Phillip “Reality Check” Dampier

The city of Los Angeles believes if they ask for it, they will get it – gigabit fiber broadband, that is. It is too bad we have to run a reality check.

In December, the city plans to issue an ambitious Request for Proposals (RFP) inviting at least one private company to run fiber service to all 3.5 million residents (and businesses and public buildings) within the city limits. The idea, which won unanimous support from the City Council, does not exactly come with many risks for the city. The Council acknowledges the project is likely to cost up to $5 billion (we suspect more), and the city has made it clear it won’t be contributing a penny.

“The city is going into it and writing the agreement, basically saying, ‘we have no additional funding for this effort.’ We’re requiring the vendors that respond to pay for the city resources needed to expedite any permitting and inspection associated with laying their fiber,” Los Angeles IT Agency general manager Steve Reneker told Ars Technica. “If they’re not willing to do that, our City Council may consider a general fund transfer to reimburse those departments, but we’re going in with the assumption that the vendor is going to absorb those up-front costs to make sure they can do their buildout in a timely fashion.”

That is wishful thinking.

The winning vendor is not just on the hook for the cost of building the network. It also has to comply with a city requirement to give away basic 2-5Mbps broadband service, possibly recouping the lost revenue with advertising. Customers wanting faster access will pay for it. Although not required to offer phone or television service, Reneker anticipates the winning vendor will offer both to earn more revenue to pay off construction costs.

Greater Los Angeles is now served by a mix of AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cox, and Charter. Only Verizon has a history of providing a significant fiber optic broadband service, but it has suspended further expansion of its network. AT&T is the dominant landline provider, but considers its U-verse fiber-to-the-neighborhood design adequate for southern California. It seems unlikely any incumbent provider is likely to seriously contemplate such an expensive fiber project, especially because the city requires the winner to build an open access network that competitors can also use. Cable operators have also stated repeatedly that their existing infrastructure is more than adequate. The question providers are likely to ask is, “why do we need to partner with the City Council to build a fiber network we could build ourselves, on our own terms, that we ultimately own and control?”

The city can offer some incentives to attract an outsider, such as promising a lucrative contract to manage the city government’s telecom needs. It can also ease bureaucratic red tape that often stalls big city infrastructure projects. But Los Angeles is not exactly prime territory for a fiber build. Its notorious sprawling boundaries encompass 469 square miles, with many residents and businesses in free-standing buildings, not cheaper to serve multi-dwelling units.

Google avoided California for its fiber project reportedly because of environmental law and bureaucracy concerns. Even Google cherry-picks neighborhoods where it will deploy its fiber project in Austin, Provo, and Kansas City. The Los Angeles RFP will likely require universal coverage for the fiber network, although it will probably allow a lengthy amount of time for construction.

The City Council’s RFP comes close to promising Gigabit Fiber-to-the-Press Release.

Private providers govern their expansion efforts by an increasingly stiff formula to recover construction costs by measuring potential Return On Investment (ROI), which basically means when a company can expect to earn back the amount initially invested. Spending $5 billion on a fiber network that could actually cut expected Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) with a free broadband offer is going to raise eyebrows. Convincing investors to chip in on a fiber network “open to competitors” will also elicit a lot of frowning faces.

Wall Street analysts rolled their eyes when Verizon rolled out FiOS. It was “too expensive” and provided too few avenues for a quick ROI. ‘Verizon built a Lamborghini Aventador fiber network when a Honda Accord would have done just fine in the absence of fierce competition,’ analysts complained. Why spend all this money on fiber when fat profits were waiting to be harvested from high-ARPU wireless service? Verizon got the message and ceased expansion. AT&T never walked that Wall Street plank in the first place, delivering a less capable Chevrolet Spark network known as U-verse.

The city is likely to be disappointed with the proposals they receive, in much the same way local governments begging for competition from other cable companies get no positive results. The economics and expectations of today’s private broadband market makes it extremely unlikely an incumbent provider is going to rock a boat that has delivered comfortable broadband profits with a minimum of investment.

Breaking the broadband duopoly of high prices for slow service is only likely in the private sector if deep-pocketed revolutionaries like Google can self-finance game-changing projects. Los Angeles will likely have to sweeten its invitation to attract interest from players serious enough to spend $5 billion. It will likely have to invest some money of its own in a public-private partnership. Perhaps an even better idea is to take control of the city’s broadband destiny more directly with a community project administered by a qualified broadband authority with proven experience in the telecom business.

There is no reason private companies cannot be active participants in whatever project is ultimately built, but these companies are not charities and if their financial backers don’t see a pathway to profit running fiber rings around LA today, an RFP to build a fiber network with city strings-attached isn’t likely to garner serious interest tomorrow.

Armstrong

A Wall Street analyst that maintained a “buy” rating on Comcast stock for most of the past four years is leaving Goldman Sachs after 13 years to become Comcast’s head of investor relations.

Jason Armstrong, often heard on earnings conference calls of major telecommunications companies, will start his new job in January, although his job change has not been publicly announced.

Armstrong served as the investment bank’s lead analyst for the cable, telephone and satellite sector. He arrived at Goldman Sachs in 2000 after leaving Ernst & Young, LLP in Chicago.

Officials from both Goldman Sachs and Comcast declined to comment.

Comcast’s Wireless Gateway is part of the company’s plans to further monetize broadband.

Comcast wants investors to believe customers slightly prefer losing access to unlimited broadband in return for a 300GB usage cap and $10 overlimit fees.

Neil Smit, president and CEO of Comcast Cable Communications this morning told Wall Street analysts Comcast plans to further monetize its broadband product after testing usage caps, consumption billing, and collecting increased in-home Wi-Fi fees collected from a growing number of customers with an XFINITY Wireless Gateway.

Phil Cusick from JPMorgan asked Smit about how broadband tiering trials now underway primarily in southern states were going for Comcast.

“We have a number of trials in place in markets,” Smit responded. “We’re testing different types of usage-based pricing offerings. Thus far the consumer response has been neutral to slightly positive. We’ll continue to monitor it.”

Customers in the affected areas tell Stop the Cap! they have never been asked what they think about Comcast’s usage caps and consumption billing, so they are unsure how Smit can draw conclusions about customer preference.

“I’m canceling Nov. 1 when the caps arrive in South Carolina,” says Dennis Johnson. “I’m heading to U-verse because AT&T isn’t enforcing any caps here. I plan to tell Comcast why they lost me, but it sounds like the company really isn’t interested in what customers think.”

Every research study done on broadband usage caps show customers loathe them and up to 50% are prepared to switch providers if they can find a competitor providing comparable service.

Comcast is also moving forward with plans to share your in-home Wi-Fi with other customers, configuring company-supplied gateways to offer a second, open access Wi-Fi channel. Comcast currently charges customers $7 a month for the XFINITY Wireless Gateway, combining a DOCSIS 3 cable modem, a telephone eMTA, and a wireless router.

Despite the fact Comcast customers regularly complain about the poor Wi-Fi range of the XFINITY Wireless Gateway and the monthly rental fee, Smit believes they are key to further monetizing broadband.

“We’ve rolled out about six million Gateway devices which increased the in-home Wi-Fi fees and we think there’s going to be more people hanging more devices off of their Wi-Fi,” said Smit.

The more devices, the higher the usage. The higher the usage, the closer customers get to exceeding their cap and charged overlimit fees.

Broadband in the United States costs far more than in other countries — nearly three times as much as in the UK and France, and at least five times more than South Korea, according to BBC News.

The New America Foundation compared hundreds of available packages around the world and found customers in America’s largest cities are getting the biggest bills.

Customers in San Francisco with a discounted low-medium speed bundle including broadband pay $99 a month. A near-equivalent package costs London residents $38. New Yorkers get some savings from Time Warner and Cablevision facing down Verizon FiOS. But it isn’t enough. In the Big Apple, a promotional bundle averages $70 a month. “C’est la vie,” say Parisians. They only pay $35 for about the same. Even Washington, D.C. residents, which include the country’s most powerful politicians, pay Comcast its $68 asking price. In Seoul, South Korea, a comparable offer costs $15 a month.

High asking prices don’t buy better service. According to a report by the OECD issued over the summer, the United States ranks among the worst in terms of broadband-only pricing. With an average price of $90 a month for 45Mbps service, the U.S. ranked 30th out of 33 countries. Add phone and television service and the price spikes to around $200.

The BBC pondered why there is such a disparity in pricing. The answer was easy to spot: the lack of true competition.

“Americans pay so much because they don’t have a choice,” said Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy. “We deregulated high-speed Internet access 10 years ago and since then we’ve seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply Internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight.”

Although Americans can name the largest and deep pocketed providers — Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cablevision, CenturyLink, Cox, and Frontier — most cannot choose from more than one cable provider and one telephone company. Comcast does not compete against Time Warner and AT&T does not compete against Verizon, except in the wireless world where both companies offer near-identical plans and pricing.

Comcast is quite the gouger in San Francisco.

Bay area customers told the BBC they get bills ranging from $120 a month for television and broadband (not including a $7 modem rental fee) to $200 a month for phone, TV, and Internet access. That same cable company is now testing a 300GB monthly usage cap on broadband in several American cities.

In contrast South Korea offers ubiquitous free Wi-Fi letting customers avoid usage charges. Home broadband is fast and cheap. Most pay $20 a month for 100Mbps.

Digging deeper, the BBC found clues why robust broadband competition delivers savings for consumers in Europe and Asia while Americans pay more.

Rick Karr, who made a PBS documentary in the UK comparing broadband costs at home and abroad, said the critical moment came when the British regulator Ofcom forced British Telecom to open its network and allow other companies to sell broadband over its copper telephone wires. In the United States, regulators never forced cable operators to open their networks, and after a 6-3 Supreme Court decision upheld the cable industry’s insistence it need not share access with competitors, telephone companies quickly called for parity.

A 2005 Supreme Court decision upheld the cable industry’s right to keep competitors off its cable broadband network.

Some argue the ruling promotes more competition by provoking competitors to build their own networks. But current conventional wisdom among the investment community teaches one cable and one phone company is considered good enough. Additional providers would erode the standing of all and force price cutting to compete.

There are exceptions. Although Google’s fiber to the home service has drawn national attention for its inexpensive gigabit fiber broadband network ($70 for broadband-only service), at least 150 cities are served by the public sector — co-op or publicly owned utility companies that offer broadband, often delivered over fiber optic networks.

Those networks often charge considerably less than the incumbent cable operator or phone company, a fact that has driven many privately run operators to seek legislative bans on community broadband.

In response to the report, telecommunications companies avoided the topic of prices and focused instead on value for money and the future.

Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon Communications, said Europe was replete with a decade of underinvestment, leaving many with less than 30Mbps service. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association said it was difficult to make international comparisons on price and Scott Cleland, part of the industry-funded NetCompetition website claimed although people may pay higher bills, they can at least choose among phone, cable, wireless or satellite.

“We may be paying more in your eyes today but we are building for tomorrow and the long-term,” said Cleland.