A Closer Look at FiberNet Monticello

Monticello has been all over the muni broadband news lately, in the wake of a letter it sent to bondholders [pdf] alerting them that the City would no longer make up the difference between the revenues produced by the system and the debt payments. This came shortly after the company managing the network decided to step down.

Over the next year, the reserve fund will make up the difference while the City and bondholders come to some sort of an agreement.

The Star Tribune today published a good synopsis of the situation:

City administrator Jeff O'Neill said that the city has no intention of abandoning FiberNet's 1,700 customers, including about 130 businesses.

"This system isn't going anywhere," he said. "We're not going out of business."

Despite the problems, he said the city has one of the fastest Internet systems in the country that has driven down prices and improved services by providing competition.

The article also notes that prior to the City-owned network, the telephone company (TDS) provided very poor DSL service that was harming area businesses with slow and very unreliabile phone and broadband services. Without FiberNet Monticello, we don't know how many businesses would have been forced to relocate to be competitive in the digital economy.

We decided to dig a little deeper to get a sense of what Monticello has received for its investment and difficulty. We previously examined the prices charged by Charter cable in town and found that households taking that deal were saving $1000/year.

monticello-goodbadugly_0.jpg

We also noted that Charter was almost certainly engaging in predatory pricing. After talking with other networks, we would guess that Charter is losing between $30 and $50 (conservatively) per subscriber per month. Charter is literally losing hundreds of dollars each year for every subscriber that takes the offer in its bid to run the City network out of business. It can do this for years by subsidizing from other markets where they do not face real competition.

Prior to FiberNet Monticello, Charter was the lone local cable provider and served most of the market. In response to competition, cable providers rarely change listed prices but instead individually negotiate lower prices with households or run much longer promotional offers. If we assume that only 20% of Monticello households have benefited by lower prices (either by switching to FiberNet Monticello or by getting a lower rate from Charter), that is 1000 households. Some of those households took the predatory pricing deal, resulting in extraordinary high savings but most probably saved less. Let's assume the average household savings was only $20/month, or $240/year. Spread over the 1000 households, the savings to the community is conservatively $240,000/year. Of course, that doesn't put a value on the iPads or HD TVs that Charter has been giving away as promotional items for new customers.

TDS had a de facto monopoly on telephone until the city began offering services (Charter still does not offer telephone). When presented with another choice, TDS cut its telephone rates almost in half - from around $40 for local service to $25. The City offers telephone service for less though it has more features. If TDS had not cut its price in response to the community network, the community would have paid more than $1 million in extra telephone charges by now (assuming Monticello still subscribes to landline telephone at the same level as the rest of the nation). And again, that puts no value on the additional services or the much larger "local" calling area used by FiberNet Monticello.

Now we come to broadband. TDS offers faster broadband services in Monticello than any other Minnesota community, nearly all of whom are stuck with slow and unreliable DSL. In Monticello, TDS invested in a much better network capable of FTTH in direct response to FiberNet Monticello. Not only did this create new jobs for technicians and salespeople in Monticello, the multiplier effect benefited area businesses as well.

Let's look at what broadband packages TDS offers other communities (packages displayed are those without a phone line to keep it simple). These are packages in Spicer, Minnesota.

spicer-naked-Internet.PNG

Here are the packages in Buffalo, Minnesota.

buffalo-naked-Internet.PNG

And here is what Monticello residents get from TDS:

Monticello-naked-Internet.PNG

Notice a little difference? Monticello residents pay less and get faster connections. Compared to Spicer, Monticello residents are paying $35/month less for 25Mbps. The packages from TDS in Monticello are even superior to what I can get in Minnesota's capital city, St. Paul. A Comcast connection with 50Mbps download speeds is $99 and comes with far slower upstream speeds (and the download speeds from Comcast are rarely achieved in practice due to the shared neture of a cable network). If we assume that only 20% of Monticello households have benefited from this competition, at an average of $15/month, the cumulative cash savings are at least $180,000 each year. The many benefits from having much faster connections undoubtedly add to that value.

But if I lived in Monticello, I would be definitely taking one of the packages from FiberNet. These are globally competitive speeds and prices:

fibernet-monticello-res-bb.PNG

In the business world, where price comparisons are even harder to make due to the many options and individually negotiated deals for many circuits, FiberNet Monticello may be making the biggest difference.

We could not find evidence that TDS or Charter have come anywhere close to the incredible business pricing from FiberNet Monticello. As soon as FiberNet Monticello bonded, TDS began offering long term, lower cost deals to businesses.

There are more benefits that could be noted, but this post is already pushing length limits. FiberNet Monticello is at a crossroads. Bondholders should work with the City to refinance the network and allow it to make up for the time lost from the frivolous lawsuit filed by TDS -- an action TDS undertook specifically to cause the outcome currently concerning Monticello's elected officials and residents.

It is still early in the lifetime of an investment that will last multiple decades. One promising option is to expand the network. The head end can serve tens of thousands of more customers, spreading the fixed cost across a wider area. We hope FiberNet Monticello finds a new partner to manage the network and expand it, providing greater choices and new competition to communities surrounding Monticello.

Comments

Unfair competition

I think between the lawyer bills and the unfair cross-subsidization, it's no surprise there was financial trouble brewing here. I see increasing evidence that the take rate numbers predicted for these networks are often too optimistic because incumbent providers will slash rates for one-year retention deals and they don't have to publish them.

The best solution to this may have to be community providers finding a way to handle this just like number porting out of traditional landline service. Have the customer sign up for service with the community provider and let them put the order through, which also includes a disconnect notification for the company the customer is leaving. If a customer has to call the provider to disconnect, the incumbent company has a strong incentive to provide aggressive retention offers, even below cost, just to hang onto a customer who may not leave a year later.

This same problem happened with number portability, and the industry had to fight to win the right to let customers choose not to have to cancel service themselves. 

Perhaps we also need to fight for modification to statewide video franchising laws which would say a provider seeking a statewide franchise agreement has to charge uniform rates across the state. That would help stop the cross-subsidizing and other anticompetitive behavior.

 

 

Careful

I notice a theme of you trashing DSL in your articles, I am not sure where that comes from as DSL providers are typically telcos who deliver lifeline services.  When you loosely use terms like "provided very poor DSL service" you should substantiate these claims so an educated reader knows what you are referring to.
Maybe if you had "unreliable DSL" you wouldn't have had to write an article about how you can never achieve the claimed speeds Comcast provides you.  I have had 4 different DSL providers (small, large, and in-between) and have constantly been able to hit my advertised speed with every one of them. (reference http://www.muninetworks.org/content/speedtests-samknows-and-fantasy-vs-r... )

You also make a quick transition from alleging Charter might be "engaging in predatory pricing" to moving on and stating it as if it were fact.  This is poor journalism and ethically wrong.
You state "Charter was the lone local cable provider and served most of the market.", while sure, they are the only traditional cable provider however they certainly have competition from the Satellite companies for video and they have competition from TDS and Wireless companies for Internet.  So lets not pretend like they were gifted services from the taxpayers of Monticello.

TDS is the ILEC for Monticello, certainly any other phone provider has been able to come in as a CLEC and compete with TDS for many years now.  Apparently nobody thought it was economical to do so, so they didn't.  At least not until the City decided to get into the CLEC business, how did that work out for them?

Comparing pricing between Monticello and its closest community Big Lake, their prices a very comparable and there is no overlap in cable/dsl providers.  Pricing and Services changes all the time.  Many factors influence pricing and services, competition is certainly one of them.  If Monticello went into FiberNET not understanding this then they were certainly overmatched by the competition.

Trashing DSL

My "trashing" of DSL comes from the same place as my occasional trashing of satellite fraudband. DSL is often overpromised and under-delivered for a variety of reasons. Reliability and capacity tend to be dramatically below that of modern cable systems and wretched when compared to fiber optic networks.

If I had DSL, I wouldn't be doing speedtests because CenturyLink is so poor in my neighborhood I wouldn't care if it were 1.5 Mbps or 1.3 Mbps.

We have previously discussed Charter's predatory pricing. Its $60/month package with all the video channels cannot possibly be covering the cost of delivering it, according to every last person I have talked to who has negotiated channel contracts.

The reason Monticello and other cities go into this business is precisely because the private sector refuses to offer the services, prices, and level of customer support that people want. Then when the City builds its own network, providers like TDS and Charter radically step up their game - and occasionally (as Charter has done) use their scale advantage to try to remove competition from the market and return to a duopoly.

The idea that cities should only make investments where the private sector would is lunacy. If that were the case, we would have very few roads as they have a very poor payback. The question is ultimately whether broadband access to the Internet is an essential infrastructure. If yes, then cities should build their own networks -- especially when the private sector has failed to the extent it had in Monticello in 2007.

I think personally that in

I think personally that in the scheme of things, satellite-delivered Internet is satellite fraudband, because it is neither fast nor useful with the usage allowances attached. DSL deserves a lot of the thrashing in gets in the United States because too many phone companies launched ADSL service a decade ago and washed their hands of any further upgrades. If I had to choose only between satellite or DSL, I'd go with DSL in a second, which is why I personally support subsidies to extend broadband out to rural areas where service is economically not feasible. Something is better than nothing.

However, there are better flavors of DSL that I would like to see companies like TDS offering customers, at least ADSL2+ or VDSL, which could support dramatically improved and more reliable broadband speeds. Cable will still eat them for breakfast in DOCSIS 3-upgraded areas, but many customers are satisfied with 10Mbps-20Mbps service at the moment.

Charter's quality of service has been rated just above "war crime" by consumers in several annual ratings reports. They can thank their lucky stars they are not Mediacom, which is actually worse. If I was a resident stuck with TDS ADSL and Charter and their usage caps, I would want a third choice myself (and not satellite or a WISP). 

It is also cheeky to suggest that other phone companies could rush in and compete with TDS. As I am sure you are well aware, no one is going to build competing landline networks anywhere. Hell, we can't even get cable companies to compete head to head.

Nobody can tell me Charter selling a complete cable-TV and premium broadband package deal for under $60 for two years isn't either exposing the outrageous profit margin Charter has for broadband and television service or cross-subsidizing those rates by making up the difference elsewhere.

I think you are a smart guy,

I think you are a smart guy, by comparing DSL to satellite broadband really makes me question that.  Sure, DSL bandwidth to a subscriber is typically lower than that of cable however the reliability is typically much better and is typically not capped.  I would rather have the consistent speed and low latency connection of DSL over the sporadic speed relatively high latency of cable any day, even if it were half the speed.  I guess that is probably why I have 12/2 of uncapped DSL service and not 30/4 capped Cable service available at a comparable price.

 

Previously being in the triple-play business myself I can tell you virtually nobody makes money on video.  I would agree Charter isn't making money on that bundle however I would also state Monticello FiberNet is not making any money off of their video either.  Video has to be priced low in order for it to sell, selling video below cost is to get the customer and sell them more services (phone, Internet, features).

The private sector has the right to make money, monopoly or not.  If government wants to get involved it should be to ensure a level palying field.  Government should not be in the business to put private enterprise out of business much less be in direct control, at any (government) level, of our consumption of information.

 

I am having a hard time following the first sentence of your last paragraph but government should absolutely stay out of the way if something can be handled in the private sector.  It is up to a level playing field for the private sector in a free market to take care of these problems.  Well run government can ensure this happens.

Comparison

I did not compare DSL to satellite. I was using it as another example of poor service. You seem to know enough about this industry to understand the incredibly different experiences one gets from DSL depending on the distance from the DSLAM. If you live on top of it, DSL can be pleasant for basic usage. If you live 4 miles from it, you wonder how anyone can use it seriously.

My latency from CenturyLink and Qwest before was poor over DSL. DSL has oversubscription problems as well depending on the carrier, it just isn't in the loop. Other links can be massively oversubscribed, meaning your mileage may vary. I'm glad you have had such good experiences with DSL. I have to worry about America when we are arguing about which last-generation network is better when our peers are building next-generation networks.

The evidence from Monticello is that DSL was not cutting it for businesses, which is why local businesses pushed the city to build FiberNet Monticello.

Cable has low margins unless you are a cable provider that owns channels. Then it works out nicely. And there is a major difference between breaking even on cable and losing between $20-$50 per sub on it, as Charter must be doing with their $60 offer that we have discussed in depth before.

No one is disputing that the private sector has the right to make money. But when the private sector refuses to invest in essential infrastructure, communities have the right to build their own. Suddenly, when faced with competition, but Charter and TDS dramatically improved their deals in town. FiberNet, as with the vast majority of community networks, pose no threat to putting private businesses out of business. To the contrary, local businesses greatly benefit from price competition and increased investment.

Any basic economics course should cover what a free market is. Free market is not simply the lack of regulation due to what is called market failure. There are many types of market failure and one arises in areas of natural monopoly. In this case, our analysis is that the best solution is to have local government provide an option. I find it far preferable to the regulation-type approaches we have historically seen in telecom.

Given the scale and power of companies like Charter and TDS, to say nothing of Comcast or AT&T, there is no way you can justify a claim that local governments represent unfair competition -- particularly when these services are regulated by state and federal entities, not be local governments.

And how is this working out

And how is this working out for the city of Monticello?  They lost close to $2000 per subscriber last year, by your definition they are offering services under cost and must be engaging in predatory pricing!!
Not only did FiberNet lose money last year, they lost customers and revenue units last year.  If they really were offering better service at a lower cost I can't see how they would lose customers when they have such minimal market penetration to begin with.
Honestly I don't have the numbers in front of me but it appears FiberNet may have lost more money than they made yet they continue to back this venture with taxpayer backed loans, credit usage, and other city money.  Lets not forget about all the city time the Mayor is donating to this project.  I think the Mayor’s time would be better served working with the private sector instead of working against it.  (reference the following for sources to my claim of taxpayer dollars http://www.muninetworks.org/content/gigabit-squared-monticello-and-next-generation-networks#comment-635 )

How is it working out?? See above!

This was the entire point of my post above. You claim to have experience in telecom projects and yet you apparently don't know that they lose money for years (sometimes called the startup period but even after that when in a competitive environment).

You cannot claim that it is predatory pricing when the network is ramping up. Or at least you would have a hard hill to climb.

I have answered the questions you raise in numerous places. I will not continue approving your posts beyond this point as you are now just repeating points that I have already responded to. If you have evidence of this misuse of taxpayer dollars, bring it forward.

The mayor owns a private business and knows a lot more about the needs of businesses than you appear to -- though you are clearly mostly concerned about 2 specific businesses - Charter and TDS, neither of which is headquartered in Monticello much less Minnesota.