Open Access Idaho Broadband Network Lets Customers Switch To A New ISP In Seconds

from the what-competition-actually-looks-like dept

In 2009, the FCC funded a Harvard study that concluded (pdf) that open access policies (letting multiple ISPs come in and compete over a central, core network) resulted in lower broadband prices and better service. Of course when the FCC released its flimsy, politically timid "National Broadband Plan" back in 2010, this realization (not to mention an honest accounting of the sector's limited competition) was nowhere to be found. Since then, "open access" has become somewhat of a dirty word in telecom, and even companies like Google Fiber -- which originally promised to adhere to the concept on its own network before quietly backpedaling -- are eager to pretend the idea doesn't exist.

That's not the case for Ammon, Idaho however, where a small municipal broadband ISP is building a core broadband network that's not only embracing open access, but is developing tools that will let customers easily switch between ISPs in seconds. Even different customers in the same home can select different ISPs depending on their needs:

"Residents will get a gateway provided by the city. When they hook it up and try to surf the Web, they will be taken to the portal where they can select an ISP—very much like using the Internet in a hotel. From that point, residents will scan the available Internet offers, purchase one, and get hooked up immediately. They could even buy two different Internet services, which might be useful for a family where a parent works at home and wants a single broadband line for a home office and a second broadband service for the rest of the home."

While only a 12 home trial at the moment, the city of Ammon is beginning expansion to 200 homes, with plans to reach all 4,500 homes and apartment buildings in time. Like most municipal broadband networks, the Ammon network was forged in the wake of resident annoyance at apathetic area incumbents CenturyLink and Cable One. Also like most municipal broadband communities, Ammon is relatively conservative, once again putting to bed the useful ISP-backed myth that municipal broadband is a partisan, political issue:

"Ammon is "a very conservative community," so creating a fiber network instead of relying solely on the private sector is not something city officials were about to do lightly, Mayor Dana Kirkham said in the video. But city officials soon figured out that they could do the initial project themselves for just $22,000 and that they could also bring Internet access to government buildings and businesses, improving the city's ability to compete in a high-tech world in a fiscally responsible manner."

Again though, open access in most areas of the country is treated like the bubonic plague. Why? Most large scale open access proposals often involve some form of local public/private partnership to ensure even coverage of what's becoming a necessary utility to lower ROI areas. The end result is any ISP lobbyists' worst nightmare: an informed, motivated public with the backing of local governments working together to improve broadband competition, instead of the current paradigm of regulatory capture resulting in government ignoring the public to maintain the duopoly status quo.

And while Ammon's approach is unlikely to be adopted on any scale here in the States, it's an interesting look at what could have been if the country wasn't quite so beholden to telecom industry campaign contributions.

Filed Under: ammon, broadband, competition, fcc, idaho, isps, line sharing, municipal broadband, open access

Cable Industry: Our Shitty TV Apps Are Just As Good As Real Cable Box Competition, Right?

from the half-baked dept

The cable industry is aggressively fighting the FCC's attempt to bring competition to the cable box market. So far that's been via a two-pronged approach of buying a torrent of incredibly misleading editorials by people pretending to be objective observers (including Jesse Jackson), and throwing money at politicians who oppose the plan, but pretty clearly have no goddamned idea what they're actually talking about.

Under the FCC's plan (pdf), cable providers would be required to provide their existing programming to third-party hardware vendors, creating competition and hopefully a flood of better, cheaper hardware without the need for expensive, and annoying CableCARDs. But with the average user paying $231 annually in set top box rental fees, the cable industry is pulling out all the stops to protect $21 billion in annual, captive revenues.

The cable sector's latest attempt to scuttle the FCC's plan? A voluntary counter-proposal that pretends to deliver what the FCC is asking for, but falls well short. Under the proposal unveiled during recent meetings at the FCC (pdf), the cable industry would instead provide much of its existing programming via apps. This, the cable industry claims, would somehow create competition in the third-party hardware market without FCC involvement:

This alternative could be built on enforcing an industry-wide commitment to develop and deploy video “apps” that all large MVPDs would build to open HTML5 web standards....They expressed their belief that such an approach could further advance competition for independent device manufacturers within the context of a market transformation already underway and in a manner that fully protects and respects the rights of content owners.

But while this has been portrayed as some kind of revolutionary concession by hired telecom sector policy cheerleaders and several different press outlets, it isn't much different than what cable operators offer today. Currently, most cable providers offer some of their content via apps usable on tablets, smartphones, and many streaming devices. Historically, they offer fewer features and less content than is available via full, traditional cable; little more than a token gesture toward innovation in the hopes of keeping paying customers from jumping ship to Netflix, Amazon, or a collection of other cheaper options.

Under this latest proposal, you'd be able to watch some cable content via apps, but if you wanted to, say, record via DVR -- you'd still have to sign up for old, vanilla QAM-based cable and pay for the same, old, clunky set top box. Ultimately, my guess is that these cable executives would eventually get rid of the cable box if you use their apps, but force you to pay a monthly fee for their cloud-based streaming or other services. Potentially using zero rating (exempting their services from usage caps) to ensure fealty. Slight variation on the same, existing song.

INCOMPAS, a trade association that has Google, Amazon, Netflix, and some ISPs as members (mostly telcos with no interest in selling cable TV), issued a statement pointing out that this "compromise" wasn't much of one, while reminding everyone that cable sector promises historically don't mean much:

...The cable industry is proposing competitive choice for streaming devices, but still seeks to retain a controlling grip on DVRs and recordable devices. “The cable industry has made promises before about ditching the set-top box, that have not materialized. So it is important for the FCC’s unlock the box proposal to include enforceable standards that will create a thriving market for competition, congruent with the law.

Consumer groups too were quick to point out that the cable industry's proposal is murky and falls short:

"The proposal does not allow for many features that consumers want, such as home recording, and it does not allow for true user interface competition," Public Knowledge Senior Staff Attorney John Bergmayer said in a statement sent to Ars. "Additionally, core aspects of the proposal are unclear, in particular, the precise mechanism by which MVPDs propose to provide apps for various hardware and software platforms, and whether consumers would need a broadband connection to access video programming instead of leveraging their existing pay TV connections."

While it's good this proposal at least brings the cable industry to the table, skepticism is more than warranted. This is, after all, an industry with a long, proud history of engaging in anti-competitive behavior under the auspices of phantom technical justification, with net neutrality and usage caps being only a small part of the equation. Comcast, for example, is so eager to limit streaming competition it refuses to let its broadband customers access HBO Go across a wide variety of devices, providing only fleeting, half-baked justifications for the behavior.

Make no mistake, the cable industry is absolutely terrified of not only losing tens of billions in rental fees, but of truly open hardware platforms willing to direct customers to cheaper streaming alternatives. Under this app-based approach, you can be dead certain that cable would include all manner of caveats to ensure customers still need to sign up for traditional cable or their DVR services if they want the "full TV experience." Anyone who thinks the sector's going to honestly volunteer any plan that puts its existing monopoly power at any serious risk -- simply doesn't know the cable industry.

If the FCC is truly intent on real competition to the set top box market, the cable industry may need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the finish line.

Filed Under: apps, cable, cable tv, competition, fcc, set top box, unlock the box

Chattanooga Mayor Says City's Gigabit Network (Which Comcast Tried To Kill) To Thank For City's Revival

from the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way dept

While hardline free marketeers and incumbent ISPs often try to paint city-owned broadband networks as the pinnacle of government-sponsored disaster, Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke this week credited the city utility's gigabit broadband service as a major contributing factor for the city's re-invention. The Chattanooga Electric Power Board (EPB) is a city-owned utility that offers broadband speeds up to 10 Gbps to locals; a recent Consumer Reports survey noting that outside of Google Fiber, EPB has the only truly positive consumer satisfaction ratings among the 30 national ISPs ranked by the magazine:

"The results were ugly for value, too, with 28 of the 30 TV service providers earning our lowest score. The two exceptions—municipal broadband company EPB Fiber Optics-Chattanooga and Google Fiber—each earned high scores from the survey respondents. Both services offer super-fast 1-gigabit-per-second (Gbps) speeds. EPB Fiber Optics-Chattanooga ranked highest in the survey for overall satisfaction, edging out Google Fiber and cable company Armstrong."

In areas where the private market has failed, public or public/private partnerships have proven to be an effective way (if designed and funded properly) in shoring up coverage gaps for what has become an essential utility. Berke this week stated that by doing what local incumbent broadband providers refused to (aka give a damn), the city has been able to attract startups, lower the city's unemployment rate, and change the city's reputation for the better. And while not all of that is solely thanks to broadband, Berke makes it very clear that EPB was a huge part of it:

"It changed our conceptions of who we are and what is possible,” Berke said. “Before we had never thought of ourselves as a technology city."...Downtown has doubled its residents and landlords often advertise gigabit speeds that are included in monthly rents.

“It’s an explosion of growth in our technology sector,” he said. “That has sparked not only this (downtown) living but restaurants and bars and music and the quality of life that truly makes a city interesting, cool, hip, vibrant and energetic."

But if you've been playing along at home, regional incumbents like AT&T and Comcast almost kept EPB's network from ever being built. In 2008 Comcast unsuccessfully sued EPB to prevent the city's plan from taking root. AT&T and Comcast are also behind a state law preventing EPB from expanding, one of nineteen such laws lobbied for by incumbent ISPs to maintain the apathetic broadband status quo.

We've noted how state leaders (like Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, a former AT&T executive) have rushed to the defense of the state's broadband duopoly and their protectionist law. The pretense usually involves these politicians insisting they're just trying to protect taxpayers from themselves, ignoring the fact that letting AT&T and Comcast lawyers literally writing bad state telecom law has resulted in Tennessee being one of the least connected states in the nation.

Tennessee's fealty to regional duopolists recently bubbled over when EPB successfully petitioned the FCC to intervene on their behalf. The FCC is currently in court trying to argue that two such laws -- in both Tennessee and North Carolina -- run in stark contrast to the FCC's stated mission of ensuring even and timely broadband deployment. The FCC hopes that the case sets a legal precedent, resulting in the elimination of similar laws (many of which ban or hinder even public/private partnerships like Google Fiber) falling like dominoes.

But here too loyal Tennessee protectors of broadband sector dysfunction like Marsha Blackburn have tried to argue the FCC is violating state law -- by telling the state which giant corporations can or can't buy protectionist legislation. It's all part of a massive joke that has repeated itself in state after state, where companies like AT&T and Comcast have such a stranglehold over the legislative process, they've effectively codified shitty, uncompetitive broadband into law.

Filed Under: broadband, chattanooga, competition, innovation, municipal broadband

The Cable Industry Trots Out Mitch McConnell To Fight Against Cable Box Competition

from the nobody-believes-the-words-coming-out-of-your-mouth dept

We've been talking for weeks about how the cable industry has dramatically ramped up lobbying in an attempt to kill the FCC's plan to bring some competition to the set top box market. The cable industry opposes the idea for two reasons: competition would dramatically reduce the $21 billion the sector makes each year off of rental fees, but the flood of new, cheaper boxes would also likely direct users -- historically locked behind cable's walled gardens -- to a huge variety of streaming video alternatives.

But the cable industry can't just come out and admit that they're terrified of competition -- so they've been attacking the FCC's plan with a two pronged approach. One, pay for an absolute torrent of hysterically-misleading editorials that claim set top competition will hurt consumers, scare the children, ramp up piracy, and knock the planet off of its orbital axis. The other prong of their attack involves a lobbying mainstay: throwing money at politicians to take positions they don't have the slightest actual understanding of.

Case in point is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who this week was nudged by the cable sector to jump into the fray with comments like this one:

"Rather than applying a light regulatory touch," Senator McConnell wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, "the FCC would require existing programming distributors to provide the copyrighted programming they have licensed from content providers to third party manufacturers and app developers, none of whom would be bound by the agreements to protect the content."

This is a line that the cable sector and its marionettes have been repeating, but it's simply not true. As the FCC's proposal outline notes (pdf), all the plan does is require that cable operators deliver the same expensive programming they do now -- using the same copy protection and business arrangements -- without requiring a CableCARD. A set top vendor can't just claim cable broadcasts as their own and ignore existing programming agreements, but that's one of several misleading arguments being put forth by the sector to kill the initiative.

Advertisers looking to protect legacy cash cow relationships have also been trying to derail the FCC's effort, claiming that the reform plan will somehow hurt consumers, violate copyright (as the EFF did a great job detailing that's not true either), and thrust the entire pay TV advertising ecosystem into "chaos":

"The current market structure for television advertising supports advertisers' ability to place their ads based on national, regional or local distribution; the type of programming or specific content; the audience composition; and the time of day or night that the ads appear," the ANA wrote. The proposed regulations could tilt that system toward chaos, it suggested."

Perhaps the ANA hadn't noticed, but the legacy pay TV advertising ecosystem already faces a wholesale revolution in terms of how consumers are served TV programming and the ads attached to them. If the existing "market structure" can't adapt behavioral and location advertising to consumers viewing TV content on a myriad of devices and hardware, they may want to change professions. In reality, advertiser opposition is based on little more than fear; fear that they may have to share revenues with new economy companies, and fear that these companies may actually give consumers what they want -- like the ability to skip ads.

But again it's not as if the FCC's proposal is even really that dramatic of an idea. It would simply act to accelerate a shift that -- thanks in large part to cable and broadcast lobbying power -- is already happening but could take another decade to fully materialize. The shift away from the traditional cable box and legacy TV is well underway, and it's hubris to think it can be stopped by pouting. Opposition to the set top box reform plan is little more than the dull creaking of yet another legacy sector behaving like a toddler because the uncompetitive markets they've built over a generation can't somehow, magically, live forever.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, fcc, mitch mcconnell, set top box

Cable Industry Proclaims More Competition 'Hurts Consumers' & 'Damages Economic Efficiency'

from the bigger-ain't-better dept

As part of the conditions attached to Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, the FCC imposed a requirement that Charter expand broadband service to another two million locations, one million of which must already be served by an ISP delivering speeds of 25 Mbps or greater. Unfortunately these kinds of conditions historically don't mean much; merger broadband expansion promises are almost always volunteered by the ISPs themselves, who already planned the expansion regardless of their merger plans.

That isn't stopping a lobbying organization representing Charter's cable competitors from crying and stomping their feet over the condition. In a filing by the American Cable Association (ACA, pdf), the organization's lawyers try to claim that not only would an influx of competition somehow harm consumers, the group claims that adding competitors to what are frequently stagnant markets will somehow "damage economic efficiency":

"That overbuild condition is unlawful. It is not tailored to mitigate a merger-specific harm or confirm a merger-specific benefit. It will exacerbate the merger harms the Order identifies, damage economic efficiency, injure small providers, and harm consumers. The condition should be stricken."

Another coalition of cable providers, the NTCA, tried to claim the same thing in a filing of its own:

"While the commission’s intentions in proposing the buildout requirement were undoubtedly good, the reality is imposing such a condition creates artificial competition in areas that cannot support it, which will ultimately undermine, rather than further, broadband availability and affordability in higher-cost areas in particular."

When is competition "artificial?" When we say it is! The thing is, it's not really competition these companies are worried about. It's the inevitable hoovering up of their businesses by Charter down the road. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge recently made it clear at an investor conference that he won't be targeting cable companies under the condition -- rather, he'll be targeting phone companies. Why? Phone companies, usually unwilling or unable to invest in fiber, make easier targets. There's no need to compete with smaller cable operators, when you can just gobble them up at a later date:

"When I talked to the FCC, I said I can’t overbuild another cable company, because then I could never buy it, because you always block those,” Rutledge said at the MoffettNathanson event. “It’s really about overbuilding telephone companies.” “Why would we go where we could get killed,” Rutledge said.

In other words, Charter doesn't want to compete with cable companies, because the FCC would then prohibit them from merging with them later for fear of lessening competition. Instead, Charter plans to take aim at the already struggling second-tier telcos in these areas, then acquire smaller cable operators down the road. So despite the FCC's intentions, the deal creates another homogeneous giant just like Comcast with little to no real competition to keep it in check, and the conditions are little more than regulatory band-aids for what's ultimately going to end badly for every individual and organization not-named Charter.

While the FCC's conditions do include a few useful nuggets for consumers and small businesses (a ban on caps and net neutrality violations for seven years), with the pace at which the cable industry is looking to defang and hamstring the agency, it's not clear there's going to be much of an FCC left to enforce the conditions during the latter stretch of that window. While the FCC certainly tried to shine up these conditions to downplay the negative aspects of deal approval, it's still abundantly clear that giant telecom mergers like this only ultimately benefit the companies involved.

That's a lesson that for whatever reason we seem utterly unwilling to learn despite our collective disdain for the end result.

Filed Under: broadband, buildout, cable, competition, fcc
Companies: aca, bright house networks, charter, ncta, time warner cable

House Attacks Net Neutrality, Cable Box Reform With Sneaky Budget Rider

from the dysfunction-junction dept

As we've noted a few times, there's really only two ways the telecom sector can successfully destroy U.S. net neutrality rules. Broadband providers could prevail on part or all of their multi-headed lawsuit against the FCC, a decision on which is expected any day now. Or the rules could be dismantled by the next President, who could repopulate the FCC with the usual assortment of revolving-door sector sycophants, reverting the agency back to its more consistent, historical role as a dumbly nodding enabler of broadband sector dysfunction.

Every other attempt to kill the rules is just politicians barking loudly for their campaign contribution dinners -- though that's not to say the barking doesn't get very loud from time to time.

The latest example is the House Appropriations Committee's 29-17 vote to approve an FCC appropriations bill (pdf), part of a larger Financial Services Bill determining the 2017 budgets for multiple agencies. The bill was passed last week with amendment language intended to hobble the FCC's net neutrality rules -- and its quest to bring competition to the cable set top box. More specifically, the bill prohibits the FCC from enforcing its net neutrality rules until the ongoing court case is settled. But it also would relegate the FCC's attempt to bring competition to the cable box to committee purgatory.

This attempt to force the FCC's cable box reform plan into a "study" that never ends -- despite an already scheduled extensive public comment period -- has been a constant drum beat among telecom lobbyists, who've masterfully enjoyed having a laundry list of Senators parrot their claims that cable set top box reform will somehow hurt consumer privacy, spike piracy rates, and even harm minorities. The real reason for the sector's opposition is the $21 billion in captive annual set top rental fees the cable sector enjoys, and the fact that more set top box competition means better, cheaper hardware that will highlight streaming alternatives to legacy television (the horror).

As is usually the case, politicians supporting the hamstringing of the FCC profess they're wasting taxpayer money and legislative time not because they're paid allies of the telecom duopolists, but because they're just breathlessly worried about the health of the nation. For example, Chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, Florida Representative Ander Crenshaw, issued a statement making it abundantly clear he's not happy with a regulator actually doing its job:

"In addition, this Committee has strong concerns that the FCC seems to be prolonging their pattern of regulatory overreach with its recent set-top box proposal. And so, we include language that requires the FCC to stop and study this controversial rule before they can move any further. The telecommunications industry is more competitive than ever. And yet, the Commission has been more active than ever in trying to exert regulatory control over market innovation. To return the FCC’s focus towards mission critical work and away from politically charged rule makings, the bill requires the FCC to do less with less."

And by "mission critical work" Crenshaw means joining him in pretending that the broadband sector is actually competitive, and that forcing consumers to pay thousands of dollars for sub-standard, closed cable hardware is the pinnacle of innovation. Like past efforts of this type, the rider language won't make it very far, but it's always entertaining to see folks like Crenshaw dressing up cronyism as a noble assault on the very dysfunction he covertly enables.

Filed Under: competition, congress, fcc, funding, net neutrality

Jesse Jackson Likens FCC Cable Box Reform Plan To 'Snarling Dogs, Water Hoses And Church Bombings'

from the sock-puppetry dept

Back in February the FCC voted to open up the captive cable set top box market to competition, potentially opening the door to better, cheaper hardware, but also putting an end to the $21 billion the cable industry makes annually in set top box rental fees. Shortly thereafter the cable industry responded by pushing an absolute torrent of misleading editorials in newspapers and in websites nationwide. Some of these editorials claim set top box competition will result in privacy, security, or piracy Armageddon. Most try to claim set top box competition is some kind of nefarious plan by Google to freeload on cable's "amazing history of innovation."

But the most obnoxious of these editorials have been those trying to claim that the FCC's set top box reform plan will hurt minority communities and diversity. We've long noted how one of the cable industry's favorite lobbying tricks is throwing money at minority groups so they'll parrot bad telecom policy, whether that's supporting the latest merger or opposing net neutrality. In short, many such groups are willing to support policies that actively harm their constituents -- for just the right amount of cash.

Enter Jesse Jackson, who this week penned an Op-ed over at USAToday that right out of the gate starts off on unsteady footing by mentioning the FCC's set top box reform plan in the same breath as "snarling dogs, water hoses and church bombings in the American South":

"National news coverage of the snarling dogs, water hoses and church bombings in the American South were the catalysts to exposing the ugly truths of racism and bigotry in the 1960s. Local news outlets gave new meaning to what the struggle looked like for people on its front lines. That is why a new proposal at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate TV “set top boxes" has raised so much concern."

Wait, what? Because history is filled with racism means the FCC's plan to open up the cable set top box market to competition raises concern? If you've actually bothered to read the FCC's proposal (pdf), all the rules would do would require cable companies to take their existing programming -- and make it available to third party hardware using the delivery methods and copy protection of the industry's choice. If anything the move would result in consumers getting access to more diverse programming options than ever before, given it would eliminate the traditional cable box walled garden, and replace it with hardware that nudges consumers in the direction of an ocean of streaming content.

Just like the cable industry (surely coincidental, right?), Jackson tries to claim that the FCC plan would let hardware vendors obtain cable programming "without any compensation":

"Essentially, the FCC is proposing that small and diverse television programmers such as Revolt and Vme TV hand over their television content to third party device manufacturers without any compensation. These companies could then pull networks apart, ignore copyright protections and dismantle the local and national advertising streams that have traditionally supported high quality, multicultural content."

Again though, that's not true. Cable customers will still pay cable companies the same high rates for the exact same content lineups using the exact same copy protection, users will just be able to access it via a wider variety of hardware. That's much like how third party hardware (like TiVO) work now, except without the costly and cumbersome CableCARD installation. Jackson (or what ever cable lobbyist ghost writer rented his name for the afternoon) preaches on -- pretending he's engaged in a brave civil rights battle:

"Diversity on television and media still matters as much as it did in the 1960s. While new video platforms and content are being developed, the promise of this new medium will not be an immediate substitute for the current range of images and voices now available on TV. Furthermore, the market is already demonstrating its own agility to change with many new devices, streaming options and services bringing traditional television and Internet video onto our screens seamlessly.

Fighting for diversity in programming and media ownership is one thing. Opposing a plan that would actually help diverse communities by making cable cheaper while delivering more diverse content than ever before is something else entirely. Jackson tries to support his shaky position by rattling off a laundry list of politicians and minority groups that oppose the FCC's plan:

"Leaders of the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses have voiced opposition to this proposal; to date, over 80 House Democrats have expressed opposition or serious concerns. Major civil rights organizations, such as the National Urban League and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), have asked the FCC to pause this proceeding until more empirical data detailing the impacts on diversity is released."

And while it's possible a few members of these groups actually believe (or are mislead to believe) the FCC's plan hurts diversity, all Jackson's laundry list of such groups does is highlight just how pervasive this kind of lobbyist dreck has become. Most consumers frankly have no idea that "astroturf" of this type even exists, and as a result many will be convinced that a plan that actually helps them will do them harm thanks to Jackson's missive. Comcast has found this kind of sock puppetry so effective, it now calls its top lobbyist David Cohen the company's "Chief Diversity Officer."

And while this really is nothing short of disinformation, it speaks volumes about the quality of the cable industry's argument -- and its fear of set real top box competition -- that it needs to resort to grotesque, misleading puppetry of this type.

Filed Under: cable box, competition, copyright, diversity, fcc, fud, jesse jackson, open technology, set top boxes
Companies: comcast

Broadband CEOs Admit Usage Caps Are Nothing More Than A Toll On Uncompetitive Markets

from the pay-more-for-less dept

Time and time again, we've noted how the broadband industry's justifications for usage caps just don't hold water. And while the industry used to falsely claim that caps were necessary due to congestion or to save us all from the bullshit "exaflood," the industry has slowly but surely stopped using any justification at all for what's really just glorified rate hikes on uncompetitive markets. These days, big ISPs like AT&T and Comcast looking to impose usage caps either give no justification whatsoever, or pretend they're doing consumers a favor by providing more "choice and flexibility."

But over the last year, we've seen more and more broadband industry executives making it abundantly clear that usage caps just aren't necessary. For example, Dane Jasper, CEO of independent California ISP Sonic, this week made it clear that there's simply no good justification for caps as the cost to provide broadband services continues to drop. Apparently, you'll be shocked to learn, the "exaflood" was just a bogus bogeyman concocted to help ISPs scare regulators into turning a blind eye to price gouging:

"The cost of increasing [broadband] capacity has declined much faster than the increase in data traffic," says Dane Jasper, CEO of Sonic, an independent ISP based in Santa Rosa, Calif.

Jasper, of course, has reason to challenge his much larger rivals. However, he also backed up his argument with real numbers. A few years ago Sonic (formerly Sonic.net) spent about 20 percent of its revenue on basic infrastructure. Since then, the cost of routers, switching equipment and other related gear declined so much that Jasper says the company's infrastructure costs are now only a bit more than 1.5 percent of its revenue.

For this reason, Sonic has no plans to impose data caps, according to Jasper.

And though Sonic tends to have more consumer friendly policies overall, Jasper's not alone in admitting this. Frontier Communications, growing at an astounding rate after recently acquiring Verizon's unwanted Texas, California, and Florida broadband customers, this week stated it also has no plans to impose caps anytime soon. Why? Well one reason is they bungled the merger so badly they're walking a PR tight rope right now. But company CEO Dan McCarthy also makes it clear the cost to deliver broadband is dropping, making caps unnecessary:

"We want to make sure our products meet the needs of customers for what they want to do and it does not inhibit them or force them to make decisions on how they want to use the product. The nice part of technology and what has happened is that transport costs continue to decline and by putting in the packet optical fabric it takes away a lot of those constraints," McCarthy said. "There may be a time when usage-based pricing is the right solution for the market, but I really don't see that as a path the market is taking at this point in time."

Even companies that do plan to impose usage caps have occasionally admitted that caps are completely untethered from network or financial realities.

St. Louis-based cable operator Suddenlink has caps ranging from 250 GB to 550 GB, depending on speed. Its customers pay the increasingly-standard $10 per each additional 50 GB consumed, and have the "option" of paying an additional fee to avoid usage caps entirely. Yet outgoing Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent made it abundantly clear on a conference call last fall that the days of investing serious amounts of capital into the network are long gone (especially for cable, where DOCSIS upgrades are relatively inexpensive). These days, the name of the game is milking your captive customers for all they're worth:

"I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down."

These are three CEO admissions worth remembering as companies like AT&T (which just started heavily capping its customers last month) and Comcast (whose usage cap "trials" expand at a rabid clip) push whatever bullshit, half-baked excuse is in vogue this month for what's effectively just a toll on captive broadband customers.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, competition, dane jasper, data caps, exaflood, price gouging, usage caps
Companies: at&t, comcast, frontier communications, sonic, suddenlink