS expects to skip incremental upgrades and launch its own 4G LTE service in the future.  It may help the company regain its second place standing, lost to GCI last year, and protect it from Verizon Wireless poaching its customers.

While wireless providers currently treat Wi-Fi as a friendly way to offload wireless data traffic from their 3G and 4G networks, the wireless industry is starting to ponder whether they can also earn additional profits from regulating your use of it.

Dean Bubley has written a white paper for the wireless industry exploring Wi-Fi use by smartphone owners, and ways the industry can potentially cash in on it.

“It is becoming increasingly clear that Wi-Fi access will be a strategic part of mobile operators’ future network plans,” Bubley writes. “There are multiple use cases, ranging from offloading congested cells, through to reducing overseas roaming costs and innovative in-venue services.”

Bubley’s paper explores the recent history of some cell phone providers aggressively trying to offload traffic from their congested 3G networks to more-grounded Wi-Fi networks.

Among the most intent:

• AT&T, which acquired Wayport, a major Wireless ISP, and is placing Wi-Fi hotspots at various venues and in high traffic tourist areas in major cities and wants to seamlessly switch Apple iPhone users to Wi-Fi, where available, whenever possible;
• PCCW in Hong Kong;
• KT in the Republic of Korea, which has moved as much as 67 percent of its data traffic to Wi-Fi;
• KDDI in Japan, which is planning to deploy as many as 100,000 Wi-Fi Hotspots across the country.

America's most aggressive data offloader is pushing more and more customers to using their Wi-Fi Hotspots.

Bubley says the congestion some carriers experience isn’t necessarily from users downloading too much or watching too many online shows.  Instead, it comes from “signalling congestion,” caused when a smartphone’s applications demand repeated attention from the carrier’s network.  An application that requires regular, but short IP traffic connections, can pose a bigger problem than a user simply downloading a file.  Moving this traffic to Wi-Fi can be a real resource-saver for wireless carriers.

Bubley notes many wireless companies would like to charge third-party developers fees to allow them access to each provider’s “app store.”  Applications that consume a lot of resources could be charged more by providers (or banned altogether), while those that “behave well” could theoretically be charged a lower fee.  The only thing preventing this type of a “two-sided business model,” charging both developers and consumers for the applications that work on smartphones, are Net Neutrality policies (or the threat of them) in many countries.

Instead, Bubley suggests, carriers should be more open and helpful with third party developers to assist them in developing more efficient applications on a voluntary basis.

Bubley also ponders future business strategies for Wi-Fi.  He explores the next generation of Wi-Fi networks that allow users to establish automatic connections to the best possible signal without ponderous log-in screens, and new clients that can intelligently search out and connect to approved networks without user intervention.  That means data traffic could theoretically be shifted to any authenticated or preferred Wi-Fi network without users having to mess with the phone’s settings.  At the same time, that same technology could be used to keep customers off of free, third party Wi-Fi networks, in favor of networks operators run themselves.

Policy controls are a major focus of Bubley’s paper.  While he advocates for customer-friendly use of such controls, sophisticated network management tools can also be used to make a fortune for wireless providers who want to nickle and dime customers to death with usage fees, or open up new markets pitching Wi-Fi networks to new customers.

Bubley

For example, a wireless carrier could sell a retail store ready-to-run Wi-Fi that pushes customers to a well-controlled, store-run network while customers shop — a network that forbids access to competitors or online merchants, in an effort to curtail browsing for items while comparing prices (or worse ordering) online from a competitor.

Customers could also face smartphones programmed to connect automatically to a Wi-Fi network, while excluding access to others while a “preferred” network is in range.  Wireless carriers could develop the same Internet Overcharging schemes for Wi-Fi use that they have rolled out for 3G and 4G wireless network access.  Also available: speed throttles for “non-preferred” applications, speed controls for less-valued ‘heavy users,’ and establishment of extra-fee “roaming charges” for using a non-preferred Wi-Fi network.

Bubley warns carriers not to go too far.

“[We] believe that operators need to internalize the concept of ‘WiFiNeutrality’ – actively blocking or impeding the user’s choice of hotspot or private Wi-Fi is likely to be as divisive and controversial as blocking particular Internet services,” Bubley writes.

In a blog entry, Bubley expands on this concept:

I’m increasingly convinced that mobile device / computing users will need sophisticated WiFi connection management tools in the near future. Specifically, ones that allow them to choose between multiple possible accesses in any given location, based on a variety of parameters. I’m also doubtful that anyone will want to allow a specific service provider’s software to take control and choose for them – at least not always.

We may see the emergence of “WiFi Neutrality” as an issue, if particular WiFi accesses start to be either blocked or “policy-managed” aggressively.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/The Future of Wi-Fi.flv[/flv]

Edgar Figueroa, chief executive officer of The Wi-Fi Alliance, speaks about the future of Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi technology has matured dramatically since its introduction more than a decade ago and today we find Wi-Fi in a wide variety of applications, devices and environments.  (3 minutes)

Stop the Cap! reader Larry Posk from Atlanta just threw AT&T overboard, fed up with the company’s anti-consumer policies, and Sprint paid him $125 to walk.

“I can’t think of a single reason to stay with the sharks at AT&T who are spending my money to pay off legislators to drop Net Neutrality, impose usage caps on all of their broadband and wireless accounts, and now try and wipe out T-Mobile; I’ve had enough,” Larry writes.  “I told AT&T goodbye and switched to an unlimited plan from Sprint, who more than covered my early termination fee and gave me a new smartphone for free.”

Larry is a beneficiary of Sprint’s customer win-0ver promotion that covers up to $125 in early termination fees when customers cancel service mid-contract.  Larry owed AT&T around $70, but Sprint gave him the full $125 benefit as a credit on his first Sprint bill.

“All I had to do was transfer my old AT&T number to Sprint, which effectively ended my AT&T service,” Larry says.  “Technically I did not even have to call AT&T to cancel service — the number transfer does the trick, but I felt extra satisfaction giving AT&T a piece of my mind.”

Larry doesn’t want to do business with companies that engage in Internet Overcharging.

“I can basically understand there might be a need for some limitations on wireless service, but when AT&T put the same scheme on their DSL and U-verse customers, it was clear they were simply ripping customers off and I want no part of it,” Larry says.

Sprint also gave Larry another 10 percent off because he belongs to a credit union that qualifies him for additional discounts.  In the end, he’s actually saving about $24 a month and isn’t exposed to a usage limit any longer.

“I recognize the fact Sprint’s network isn’t as wide-ranging as AT&T or Verizon, but I barely travel and Sprint’s coverage in Atlanta is actually better than AT&T because Sprint hasn’t dropped any of my calls,” Larry says. “Data speed is adequate for my needs, and is about on par with what AT&T was delivering here in Atlanta, but it’s not as fast as Verizon.”

Larry says he didn’t know about Sprint’s promotion until he asked, and he recommends customers inquire about Sprint covering their early termination fees before signing up for service.  We found some customers complaining they did not get the credit, but we suspect that might be because they didn’t follow the terms and conditions.  The most important one of all: you have to buy your new phone from Sprint, not a third-party retailer.  Here is the fine print:

Available for consumer and individual-liable lines only. Available online, via telesales, and in participating Sprint stores. Purchases from other retailers are not eligible for the service credit. Requires port-in from an active wireless line/mobile number or landline/number that comes through the port process to a new-line on an eligible Sprint service plan. Excludes $19.99 Tablet Plan. Request for service credit must be made at sprint.com/switchtosprint within 72 hours from the port-in activation date or service credit will be declined. Ported new-line activation must remain active with Sprint for 61 days to receive full service credit. Upgrades, replacements, add-a-phone/line transactions and ports made between Sprint entities or providers associated with Sprint (i.e. Virgin Mobile USA, Boost Mobile, Common Cents Mobile and Assurance) are excluded. You should continue paying your bill while waiting for your service credit to avoid service interruption and possible credit delay. A $125 service credit will be applied for netbooks, notebooks, tablets, mobile broadband devices and smartphones which include BlackBerry, Android, Windows Mobile, Palm, and Instinct family of devices. All other phones are considered feature phones. A $50 service credit will be applied for feature phones and Sprint Phone Connect (when available). Smartphones require activation on an Everything Plan with data with Premium Data add-on charge.

Lebanese consumers and businesses are fed up with Lebanon’s archaic Internet infrastructure and the usage limits that come with it.

Now the country is waiting with anticipation as the government prepares to open up new bandwidth from a 3.84 terabit per second underseas cable that passes through the region, but has been left idle since last December.

Lebanon’s Internet is ranked among the slowest in the world, mostly thanks to an over-controlling state telecommunications authority that has priced broadband Internet access into the stratosphere.  Most Lebanese cannot afford the ridiculously slow and expensive “top speed” DSL connections offered by the country’s phone company, offering “up to 2Mbps” speeds for $200US per month.  Instead, most lower income households still use dial-up access, while Lebanon’s middle class settles for 256kbps DSL that still runs a ridiculous $25 a month.

But the 60 percent of the country choosing 256kbps Internet finds even those speeds less than useful when considering they come with a usage allowance of a paltry 3GB per month.  Going over that limit delivers an expensive lesson.  Excess usage is billed at $17 per gigabyte.

Ghanem

Lebanon’s Ministry of Communications, who made the announcement of the forthcoming access improvements, didn’t impress many consumers with word they would “double or triple” the usage cap to celebrate forthcoming speed increases.

“It [is] like entering [the knowledge economy] through a small window,” said Diana Bou Ghanem, head of the the ministry’s ICT office.

Even with the forthcoming improvements, government controls have kept Lebanon’s Internet in the dark ages.  Broadband statistics reveal war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq enjoy faster broadband than Lebanon, and some of the world’s poorest countries like Zambia and Tanzania enjoy speeds twice as fast as those found in downtown Beirut.

Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper covered the broadband debacle with some alarming reporting suggesting some of the government’s key officials on telecommunications barely grasp telecommunications networks, policies, and practical realities.

For example, former Telecom Minister Charbel Nahhas, a major booster of Lebanon’s forthcoming foray into 3G wireless broadband, seems to believe such networks will deliver up to 20Mbps to Lebanese cell phone users.

Nahhas considers 3G cutting edge for Lebanon, even as the rest of the world prepares to retire it for faster 4G wireless networks.

Telecom Minister Adviser Antoine Boustani seems to think broadband is a tangible resource that can be exported like oil, gas, or electricity.

“We will have an overflow of capacity with [the new underseas cable],” Boustani told the newspaper. “We could even distribute the excess to other countries.”

Ogero is the state-administered phone company in Lebanon.

The Lebanese government and state run phone company — Ogero — have even been willing to celebrate broadband achievements both have regularly failed to meet:

Ogero had planned to host a huge party announcing the [underseas] cable last December, under the auspices of then Prime Minister Saad Hariri. According to sources close to the affair, it was to feature a seated dinner for some 500 persons at the prestigious Pavillion Biel, prime time live television coverage and even Lebanese Opera singer Hiba Kawas, who was commissioned to write a song for the event, performed with a full orchestra. Despite the fact that the Lebanese leadership failed to deliver broadband to its citizens for the past decade, some 10 trophies were to be crafted by the Lebanese sculptor Rudy Rahme and distributed to various officials.

But all this was cancelled when then Telecoms Minister Nahhas received an invitation and challenged Ogero’s role in managing the [underseas] cable and the prime minister’s patronage of it.

Lebanon is following developments elsewhere in the region where broadband usage limits are becoming a thing of the past. When a cartel of Kuwaiti ISP’s threatened to introduce new usage caps in unison, a full-scale consumer revolt forced the government to ban usage caps in the country.

“The Internet has become a cornerstone in development, economy and everyday life in Kuwait,” the country’s telecoms minister, Salem al-Uthayna, said last month in explaining the decision to abolish caps.

Most observers place the blame for Lebanon’s snail-like broadband development at the feet of the government and the state-run phone company, which has blocked efforts to radically change broadband in the country.

Critics accuse both the government and phone company of fearing major market changes, preferring incremental development over a full-scale broadband revolution.  But not everyone is a critic.

“It’s better to look for solutions – play it in a positive way,” said Abu Ghanem, who has worked at the ministry for 15 years. “I don’t want to blame anyone. Just let us work and let us deliver.”

One member of the private sector trying to put Lebanon’s bottom-rated broadband in a different context suggested citizens look on the bright side.

“OK, we are last in Internet [speed] but we are better at other things,” the source added. “Look at the price of real estate in Beirut.”