Allow me to channel a Verizon suit for a moment: The company has a lock on fixed line right of ways in a large geographic area. The only broadband competition is from the cable guys at the higher service levels. After investing in fiber to home, pay TV subscriptions have been flat and fixed line voice is dying. The leaves future  the fiber to home service a pure broadband play, and that not what investors were promised.  The company also have a new 4G wireless network to complete withing a little over 9 years or risk losing the world’s most valuable spectrum. Since the FCC has pretty much promised that there will be no fixed line competition, it’s time to emulate AT&T and put the majority of your customers in a DSL ghetto. The death star has been a very successful slum lord, keeping subscribers at very high margins without much new investment.

Verizon’s investment in fiber ends right outside of cities like Baltimore, Maryland
or Alexandria,
Virginia. According to Verizon, the company is taking a contemplative
pause to focus on marketing the service to areas that are already
deployed.

But according to long-time industry analyst Dave
Burstein, Verizon’s essentially cutting and running on additional
deployment plans, leaving a very large chunk of their footprint on
last-generation DSL and copper-based voice networks.

Burstein
tells Broadband Reports that he doesn’t see Verizon expanding any
further (with the exception of major cities where they’ve signed
franchise agreements) unless they get money from Uncle Sam (aka,
taxpayers). “They want to get on the gravy train, although I think the
new, less competitive leadership is the primary explanation,” says
Burstein when asked why Verizon’s shifting tactics. Seidenberg, the
driving force behind the first wave of FiOS, is on his way out — and
his replacements aren’t quite as bullish on angering investors for the
sake of this whole “future” thing. (DSL Reports)

Certainly, the recession also has a role in Verizon’s decision to scale back. But there’s much more at work here.  The Telco / Congress /FCC cabal has made the market for internet access progressive less competitive every year going back to the days of dial up service. If FiOS deployment continues, Verizon will probably plead the case that it will need stimulus money to keep its fiber deployment rolling.  Our current federal government will probably be happy to print up more monopoly money to provide it.

While US broadband languishes, the FCC is aggressively seeking more regulatory authority. The will certainly be counter productive based on the agency’s long and dismal broadband track record. I think it’s time to give up on Washington and give the power to regulate broadband back to the states. States will have compete with one another to provide the best infrastructure to grow their tax base. Those who tolerate a fixed line duopoly will lag behind, meaning none will tolerate it for long. We’ll get lots of new business and real jobs, and a better quality of life for those of us who would outside of the federal government. Maybe a forward thinking governor will exercise his or her 10th amendment rights and make it so.

While it’s king of the residential access hill in select areas where it’s deployed FiOS fiber service, most of Verizon’s broadband customers connect via DSL over it’s tired old twisted pair infrastructure. It could be that the Cable guys have been eating away at V’s market share. When you do not have the best offering, you compete on price. Since a price drop is bound to send Wall Street into gyrations the dark helmeted V has decided to give new customers half of a year free with a  contract.

What’s truly amazing is how little the cable guys have invested to enable them to take more market share. It’’s more like demand has driven consumers to a bigger pipe, and the cable guy is the only game in town. Meanwhile back at the FCC, “stimulus” dollars are being spent on pretty new maps. So much for big government help with broadband. How about undoing the duopoly instead?

Verizon Communications will try to boost the numbers in its DSL business by offering six months of free service to customers who commit to a one-year agreement, and the telco also announced price breaks and three months free multiroom DVR for new FiOS bundle subscribers.

The six-free-months offer is available until Jan. 16, 2010, for Verizon’s 1-, 3- or 7.1-Mbps DSL tiers service as part of a one-year agreement. In addition, customers who order new DSL bundles online also will receive a free modem and an additional $5 off qualifying bundles. (Multichannel News)

The press release comes to us touting 1 million subscribers to AT&T’s Uverse TV service by month end, and service availability to 17 million, along with declining cost of delivery. Geeeeze, I’m not sure I’d go around bragging about a huge investment that has earned a 5.8% take rate. I wonder how big the take rate will be for the faster broadband product available to for those who don’t want TV service?

AT&T planned to add one million U-Verse TV subscribers by the end of the year. The company will hit that benchmark next week, Stankey said.

“Operationally, we’ve hit our stride,” he told analysts during a UBS-sponsored conference on Tuesday. The event was broadcast over the Internet.

The company plans to make the service available to 17 million homes by the end of the year.

U-Verse has helped keep AT&T in the game as its traditional digital subscriber line, or DSL, service has faltered against cable competition. Roughly 54% of new U-Verse Internet users didn’t have DSL before, Stankey said.

Also, installation times and costs have fallen, while average revenue per user for video has grown in double digits, percentage-wise, he said. (CNN)

If you’re planning to buy a home now may be a good time as the market may be at its bottom. Before you sign a contract, consider this: The broadband in your new neighborhood will be just as important as good schools, shopping and other amenities. My advice is shop where there is fiber to the home if at all possible. Next best bet is in a municipality planning fiber to home. Forget promises for the duopoly about future availability. The Telcos and the cable guys promised we’d all have fiber in place eight years ago.  Fiber will maximize the value of the home in the future.

In less than a decade, broadband has gone from a luxury to a must for many people, and for some of them, it’s started to influence their real-estate decisions. Homes that have broadband are winning out over more remote ones that don’t. Areas with better and faster broadband are becoming more desirable than ones with slower access.

Edward Redpath, a real estate broker in Hanover, N.H., said he has seen deals fall through once the buyer realizes a home doesn’t get broadband. Across the Connecticut River in Norwich, Vt., only the center of the village has cable.

“We have a lot of people that don’t go into the rural neighborhoods or consider the rural neighborhoods because they need the broadband,” Redpath said. “Our lifestyle demands speed.” (StarTribune.com)

It’s been a while since we’ve reported on the evil Q’s activities. True telco form, even the diminutive Qwest is working hard to keep up its end of the bad duopoly business practice drama. For the Q’s customers, “guaranteed for life” may end up seeming like how long you’re obligated to subscribe.

If you subscribe to any duopoly service, read the details. This is where the gotchas are hidden. in the case of Qwest’s “guaranteed for life” broadband prices offering, it comes in the for of early termination fees and a long contract. A few Qwest customers may help change this as they have sued to challenge these unjustifiable charges. It would have been much simpler to not agree to the service, but when you deal with a duopoly, there may be no other option.

Qwest’s termination fees are part of its “price for life” broadband plans offering $30 and up service. According to the complaint, residents of Washington state and Minnesota say they were charged $200 for bailing out of their broadband service.

A lawyer representing the plaintiffs says Qwest markets its price-for-life plans as requiring a two year agreement, but customers don’t sign a contract. The fees apply regardless of when a customer cancels service during those two years. The lawsuit argues that such a lengthy term requires a written agreement, and the fee isn’t a good faith estimate of what the real damages are.

Unlike wireless service lawsuits, customers canceling wireless service still have their cell phones - former broadband subscribers don’t have an expensive mobile phone to show for their commitments. (Fierce Telecom)