We live in a nation of wondrous technological advancement, where our average broadband speed and super low prices are the envy of the world, And if Google shows up to throw fiber around, the local citizenry simply shrugs its shoulders in indifference. Life is good... especially if you're paid to believe it is.

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports points us in the direction of a ridiculous "op-ed" piece written for the Philadelphia Inquirer by David Cohen, lobbyist and policy man for Comcast. It's filled with relentless, self-serving optimism and features Cohen's miraculous ability to take mediocre broadband statistics and transform them into "proof" of American superiority.

After cherry picking and massaging statistics to an almost painful degree, Cohen takes a little shot at Google Fiber, insisting that users don't really need 1 Gbps.

"For some, the discussion about the broadband Internet seems to begin and end on the issue of "gigabit" access. To be sure, a one-gig connection has value, especially for those who have invested in "inside" networks and equipment to handle that 1-gigabit firehose of data.

The issue with such speed is really more about demand than supply. Our business customers can already order 10-gig connections. Most websites can't deliver content as fast as current networks move, and most U.S. homes have routers that can't support the speed already available to the home. As consumer demand grows for faster speeds, a competitive marketplace of wired and wireless broadband providers will be ready to serve it."

Consumers are demanding faster speeds, though. This is why services like Google Fiber are objects of lust and desire interest them. Sure, many broadband companies offer higher speed connections, but at very prohibitive prices. When someone like Google comes along and offers a gigabit connection for $30/month, it's delivering what consumers actually want: higher speeds and lower prices. To date, broadband providers are only willing to give consumers either/or -- never both. (Additionally, service providers like Comcast frequently throw data caps into the mix, which nullifies the positive aspects of a speed boost. Cohen's piece never mentions data caps or their effect on consumer behavior -- both in terms of limiting consumption and increasing costs.)

Cohen claims that 82% of Americans have access to wired high-speed Internet access of speeds exceeding 100 Mbps. But these services, provided in 85% of the country by only the local cable incumbent (the large cable companies never enter each others’ territories, and Verizon FiOS is available to just 15% of the country) are extraordinarily expensive: Comcast charges $114.95 per month for 105 Mbps download services. In Seoul, you can get symmetrical 100 Mbps (equal upload and download) access for $30/month, and there are three or four competitive choices.

So, it's not really a question of need. Most consumers won't fully utilize a gigabit connection. But, they will have faster service at a lower price, and that's what really matters. What Google's entrance into the market does is add some real competition, rather than the cooperation and collusion that has masqueraded for years as "competition."

By focusing on whether you need 1 Gbps, companies like Time Warner Cable and Comcast hope to steer the conversation away from how a lack of competition allows them to offer slow speeds and ever-higher prices (or the fact they're being outclassed in their own industry by a search engine)...

If the United States leads in anything in the broadband sector -- it's the use of denial and distortion by those with a vested interest in protecting the status quo. If you can convince people that everything is fine, nobody tries to fix things and your profit margins as a predatory, lumbering duopoly benefiting from regulatory capture remain high. You can legitimately argue that things are improving in many regions -- but to insist the United States is the global broadband leader is an obnoxious level of hubris, even for Comcast.

Cohen's article paints a broadband picture so rosy one almost expects a "sponsored content" banner to be flying above it. He even takes a moment towards the end to bash the broadband industry's (many) critics.

Today there is a cottage industry of critics who always want to tell us that our broadband Internet is not fast enough or satisfactory for one reason or another. The reality is that the United States is leading the way in speed, reach, and access - and doing so in a vast, rural nation that poses logistical connectivity challenges unlike any other country.

As Bode pointed out, a strain of hubris runs through Cohen's piece, but here it comes to a head. Comcast itself has MANY critics but Cohen acts as though the negative attention is undeserved. This "cottage industry" exists in part to battle the kind of misinformation Cohen and his cohorts portray as "facts." His attempt to belittle broadband critics as some sort of self-interested fringe "industry" is where his hubris comes to a head. It's obviously more than that if Cohen feels the need to tout his industry's "stellar" service via a major newspaper.

If you remember, about five years ago, a bunch of astroturfing and front groups for the broadband companies started spreading this myth that the internet was facing a catastrophe known as the the exaflood, in which internet traffic would swamp capacity and the internet would sputter to a crawl. They talked about things like "brown outs" where so much traffic would make the internet difficult to navigate. Of course, it was all FUD and scare tactics to hide the real intent: to allow the telcos to put more tollbooths on the internet, to double charge some popular internet companies, and to generally try to avoid investing in basic infrastructure. Of course, it was easy to debunk those claims, but five years later, Broadband Reports takes a look at some of the latest data to note that the feared exaflood never showed up, and the predictions of clogged pipes never appeared -- and the data on internet growth shows little likelihood of that ever happening.

Cisco's latest numbers are an ever further cry from what telecom sector lobbyists and think tankers were predicting in 2010 and before, when they were using a looming "exaflood" to scare regulators and the press and public into buying into bad telecom policy. Companies like Nemertes Research and The Discovery Institute (the latter a PR firm paid directly by carriers, the former long accused of having a rather cozy relationship with AT&T) insisted we'd be seeing Internet "brown outs" by this point courtesy of unsustainable growth rates of up to 100% or more.

The scary predictions were effective. Said lobbyists, think tankers, astroturfers and "fauxcademics" convinced many people that if the telecom industry wasn't given "X" (X being anything from fewer consumer protections and more subsidies to the right to bill by the byte or avoid network neutrality rules), that the Internet would collapse. That obviously never happened and intelligent engineers and networks adjusted, but few of the people who massaged data for their own financial ends over the last five to eight years were ever really held accountable.

Of course, there's always more fear and FUD to go around, so expect plenty more stories about looming problems if we don't give the big broadband guys whatever anti-competitive thing that they want going forward...

There aren't many consumers out there who are pleased with long-term contracts, whether it's their cellphone provider or their ISP. For most, a one or two-year exclusive contract makes it economically unfeasible to switch carriers at the drop of the hat. These contracts tend to result in lower quality service, as exclusive, lengthy deals rarely stoke the fires of innovation or improvement.

Now, take that 1-to-2-year deal and its attendant downside and extrapolate it to the length of a murder sentence. That's the reality being faced by residents of Loudon County, Virginia.

With help from a local developer, OpenBand apparently convinced a lot of communities to sign exclusive franchise agreements that ran for between 25 to 75 years. While users in these developments could sign up for other TV or broadband services, they still had to pay the $150 monthly association fee to OpenBand.

If you can lock customers into a contract that runs their entire lifetime, you're hardly going to be providing top notch service. Why? Because the pressure provided by competition is no longer an issue. OpenBand did what most companies would do in this situation -- nothing.

Complaints grew and grew over the years, with customers saying it reached the point where they stopped contacting the ISP, given their exclusive arrangement resulted in them being totally unwilling to improve service. It got so bad, some locals wound up getting a second broadband provider -- and just paid two bills for service with nothing they could do.

These complaints finally reached the FCC, which decided to implement some rules changes to make these long-term contracts illegal. The housing developments locked into these deals also pushed back, declining to renew their contracts with OpenBand.

This made OpenBand unhappy and it decided to respond the way most companies do when their monopolies are threatened -- by filing lawsuits.

Last fall they decided to sue everyone, including the county Board of Supervisors, two supervisors individually, and several homeowners associations.

Despite the fact that the FCC itself has declared these long-term contracts to be anti-competitive and "forbidden" (by a 2007 FCC order banning "exclusivity clauses"), OpenBand is still trying to get its monopoly reinstated. Its arguments represent the "best" qualities of pedantic legal wrangling, boiling down to some very specific wording.

First, OpenBand claims that the FCC has no jurisdiction over its "arrangements" with Loudon County homeowners:

Saunders also argued that neither Lansdowne or Southern Walk could receive the relief they seek from the courts because the FCC order only addresses video service and not Internet or telephone, both of which the communities get from OpenBand...

OpenBand is attacking very specific wording here, attempting to justify its monopoly over the two other services (phone and internet) it provides. The second aspect of its argument relies on specific terminology as well -- contracts vs. easements. One of the judges hearing the appeal has already sniffed this weasel-wording out.

"The FCC ruling, it seems so clearly directed at prohibiting exactly what is taking place here," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said as OpenBand began its arguments in the Lansdowne case. "And I am beginning to get the idea that these standing questions, these ripeness questions, a lot of them are just a fog that's being thrown up [by OpenBand attorneys] to provide protection for a shell game that's going on here with all these different companies and different agreements."

Wilkinson repeated the sentiment when the discussion of the telecommunications easements owned solely by OpenBand were raised. He said it was all a part of an "evasive web" and that OpenBand appeared to be seeking "to evade the FCC exclusivity order by calling the contractual agreements…easements. It is one thing after another. The whole thing is a subterfuge."

OpenBand's arguments are already being challenged in the appeals court, which is rehearing the lawsuits brought against it by two Virginia homeowners' associations. The lawsuits OpenBand filed against two Loudon supervisors and two homeowner's associations are currently on hold, as all county judges have recused themselves from the case because of their familiarity with one of the defendants, an attorney who is also a former board member of one the HOAs.

Whatever the result of these lawsuits, OpenBand's reputation is already mostly destroyed. It was already a cursed name in Virginia six years ago and looks as if it's done nothing over the last half-decade to improve its service or its relationship with its "customers." (It's really tough to characterize people stuck in a 25-75 year contract as "customers," hence the quotation marks. Customers usually have a bit of freedom when purchasing goods and services. The members of these HOAs clearly don't.)

The fact that OpenBand is willing to spend millions ($4 million so far) to reclaim its monopoly clearly indicates that infrastructure and customer service are the last things on its mind. These short-sighted and recriminatory lawsuits will only make it that much tougher for it to land contracts (or "easements") with anyone in the future. Even if it wins, it loses.

The Digital Reader recently posted an article detailing a Virginia school district's problems with digital textbooks. Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) is making the switch back to paper textbooks, to the tune of $2 million, after running into system requirements that prevented some of its students from taking advantage of the digital books.

According to the Washington Post (and confirmed on an official website) Fairfax County Public Schools is currently in the process of replacing some recently licensed math textbooks with even newer paper copies.

FCPS has always been at the forefront of adopting new tech in classrooms, whether it is setting up 1:1 classrooms or pushing for greater participation in BYOD programs, and this school year they decided to go into digital textbooks in a big way. FCPS signed up 3 publishers, Pearson, Holt, and McGraw/Hill to provide online math textbooks for all students in all grades, K-12.

That’s an ambitious project, no? It would save students the effort of carrying the textbooks around while avoiding the need for expensive hardware like the iPad. I mean, almost everyone has a computer with internet access at home right?

Well, no, they don’t. And even for the ones that do have access, it turns out that is not enough.

The underlying problem here isn't an ill-timed leap into the digital world. It's the limits built into the e-textbooks by the publishers. In fact, FCPS's FAQ on the digital textbooks calls them what they really are: "online textbooks." Even if schools could purchase cheaper e-readers for students lacking access to broadband or a computer, the publishers are, at this point, unwilling to provide a downloadable option. In fact, the textbook publishers are constantly adding additional bells and whistles to their "online textbooks" (note the long list of additional software needed to use the curriculum) in order to avoid ever having to provide a stripped-down, downloadable version. Here are the system requirements for the "online textbooks" used by FCPS [PDF]:

Now, the requirements for schools are understandable, what with several simultaneous connections being the norm, but why should a textbook require an internet connection at home? Shouldn't that be optional? Even if homework is assigned that needed to be completed using the textbook, it should at least be able to store work locally and upload it once it has a solid connection. But it doesn't, and here's why: despite all the money being spent on these e-textbooks, at no time does the student ever have an actual local copy of the textbook. Instead, for all the money being spent, the students are in possession of nothing more than a license and a portal -- useless without a broadband connection, and impossible to move to a cheaper platform, like an e-reader.

So, the issue here isn't so much that FCPS made the mistake moving forward with digital textbooks, leaving some students out in the cold, but that Pearson and other publishers are unwilling to relinquish complete control of their digital offerings. This is what's keeping the situation from being more equitable. Offline options would remove the broadband requirement, and offering downloadable versions for e-readers would eliminate a large part of the technology gap. Hoffelder's underlying point that "education is supposed to be the great equalizer" is true, but the publishers' "online textbooks" are doing more to keep this gap from closing than this school district's pursuit of the next, newest thing.

As we just recently discussed, broadband providers appear to finally be willing to give up their pretend need for data caps due to the pretend costs of delivering service. The story they told essentially was that, without data caps, congestion would clog the interwebz tubes and that laying bigger tubes was way too costly. Perhaps noteably, this rarely resulted in actual hard caps on data, but rather provided a convenient excuse to charge more for more data service, regardless of the effect or cost of delivering that service.

Now Verizon's 4G LTE money-making machine is giving us a glimpse into exactly how profitable providing bandwidth is becoming as the cost for delivering service drops and prices to consumers go up.

Verizon (VZ) posted a pretty impressive holiday quarter (one-time charges aside) with a good outlook on Tuesday, and the company’s share price rose as a result. There were also plenty of interesting takeaways from the carrier’s earnings call, but The New York Times’ Brian X. Chen zeroed in on one item of particular interest. Verizon launched new “Share Everything” plans last summer that make smartphone data more expensive for many users. The best thing about these plans for investors — and, not coincidentally, the worst thing about the plans for subscribers — is that Verizon is now making more money off of smartphone data as costs associated with transmitted that data are falling.

It really doesn't get much simpler than that. The 4G LTE network is efficient to the point that delivering the service costs less than the 3G network, yet the price to consumers is going up. To be clear, the problem here isn't that Verizon is making money. Rather, the problem is that this comes from the same company that built a business model around low caps and high overage costs while also claiming that caps were the sign of a "competitive market." For those of you playing along at home, it's precisely because of a lack of competition that Verizon can at once have its costs drop while raising prices on its services. Were there more competition, someone new would compete on price or value of service. As it stands, Verizon can use their faster service and low caps to further the aforementioned business model.

As an added bonus, Chen noted that Verizon’s faster data networks also cause users to eat through their data allowances more quickly. This eventually prompts them to buy more expensive plans with higher data caps, which of course net Verizon even more cash.

As a Verizon customer myself, these kinds of signs that there isn't enough competition for my dollar are quite frustrating. On top of that, the model is specifically designed to provide a great service and then drop a bunch of obstacles in its path... it's maddening.

Last summer, we talked about a site that Time Warner Cable had launched called Time Warner Cable Conversations, which it insisted would be a "conversation" between it and the public. As they put it, the goal was "to interact with our customers and to contribute to the on-going conversation about cable." Except... as we noted at the time, they didn't seem to want to discuss what most customers wanted to talk about. The "conversation" was limited to discussions about TV network deals, just as they were fighting with Time Warner Cable about how much the various networks would cost. If anyone wanted to "converse" about things they didn't like about Time Warner Cable, such as it's super low data caps, too bad. The comments on the site were limited and heavily moderated. Even friendly discussions about data caps were rejected.

And, now, it appears that TWC has decided to make the "conversation" even less of a "conversation." It has removed the ability to comment altogether. So, it's no longer a "conversation." It's just a marketing brochure.

This week we checked back and discovered the dialogue had decidedly turned one-way: namely from Time Warner Cable to you. The company deleted the few views that were published on cable television programming costs and removed its comment section altogether.

Of course, this is how companies like TWC view "a conversation." They talk. You shut up and listen.

In this era of mega ISPs and few small or independent options in many regions, it's always nice to learn of smaller ISPs who realize that competing on providing good service is a better strategy for attracting customers, instead of the game the big guys play: lock you into long term contracts knowing they're going to screw you over sooner or later and you'll have no real alternatives so you'll deal with it. I had that experience myself with both Comcast (who took my service down from 10am to 4pm every day for nearly a month, and each day I'd call and they'd say it was "scheduled maintenance" for that day only, and refused to tell me if any was scheduled for the next day) and AT&T (who signed me up for service, and then cancelled it without telling me because I was too far from the CO). Eventually I found Sonic.net, who has been wonderful, but they're a local ISP.

Over in Utah, an ISP called Direct Communications has announced that it no longer requires contracts and instead they want you to sign with them because, you know, they offer a better product:

Over the past couple of years, our non-customers in annual focus groups have told us that the thing holding them back was our contract terms. Many people did not want to sign long-term commitments various reasons—some did not feel secure in their employment and feared they might not be able to pay for service in a few months; many said they were looking to move out of Eagle Mountain sometime in the coming year; others said they just don’t like contracts as a matter of principle. We agree—people should stay with us because we offer the best, most reliable service in Eagle Mountain, and not because we have them locked into a contract. However, until recently, our hands were essentially tied because of NECA and FCC regulation.

As alluded to in that last line, they were limited by regulatory issues that just expired making this more difficult. While they actually did offer a no-contract option before, for regulatory reasons they had to require a massive installation fee in such cases:

Contrary to some reports, we actually have never required a contact for internet customers. New customers could always choose to forgo a contract term. However, very few people ever chose to sign up without a contract because we have always offered free installation with a 1-year commitment. We previously required a $185 broadband installation fee if new customers did not want to sign a 1-year commitment up front. This was largely dictated by FCC requirements for telecommunications and broadband companies like us. Recently, these regulations have changed to give us more leeway in deciding how to set contract and installation terms.

There will still be an install fee, but it's $75, which is much lower, obviously.

I have no idea how good the company's service is, but this is the kind of thing you start to see when there's real competition (and less regulatory interference). It would be nice if more such ISPs were able to exist around the country, but they're still pretty limited, unfortunately.

Well, this is amusing. San Francisco wireless ISP MonkeyBrains (who some friends use and love) has posted an IndieGogo crowdfunding project in which they're seeking $325,000,000 (yes, that's $325 million) to build a satellite to deliver internet access. The "tiers" are interesting. The lowest is $5,000 (two people have claimed those already!) but then quickly escalate to $10 million for the second tier. Of course, if you pay that, you get a gigabit internet connection for 5 years (only 5? guys, c'mon!). The full description of the project is worth reading:

Abstract

MonkeyBrains is a local ISP in San Francsico.  North Korea just launched a satellite; we want to as well.

The Cost Breakdown of Launching a Satellite

A quick internet search reveals that this is the cost for getting a satellite into orbit:

• Satellite manufacture: $150M
• Satellite launch: $120M
• Launch insurance: $20M
• In-orbit insurance: $20M
• Satellite operations (15 years): $15M

Faster Internet!

Our initial research seems to indicate having a satellite in orbit may not speed up your internet at all. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Geostationary_unsuitable_for_low-latency_applications].  However, if more research doesn't bode well for a geostationary satellite, we will take all of the $325M to fund either:

• Fiber to the home.
• A balloon tethered to the Farallon islands.
• a hovering drone over the Bay.

Trust Us

Some people just can't beleive we want to make the Internet Faster and Cheaper (and more Out of Control) than it already is.  Your money will be spent well, and San Francisco (and possibly -- if funds allow) the entire Bay Area will benefit.  We have set this fundraiser as Fixed Funding, so there is no risk of sending MonkeyBrains a little bit of money from your wallet without many other people feeling the same way.

Obviously, this is a joke by MonkeyBrains, but it's still interesting to see. It appears that they're trying to use this as a bit of a marketing effort -- not all that different from some of the products we've offered for sale in our store. The reason people like crowdfunding goes beyond just the money-raising part to the fact that it can also be an effective marketing platform. Here, it looks like MonkeyBrains is testing out the marketing aspect with little likelihood of actually using the fundraising part.

Oh, and don't miss the video, in which they explain their plan to use UFOs to deliver little pieces of internet from the satellite to your computer.

We've argued for years that broadband data caps are not -- as the industry would have you believe -- about stopping "data hogs" or making sure that people "pay their fair share," but rather about protecting provider revenue (or, really, secretly increasing fees without "increasing" fees). A recent study from the New America Foundation has now made it clear that broadband data caps are not at all about dealing with data hogs, but almost entirely about increasing revenue for the providers.

As this paper documents, data caps, especially on wireline networks, are hardly a necessity. Rather, they are motivated by a desire to further increase revenues from existing subscribers and protect legacy services such as cable television from competing Internet services. Although traffic on U.S. broadband networks is increasing at a steady rate, the costs to provide broadband service are also declining, including the cost of Internet connectivity or IP transit as well as equipment and other operational costs. The result is that broadband is an incredibly profitable business, particularly for cable ISPs. Tiered pricing and data caps have also become a cash cow for the two largest mobile providers, Verizon and AT&T, who already were making impressive margins on their mobile data service before abandoning unlimited plans.

The paper goes on to debunk the usual arguments in favor of broadband caps. Beyond noting that the cost to providing broadband by the big guys has gone down significantly (while cost to consumers has stayed steady or gone up), they also point out that the "congestion" argument doesn't make sense. They note that even if there was congestion, a data cap would not be the best way to deal with it.

An analogy to rush hour traffic is useful here. Rush hour delays are generally caused by a spike in simultaneous demand for road access. Local governments often respond to this traffic congestion by instituting carpool lanes during certain hours, or introducing variable peak pricing for tolls, where prices are higher during the traditional workday commute than at other times. Both of these examples are methods to reduce demand during the time it is highest. It would make little sense to try and limit the total miles residents drive in a month as a means to solve rush hour congestion. Such monthly mile limits would needlessly impact residents who drive when the road is empty late at night and do not contribute to traffic congestion. Yet this is logic being employed when instituting monthly data caps.Monthly data caps are a tool that decreases consumption at all hours of the day.

In fact, the report even points out that Comcast has quietly admitted to the FCC that it's caps have nothing to do with network congestion... even as it has argued in favor of them publicly by using the "congestion" argument. As we've pointed out over and over again, if you talk to the tech people at broadband companies, they admit that the best way to deal with congestion is to simply upgrade capacity, not try to choke off usage. And this report shows that, rather than do that, telcos have been going in the other direction:

The best way to resolve chronic network congestion in the long term is to invest and expand capacity. Yet, a review of the publicly available financial document for some of the largest ISPs in the country shows a decline in capital expenditures—the costs associated with building, upgrading and maintaining a network, such as construction, repairs, and equipment purchases—for their wireline networks.Many ISPs are spending less money on capital expenditures now, both as a ratio to revenue but also even in raw dollars,than they have in years past.

Given all that, it's great to see that Senator Ron Wyden is introducing a new bill to protect consumers against data cap abuse. One of the many issues we've raised with data caps is that users have no idea how much broadband traffic they use, and related to that, broadband providers are notorious for either not providing meters for usage, or providing ones that just don't work very well (or give you some sort of arbitrary number when you check). The new bill, the Data Cap Integrity Act, would do two key things:

1. Require tools be available for users to really measure and manage their broadband usage
2. Have the FCC establish standards for ISPs to make sure that they only use data caps to manage network congestion, rather than as a way to "monetize data in ways that undermine innovation."

The bill literally has a section entitled: "SMART DATA CAPS INSTEAD OF DUMB ONES" which reads:

SMART DATA CAPS INSTEAD OF DUMB ONES.—The Commission shall evaluate a data cap proposed by an Internet service provider to determine whether the data cap functions to reasonably limit network congestion in a manner that does not unnecessarily discourage use of the Internet.

If we had a real competitive market for broadband, of course, this wouldn't matter. I'm still hesitant to support legislation telling companies how they can implement a business model. But, as we've been arguing for many, many years, there isn't real competition in the broadband space for most users, which is what allows broadband providers to get away with crap like using data caps to limit internet usage and increase revenue. Furthermore, given how much the industry has relied on government subsidies and rights of way, it seems only reasonable to think that some level of requirement to actually, you know, not screw over users, might be appropriate.

That said, the bill also has the following tidbit, which almost certainly dooms it from the start:

DISCRIMINATION OF CONTENT.—A covered Internet service provider may not, for purposes of measuring data usage or otherwise, provide preferential treatment of data that is based on the source or the content of the data.

That's going to be interpreted as a backdoor attempt to put in place a net neutrality rule, which is more or less guaranteed to freak out the wing of Congress who insists that net neutrality is an attempt to take over the internet.

It's sometimes cute to see the big broadband providers in denial about what consumers want (and how little they do to provide it). With Google Fiber getting so much attention in Kansas City, Time Warner Cable has been looking rather dated lately. In trying to compete, it's offering cheaper service to families with kids and increasing WiFi hotspots, but that hardly seems compelling compared to the massive speeds at low prices that Google is offering.

However, Time Warner Cable's latest strategy is complete denial: arguing that there isn't really demand for Google Fiber. The evidence? If there was demand, then Time Warner Cable would be offering a service like that already. Logic!

"If there is demand for [1 Gbps] service we will provide it," Time Warner Cable chief operating officer Rob Marcus told attendees of a conference this week while discussing Google Fiber. Speaking at the Broadcast and Cable/Multichannel News OnScreen Summit yesterday, Marcus stated that while the company may eventually have to raise speeds to compete with Google Fiber, so far the company hasn't had to.

Granted at the moment Google Fiber's footprint is minuscule. Marcus claims that Google Fiber's deployment currently only impacts about 100,000 broadband customers, and around 100,000 cable TV customers. The COO also spent plenty of time downplaying the need for 1 Gbps services, and questioning consumer demand for such speeds.

"It will be interesting to find out whether there are applications that will take advantage of a 1 Gbps service," Marcus said. "If there is, we will provide it. Our infrastructure has the ability to provide much faster speeds today. We're prepared to compete head to head with Google."

The thing is, you don't look to provide the faster speeds after the applications are there to take advantage of it. That's getting the equation backwards. And, of course, there are significant questions as to whether or not TWC could even offer such speeds. But showing up well after there are applications and services that use it, means being way late to the party.