On the heels of today’s announcement from Google that it intends to make Austin, Tex. the next home for Google Fiber, AT&T issued a press release claiming it was suddenly interested in building a gigabit fiber network in Austin too.

Today, AT&T announced that in conjunction with its previously announced Project VIP expansion of broadband access, it is prepared to build an advanced fiber optic infrastructure in Austin, Texas, capable of delivering speeds up to 1 gigabit per second.  AT&T’s expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives. This expanded investment is not expected to materially alter AT&T’s anticipated 2013 capital expenditures.

Currently, AT&T’s U-verse system in Austin — a fiber to the neighborhood system — cannot exceed 25Mbps as it is now configured. GigaOm’s Stacy Higginbotham reports AT&T told her it would build its own fiber to the premises system in Austin to support faster speeds.

But AT&T’s announcement does not come without plenty of wiggle room which could make today’s announcement little more than a publicity stunt:

1. AT&T claims it will build “infrastructure” capable of delivering “up to” 1Gbps. This could mean a network that supports a maximum of 1Gbps of shared Internet traffic, not 1Gbps to each home or business;
2. AT&T does not say it intends this network for residential customers, nor did it suggest a monthly price for gigabit service. Its Project VIP expansion describes planned broadband speed upgrades for residential U-verse customers of up to 75Mbps and for U-verse IPDSLAM to speeds of up to 45Mbps, not 1Gbps;
3. AT&T’s Project VIP already specifies fiber network build outs, but they are destined for cell towers, large business complexes, and multi-dwelling units that will share a fiber connection;
4. AT&T wants the same terms and conditions Google has received, including investment incentives. But AT&T could have applied for those incentives, and potentially could have already received them, if it specified plans for a gigabit network of its own. Instead, AT&T executives have always believed residential customers do not want or need gigabit broadband speeds. In fact, AT&T still doesn’t believe fiber to the home service makes economic sense, which is why it invested in a cheaper fiber to the neighborhood system that still relies on old copper wiring. AT&T also warns that, “Our potential capital investment will depend on the extent we can reach satisfactory agreements” with local officials on those incentives;
5. Wiring a city of Austin will cost tens of millions to reach every resident with service. Such an expense might be considered materially relevant to shareholders, requiring disclosure. Building a much lesser network, like a gigabit middle mile network or only offering fiber service to institutional or commercial customers would cost far less and could escape reporting requirements.

AT&T also did not miss an opportunity to promote its deregulatory agenda, which has so far not proved to be of much help to broadband speed enthusiasts stuck with DSL or U-verse.

“Most encouraging is the recognition by government officials that policies which eliminate unnecessary regulation, lower costs and speed infrastructure deployment, can be a meaningful catalyst to additional investment in advanced networks which drives employment and economic growth,” said Randall Stephenson, AT&T chairman and CEO.

AT&T’s agenda might result in a meaningful catalyst of a different kind — the end of rural landline telephone and broadband service.

Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal’s not-living-in-the-real-world editorial page strikes again.

The commentary pages have always been the weakest part of the Journal, primarily because they screech pro-corporate talking points in contrast to the more balanced reporting in the rest of the newspaper.

Mr. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. decided to distort broadband reality (again) in yesterday’s edition with a glowing commentary on how wonderful broadband providers are in his piece, “Springtime for Broadband.” The only thing missing was a border in fine print labeled, “Sponsored by Verizon, AT&T, and your cable company.”

While your Internet bill is being hiked at the same time your provider is slapping usage limits on your connection, Jenkins dismisses consumer-fueled complaints about broadband price gouging, assaulting Net Neutrality, and overall poor customer service as part of Washington’s “broadband policy circus.”

Charges fly hourly that Google or some other company is guilty of gross insult to net neutrality (that sacred principle nobody can define). Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has introduced legislation to regulate data caps and Internet pricing. Law professor Susan Crawford, until recently a White House technology adviser, clearly craves to be America’s next go-to talking head on broadband. Lately she’s been everywhere calling for a crackdown on the competing “monopolists” who supply Internet access.

How dare they complain, decries Jenkins in a robust defense of the 21st century version of the railway robber barons.

Comfortably playing patty cake with provider-fed talking points from the industry echo chamber, Jenkins is ready for battle, facts or not.

But wireless providers have invested big money to deploy high-speed mobile networks, and fixed and mobile are inevitably beginning to compete. The latest evidence: Australia recently predicted that up to 30% of households will go the all-wireless route and won’t be customers for its vaunted national broadband project.

Jenkins

Not exactly. The basis for this 30% figure is the National Broadband Network’s own business plan, which warns –if– the company raised prices to a maximum theoretical level, up to 30 percent of its customers would rely on wireless instead… by the year 2039. That is 26 years from now. You have nothing better to do in the meantime, right?

In fact, conservative critics of the fiber network, some defending the big wireless cell phone industry in Australia, have suggested fiber optics is a big waste of money because “wireless is the future.”

That old chestnut again.

“Now you can present a bulletin without touching a typewriter … it’s just there on the computer system, you don’t need a reel to reel tape recorder. I’ve got a touchscreen in front of me. Back then I had a big cartridge deck,” said Ray Hadley on 2GB radio. “Can you imagine the advances in technology in the next 26 years? I can’t. I can’t comprehend it. By the time they finish the NBN, it could be superseded by something we don’t even know about.”

NBN Myths, a website set up to tackle the disinformation campaign from political and industry opponents has one simple fact to convey: “Despite what you may have read from certain clueless commentators, there is not a single country or telecommunications company anywhere in the world that is attempting to replace fixed networks with wireless in urban areas, or even planning to do so in the future.”

Which would you rather have?

Even Telstra, the biggest telecom company in Australia scoffs at such a notion, noting a growing number of its customers have both wired and wireless service, and they do not depend on one over the other.

Research firm Telsyte found that 85 per cent of Australians want speeds of 50Mbps or higher, speeds impossible for wireless to offer. In fact, when the NBN fiber network became available to Australians, almost half the current users as of October last year had chosen an even-faster 100Mbps plan option. But Australians also want mobile broadband, and they are signing up for that as well.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics notes the number of mobile broadband Internet connections also grew by around 40% in Australia between 2009 and 2010. But here is the Achilles heel of wireless: it cannot deliver the same speeds or capacity, and providers charge high prices and deliver low usage caps. As a result, the wireless industry has pulled off a coup: they earn enormous revenues from networks they have successfully rationed. The total amount of data downloaded over Australia’s wireless networks actually fell on a per user basis, despite the growth in customers.

Much of Jenkins’ commentary is spoon-fed by the industry-funded Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which produces industry-sponsored studies designed to tell America all is well in our broadband duopoly.

In the latest federal survey, the average broadband speed in America is up to 15.6 megabits per second, from 14.3 a year earlier. Nearly half of customers who six months ago made do with one megabit or less have now moved up to higher speeds. Since 2009, the U.S. has gone from 22nd fastest Internet to the eighth fastest.

The 15.6Mbps figure comes from the Federal Communications Commission. The statistics about our global speed ranking come from Akamai’s voluntary speed test program. Other studies rate America much lower. More importantly, while providers in the U.S. try to squeeze out more performance from their copper networks, other countries are laying speedier fiber networks that are destined to once again leapfrog over the United States. Most charge less for their broadband connections as well.

Jenkins also quotes the ITIF which touts 20 million miles of fiber were laid in America last year. But the ITIF, when pressed, will admit the majority of that fiber was “middle mile” connections, institutional or business network fiber you cannot access, or fiber to cell towers. Fiber to the home expansion has stalled, primarily because Verizon has suspended expansion of its FiOS network to new areas after Wall Street loudly complained about the cost.

Jenkins argues that if we leave providers alone and stop criticizing their growing prices, declining competition, and fat profits, the marketplace will suddenly decide to invest in network upgrades yet again.

“The day may come when even Verizon, which visibly soured on its $23 billion FiOS bet, rediscovers an urge to invest in fixed broadband infrastructure to meet growing consumer lust for hi-def services,” writes Jenkins.

Would Wall Street rather see providers invest in network upgrades or return profits to shareholders? Investment expansion in the broadband industry comes when a company senses if they do not spend the money, their business will be swept away by others that will. Cable broadband threatens telephone company DSL, so AT&T cherry-picked communities for investment in its half-measure U-verse fiber to the neighborhood network. Google Fiber, should it choose to expand, will be an even bigger threat to both cable and phone companies. Municipal fiber to the home networks upset the incumbent players so much, they spend millions of ratepayer dollars in efforts to legislate them out of existence.

Jenkins’ view that giving the industry carte blanche to do and charge as it pleases to stimulate a better broadband future is as fanciful as NBN critics in Australia suggesting fiber upgrades should be canceled in favor of waiting 20+ years for improved wireless to come along.

He even approves of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, calling it proper price discrimination in a “fiercely competitive” environment to defray a network’s fixed costs.

Do you think there is fierce competition for your broadband dollar?

Broadband’s fixed costs are so low and predictable, it literally calls out consumption pricing as just the latest overreach for enhanced profits. As Suddenlink’s CEO himself admitted, the era of big expensive cable upgrades are over. Incremental upgrades are cheap, the costs to offer broadband are declining, so it is time to reap the profits.

Jenkins closes with one recommendation we can agree with: “A low-tech way to stir up broadband competition would be to relax the regulatory obstacles to the actual physical provision of broadband.”

We can start by scrapping all the state laws the industry lobbied to enact that prohibit community-owned broadband competition. If big cable and phone companies won’t provide communities with the quality of broadband service they need to compete for 21st century jobs, let those communities do it themselves.

AT&T is giving new U-verse customers their choice of a Kindle Fire HD, Nexus 7 Tablet, SONOS PLAY:3 or Xbox 360 game console when signing up for a double-play package of Internet and either phone or television service.

The company is targeting customers planning to switch more than one service away from an existing provider. Most will likely choose U-verse broadband and television service, but any combination of telephone or TV service will qualify a customer for the gift promotion, valued at up to $350.

But customers could wait more than a year before the gift shows up.

The fine print states that customers must wait up to 34 weeks (more than half a year) after signing up before a “reward notification” arrives. At that point, customers must complete an online redemption submission and wait an extra 23 weeks for the tablet or game console to arrive, assuming the customer kept service for at least 30 days.

Customers must sign up before  July 27, 2013 to qualify.

[Updated 3/19: One of our readers in the comment section quotes from an AT&T representative that their press release contained two major “typos”: It should have said 3-4 weeks and 2-3 weeks, but someone forgot to proofread.]

Time Warner Cable customers in southern California are bracing themselves for a rate increase that will raise prices by 8.2 percent — almost four times the rate of inflation.

The price for digital basic cable, the most popular cable television package, will rise from $67 to $72.50 per month. The price charged to record shows from that package is also going up. “DVR service,” which does not include the DVR equipment itself, is rising 18.6% — from $10.95 to $12.99 a month.

Stop the Cap! reader Steve in Carlsbad adds his rate increase notification also mentions price increases for bundled packages:

All Standard and Basic packages and bundles will increase by $5.00 and all digital video packages and bundles will increase by $3.00.

The rate increases are by no means over. As Time Warner mails its price change notifications for 2013 to customers, it also signed a 25-year deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers for yet another regional sports channel showcasing the baseball team. Industry insiders estimate the deal is worth between $7-8 billion and could eventually cost cable subscribers an additional $5 a month, whether they watch the channel or not.

It is likely the latest rate increase does include the cost of the 2012 launch of Time Warner Cable SportsNet, which features the Los Angeles Lakers. Time Warner asks competing satellite and telephone company video services to pay between $4-5 a month to provide SportsNet to their customers.

The rate increases will not affect customers on retention or promotional packages until they expire. As usual, Time Warner blamed the rate hike on increasing programming costs, notably for sports and broadcast television stations.

Although many Californians have alternatives, ranging from AT&T U-verse to two satellite television providers, those companies are raising prices as well:

• Comcast (San Francisco Bay area) rates went up 4.3% last year and will increase again this summer;
• DirecTV rates will increase Feb. 7 by about 4.5 percent;
• Dish Networks’ most popular packages rose $5 a month on Jan. 17;
• AT&T U-verse will boost prices on components of its service by around $2 a month each on Jan. 27.

Customers facing price increases can use the rate increase notification as the trigger to threaten to cancel service to win a lower price with a customer retention offer. Stop the Cap! published a comprehensive guide on how to win a lower rate from Time Warner in 2012 and those tips are still working for our readers today.

If Time Warner seems unwilling to bargain, customers can also consider taking their business elsewhere by signing up for a promotional introductory offer with a competitor. When that offer expires, Time Warner will take you back with a new customer promotion as well.

In general, bundling all of your services with one provider will save the most money. Triple play packages consisting of television, broadband, and phone service are the most economical when considering the cost of each service. But it is also a good idea to consider whether you need all three services.

The weakest link of the triple play package is the landline. If you subscribe to broadband and cable service, consider switching to a broadband-based phone company like Ooma, which received a high rating from Consumer Reports. After an initial investment of around $150 for the equipment, the price of the phone service itself is next to nothing and includes nationwide unlimited calling. Ooma basic customers only pay for FCC-mandated fees and local taxes and surcharges. Combined these are usually well under $7 a month. Ooma Premier customers pay $119.99 a year and get a free number transfer, free calling to Canada, the choice of a Bluetooth Adapter, Wireless Adapter or Extended Warranty, a large list of calling features, a second line, voicemail, and free mobile calling minutes.

This digital adapter cable box is free through 2015. A traditional set top box from Time Warner costs $8.49/mo.

Next consider your current cable television package. Scrutinize your bill for add-on fees, especially for digital/HD add-on packages for channels you may never watch. Do you still need to pay for HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, and Starz? Consider Netflix, Redbox, and Amazon video — among others — to satisfy your movie needs without paying more than $15 a month for HBO alone.

Equipment fees may also make up a substantial portion of your bill. If you pay separately for DVR equipment and service, you are probably paying Time Warner’s regular customer rates. Seize the opportunity to demand a better deal. Customers with multiple set top boxes may want to consider ditching them on secondary sets, especially if they don’t need an on-screen program guide or access to on-demand programming.

Time Warner is offering customers “digital transport adapters” (DTAs) at no cost through 2015. These boxes, a fraction of the size of a traditional set top box, will allow older sets to access most digital channels that are included in your cable television package. But a DTA won’t work with on-demand programming or premium channels, at least for now. The devices also do not support a handful of digital channels that Time Warner provides under a bandwidth-saving scheme that only delivers a network if a customer with a traditional set top box actually starts to watch. In western New York, we found about 10 unavailable channels, virtually all very minor networks that won’t prove much of an inconvenience. Using a DTA instead of a set top box can save up to $8.50 a month for each cable box it replaces.

If you subscribe to Time Warner Cable broadband and are paying the company’s $3.95 a month modem rental fee, you are throwing your money away. Invest in purchasing your own cable modem. They are simple to install and are reliable. You’ll earn back the purchase price in as little as a year. Now may also be a good time to review your speed needs. Time Warner recently boosted its standard broadband speed to 15/1Mbps. If you pay extra for Turbo, this might be a good time to consider dropping it if you don’t need the incrementally faster 20Mbps download speed Turbo offers.

A traditional metrocell, designed to be installed on a utility pole or side of building.

AT&T’s wireless network expansion plans include more than 10,000 new HSPA+/LTE cell sites, 40,000 small “metrocells,” and 1,000 distributed antenna systems (DAS) that will improve network performance, broaden Wi-Fi service, and reduce traffic on its traditional cell tower network.

With much of urban and suburban America (and the roads that connect communities) already covered by cellular networks, AT&T has embarked on an effort to more efficiently manage its wireless traffic.

AT&T, the lowest-rated wireless carrier by Consumer Reports, has suffered from a reputation for dropped calls and inadequate network infrastructure investment. The company has sought to correct those mistakes with the implementation of its multi-billion dollar Project Velocity IP (VIP) program that will expand capacity and bring Wi-Fi to new places.

John Donovan, senior executive vice president of AT&T’s Technology and Network Operations division told attendees at the Citi Global Internet, Media & Communications conference in Las Vegas the company was shifting investment towards deploying small cell technology like “metrocells” that provides service to 32 or 64 concurrent users in a small geographic area. These fiber-fed, low-power small cells traditionally cover areas less than 1.2 miles wide, and can be hidden on utility poles or on buildings.

AT&T intends to leverage its U-verse fiber to the neighborhood network to provide much of the expanded network’s backhaul connectivity, at least in cities where AT&T provides landline service.

With an in-house fiber network, AT&T can more cheaply deploy expanded Wi-Fi that will help the company offload cellular data traffic. AT&T says customers will benefit because Wi-Fi use currently does not count against a customer’s monthly data usage allowance. With Wi-Fi accompanying new metrocell and DAS installations, AT&T customers will eventually see a much larger area of Wi-Fi service on their wireless devices, especially in urban areas.

AT&T’s fall announcement of a renewed push for U-verse compliments plans to expand its wireless network. In cities where AT&T is not the landline provider, the company often contracts with other telecom companies to handle traffic to and from cell sites.

Donovan noted a crucial key to the plan’s success is to demand a more seamless transition to and from Wi-Fi from device manufacturers, automatically switching customers off the cellular network in favor of Wi-Fi, where available. At present, customers make the choice. In the future, the device itself could ultimately become the final arbiter, choosing the strongest, most reliable wireless technology available automatically.

The company has not given up on traditional cell tower networks.

AT&T intends to expand its HSPA+ footprint to 300 million homes by the end of 2014. It reaches around 288 million homes at present, with LTE service available to around 170 million. The company intends to provide both its slower HSPA+ and faster LTE 4G service.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Metrocells.flv[/flv]

Alcatel-Lucent is a supplier of metrocell technology and produced this video explaining why offloading network traffic was important, particularly in large congested cities and at major event venues.  (2 minutes)