SALT LAKE CITY -- Broadband Cities Convention -- Utah’s incumbent broadband providers appear to be fighting back, dropping broadband prices to retard the uptake of new triple-play services provided by Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA).
UTOPIA is a publicly owned fiber network managed by a privately held company, DynamicCity Inc. As a wholesaler it leases the infrastucture, which was funded using bonds, to retail broadband service providers for the distribution of their services (voice, video, data, etc.).
Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) and Qwest Communications International Inc. (NYSE: Q) are distributing marketing materials advertising lowered prices, but the fine print stipulates they apply only to cities where UTOPIA service is available, says Ben Gould of DynamicCity.
UTOPIA's fiber now reaches fewer than 10,000 of the 450,000 the network hopes to eventually service.
Perhaps this is an indication of the future path of warfare between commercial incumbents and municipal broadband networks. Thus far, the incumbents have attempted to block UTOPIA’s progress through legal and legislative means, and those tactics are still being used. Qwest filed suit some months ago against UTOPIA and one of its member cities, and both Qwest and Comcast have worked to influence anti-muni broadband legislation in the state legislature. (See Cannon Fires at Incumbents.)
Since UTOPIA began delivering broadband service over its fiber in March, the conflict appears to have taken a new turn. (See Muni Networks: The Public's Not Buying.)
Comcast has dropped its Internet service price from $45.95 to $29.95 a month for people in "UTOPIA cities" Midvale and Murray, and that price is locked in under a one-year contract. Comcast’s high-speed Internet service maxes out at 4 Mbit/s for downloads and 384 kbit/s for uploads, far less than the competing UTOPIA service. One of UTOPIA’s triple-play service providers, MStar.NET LLC, offers 15 Mbit/s of symmetrical broadband for $39 a month.
When it comes to the bundle of voice, video, and data services, Gould says MStar actually has the lowest price for UTOPIA city residents. MStar’s triple-play bundle sells for $104 a month, while Comcast’s bundle comes to about $140 a month, Gould says.
But as UTOPIA fiber reaches more and more neighborhoods, how far will the incumbents’ price cuts go? Could the day come in UTOPIA cities where the cost of broadband is $5 dollars a month? UTOPIA executive director Paul Morris doesn’t think so. “You can’t find a case where [prices] will go down to 5 bucks a month for broadband service,” Morris says. “If they went to five bucks a month, then other cities are subsidizing that low price, and they wouldn’t put up with it."
Should such a price war occur, DynamicCity’s Gould suggests that a municipal network might be better prepared than the incumbents to survive it. (See Poll: RBOCs Fuel 'Broadband Gap'.)
“They need a three- to five-year return on their investment in any given market,” according to Gould. Government-owned networks, by contrast, can be financed with a 20- to 30-year bond, he says (See Light Readers Embrace Muni Nets .).
Still, the 14 cities that own UTOPIA plan to pay off the $85 million bond they floated in July 2004 using profits generated by wholesaling the network -- not through new tax levees. UTOPIA faces pressure to win market share to bring in that revenue.
UTOPIA’s fate matters because it has become one of the models for municipal networks that many community activists are watching as they contemplate building such networks in their own towns. It also employs a business model that many believe has the best chance of weathering the political battles and surviving competition from incumbents.
The success or failure of the UTOPIA model could have a profound impact on other municipalities considering the expense of launching similar networks.
"In Keller TX, one of the first FIOS areas in metro Dallas, is having a TV pricing war. The war is already spreading to my suburb where we are just begining to receiving FIOS service..."
Just down the road a piece, in Georgetown ETJ (extra territorial jurisdiction; not quite part of the town), there is no cable tv, no vz services beyond POTS; no competition/service at all. The neighborhood is new, sparse and above average household incomes (see also, Dellionaires...).
We've got DirectTV, DirecWay Internet 'cause there ain't no alternative. What I wouldn't give for a municipal network in the 'hood.
"...though explicitly defining the government participation seems to be the complex part of the problem."
Yes, it is. Often insufficient time and effort is given to such things, so the first few tries often result in confusing to disasterous consequences. This, in turn, brings the Libertarian and 'free market' cheerleaders (I am trying to be nice) out of the woodwork.
Garbage in; Garbage out!
Poor effort on the front-end doesn't mean folks were wrong to try, it does mean they'll need to try again. Getting it right the first time is always preferred, but that often involves more work then people and organizations are willing to contribute (damn the torpedoes, get that widget to market).
The answer is that there is no simple answer; try, try again...
Unless there is a new Rooskie threat I have missed or there is some other military benefit to providing us all with home broadband.
Geez. What's the military benefit of a flush toilet and the public water system it's attached to, or of a street lamp and the municipal contracts rewarded to build the distribution grid for such, or of educating millions of children to do something other than build bombs? Yeah, I've heard the libertarian rhetoric. I just don't think that ideology gets us very far.
RE:"Note, a better outcome for those who believe in "facilities based competition" would have been to see any RBOC step up and start constructing a fiber network there and prove to the world they were really going head to head with the cable cos. (Home Depot does it all the time building right next to their biggest competitor.) That hasn't happened suggesting facilities based competition may be idealic rhetoric."
In Keller TX, one of the first FIOS areas in metro Dallas, is having a TV pricing war. The war is already spreading to my suburb where we are just begining to receiving FIOS service for Internet and Voice(ATM/BPON). Video to follow??
VZ -Base Service: $13 for 15 - 35 channels -Premium Service: $40 for 180 channels
Charter (cable) -Analog/Base Service: $47 - 86 channels -Digital/Premium Service: $53/69 for 240 channels
DirecTV -Digital Service $42
They'll need to offer a lot of additional services to maintain market share and be profitable. Why spend upgrade money for upgrading "facilities based competition" GPON later?
OldPOTS
PS - Although these are not muni facilities, they are next to their biggest competitor. But then the incumbent cablecos had exclusivity until recently.
I guess the question comes down to open market vs. regulated market. Which is preferable?
I don't think it can be simplified down to this. One has to consider other issues as well. Things such as free speech and the diffusion of knowledge seem equally important to me.
If the price is not economic in one situation, it is not in the other either, bringing up the spectre of illegal predatory pricing.
Maybe illegal, maybe not. It's for a court (and a long drawn out legal process) to decide. In the meantime, the FCC is in the middle of taking control over all "information service" regulation and "economically deregulating" the industry. There is no market mechanism to respond to this predatory pricing and the regulators are at bay, so the new entrant won't have much of a hand to respond.
With broad enough competition, it would be hard for the incumbents to have captive customers to gouge. Now, if we just had that competition.
Another build out is unlikely unless there is an ROI (or a municipal bond "bubble".) The cable cos can set the price making the financial models difficult for a new entrant.
Note, a better outcome for those who believe in "facilities based competition" would have been to see any RBOC step up and start constructing a fiber network there and prove to the world they were really going head to head with the cable cos. (Home Depot does it all the time building right next to their biggest competitor.) That hasn't happened suggesting facilities based competition may be idealic rhetoric.
I guess the question comes down to open market vs. regulated market. Which is preferable? Open has the advantage of possibly lower prices to the consumer via competition though this does not guarantee fairness. Regulated has the advantage of possibly fairer prices across a broad geography but not necessarily the lowest prices. There are combinations of the two but the California power thing didn't go too well as I recall.
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Light Reading content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.