Best Broadband

According to a new 46 page Illinois study by a state Judge, Verizon's proposed sale of their networks in Illinois would harm consumers. The $8.5 billion deal immediately infuses Frontier, which has 2.3 million customers, with 4.8 million new residential and small-business phone lines and 1 million broadband connections. Such a huge influx of new customers will restrict Frontier's ability to offer low-price, quality service -- and to raise funds for upgrades, improvements and expansion:

Unions and consumer advocates continue to protest the deal, given the debt and huge influx of support issues will likely put broadband expansion and upgrades on the back burner. Of course the alternative (having Verizon stay in markets it doesn't want to upgrade) isn't particularly compelling either. Despite repeated warnings and studies within regulatory agencies showing the negative impact of the deal, regulators in six states have proceeded to unanimously approve the deal anyway.

In other words, expect Illinois regulatory approval in short order.
read comment(s)

Late last month Cisco began leaking word to media outlets that on March 9, they'd be "making a significant announcement that will forever change the Internet and its impact on consumers, businesses and governments." Given the fact that the country was fawning over Google's new 1 Gbps fiber to the home trial announcement at the time, it seemed like Cisco was getting ready to announce some kind of significant counter punch.

Today's the day, so what was this Internet-changing, paradigm smashing announcement? According to Cisco, it's...a new router.

According to the networking company, the new CRS-3 router technology is capable of transmitting data at about 322 Terabits per second, which Cisco claims is twelve-times faster than their closest competitor. Apparently, people pushing the Exaflood myth since 2007 will need to construct a new bogeyman.

According to the Cisco press release, the new CRS-3 offers enough bandwidth to transmit the entire printed collection of the Library of Congress in just over a second, or to allow every man, woman and child in China to make a video call, simultaneously. Cisco's own numbers have projected that Internet video should comprise about 60 percent of all consumer Internet traffic by 2013, and this is their answer for carriers.

AT&T sent us a press statement noting that the carrier had just completed a live network environment field trial of 100-Gigabit backbone network technology. "This trial included Cisco's new CRS-3 equipment," the company tells Broadband Reports. While good news at AT&T's core, it may not have a huge impact on your home connection, given AT&T's decision to milk last mile copper instead of upgrading users to fiber to the home technology.

But hey, you can still take the CRS-3 home with you for $90,000 (starting price) when it officially launches during the third quarter of this year. You know, take it home, set it up next to your 1.5 Mbps DSL modem, and pretend you're beating the hell out of the Exaflood.
read comment(s)

According to the Wall Street Journal, Google continues to expand into, well, everything. The company is working in conjunction with Dish Network to test a Google-powered set top box based in part on the Android operating system. According to the Journal, Google's "trying to replicate the internet experience on TV, offering users the ability to search the Internet and explore web-based content via the device. The tests are currently ongoing in Google employee homes, and obviously bringing ads to your living room is Google's primary interest:

Cable won't much like Google encroaching into their dream territory of localized and behavioral cable TV advertising. The cable industry has been working hard on a unified advertising platform dubbed canoe, though they've struggled with the technology needed to make the idea of more nosy living room advertising a reality. The telcos too want in on the set top ad market, and it's unlikely that either cable or phone providers want to share their take of this market with their arch-nemesis Google if they don't have to.
read comment(s)

Fresh off a suite of price hikes last fall that included an increase in the cable modem rental fee from $3 to $5 a month, Comcast is notifying customers they're raising prices again starting April 1. Many Comcast users are being sent these letters informing them that there's several new rate hikes for broadband and TV services starting April 1, including a hike in the cost of several of Comcast's lower-priced broadband tiers by $2 a month. Several TV packages are also seeing hikes including Comcast's Standard ($61.45 to $63.45) and Expanded (from $48.55 to $50.55) services.

Comcast's "Economy" 1 Mbps downstream 384 kbps upstream service is jumping from $24.95 to $26.95 for those who bundle other services, and $38.95 to $40.95 for those who don't (what's economical about $41, 1 Mbps service?). Comcast's "Performance" 12 Mbps / 2 Mbps tier is jumping from $42.95 to $44.95 bundled, and $57.95 to $59.95 unbundled. Similarly, Comcast's "Blast!" 16 Mbps / 2 Mbps service will be jumping to $54.95 bundled, and $69.95 unbundled.

Even VoIP service isn't going to be immune from this round of hikes, Comcast raising the price of additional lines for Digital Voice "Premium" service $2 to $21.95, and the price of additional lines for their Digital Voice "Basic" service $2 to $11.95. According to the letter, Comcast is raising prices "as part of our commitment to provide you with the very best entertainment and communications experience."

Of course these changes won't impact you if you're under contract, but they will once your contract expires. Like AT&T's recent slew of price hikes for DSL and VDSL service, Comcast has focused on raising the prices for lower tiers, while leaving the price of their "Ultra" (22/5 Mbps) tier alone at $62.95 bundled, or $77.95 unbundled. That gives the user the impression that it's more "economical" to upgrade to the higher speed tiers.

As usual the question remains: if the industry is half as competitive as the industry says it is, why are carriers allowed to continually jack up prices in unison without competitive repercussions?
read comment(s)

The "WiMax is dead, it just doesn't know it yet" crowd scored another talking point (even if wrong) against Mobile WiMax this week with the news that Cisco is going to stop developing and building WiMax gear. Cisco does provide equipment to Clearwire for their Mobile WiMax build, but only core hardware -- not radios. Cisco's decision comes after Alcatel Lucent also recently dropped out the Mobile WiMax business to focus on serving AT&T and Verizon's LTE hardware needs. Cisco acquired WiMax vendor Navini Networks in 2007.

"Cisco's mobile strategy has always been to provide a radio-agnostic approach that focuses on the packet core and IP network, where the company can add differentiated value," says a Cisco spokesman. "After a recent review of our WiMax business, we announced a decision to discontinue designing and building new WiMax base stations and modems, and we also announced a support plan for transitioning existing customers."

Given Cisco's approach of focusing on other aspects of network connectivity, the move isn't surprising -- nor does it equate to the automatic demise if Mobile WiMax, which now "reaches" (not necessarily serves) 650 million people globally, and 47 million in North America. Still, many analysts still think LTE is going to dominate U.S. connectivity, though not a single LTE network has been launched yet.

That optimism comes from the fact that most of them know betting against the combined lobbying and competitive power of AT&T and Verizon usually isn't a great idea. Still, the Sprint/Clearwire joint venture has a lot of powerful friends, including the majority of the cable industry. Should LTE dominate and Mobile WiMax be upstaged, Clearwire has stated they're not ruling out a shift to LTE service as well.
read comment(s)

AT&T's first foray into the business of offering Android-based phones isn't going particularly well, and it's pretty clear the company's general dislike of Google for their positions on competition, network neutrality and open access is spilling over into AT&T handset decisions. Last week AT&T launched their first Android phone (the Motorola Backflip), but pulled Google search from the device in favor of Yahoo. That alone could be brushed aside as "all's fair in love and mobile war," but this week finds AT&T taking heat for trying to cripple the Android platform.

Users complain that not only are they relegated to Yahoo search, but AT&T has loaded the Backflip with annoying AT&T applications that can't be removed. AT&T's also managed to cripple user choice in terms of adding new applications, preventing a full range of now-standard Android options including tethering. Notes a Backflip user:

As Engadget correctly notes, that kind of behavior on AT&T's part is exactly the sort of thing wireless CEO Ralph de la Vega said they wouldn't do when discussing Android last year:Apparently, by "choice," AT&T meant theirs -- not yours. Again, AT&T's behavior is rooted in fear of what happens as wireless networks evolve and carriers like AT&T lose the power to be gatekeepers and are relegated to the role of dumb pipe operators.
read comment(s)

Treasury: Broadband Grants For Opex Taxed, Capex Not So Much multichannel.com
Charter's Next Move: Grow, Shrink or Sell, What Happens Now Will Affect All of Cable multichannel.com
WiMax Hitches a Ride on 1000 Taxis in Taipei pcworld.com
Energizer warns of malware in battery chargers v3.co.uk
Could Cisco be announcing a killer set-top box? cnet.com
Google, Dish testing new TV search service: report reuters.com
AT&T offers more detail on 3G capital investments fiercebroadbandwireless.com
Navajo Nation May Get LTE Network pcworld.com
Panasonic 3D TVs Arriving This Wednesday pcworld.com
read comment(s)

Making the most of 4G networks fiercewireless.com
Rogers Boosts Internet Speeds for Select Markets cable360.net
Verizon LTE Blazing Trails for Wireless Broadband pcworld.com
Consumers In The Dark Over Their Broadband Speeds npr.org
Verizon LTE test speed: 50 Mbps max fiercewireless.com
Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites techdirt.com
Four Companies Join for Blu-ray Patent Licensing cable360.net
Touchsreen Sales to Soar 97% in 2010 internetnews.com
Stanford survey contemplates iPhone addiction networkworld.com
read comment(s)

According to a new press statement from Verizon, the carrier is seeing peak download speeds of 40 to 50 megabits per second and peak upload speeds of 20 to 25 Mbps in the LTE (Long Term Evolution) wireless broadband tests they're conducting in Seattle and Boston. As we've already discussed however, real world speeds are going to be closer to between 5-10 Mbps downstream. Other than their announcement of peak speeds, there's really nothing new in Verizon's announcement: they're launching the service in 25-30 markets this year, but we still don't know what kind of pricing, caps or overages Verizon has planned for the service. Indications are that Verizon wants to employ some kind of usage-based billing model.
read comment(s)

As we've repeatedly noted, a cornerstone of reliable 4G wireless broadband quality is going to be adequate backhaul. Most wireless carriers are rushing to improve backhaul ahead of plans to embrace HSPA+ and LTE service, and there's plenty of companies eager to make a profit from providing that needed bandwidth, including Time Warner Cable. According to Business Week, the cable company is offering network capacity to carriers like AT&T and Verizon who've struggled to keep pace with bandwidth demand -- specifically in the New York metro market.

While a small part of their business now, providing backhaul bandwidth has become Time Warner Cable's fastest growing business segment, with the company's backhaul revenue tripling last year. Those playing along at home will recall that Time Warner Cable complained last year that unless they were able to impose low bandwidth caps and high per gigabyte overages on consumers -- we'd start seeing Internet "brown outs" in the next few years.

That argument has been repeatedly debunked as a manufactured crises constructed by telecom industry lobbyists. It's used to scare lawmakers into passing bad laws, under the premise that unless carriers get "X" (X being whatever carriers want, including deregulation, the elimination of price caps or consumer protections, or the ability to drastically overcharge for bandwidth), the Internet will simply collapse. Yet you'll notice here that the scary terrestrial capacity bogeyman (which was supposed to impact both core and last mile connectivity) doesn't seem to be restricting Time Warner Cable's backhaul ambitions in the slightest.
read comment(s)