Category Archives: The Industry

Broadband Customers 1Q 2023

Leichtman Research Group recently released broadband customer statistics for the end of the first quarter of 2023 for the largest cable and telephone companies. Leichtman compiles most of these numbers from the statistics provided to stockholders other than for Cox and Mediacom, which are estimated. Leichtman says this group of companies represents 96% of all US landline broadband customers.

The first quarter of the year shows a continuation of the trend where all of the growth in broadband is coming from T-Mobile and Verizon FWA fixed cellular wireless. Those two companies added 916,000 out of 962,000 total customer growth for the quarter. T-Mobile passed Lumen and Frontier in the quarter in terms of the total number of broadband customers.

% 1Q
1Q 2023 4Q 2022 1Q Change Change
Comcast 32,324,000 32,319,000 5,000 0.0%
Charter 30,509,000 30,433,000 76,000 0.2%
AT&T 15,345,000 15,386,000 (41,000) -0.3%
Verizon 7,528,000 7,484,000 44,000 0.6%
Cox 5,565,000 5,560,000 5,000 0.1%
Altice 4,612,700 4,632,000 (19,300) -0.4%
T-Mobile FWA 3,169,000 2,646,000 523,000 19.8%
Lumen 2,981,000 3,037,000 (56,000) -1.8%
Frontier 2,863,000 2,839,000 24,000 0.8%
Verizon FWA 1,866,000 1,473,000 393,000 26.7%
Mediacom 1,470,000 1,468,000 2,000 0.1%
Windstream 1,175,000 1,175,000 0 0.0%
Cable ONE 1,063,000 1,060,400 2,600 0.2%
Breezeline 689,903 693,731 (3,828) -0.6%
TDS 515,400 510,000 5,400 1.1%
Consolidated 369,862 367,458 2,404 0.7%
Total 112,045,865 111,083,589 962,276 0.9%
Cable 76,233,603 76,166,131 67,472 0.1%
Telco 30,777,262 30,798,458 (21,196) -0.1%
FWA 5,035,000 4,119,000 916,000 22.2%

The telcos collectively lost 21,000 customers for the quarter, but unlaying that number is the success story where telcos are collectively now adding as many customers on fiber as are being lost on DSL. After so many years of seeing Frontier bleeding broadband customers, it’s interesting to see the company now growing faster than the big cable companies. It’s hard to think that the telcos overall won be in a positive growth mode soon.

The only cable company with any significant growth is Charter – and that growth likely comes from the company now constructing fiber in some of the markets where it won the RDOF subsidies.

The only company on the list with a significant loss is Lumen, which lost 1.8% of its customers in the quarter. Lumen is also the telco with the least aggressive fiber growth plans.

There are several companies conspicuously missing from the list. It’s hard to think that Brightspeed and Google Fiber are not larger than the companies at the bottom of the list.

FCC Touts 6G

The FCC has seemingly joined forces with the marketing arm of the cellular industry in declaring that the spectrum between 7–16 GHz is now considered to be 6G. Chairman Jessica Rosenworcel recently announced that the agency would soon begin looking at the uses for this spectrum for mobile broadband. Specifically, the agency will be looking at 550 MHz of spectrum between 12.7-13.25 GHz for what Rosenworcel characterized as airwaves for the 6G era.

This 7-16 GHz spectrum is already used for a wide range of purposes, including fixed point-to-point microwave links, radio astronomy, communications with airplanes, and various military uses. Probably the biggest current use of the spectrum is for communicating with satellites. Rosenworcel said the agency would consider ways to share some of the spectrum between satellite and terrestrial uses.

The use of the 6G description for this spectrum is a big departure from the recent past. It was just in 2019 when Verizon defined 5G to include the millimeter-wave spectrum as high as 28-39 GHz as part of 5G. I’m sure most of you remember the never-ending TV commercials showing cellphones receiving 1-gigabit speeds. Verizon and a few other cellular carriers had deployed millimeter-wave spectrum in downtown areas of a few major cities as a gimmick to show how fast 5G could be. Verizon labeled this as Ultra Wideband to distinguish it from the 4G LTE spectrum that Verizon and others were starting to label as 5G.

It has to be confusing to be a cellular customer because I try to follow this stuff, and I can’t keep up with the cellular marketers. When Verizon used millimeter-wave spectrum and labeled it as Ultra Wideband, the company flashed a 5G UW icon to users to denote having access to the superfast speeds. But I’m hearing that people are now getting the 5G UW icon when connecting to Verizon’s C-Band spectrum, which is mid-range spectrum between 3.7-4.2 MHz.

The funny thing about everything that cellular marketers are doing is that 5G has nothing to do with any specific frequency range. 5G is a set of specifications to define how cell towers work, and the specification can be used with any spectrum. The 5G spectrum can work in the mid-range spectrum, in the band that the FCC just labeled as 6G, and in the higher millimeter wave spectrum.

I’m mystified that the FCC would suddenly label the spectrum between 7-16 GHz as 6G. There will be no 6G specification – anything we do in this spectrum will still either use the 4G LTE or 5G specifications.  Wireless scientists around the world have started experimenting with what they are calling 6G using terabit spectrum that ranges between 100 GHz and 1 THz. These high frequencies sit right below light and have the capability of being harnessed to transmit huge amounts of data for short distances, such inside superfast computer chips. Scientists expect within the next decade to develop the new 6G specifications.

Scientists understood that the 5G specifications would cover all spectrum up to 100 GHz. But apparently, we’re going to now carve up spectrum into tiny slices and label each tiny slice as a new generation of G. I’ve always joked that we’re going to be to 10G before we know it – and it turns out that was no joke at all and extremely conservative.

Behind all of the confusion behind mislabeling things as 5G and 6G is the fact that we will eventually need new cellular spectrum. Cellular networks seem robust today, but the demand for mobile data keeps growing. There are already a lot of complaints that the new spectrum labeled as 5G is overcrowded. The FCC knows it takes many years after declaring a new cellular spectrum until it shows up in the market. This is the time to look at new spectrum bands to put into use a decade from now. This is not going to be easy because satellite companies will be screaming loudly that cellular companies are trying to steal their spectrum. They aren’t completely wrong about this, and I don’t envy the FCC the job of refereeing between the competing uses of spectrum. Just recently, the FCC made it easier for satellite providers to share in existing spectrum bands. But when the FCC labeled this spectrum as 6G, I think we already know it ultimately favors the cellular companies.

Is Charter the Largest Rural ISP?

Once in a while, I see something in the industry press that gives me a pause. Telecompetitor reported that Charter CEO Chris Winfrey said on the company’s first quarter earning call that Charter is the “largest rural provider today.” As much as I work in and track the industry, I would never have connected the dots enough to think that.

I can see how Charter is on the way to being a big rural player. The company was the largest winner of the RDOF reverse auction in terms of passings and is slated to bring broadband to pass over 1 million rural homes and businesses. The company says it is ahead of schedule and has already built 40% of those passings. But does passing 400,000 homes make Charter the biggest rural provider in the country?

In the last few years, there has been an explosion of FWA fixed cellular wireless from T-Mobile and Verizon. At the end of 2022, T-Mobile had over 2.6 million FWA customers and added 524,000 in just the fourth quarter of 2022. Verizon had almost 1.5 million customers and added 389,000 in the fourth quarter. While not all of those customers are rural, it seems likely that both companies have a lot more rural customers than Charter.

It’s hard to get specific statistics from the big telcos, but it’s hard to imagine that CenturyLink and Frontier don’t still have more rural customers than Charter. In all fairness, the rural telco DSL customers are the prime target for Charter and everybody else who is building rural networks – but it’s unlikely that Charter has yet eclipsed them in customer counts.

Jonathan Chambers of Conexon wrote a recent blog that notes that electric cooperatives collectively have more rural customers than Charter.

Nobody knows who the eventual biggest rural winner will be. There are somewhere north of 10 million rural passings that will be tackled by the upcoming BEAD grants. Meanwhile, huge amounts of funding have been provided in rural America through CARES and ARPA funding administered through states or awarded by local governments. I think we’re going to have to wait for the BEAD grants to play out to see who will ultimately be the largest rural ISP.

And even at the end of those grants we might not know. I’ve been predicting that there will be a major roll-up of last-mile fiber networks, and there is no reason that won’t include rural properties. We might have to wait a decade to see who the biggest rural players will be.

I have to think that Winfrey knew his statement wasn’t factual, and I think that he was making the point that Charter is now a major player in rural America. He caught the industry’s attention through the statement which was aimed at Charter’s stockholders. We’re seeing big cable company customer counts level off after a decade of spectacular growth, and I think his message was that Charter is still a growing company.

One thing that Charter didn’t say is that whoever builds fiber in rural areas today is creating monopoly markets. It’s going to be hard for anybody to compete against rural fiber over the long run, and Charter and other companies pursuing grants are counting on being the monopoly provider across large swaths of rural areas. I see a lot of speculation asking why companies are pursuing rural broadband – and I think the appeal of having markets where a company will eventually have an 80%+ market penetration is something that pencils out well.

Unwinding the PSTN

This blog is aimed mostly at telephone companies and various CLECs who have been operating on the legacy Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). This network has been used for interconnection to the local incumbent offices and tandem switches, for connecting to 911 centers, for connecting to operator services, for connecting to cellular carriers, or for connecting to other neighboring carriers.

At CCG, we are finally starting to see that network being shut down, route by route and piece by piece. But like everything related to operating in the regulated legacy world, it’s not easy to disconnect the PSTN connections called trunks. The big incumbent telcos like AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, and others will continue to bill for these connections long after they stop being functional.

I don’t use this blog to make many pitches for my consulting practice, but I think we’re one of the few consultants left in the industry that can help to unwind and stop the billing of the old PSTN network arrangements. We spent many years helping ILECs and CLECs originally order these connections. The ordering process for the PSTN has always been complicated and cryptic. Carriers need to go through those same systems to cut a circuit dead. You often can’t stop the billing by calling or writing to the incumbents – network arrangements need to be unwound in the reverse manner they were built in the first place.

It’s not surprising that this is hard to do. The ordering system was made difficult on purpose after the big telcos decided they didn’t like the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that required them to share their networks with other carriers. After that FCC order, big telcos purposefully made it hard to initiate a connection with them – and now it’s just as hard to disconnect. The big telcos will be glad to continue to bill for circuits for years after they no longer work.

I have no idea how long it’s going to take the PSTN to die, but it’s finally starting to be disassembled, piece by piece. In some ways, it’s a shame to see this network die because it was the first nationwide communication network. It was built right, and it was reliable. Outages came from the same issues that still plague networks, and a fiber cut has always been able to isolate a town or a region from the PSTN.

Sadly, the big telcos never spent the money to create route redundancy. Folks like me have shouted for decades that there was no way to justify multi-day rural network outages when we know how to solve the problem. These outages are still happening today – and the fibers that carry the PSTN are often the same fiber routes that act as the only broadband backbone route into a rural area.

I remember twenty years ago when I had a few small telephone company clients who were willing to solve the redundancy problem by building a new fiber route. We were shocked when Verizon and AT&T refused to connect the new routes into the PSTN. Apparently, the big telcos were more worried about being bypassed than they were about having a more reliable network.

Over time, and as a result of some orders from State regulators, the big telcos allowed route redundancy when somebody else paid for it. Today, large carriers like Level 3, Zayo, and many others cross the country with alternate transport routes, but unfortunately, there are still a lot of rural places where the only available fiber comes from the incumbents.

If you are having problems disconnecting or rearranging connections with other carriers, give us a shout. This could be connections with a large telco, with cellular towers, or to other local carriers. You can contact Derrel Duplechin at CCG at dduplechin@ccgcomm.com. We hate to see the PSTN starting to go. But even more, we hate to see folks who can’t figure out how to get a divorce from the big telcos.

Starlink’s New Business Broadband

Starlink has quietly updated its business broadband offerings. The original plan for businesses was $500 per month with a two-terabyte data cap. If a customer exceeded the data cap, the speed reduced to 1 Mbps for the remainder of the month unless a customer bought additional broadband at $1 per gigabyte. Starlink business comes with a premium antenna from HP at a one-time cost of $2,500.

The new plans are:

  • 1 TB Data Cap. $250/month plus $2,500 equipment costs.
  • 2 TB Data Cap. $500/month plus $2,500 equipment costs.
  • 6 TB Data Cap. $1,500/month plus $2,500 equipment costs.

Extra data now costs $0.50 per additional gigabyte.

Starlink promises faster speeds for businesses with the HP business antenna. This antenna has a 35% better field of view, is less sensitive to hot weather, handles rain better, and melts snow faster. The company now claims the following speeds on its website:

Download Upload
Residential 20 – 100 Mbps 5-15 Mbps
Business 40 – 220 Mbps 8-25 Mbps
RV 5-50 Mbps 2-10 Mbps

Interestingly, the speed claims above from the Starlink website are a lot slower than what was promised as recently as September 2022. For example, residential customers were told in 2022 that download speeds would be between 50 – 200 Mbps with upload speeds of 10 – 20 Mbps. Customers have been saying online that speeds are getting slower – something that has been validated by Ookla speed tests.

In the most recent FCC maps, Starlink claims speeds up to 350/40 Mbps. That matches the maximum speeds that Starlink promised to business customers in September 2022. We’ll have to see if the company drops the speeds claimed to the FCC now that it has dropped its maximum claimed speed down to 220/25 Mbps.

On May 9, Starlink notified customers that it would no longer deprioritize traffic after a customer hits the monthly data cap. Customers were being slowed to speeds as slow as 1 Mbps. Now, customers can sign-up to automatically be billed for excess data usage.

To some degree, the business offering is going to be a concern for some residential customers since business customers will get bandwidth priority. That might make a difference in neighborhoods with multiple business customers.

It will be interesting to see how Starlink performs over the long run. The company still has plans to add many thousands of satellites. But the company still has a waiting list of customers – and the company admits that it can get easily get oversubscribed in a neighborhood.

 

In 2021, Elon Musk said that he foresaw a future where Starlink could provide backhaul bandwidth to rural cell towers. That may still be coming in the future, but not with the current constellations. The speeds above are not nearly what a cell tower owner wants to buy. Even the most rural small cell site is going to want a steady 500 Mbps of bandwidth, with a more typical requirement of 1 Gbps. I would think that residential subscribers have to hope the company never sells to cell towers, or the coverage at peak times could suffer.

The Rural Cellular Crisis

Over the last few years, I have helped dozens of counties get ready for the upcoming giant broadband grants. We’ve been very successful in helping counties identify the places in their County that don’t have broadband today – which is often drastically different than what is shown by the FCC maps. We then help county governments reach out to the ISPs in the region and open up a dialog with the goal of making sure that all rural locations get better broadband. This takes a lot of work – but it’s satisfying to see counties that are on the way to finding a total broadband solution.

In working with these counties, one thing has become clear to me. Some of these counties have a bigger cellular coverage problem than they do a broadband problem. There are often a much larger number of homes in a county that don’t have adequate cellular coverage than those who can’t buy broadband.

The counties I’ve helped have reached out to me – either directly or through an RFP looking for a consultant. Only a tiny number of the Counties identified their cellular problem up front when they hired me. Yet, when I talk to residents and businesses in the County – I hear more horror stories about poor cellular coverage than I do about poor broadband coverage.

I always knew that the cellular coverage maps published by the big cellular carriers were overstated. You might recall back before cellular advertising was all about 5G that the cellular carriers would all claim to have the best cellular coverage. They would proudly show their coverage map in the background on ads and on their websites to show how they covered most of the country.

I’ve come to learn that those maps were pure garbage. They weren’t just an exaggeration, and when you drilled down to look at specific counties, they were outright fabrications. I’ve worked recently with two counties that are the homes of major universities and one state capital. In all three of these counties, cellular coverage dies soon after people leave the biggest urban center.

If anything, I think that cellular coverage has gotten worse with the introduction of the spectrum that the carriers are all claiming as 5G. These are new frequency bands that have been introduced in the last few years to relieve the pressure on the 4G LTE networks. It makes sense that coverage would be reduced with the higher frequencies because one of the first rules of wireless technology is that higher frequencies tend to dissipate more quickly than lower frequencies. When I hear the complaints in these counties, I have to think that the 5G spectrum is not carrying as far into the rural areas.

This is a problem that is well-known to everybody in the industry, including the FCC. Back before the pandemic, the FCC came up with a plan to spend $9 billion from the universal service fund to build and equip new rural cellular towers – using a reverse auction method much like RDOF. This process derailed quickly when the biggest cellular companies produced bogus maps that Showed decent coverage in rural areas that were close to some of the smaller cellular carriers. The FCC was so disgusted by the lousy maps that it tabled the subsidy plan.

The FCC finally reconsidered this idea in 2021. Now the cellular carriers are required to produce maps every six months at the same time as ISPs report broadband coverage. If you haven’t noticed, you can see claimed cellular coverage on the same dashboard that shows the broadband map results. I haven’t spent much time digesting the new cellular maps since all of my clients are so focused on broadband. But I checked the maps in the region around where I live, and the maps still seem to exaggerate coverage. This is supposed to get better when wireless carriers are supposed to file heat maps for the coverage around each transmitter – we’ll have to see what that does to the coverage. It’s going to get harder for a wireless carrier to claim to cover large swaths of a county when it’s only on a tiny handful of towers.

There is a supposed way for folks to help fix the cellular maps. The FCC has a challenge process that requires taking a speed test using the FCC cellular speed test app. Unfortunately, this app requires a lot of speed tests in a given neighborhood before the FCC will even consider the results. I’m doubtful that most rural folks know of this app or are motivated enough to stop along the side of the road and repeatedly take the speed tests. And frankly, who knows if it will make any real difference even if they do?

The big cellular companies have clearly not invested in many new rural cell towers over the last decade because they’d rather have the FCC fork out the funding. I haven’t the slightest idea if $9 billion is enough money to solve the problem or even put a dent in it. No doubt, the FCC will saddle the program with rules that will add to the cost and result in fewer towers being built. But whatever is going to happen, it needs to start happening soon. We are not a mobile society, and it’s outrageous that a lot of people can’t make a call to 911, let alone use all of the features that are now controlled by our cell phones.

Community-Wide WIFI

Somebody sent me an article from BocaNewsNow that talks about the trend that Hotwire is seeing in communities that want broadband everywhere. Residential communities in Florida are investing in outdoor WiFi networks that allow residents to connect to broadband from everywhere on a property, including tennis courts, lakefronts, and common community areas.

Communities are advertising ubiquitous broadband as an attractive amenity, and homeowners associations are investing in the technology at the prompting of residents.

It’s an interesting idea, but not a new one. Folks might remember the municipal WiFi craze of twenty years ago when cities everywhere were considering installing massive outdoor WiFi networks as a way to provide broadband to everybody. This was such a hot topic that there was even a magazine for municipal WiFi and conventions where folks came to learn about it. The largest such experiment was in Philadelphia, but there were many other cities that tried this on a smaller scale.

All of the early attempts for creating massive outdoor WiFi failed. The main reason for the failure was technical. The technology required deploying large numbers of pole or building-mounted radios that operated in a mesh network. The radios were mounted fairly close to each other so that there was a radio every several blocks in all directions. The advantage of a giant mesh network was that a customer walking around a community never left the network and didn’t have to keep logging in to keep the same connection.

But there was a giant downside that was never solved. The mesh radios constantly communicated with neighboring radios so the network could reconfigure to avoid a faulty or overloaded radio. It turns out that large early mesh networks spent more bandwidth communicating between neighboring radios than in providing bandwidth to users. The whole concept crumbled once a few cities tried this on any scale.

The other issue that killed the idea was that home broadband was improving drastically during this same time period. Speeds were climbing from cable companies and telcos, and folks were suddenly able to buy speeds of 6 Mbps to 12 Mbps, which quickly made the 1-2 Mbps speeds on wireless mesh networks feel glacial.

Over the years, outdoor WiFi technology has improved dramatically like other technologies. Since the early days of the technology, the FCC approved the 5 GHz, and more recently the 6 GHz bands of spectrum for use in WiFi networks. Outdoor hotspots that are fed with significant backhaul can now easily deliver speeds that are adequate for most of the kinds of uses of broadband that would be expected outdoors. Folks can watch videos, join Zoom calls, and use the outdoor WiFi network to stay connected.

Hotwire claims that the demand for outdoor WiFi has also grown due to people now working from home. It’s attractive for employees to take a laptop to the pool or a park rather than be tied to a desk all day.

I’ve talked to a lot of cities that have already expanded or are considering expanding public WiFi to parks and other public areas. The pandemic showed a lot of city officials that there are a lot of folks who need broadband access and don’t have it at home for some reason. It’s one of those amenities that, once you have it, you wonder how you lived without it.

Should We Trust the Companies that Created the Digital Divide?

For those of you who don’t know Bruce Kushnick, he’s been tracking the promises made and broken by Verizon since the 1990s and written extensively on the issue. His latest article is “NTIA: Require Every State Broadband Agency to Investigate Those Responsible for Creating the State’s Digital Divide.”

Bruce has been arguing eloquently for years that the big telcos like Verizon, AT&T, and CenturyLink caused the rural digital divide by extracting profits from the regulated telephone and broadband businesses in rural and low-income areas while neglecting maintenance and not using any of the profits to modernize the technology. According to Bruce, the only reason we need massive federal grant programs today is to make the investments that the big telcos refused to make for the last several decades.

He argues that the NTIA should require states to investigate how the digital divide was created in rural areas and center cities. He uses the two examples of New Jersey and Los Angeles to make his point. He’s been tracking the promises made by Verizon to the State of New Jersey for the last thirty years. Verizon repeatedly sought regulatory relief through deregulation along with rate increases that were supposed to fund modernizing the network in the State – upgrades that were never done. When Verizon finally upgraded to fiber, it did so only in neighborhoods with the lowest costs, avoiding rural areas and most low-income neighborhoods.

I’ve been tracking this issue during my career as well. Consider West Virginia. I remember when Verizon was looking for a buyer of the telco network there as far back as the early 1990s. When big companies are trying to sell a property, they do what valuation folks call ‘dressing up the pig”. This means cutting expenses to make the property look more profitable. The cuts are usually deep, and drop maintenance below the level needed to keep up with routine repairs and maintenance.

Verizon didn’t end up selling the West Virginia network until the sale to Frontier in 2010. By then, the networks had been neglected for more than fifteen years. Frontier made only minimal upgrades to the properties they purchased – but it’s hard for an outsider to know if this was due to an intention to continue to milk cash flow out of the acquired network like Verizon had done or due to a lack of the capital and impact of the heavy debt used to buy the property. In any case, the West Virginia network continued to degrade under Frontier’s ownership.

For years, Bruce has made the point that there has not been any financial or regulatory cost to the big telcos for their bad behavior. They’ve repeatedly broken promises made to states. They’ve routinely milked profits out of networks while ignoring customers as the properties deteriorate.

In fact, we’ve seen the opposite of penalties. For example, the big telcos were rewarded with over $10 billion of CAF-II subsidies to support dying and neglected rural DSL networks. That money was supposed to be used to increase rural data speeds to 10/1 Mbps at a time when that speed was already obsolete. We’ve seen far too many places where even that basic upgrade was not made.

Bruce’s conclusion is that it would be ludicrous to give grant funding now to the companies that caused the digital divide in the first place. That would be using public money to upgrade the networks for these companies when profits should have been used over the decades to do so. He makes a solid argument that giving money to these same companies will not solve the digital divide since there is no reason to think the big telcos won’t turn around and do it all over again.

Taking Aim at Junk Fees

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced Senate Bill S.916, which takes aim at eliminating junk fees, which are fees that are not advertised for a product but that get added on after a customer buys a product or service. These fees were attacked this year by President Biden in the State of the Union Address.

The bill language is clear: “A covered entity shall clearly and conspicuously display, in each advertisement and when a price is first shown to a consumer, the total price of the good or service provided by the covered entity, including any mandatory fees a consumer would incur during the transaction, which shall not change during the purchase process.” The legislation goes on to give authority to regulate junk fees to the Federal Trade Commission.

Telecom companies, particularly cable companies, are among the worst in having hidden junk fees that are not included in advertising but are added to a customer’s first bill. But telecom companies aren’t the only industry, and the bill is aimed at airlines, online ticket companies, and other industries that routinely advertise prices that are lower than what a consumer is ultimately charged.

It’s clear why companies use junk fees since the practice gives them the ability to advertise super-low rates to attract customers. Consider the junk fees charged by Comcast. Comcast is not unusual, and the hidden fees of other large cable companies are similar.

Comcast routinely advertises low rates to attract new cable TV customers. A customer who buys at an advertised special rate will get a first bill with a lot of hidden junk fees that are not included in the advertised price – or else hidden deep in small print footnotes.

  • Comcast has a broadcast fee of $28.70 per month. This is a fee where Comcast has accumulated annual increases in programming costs into this side fee instead of raising the basic price of cable.
  • Most markets have a regional sports fee. This fee is specific per market and can range from $4 to $8. This fee is the accumulated increases in sports programming costs that have not been added to the basic rate.
  • Comcast also charges $9.00 extra for each settop box – a fee that is not included in the advertised price.

A first-time Comcast customer buying cable at an advertised $30 special rate could get a first bill for almost $75 – a startling difference.

Comcast also has hidden fees for broadband. The company charges $15 per month for a WiFi modem. The biggest surprise for many new customers is the Comcast data cap on broadband. The company charges $10 for each 50 GB of data over the data cap limit.

Consumers hate hidden fees. Anybody who has signed with one of the giant cable companies got a big surprise when they opened their first bill. But by then, most people are locked into a contract that came along with getting the low advertised rates.

There have been almost no repercussions for the practice. Occasionally, the states will pursue a company for deceptive advertising. For example, in early 2020, Comcast settled a dispute with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office over false advertising related to sports fees. Comcast refunded $1.4 million to customers and paid a fine of $160,000 – which is a small penalty for a Company that had 16.1 million cable customers at the end of last year – all paying similar fees.

Deceptively low special rates make it unfairly hard to compete against a cable company. A competitor could have prices that are lower than the cable company, but hidden fees let the cable company advertise an untruthfully lower price. My clients with fiber networks tell me that customers routinely compliment them for not having hidden fees. People have gotten used to signing up for a low rate but paying a lot more – they become instantly loyal to a company that doesn’t play the games. This legislation would hopefully make the big ISPs become more truthful – but I’ll believe it when I see it.

How Many IoT Devices Do You Have?

Before reading any further, make a quick guess of the number of Internet of Thing (IoT) devices you have in your house. That’s any device that can make a wireless connection through cellular, WiFi, or bluetooth. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Ting Internet recently conducted a survey of 1,500 people and asked them how many Internet-enabled devices they have in their home. The average respondent quickly estimated that they had eight IoT devices in their home.

Now, make a count of all of the devices. Following is a list of the kinds of devices you might have that can connect with wireless:

  • Computer, laptops, tablets, and cellphones
  • eReaders like the Amazon Kindle
  • Smart TVs
  • Smart watches
  • Gaming consoles
  • Smart speakers
  • Smart headphones
  • Smart assistants like the Amazon Echo
  • Smart thermostats (ones that you can control from a cellphone or computer)
  • Security and front porch cameras
  • Smart door locks
  • Alarms that you can control remotely for burglar, smoke, CO2, radon, and flood alarms
  • Smart appliances you can control from an app such as washers, dryers, refrigerators, coffee makers
  • Smart exercise monitors and smart gym equipment
  • Smart medical devices like blood pressure monitors, sleep monitors, and thermometers
  • Smart lights
  • Smart blinds
  • Smart irrigation and watering systems
  • Smart toys, robots, and gadgets
  • Your car – if you can start it from your phone

Respondents generally undercounted. Instead of the eight devices they thought they had, after going through the list the average count grew to thirteen.

I tried this and my quick guess was sixteen and my wife guessed twenty-six. After sitting with my wife and counting we came up with thirty-three devices. There were devices on the final list that surprised me. I learned we can control our basement dehumidifier with WiFi. We have two inexpensive thermometers that allow us to record our temperatures in an app every time we use them. We had both forgotten about the ability to start the car remotely. The number of wired devices would have been higher, but we recently undertook a spring cleaning and ditched and donated a few smart devices. And after we did the count, our daughter came home for the summer and brought eleven more devices.

Ting found a few more interesting things in the survey. Adults between 35 and 54 had the highest number of connected devices. They also were the group that undercounted the number of devices by the biggest percentage.

Ting’s survey found the most commonly owned devices are smartphones (96%), computer/laptop (86%), tablet (70%), smart TV (69%), gaming console (62%), streaming device (49%), smart speaker (42%) and smartwatch (31%).

Ting’s survey results were lower than I’ve seen from other surveys that I’ve covered in a blog. Deloitte found in a survey in 2022 that the average home has 22 smart devices. But the bottom line is that wireless capability is being included in a huge array of everyday devices. Our homes are becoming increasingly connected.