sorted by: recent | see : popular

Content Tagged with vz + Featured

Verizon President and Chief Operating Officer Dennis Strigl made a big splash at NXTcomm 08 yesterday when he announced that the entire Verizon FiOS footprint could now get speeds of 50 megabits per second. Typically such bandwidth news wouldn’t cause that much of a furor, but there wasn’t much to write home about from the show, which was held in Las Vegas this week.

In his speech, Strigl pointed out that the U.S. has the highest number of broadband users when compared with other countries, in particular that broadband is available in every U.S. zip code. Good point — and one that I’ve made in the past myself — except that it’s no longer true. By that metric, China now leads. Yes, the FCC used to defined broadband as a service that offered, at a minimum, 200 kbps downloads, but it’s since changed that requirement to 768 kbps.

But where Strigl went too far was when he suggested that three-quarters of American households have two providers to choose from — aka a duopoly, which is not my idea of a competitive marketplace. If you factor in wireless and satellite, he said, there are actually six or seven competitors. Talk about twisting the facts to fit one version of the truth! This part of his speech, however, had me choking on my breakfast cereal.

“Massachusetts and New Jersey have similar population density to Korea and Japan and similar broadband penetration. Unlike other countries, what we have accomplished has come not through [government] policy but through private investment.

How telling. So subverting government policy via lobbyists and highly biased friends at the FCC to ensure a future monopoly is all part of good, capitalistic, private investment theory? Maybe Harvard can include that in its future MBA curriculum.

Regardless, I thought it would be fun to see how Massachusetts and New Jersey really square up against South Korea and Japan when it comes to the price of a broadband connection:

Average broadband speeds in South Korea and Japan are 49.5 megabits per second and 63.6 megabits per second, respectively. The average U.S. speed is about 4.9 megabits per second, making it the 14th-fastest country in the world. The average price in South Korea and Japan is about 83 cents per megabit. In the U.S, it’s about $2.83.

But since it would be unfair to use average U.S. stats, I went with Verizon’s prices, the ones it’s going to offer in Massachusetts and New Jersey. On Verizon’s FiOS network, a 50 Mbps connection costs $140 a month — or about $2.80 a megabit. In fact, if you went with Verizon’s 20 Mbps service, you would be paying $3.25 per megabit. (To be fair, Verizon’s price-per-megabit is still cheaper than the $5.25 Qwest charges for its 20 Mbps connection, which costs $105 a month.)

In other words, not until Verizon starts selling a 50 Mbps connection for $41.50 a month and 20 Mbps fiber connection for $16.60 a month can Strigl get away with comparing U.S. broadband with that of the rest of the world.

Cynthia Brumfield is a long-time communications, broadband and media analyst at Emerging Media Dynamics, and a blogger at IP Democracy.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson triggered a mini-free fall in the shares of phone companies last week when he told investors at a Citibank conference that non-pay disconnects are “happening all across consumer products lines,” with the possible exception of wireless voice accounts. In other words, a larger-than-expected chunk of customers aren’t paying their bills. And AT&T is pulling the plug on them.

This bit of concrete evidence that a recession is indeed underway spooked an already jittery stock market, dragging down non-telecommunications shares in the process. Hardest hit, though, were the leading telecom and cable companies, which managed to recovered slightly but continue to labor under a cloud of investor suspicion.

Comcast CFO Michael J. Angelakis echoed Stephenson’s claim. Speaking at the same Citibank conference, Angelakis said that during the second half of 2007 “we clearly saw bad debts increase, and we clearly saw a pickup in churn.” Translation: A growing number of cable customers aren’t paying their bills, either.

Against this backdrop, earnings season is about to get underway, meaning we’ll soon get a look at some hard fourth-quarter 2007 numbers from the top telecom and cable companies. If Stephenson and Angelakis are any indication, we’re in for disappointing results from the country’s top broadband, voice and video providers.

But a recession-driven slowdown for either cable or phone companies would be a new thing. Historically, cable has prided itself on being recession-proof. During the recession of the early 1990s and the downturn in 2001 and 2002, cable companies didn’t lose customers. In fact, in 2001 and 2002, cable was in the midst of digital TV and high-speed Internet rollouts, which cranked up growth (although the telecom and dot.com meltdowns, not to mention the accounting scandal that brought down WorldCom, made cable seem like it, too, was in the doldrums).

Phone companies have also held up well during economic downturns. Even though the big incumbent companies that now make up AT&T, Verizon and Qwest started losing access lines in 2000, those losses were mostly restricted to the commercial sector and were due to the rapid late-90s rise of competitive local exchange carriers. Consumer spending cutbacks typical of a recession didn’t come into play.

Things could be different this time around, because unlike in the past, cable and phone companies now sell a lot of services that consumers feel are discretionary. During past downturns, customers clung to their voice and pay-TV services because the telephone was considered essential and subscription TV was a bargain service, relative to other entertainment options.

However, that held true before the days of triple-play or quadruple-play bundles, before multiple digital service tiers and HD packages came along and before broadband either existed or was widely adopted. The thing to watch out for now is the possibility that the proverbial bundles of voice, video and data services might unravel.

For example, homes that buy both mobile and landline voice services could feel free to simply cut off the wired voice connection. During his Citibank talk, Stephenson cited this cost-savings measure as one cause of what will in all likelihood be stepped-up line losses for the company in the fourth quarter. Not that wireless substitution hasn’t been going on for a while, but tight household budgets could no doubt accelerate this trend.

Contrary to what I would normally expect, broadband service might turn out be a dispensable expense during a recession. “It’s non-pay disconnect that is driving the disconnect on access lines and on broadband as well,” Stephenson said during his Citigroup talk, reiterating several times that residential broadband growth has suffered some kind of a setback.

Cable companies, which posted very disappointing growth rates across the service board for the third quarter of ‘07 — before the economic slowdown truly took hold — have already started drawing up lower-cost service options and are about to market “double-play” packages of voice and high-speed services.

So what will we hear from cable operators and phone companies in the upcoming quarterly reporting season? Comcast officially confirmed back in December that it won’t make its fiscal 2007 guidance, citing weaker-than-expected subscriber gains. Based on the sounds Stephenson made, AT&T is managing expectations in advance of a weak fourth-quarter report as well.

Most of the other cable and phone companies will probably not have much better news, with the possible exception of Verizon, whose CFO, Denny Strigl, told the same Citigroup investors that the weak economy had “minimal” impact on his company. Moreover, in contrast to its peers, Verizon issued relatively robust third-quarter numbers last fall.

But compared to a lot of other industries, and despite any short-term hit that cable and phone companies may take, the communications network business — be it cable, telco or wireless — is a relatively sure bet in the long term. Both AT&T’s Stephenson and Comcast’s Angelakis, while acknowledging the challenges of increased competition and a weak economy, stressed this fact. “We are in the middle of a growth industry,” Stephenson said.

Consider the recently unveiled “any app, any device” initiative by Verizon Wireless in the context of the company’s latest quarterly results.

The wireless unit of Verizon (VZ) reported year-over-year subscriber growth of 12 percent, but a mere 5 percent rise in voice revenues. Data revenue saved the day, surging 63 percent and lifting the company to 15 percent revenue growth overall. Data revenue per user increased 43 percent, while voice revenue per user declined 5 percent — pushing data to 20 percent of revenues from 14 percent.

The same report revealed a 10 percent decline in residential access lines. The voice business of Verizon Wireless, in other words, seems to have entered the same cycle of contraction suffered by Verizon’s wireline business in recent years. Joining the open access bandwagon promises to keep data revenues growing strongly, but CEO Lowell McAdam faces some mighty difficult choices as the 80:20 ratio of voice to data revenues reverses. The legacy pricing model incorporates price discrimination that will prove awkward to preserve.

Consider the lucrative SMS business of shipping 160 character messages for 10 cents each, or roughly $1,000 per megabyte. What happens when all devices cleanly incorporate instant messaging? “Any app, any device” means VoIP-capable devices that transparently support voice and web browsing via data plans. Why would someone pay Verizon an extra $40 per month for voice services? Any data plan that makes video affordable makes voice essentially free.

Does Verizon really have enough conviction to price without discrimination by application type? McAdam said pricing for the bring-your-own-device crowd will be “competitive” and “usage-based.” Even assuming other carriers follow Verizon’s lead to create competition, does “usage” refer to bit volume or application type?

“Any app, any device” sounds like it eliminates the long list of acceptable use prohibitions associated with existing data plans — quite a change of heart for the company. Verizon only recently settled a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Cuomo for terminating the accounts of customers with so-called “unlimited” Internet plans for unwittingly violating the plans through activities such as downloading movies.

It may already be too late for Verizon to back away from the edge. Anything short of a fully open network, neutral to bit type, seems likely to turn the PR love fest into user backlash. In any case, no one expects Verizon to embrace the “faster, cheaper” mantra necessary to fully earn induction into the infocom future.

We can suspend our disbelief until the pricing details arrive in January, but the unintended consequences of the announcement likely represent the best hope for progress. Verizon’s vision of the future may not have changed much. It just gets easier to read the writing on the wall when your back is up against it.