In spring of this year, rural Canadian access to the Inukshuk Wireless system was terminated, forcing many to usage-capped wireless plans from companies like Rogers Communications that cost a lot more.

Kevin, a Stop the Cap! reader dropped us a line this week to remind Canadians they don’t have to pay Bell, Rogers or Telus big dollars for a small wireless usage allowance.

“After a bit of shopping, I signed up for WIND Wireless and it has been a positive experience,” Kevin writes. “Their customers service is leaps and bounds better than the big three and I get 10GB of usage for $35 a month.”

Once Kevin exhausts his usage allowance, he keeps right on browsing because Wind does not charge overlimit fees — they throttle speeds downwards, but not to the punishing dial-up-like speeds of most other providers.

“I’ve streamed music and video after I’ve hit 10GB,” Kevin writes, although he admits YouTube can be a bit problematic with buffering issues at the slower speeds.

Kevin says if he stuck with Rogers he would be paying them around $195 a month for the same usage he pays $35 for with WIND.

“Who cares about the speed of Rogers’ LTE network when you pay that much,” Kevin adds.

WIND Mobile is one of a handful of upstart independent cell phone providers challenging the dominance of incumbent telecommunications companies that have set the standards for high Canadian broadband pricing and low usage caps. Kevin wishes more Canadians would consider switching away from dominant providers to send them a message they have to compete with lower prices and better service.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act. The rhetoric rarely matched the results.

Washington insiders are predicting Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski will leave his position early in President Obama’s second term.

It cannot come soon enough, as far as we’re concerned.

One of the biggest disappointments of the Obama Administration has been the poor performance of a chairman that originally promised a departure from the rubber stamp-mentality that allowed Big Telecom providers to win near-instant approval of just about anything asked from the Republican-dominated FCC of the Bush Administration. If only to underline that point, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell joined Republican ex-commissioner Meredith Atwell-Baker on a trip through the D.C. revolving door, taking lucrative jobs with the same cable industry both used to oversee.

We had high hopes for Mr. Genachowski when he took the helm at the FCC — particularly over Net Neutrality, media consolidation, and predatory abuse of consumers at the hands of the comfortable cable-telco duopoly. Genachowski promised strong Net Neutrality protections, better broadband — especially in rural areas, an end to rubber stamping competition killing mergers and acquisitions, and more aggressive oversight of the broadband industry generally.

What we got was the reincarnation of the Cowardly Lion.

The Washington Post reviews Genachowski’s tenure during the first term of the Obama Administration and reports he has few unabashed supporters left. Telecom companies loathe Genachowski’s more cautious approach and consumer groups hate his penchant for caving in when lobbyists come calling. In short, another Democrat that talks tough and caves in at the first sign of trouble.

“His tenure has been nothing but a huge disappointment because he’s squandered an opportunity to give consumers the competitive communications market they deserve,” Derek Turner, head of policy analysis at public interest group Free Press told the Post. “If someone like him upholds compromise, it quickly leads to capitulation, which is what he’s done. He folds…to the pressure of big companies.”

Genachowski’s Record:

• Heavily promoted rural broadband and oversaw a review program measuring actual broadband speeds against those claimed by providers. But much of the money available for improving rural broadband has been separately awarded to “middle mile” and “institutional networks” that are not accessible to most consumers or businesses. Genachowki has heaped automatic praise on many of the phone companies winning broadband funding, despite the fact many of them are satisfied giving consumers no better than 4Mbps service;
• Reformed the outdated Universal Service Fund, which long outlived much of its usefulness, into a broadband expansion fund. But some unintended consequences have led to some rural providers suspending network upgrades because of funding uncertainties still unresolved;
• Approved a blockbuster merger deal between Comcast and NBC-Universal that included temporary “hard-won” concessions Comcast later admitted they were going to offer anyway – merger or not. The result is a new high bar for tolerating super-sized media consolidation with no serious consideration of the impact on consumers. The latest evidence: support for Rupert “Phone Hacker” Murdoch’s latest efforts to buy more newspapers in the United States;
• Rejected an AT&T/T-Mobile merger deal, but only after the Justice Dept. took the lead dismissing it as an anti-consumer, anti-competition nightmare. Within hours, Genachowski’s office issued a “me, too” press release condemning the deal he said little about earlier;
• Demanded a strong Net Neutrality framework to protect the open Internet, but utterly caved under pressure from politicians receiving hefty corporate contributions from AT&T and others. The resulting loophole-ridden “protections” do not apply to wireless, and the industry-approved compromise is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by some of the same companies that earlier applauded Genachowski’s flexibility;
• Genachowski handed out his direct phone numbers to the CEO’s of the top Big Telecom companies, and has been directly lobbied by those “super-citizens,” while ordinary consumers are stuck filing comments with the FCC’s arcane Electronic Comment Filing System. Genachowski also directed closed-door meetings be held on the subject of Net Neutrality with large telecom companies. These meetings were closed to the public with no consumer representatives on hand;
• Genachowski refused to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service,” which would give the agency clear-cut authority to oversee the service. Instead, he has stuck with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s odd interpretation of broadband as “an information service,” not subject to much review by the agency;
• Appropriately nixed Philip Falcone’s LightSquared venture, the biggest threat to GPS navigation around. But Genachowski’s controversial early boosting of the venture, including support for expedited special permission to launch the network without the usual scrutiny, resulted in an embarrassing about-face after long-standing critics’ fears of navigation interference were vindicated;
• In 2012, Genachowski’s cozy relationship with the industry reached whole new levels with unabashed support for Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, despite no evidence justifying them. The FCC has continued to ignore repeated requests for a review of these pricing schemes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google’s sleek network box.

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

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

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

Other traditional business model busters noted by Greenfield:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rogers Communications customers equipped with DOCSIS 3 modems are getting free speed upgrades, some starting today:

• Ultimate: download speeds will increase from up to 75Mbps to up to 150Mbps (by the end of the year) (250GB limit);
• Extreme Plus: download speeds will increase from up to 32Mbps to up to 45Mbps (150GB limit);
• Extreme: download speeds will increase from up to 28Mbps to up to 35Mbps (120GB limit);
• Express: download speeds will increase from up to 18Mbps to up to 25Mbps (80GB limit).

Customers with DOCSIS 2.0 modems will need to acquire a new DOCSIS 3.0 modem and service plan to take advantage of the new speeds.

Remember, all Rogers Internet plans carry overlimit fees, some steep:

• Ultra Lite – $5.00/GB to a maximum of $100.00
• Lite – $4.00/GB to a maximum of $100.00
• Express – $2.00/GB to a maximum of $100.00
• Extreme – $1.50/GB to a maximum of $100.00
• Extreme Plus – $1.25/GB to a maximum of $100.00
• Ultimate – $0.50/GB to a maximum of $100.00

Our regular Canadian reader Alex Perrier reminds us that “faster speeds mean faster drain of [your] usage allowance.”

Tomorrow is election day in the United States. Stop the Cap! has reviewed both presidential candidates’ positions (or the lack thereof) as well as the past voting records and platforms of members of both major political parties. With this in mind, it is time for our election guide for broadband enthusiasts. Regardless of what candidate you support, please get out and vote!

Neither political party or candidate has been perfect on broadband advocacy or consumer protection.

We’ve been disappointed by the Obama Administration, whose FCC chairman has major problems standing up to large telecom companies and their friends in the Republican-led House of Representatives. Julius Genachowski promised a lot and delivered very little on broadband reform policies that protect both consumers and the open Internet. Both President Obama and Genachowski’s rhetoric simply have not matched the results.

Bitterly disappointing moments included Genachowski’s cave-in on Net Neutrality, leaving watered down net protections challenged in court by some of the same companies that praised Genachowski’s willingness to compromise. Genachowski’s thank you card arrived in the form of a lawsuit. His unwillingness to take the common sense approach of defining broadband as a “telecommunications service” has left Internet policies hanging by a tenuous thread, waiting to be snipped by the first D.C. federal judge with a pair of sharp scissors. But even worse, the FCC chairman’s blinders on usage caps and usage billing have left him unbelievably naive about this pricing scheme. No, Mr. Genachowski, usage pricing is not about innovation, it’s about monetizing broadband usage for even fatter profits at the expense of average consumers already overpaying for Internet access.

Obama

Unfortunately, the alternative choice may be worse. Let’s compare the two parties and their candidates:

The Obama Administration treats broadband comparably to alternative energy. Both deliver promise, but not if we wait for private companies to do all of the heavy lifting. The Obama Administration believes Internet expansion needs government assistance to overcome the current blockade of access for anyone failing to meet private Return On Investment requirements.

While this sober business analysis has kept private providers from upsetting investors with expensive capital investments, it has also allowed millions of Americans to go without service. The “incremental growth” argument advocated by private providers has allowed the United States’ leadership role on broadband to falter. In both Europe and Asia, even small nations now outpace the United States deploying advanced broadband networks which offer far higher capacity, usually at dramatically lower prices. Usually, other nations one-upping the United States is treated like a threat to national security. This time, the argument is that those other countries don’t actually need the broadband networks they have, nor do we.

The Obama Administration bows to the reality that private companies simply will not invest in unprofitable service areas unless the government helps pick up the tab. But those companies also want the government to spend the money with as little oversight over their networks as possible.

That sets up the classic conflict between the two political parties — Democrats who want to see broadband treated like a critically-important utility that deserves some government oversight in its current state and Republicans who want to leave matters entirely in the hands of private providers who they claim know best, and keep the government out of it.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s regular cave-ins for the benefit of Big Telecom brought heavy criticism from us for his “cowardly lion” act.

Just about the only thing the two parties agree on is reforming the Universal Service Fund, which had until recently been directing millions to keeping traditional phone service up and running even as Americans increasingly abandon landlines.

But differences quickly emerge from there.

The Obama Administration believes broadband is increasingly a service every American must be able to access if sought. The Romney-Ryan campaign hasn’t spoken to the issue much beyond the general Republican platform that market forces will resolve virtually any problem when sufficient demand arises.

Republicans almost uniformly vociferously oppose Net Neutrality, believing broadband networks are the sole property of the providers that offer the service. Many Republicans characterize Net Neutrality as a “government takeover” of the Internet and a government policy that would “micromanage broadband” like it was a railroad. Somehow, they seem to have forgotten railroad monopolies used to be a problem for the United States in the early 20th century. Robber barons, anyone?

President Obama pushed for strong Net Neutrality protections for Americans, but his FCC chairman Julius Genachowski caved to the demands of AT&T, Verizon, and the cable industry by managing Net Neutrality with a disappointing “light touch” for those providers. (We’d call it “fondling” ourselves.)

Democrats favor wireless auctions and spectrum expansion, but many favor limits that reserve certain spectrum for emerging competitors and for unlicensed wireless use. Republicans trend towards “winner take all” auctions which probably will favor deep-pocketed incumbents like AT&T and Verizon. The GOP also does not support holding back as much spectrum for unlicensed use.

Republicans have been strongly supporting the deregulation of “special access” service, critical to competitors who need backhaul access to the Internet sold by large phone companies like AT&T. Critics contend the pricing deregulation has allowed a handful of phone companies to lock out competitors, particularly on the wireless side, with extremely high prices for access without any pricing oversight. The FCC under the Obama Administration suspended that deregulation last summer, a clear sign it thinks current pricing is suspect.

Romney

Opponents of usage-based pricing of Internet access have gotten shabby treatment from both parties. Republicans have shown no interest in involving themselves in a debate about the fairness of usage pricing, but neither have many Democrats.

As for publicly-owned broadband networks, sometimes called municipal broadband, the Republican record on the state and federal level is pretty clear — they actively oppose community broadband networks and many have worked with corporate front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to ban them on the state level. Democrats tend to be more favorable, but not always.

The biggest problem broadband advocates face on the federal and state level is the ongoing pervasive influence of Big Telecom campaign contributions. While politicians uniformly deny that corporate money holds any influence over their voting, the record clearly indicates otherwise. Nothing else explains the signatures from Democrats that received healthy injections of campaign cash from companies like AT&T, and then used the company’s own talking points to oppose Net Neutrality.

But in a story of the lesser of two-evils, we cannot forget AT&T spends even more to promote Republican interests, because often those interests are shared by AT&T:

• AT&T has spent nearly $900,000 on self-identified “tea party” candidates pledged to AT&T’s deregulation policies;
• AT&T gave nearly $2 million to the Republican Governors Association — a key part of their ALEC agenda;
• AT&T gave $100,000 to everyone’s favorite dollar-a-holler Astroturf group — The Heartland Institute, which opposes Net Neutrality and community broadband.