Phillip "Cry Me a River, Guys" Dampier

Like two peas in a pod, Robert Cyran and Bob Cox are back for the umpteenth time with their views on something.  A few years ago, they were upset because the group Radiohead decided consumers should name their own price for one of their albums.  This time it’s about Net Neutrality and variable pricing for broadband.  Writing for Reuters BreakingViews, they’re deeply concerned poor traditional phone and cable companies are being shortchanged — saddled with the costs of building and maintaining networks that content companies like Google, Apple, Cisco, and Microsoft get to use for free.

As for the four leading [content companies], they have a combined net cash pile of around $140 billion. Last year they spent $4.9 billion on capital expansion, a tenth of what the big four [telecom companies] paid to erect new cell towers, buy routers and extend fiber-optic cables.

[…]The introduction of variable pricing, or charging customers based on the data they consume, will help pay for the needed gear. But it means that the already unpopular [telecoms] will stick their customers with far larger bills — a recipe for political interference. Meantime, the [content companies] would continue to carry away what the telecom operators see as a disproportionate share of the benefits.

This analysis is a mile wide and an inch deep — fundamentally flawed because of information Cyran and Cox either ignored, didn’t know about, or didn’t care to consider.

First, Cisco is hardly a content company.  It is doing quite nicely feeding rumors of the forthcoming great tsunami of data — the “zettabyte era of broadband” that will result in a global traffic jam only they can help overcome. Cisco’s success comes from the sale of advanced networking equipment that can manage the growth of the Internet.  The amount of data that crosses today’s broadband wires has grown exponentially, even as the costs to manage it are increasingly declining on a per-gigabyte basis.  Apple is partly a content company, but more importantly is a developer of devices like the iPad and iPhone which are driving growth in wireless networks and helping justify the acceptance of monthly wireless phone bills easily over $100 a month in many households.  Google has content, but is also willing to take a plunge into being a provider itself, with plans to deploy an advanced 1Gbps fiber network that big telecom providers say cannot be built in a sensible way (to their investors.)  Finally, love or hate Microsoft, they have successfully powered the growth of personal computing which made the concept of broadband something telecom companies could actually sell to their shareholders as a viable business.

Cyran and Cox equate content providers and big telecom companies as unequal beneficiaries of the broadband revolution.  But just like many other powerful interests opposed to Net Neutrality, they forget those big telecom companies earn enormous revenue and profits from their customers — you and I.  The financial reports of all of these companies tell the story Cox and Cyran don’t.  Broadband profits among large telecom companies are the biggest growth area these companies have.  Deploying the service reaps financial windfalls.  Even with capital expenses involved in constructing fiber optic networks, broadband revenue can still make shareholders smile like no other component in today’s triple play packages.

On the wired side, Verizon has announced it has suspended further expansion of its fiber network FiOS indefinitely.  No other national cable or phone company is currently constructing true fiber to the home networks. Instead, most deploy fiber to the neighborhood and let coaxial or copper wiring cover the rest of the way.  Indeed, capital spending by many telecom companies is actually dropping.

On the wireless side, more than 90 percent of Americans now carry cell phones.  The monthly prices most pay for service exceeds that of their landline provider, if they have one.  Yet for all of the awful costs wireless providers face, AT&T and Verizon can’t wait to devote more time and energy to the wireless side of their business, because that is where the real money can be found.

It’s difficult to claim “victim” status of unequal treatment when you’re standing in a room filled with piles of cash.

The authors also completely ignore the fact companies that produce content don’t just throw it on the web for free.  An entire industry devoted to delivery of streaming media and other high bandwidth content buys fat pipelines from these telecom companies to deliver content to consumers.  Every content provider already pays their fair share for the traffic they generate.  Consumers pick up the rest as part of their monthly bill.

But Cyran and Cox believe these content companies (and consumers) should pay dramatically more to telecom companies for “upgrades” that may or may not materialize, and are frankly just the cost of doing business, which can be recouped from the relatively expensive broadband pricing Americans already pay for service.  The profit margins for broadband service are enormous.

Variable pricing, which we consistently call Internet Overcharging, is nothing more than price gouging, and the one true fact in their piece we agree with is that customers will get stuck with the bill.

In the financially difficult world of landline service, there has been one bright spot for Verizon — its state-of-the-art fiber optic service FiOS.  The cost of replacing obsolete copper phone with 21st century fiber optics has proved to be an expensive, but successful endeavor, at least in the eyes of customers.  Hated by Wall Street for its costs but loved by those who enjoy the service, FiOS has successfully proven traditional phone companies can earn money by providing the kinds of services consumers want, just so long as investors are willing to hang in there while the investment pays off over time.  But many investors aren’t.

Some of Verizon’s critics in the investment community complain the company is n0t earning enough from FiOS — in fact, for some critics who didn’t want Verizon spending money on a fiber-to-the-home network in the first place, financial returns provide the evidence used to claim they were right all along.

Despite the naysayers, revenue for Verizon FiOS is up by almost one-third each year, with average revenue per user now reaching $145 a month.  That’s well above the money Verizon earns on its legacy copper network phone customers keep leaving, especially outside of major cities where DSL service is spotty.  There is plenty of room for Verizon FiOS to grow in the limited communities it reaches.  Unfortunately, Verizon has stopped expanding its FiOS network to new communities, in part from pressure from investors who want to see cost cutting from the telecommunications giant.

Despite the positive reviews (subscription required) FiOS earns from consumer publications like Consumer Reports, Verizon slashed marketing and promotion expenses, resulting in second-quarter net additions for FiOS TV coming in at 174,000, compared with 300,000 a year earlier.

With Verizon now deploying service to communities on a reduced schedule, the results have been underwhelming according to the Wall Street Journal:

Verizon Communications may want to tweak the ad slogan for its TV and ultrafast Internet service to “This is FIOS. This is pretty small.”

Not catchy, but it would be more accurate than the current “This is Big” line.

[…]It eventually became clear that Verizon had slowed the time frame of the buildup, originally scheduled to be mostly done this year. Instead, it now expects to meet its target of passing 18 million homes with the network by 2012.

The slower timetable allows Verizon to trim capital spending this year. The problem is that FiOS’s expansion could stall with a less aggressive approach to growth. Already, Verizon has retreated from its target of adding one million subscribers a year, in favor of boosting penetration to 40% of homes passed. At June 30, its 3.2 million TV subscribers was about 20% of homes passed.

[…]And that can only reinforce questions about long-term returns on the $23 billion FIOS investment.

Evidence that Verizon is looking for more customers in its existing FiOS markets can be found in the news the company dropped its contract commitment for new customers.  The term contracts may have held some potential customers back out of fear of a lengthy term commitment with a $360 early cancellation fee.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon FiOS goes contract free ad.flv[/flv]

Verizon started running this ad several weeks ago touting its new “no contract” FiOS service.  (15 seconds)

But a change in strategy isn’t enough for investors who demand immediate results through further cost cutting measures.

In Verizon’s second quarter earnings reports, company executives speak to this perception, proudly noting they have slashed costs through job-cutting and reduced spending on infrastructure and services.  Some of those services include DSL expansion for rural Verizon customers, many who are now left on hold waiting for broadband from Verizon indefinitely.

In many states, Verizon’s DSL expansion was incremental at best, with the company issuing press releases touting new service for literally hundreds of potential customers.

Verizon’s traditional landline business continues to lose customers year after year, and is abandoning millions of others through sell-off deals with companies like Frontier Communications.  Light Reading notes Verizon eliminated 11,000 jobs in its Mid-Atlantic and Eastern regions through early retirement incentive programs, an idea soon to spread to other regions, particularly California and Texas in the coming months.  This kind of cost cutting saves cash and allows companies to report positive financial results in quarterly reports.

According to John Killian, executive vice president and CFO of Verizon, the job cuts are just getting started.  As Verizon further alienates its non-FiOS landline customers who can find better service and lower prices elsewhere, the company expects “further force reductions” in the coming months.  Verizon is also slashing costs by selling off real estate, consolidating operations and vacating buildings.

The impact can become a vicious circle of deteriorating service, customer defections, and additional cost cutting, which starts the circle all over again.  In West Virginia, deteriorating Verizon phone lines reached the point of serious service outages whenever major storms hit the state.  Then Verizon simply sold off its network in West Virginia.  Those customers are now served by Frontier Communications.

Verizon previously declared the era of the landline dead, and is now seeking to prove its point, even as it demonstrates it can make money by spending money on FiOS, if only investors would give them the chance.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Behind the scenes at Verizon Fios 3-15-10.flv[/flv]

CNN took a behind the scenes tour of Verizon’s FiOS network in New York City, from the central offices to individual apartments.  (4 minutes)

When phone companies like Verizon decide to throw their rural customers under the bus by selling them off, shareholders and executives rake in windfall bonuses, sometimes in the millions.  Now a New York assemblyman and a state senator want ratepayers to get a 40 percent cut of the action.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), is the primary sponsor of Assembly Bill A02208 — An Act Requiring the Public Service Commission to Conduct an In-Depth Public Interest Analysis of Proposed Mergers by Telephone Corporations and Other Telecommunications Services Providers.  A companion New York Senate Bill, S7263, was introduced by Sen. Brian X. Foley (D-Blue Point/Long Island).

The legislation would compel phone companies engaged in the practice of mergers, acquisitions, and sales to share 40 percent of the proceeds with New York’s landline phone customers.

The legislation came as a result of watching Verizon systematically sell off parts of its phone empire to third party companies like FairPoint Communications, Hawaiian Telcom, and Frontier Communications.  More than five million customers have been switched away from Verizon to other companies, most of which have gone bankrupt as a direct result of the sales.

Brodsky

Both Brodsky and Foley don’t want to see New York residents face similar consequences.  They are particularly concerned about Verizon’s upstate operations, particularly in rural areas outside of cities like Buffalo, Binghamton, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, and northern New York.  In the upstate region, Verizon has constructed fiber to the home service under its FiOS brand in urban and suburban regions where it operates, but has made few changes in the countryside.  As Verizon customers from Washington to North Carolina suddenly find themselves served by Frontier, why couldn’t the same thing happen in communities like Sodus in Wayne County, Penn Yan in Yates County, or just about anywhere in northern New York?

Verizon’s business plan has evolved over the last ten years.  Company president Ivan Seidenberg previously declared the landline business dead, and the company has turned its attention to delivering fiber-based video, phone and broadband services to the major population centers within its service areas.  Because rural customers cost too much to serve with similar packages of services, Verizon has begun selling them off to independent phone companies that still see revenue from copper wire landline service.

Verizon claims it has no plans to sell any of its operations in New York, but Brodsky and Foley want insurance that if they change their mind, no ratepayers in New York will face what happened in northern New England or Hawaii when the companies taking control ended up in Bankruptcy Court.

“It’s a ratepayer protection bill for upstate New York,” Brodsky said.

Brodsky said if Verizon were to sell operations, consumers will not be left with inferior service.

Forcing companies to share proceeds of sales to ratepayers who ultimately indirectly bankroll most of these deals is not unprecedented in New York.  Electric and gas utilities are often required to send refunds or issue credits when they sell assets.  Ratepayers of Rochester Gas & Electric received several compensation checks after the sale of the Ginna nuclear power plant in Ontario, New York to Constellation Energy Group in 2004.

Verizon could also be compelled to reinvest proceeds earmarked for consumers in the company’s infrastructure, such as paying for broadband improvements or upgrading lines.

The legislation would only impact companies earning more than $200 million in gross annual revenue from New Yorkers.  Currently, that means the legislation would only impact Verizon and Frontier Communications.

Not surprisingly, Verizon is vehemently against the proposed legislation and is fighting tooth and nail to kill it in Albany.

Foley

Jim Gerace, president of Verizon’s New York region, told the Albany Times-Union the Brodsky legislation was bad for Verizon and anti-business in general.  Gerace predicted companies would not want to do business in New York because they’d fear similar profit-sharing legislation could eventually target them.

“I’m convinced this is going to have a chilling effect on all businesses,” Gerace said. “They’re sending a very dangerous message to all businesses. It just compounds the state’s woes.”

But the Public Service Commission is intrigued by the legislation and is reviewing it.  If enacted, it could make a mass sell-off of rural landlines untenable in New York.

A02208 passed the Assembly by a wide margin — 103-34 and is now awaiting final action in the Senate.  It narrowly passed the Senate Rules Committee June 16th by a 13-10 vote.

If you want to see the bill passed, consider contacting your New York State senator and asking them to support the immediate passage of S7263.  Let them know you do not want phone deals to be cut at your expense, leaving you with a second-class provider.  If Verizon wants to sell off your community, they owe consumers a piece of the action.  It’s time that phone mergers, acquisitions and sell-offs actually benefit the consumers that ultimately pay for them and live with the results.

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY)

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-New York) has begun to worry broadband consumers in his western and central New York district.

In April 2009, when Time Warner Cable’s announced Internet Overcharging experiment was upsetting customers in Rochester, Maffei claimed he was concerned about limiting broadband usage for customers in the area.  But when former Rep. Eric Massa introduced legislation to ban unjustified usage caps and consumption billing, Maffei told his constituents he wasn’t interested in Massa’s approach:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act was introduced by Representative Eric Massa (NY-29) on June 16, 2009, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill would authorize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review volume usage service plans of major broadband internet service providers to ensure that such plans are fairly based on cost.

When Time Warner Cable announced in April that Rochester would be used as a test market for charging Internet users based upon consumption usage, I, along with Representative Massa, opposed this policy. We helped persuade Time Warner to abandon the plan in the area. At that time, Representative Massa also introduced the Broadband Internet Fairness Act.

Other utilities, like water or electricity, charge customers based on usage, but Internet users have traditionally been charged a flat fee for unlimited access to the web. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act would require Internet Service Providers that want to implement usage-based pricing plans to go through several traditional regulatory hurdles. While I share many of the goals of Representative Massa’s legislation, I do not believe passing this stand-alone bill is the right approach at this time.

Of course broadband is nothing like water or electric utilities.  In fact, Maffei’s inclusion of that reference is a classic talking point of the telecom industry.  Notice they, and Maffei, didn’t mention telephone service — the one utility that provides flat rate calling for most Americans.  It also happens to be the utility most comparable to broadband service!

New York's 25th Congressional District

But Maffei made a bad situation worse when he joined 72 other House Democrats co-signing a letter from Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T), urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to fight a court decision overturning the agency’s ability to conduct broadband oversight.

The letter represented one giant talking point — the false premise that enforcing a fair, free, and open Internet with Net Neutrality would somehow stifle investment in broadband expansion.  Yet AT&T was required to honor the very same principles when it merged with SBC, and managed to remain a multi-billion dollar powerhouse well positioned to expand broadband service to additional customers in its ever-growing service areas.

The fact the broadband industry is a duopoly for most Americans — one that can threaten to pull back on service if it doesn’t get its way in Washington — is just one more reason the industry requires more oversight, not less.

Yet Rep. Maffei stood alone as the only member of the western New York Congressional delegation to sign his name to the agenda of big cable and phone companies.

Perhaps the congressman has forgotten these facts which trouble broadband consumers across western and central New York:

• Rochester, NY was the only city in the northeast where Time Warner sought to conduct an Internet Overcharging experiment, made possible because of limited competition in the Rochester market;
• Rochester’s other broadband provider, Frontier Communications, insists on a monthly usage allowance of just 5GB per month in its Acceptable Use Policy;
• Verizon FiOS has suspended expansion indefinitely and the service will never be available in most of the 585 area code where Frontier operates, and it will take years for most of the rest of his Syracuse district to see the service reach those areas;
• Time Warner Cable increased its broadband rates in 2010, as did Verizon;

Green’s letter dances around the real issue — telecommunications companies are spending millions to oppose pro-consumer reforms and stop a return of oversight authority the FCC lost after a recent court decision.  Without this authority, the FCC cannot implement the National Broadband Plan’s insistence that American providers not block or impede network traffic.  These Net Neutral policies preserve net freedom.  The FCC cannot even require that providers tell the truth about broadband speeds and include the company’s terms of service in plain English.

Western New York is a hotbed of consumer activism on broadband issues, particularly because we are actual victims of provider abuse.  No one knows more than we how critical 21st century broadband is to the transformation of this region’s perennially challenged economy.

Rep. Maffei needs a reminder this is a hot button issue for consumers from Irondequoit to Manlius.  Perhaps he just doesn’t fully understand what’s at stake here.  You need to remind him.

We’ve included a suggested letter you can use to help write your own.  For maximum effectiveness, include some of your own personal stories, challenges, and frustrations with your local broadband provider.  Feel free to share yours in the Comments section.

Dear Rep. Maffei:

I was extremely disappointed to discover you signed your name on a letter written by Rep. Gene Green urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to restore oversight authority over broadband.  While Rep. Green’s letter illustrates he’s mostly concerned about the well being of AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Comcast, as a consumer I am more concerned about the broadband duopoly that exists in Rochester & Syracuse.

If the FCC does not regain its ability to oversee broadband by reclassifying it under Title II — as a telecommunications service (which it very clearly is), the FCC can effectively do nothing to stop broadband provider abuses, such as Comcast’s notorious speed throttle on customers using certain Internet websites and services. It took an FCC investigation to finally get the cable company to admit the truth — it was interfering with customers’ broadband speeds.  The oversight power the agency had was just what was needed to convince Comcast to stop.

Unfortunately, a DC Circuit Court recently disagreed it had that authority and effectively stripped it away.  Chairman Genachowski is simply seeking a return to the status quo before that court decision was handed down.  He’s not asking to regulate broadband anything like telephone service.  In fact, he’s insisted on a “light touch.”  That’s better than today’s court-imposed total-hands-off reality.

By signing Rep. Green’s letter, you effectively tell us you don’t support Net Neutrality protections that guarantee providers cannot censor or impede web traffic.  You also do nothing to protect consumers from other provider abuses.  Considering what residents of Rochester went through last year fighting a Time Warner Cable scheme that would have tripled broadband prices for the same level of service, I’m shocked you of all people would be a supporter of big telecom’s agenda.

Telecom companies are claiming that if regulations enforcing Net Neutrality are enacted, investment will suffer and broadband expansion will be slowed.  Yet AT&T was required, as part of its merger with SBC, to respect Net Neutrality for several years.  The company flourished, broadband was offered to more customers than ever, and investors liked what they saw.

The record in western New York is clear — Time Warner Cable was willing to limit its customers access to broadband service, Frontier already does in its terms and conditions, and Verizon FiOS deployment has been suspended indefinitely.  For too many of us, there are too few choices.  In fact, the only thing we can be assured of is higher pricing and a strengthened duopoly.

I strongly urge you to remove your signature from Rep. Green’s letter and get on board with consumers like myself in your district who believe deregulation and oversight failures have given us nothing but nightmares — from Wall Street to BP’s oil spill.  Let’s not make another mistake in handing cable and phone companies unfettered permission to abuse their customers.

Please get back in touch with me as soon as possible on this important matter.

Rep. Dan Maffei told constituents he was concerned about Time Warner Cable’s Internet Overcharging scheme proposed in April 2009.  At a town hall meeting in Irondequoit, New York, he admitted Time Warner Cable held near-monopoly power over consumers in Rochester.  What changed his tune when he signed on to Rep. Gene Green’s anti-consumer letter to the FCC? (April 9, 2009 — 2 minutes)

Rep. Dan Maffei’s Contact Information

Washington, D.C. Office
1630 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3701
Fax: (202) 225-4042

Syracuse Office
P.O. Box 7306,
1340 Federal Building
Syracuse, NY 13261
Phone: (315) 423-5657
Fax: (315) 423-5669

Irondequoit/Rochester Office
1280 Titus Avenue
Rochester, NY 14617
Phone: (585) 336-7291
Fax: (585) 336-7274

[Update: 11:30pm EDT: Free Press reports Rep. Maffei accepted $29,000 in contributions from telecom companies, including Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T.]

Real estate listings increasingly are promoting Verizon FiOS availability to would be buyers and renters

Real estate listings that prominently mention Verizon FiOS availability?

It’s true.  The much-coveted fiber-to-the-home service from Verizon has increasingly become important in residential home sales and rentals, according to realtors.  With the housing market still a shadow of its former self, just having broadband access is no longer good enough for many homebuyers and renters.  They want assurances that they can obtain fiber optic service, particularly as Verizon ceases expansion of its fiber deployments for the time being.

Despite claims from some providers that the type of broadband doesn’t really matter, real estate agents, such as those on www.hpw.com/, beg to differ.  The only thing worse than slow broadband is no broadband.  Those homes without broadband access of any kind can be a dead weight in an agent’s portfolio.  Practically nobody wants a home stuck with dial-up.  It’s like buying a home without electricity.

Just closing a sale on property that can only obtain slow speed DSL service or is served by a lackluster cable operator can also be a nuisance if a better provider is available nearby.

Some real estate listings have even begun providing Verizon FiOS certification guaranteeing would-be buyers of renters that FiOS service is ready and available.

None of this escaped Verizon’s attention, of course.  The company has used demand for FiOS in its advertising and communications strategies, and even has a rewards program for real estate professionals who convince buyers they are missing out if they aren’t Verizon FiOS customers.

Verizon claims up to 65 percent of home buyers say fiber optic broadband, including Internet connectivity, TV and phone service is an important and growing part of their home buying decision.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon FiOS Real Estate.flv[/flv]

Verizon produced this video about how important their FiOS product is becoming to home buyers and renters.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Agent Rewards Program benefits Real Estate with FIOS.flv[/flv]

Verizon has an Agent Rewards Program that rewards real estate professionals with $100 gift cards for signing up home buyers and renters for Verizon service.  (1 minute)