There’s a video of Louis C.K. that’s been floating around the Internet for the past two years called “Everything’s Amazing and Nobody’s Happy.” In an appearance on Late Night with Conan O’Brien, the comedian observed that despite our technological advances, people still like to complain.

I think about this when I hear people complain bitterly that the U.S. is dangerously behind on broadband – there’s not enough broadband available, it’s too slow, it’s too expensive. Nobody can get online!

Of course, we have to ensure that as many Americans as possible have access to the Internet. Read this February post from Kyle McSlarrow or this one from James Assey in March. The cable industry has deployed broadband to 92% of American households. We continue to regularly increase broadband speeds and we’re rolling out wideband service based on the DOCSIS 3.0 standard (now reaching 65+ million homes). We proposed the Adoption Plus program to bring broadband to lower income households.

This is a time when:

• 95% of U.S. households have availability to Internet access with speeds of 4 Mbps or more
• 82% of HHs can choose from two or more wireline platforms
• More than 90% can choose from several 3G mobile options

Internet access is important. We can and should do more to get Americans connected. But are we really so bad off?

I Don’t Think We’ve Surrendered to Sweden.

Last month, we blogged about how high consumer satisfaction is with their current Internet connections, but all you’ll hear is about how slow our connections are.  Surveys show that an increasing number of people are using mobile devices to access the Web, but some wouldn’t count those consumers when measuring “broadband.”

Adam Theirer pointed out last year that the speed of adoption for Internet access is far faster than other technology developments (See this Pew report). With three-quarters of Americans currently using the Internet, adoption hit 50% in a decade, ahead of multichannel video (35 years), wireless phones (20 years), home computers (20 years), telephone and electricity (50+ years). Are we crawling along or well ahead of schedule?

Nokia Siemens Networks’ annual broadband development index, the Connectivity Scorecard, just came out and it showed that the U.S. just lost the #1 slot to Sweden. Sweden is beating us!

Of course, Sweden’s population is 3% of the U.S. population; it’s 4.57% of our land mass; the Swedish government owns 37% of the incumbent telecom provider (TeliaSonora) and the Finnish government owns another 13%, making the incumbent half-owned by the government.  Still, look at how bad we have it.

It’s not like I can buy a little device for a couple hundred dollars that I can carry around in my pocket and access most of the Internet, anytime and anywhere. It’s not like I can watch one of thousands of movies 24 hours day by firing up my Wii to reach the Netflix library or by tuning to my VOD service. It’s not like I can get on an airplane and fly across the country while surfing the Web.

Oh, wait. Yes, I can.

[NOTE: I should probably mention Louis C.K.'s terrific FX show Louie. And check out George Ou's debunking of the Berkman study – a key tool used to "prove" how the U.S. is behind – here and here.]

While the enormous growth and progress of U.S. broadband over the last decade continues to be under-appreciated by some in Washington, real consumers who use the service everyday continue to express their satisfaction with their service.

The latest data comes via a report from Leichtman Research Group, finding that, “71% of US broadband Internet subscribers are very satisfied with their current Internet service at home.”  On top of that, the report says people are even pleased with the speed of their Internet connection.

If this sounds familiar, the FCC’s own broadband study which we covered here a few weeks ago that said 91% of home broadband users report being at least somewhat satisfied with the speed of their service (with 50% saying they are very satisfied).  Also similar to the FCC’s survey, the Leichtman research notes, “77% of broadband subscribers do not know the download speed of their Internet service at home.”

This last data point raises an interesting question – If consumers are satisfied with their broadband service and it performs the functions they want, is it important to know the exact speed of your home broadband service?

The Institute for Policy Innovation recently tackled this question and raised some interesting analogies:

Can most people rattle off the horsepower of their car or their lawnmower? Can most people even tell you what “horsepower” means? (Horsepower is a measurement of work over time. Move 33,000 pounds one foot in a minute and that is one horsepower). What about their furnace? Can they opine on how many BTUs it produces? (BTU stands for British thermal unit. Heat one pound of 60 degree water by one degree at a pressure equal to one atmosphere and you have one BTU).

I am guessing that people are satisfied with their service because it consistently works, it consistently zips along at a pace that accomplishes what the user is trying to do, and it consistently helps them with school, business and entertainment activities.

It is great news that most consumers are satisfied with their Internet service, but cable is continuing to invest so we can offer even faster Internet speeds and a variety of tiers for consumers to choose the service that best meets their needs.

Cable operators have invested more than $160 billion over the last decade in infrastructure upgrades, maintenance and equipment, but more is happening everyday.  And many cable operators are increasing speeds for customers, often without increasing price.

Ultra-fast Internet – or DOCSIS 3.0 as we know it – was deployed to 52 million homes and business around the country, or 43% of cable’s national footprint, by February 2010.  Offering speeds from 50 to 100Mbps, DOCSIS 3.0 is providing cutting edge services for many homes and businesses now, and well into the future.

The reason why we continue to invest in our network and increase the speeds we’re delivering is to ensure this satisfaction continues.

It’s been more than a year now since I first mentioned deployment of wideband Internet access based on the DOCSIS 3.0 standard. With the use of channel bonding, cable operators are able to offer speeds exceeding 100 Mbps downstream.

The first launch was in the Twin Cities market in April of 2008. Since then, it’s been popping up all over America: Baltimore, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle, Portland, Indiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York.

Now, Washington, DC will also be benefiting from more robust bandwidth. In May, Cox deployed its Ultimate Internet service to residential and business customers in Northern Virginia. Today, Comcast announced that its Extreme 50 service will be launched in the DC Metro area. The service is first being offered in the Anacostia neighborhood, with the entire area expected to have wideband by year’s end. Most existing high-speed Internet customers will see their speeds double for no additional cost.

Now that cable is the broadband leader in Our Nation’s Capitol, you can look for continued wideband deployment by operators all over the country. Stay tuned!

Earlier this week, Cablevision announced Optimum Online Ultra, a new high-speed Internet product that uses the DOCSIS 3.0 standard to deliver speeds up to 101 Mbps. This is very exciting news, especially when you connect this announcement to the cable operators who have deployed wideband service over the past year – Comcast, Charter and Cox – and those that are planning to deploy in 2009.

And that might be all there is to say about it, but there was a little twist. Our friends over at Verizon seemed really unhappy about the launch. Was it the 101 Mbps that bothered them or the $99 monthly price? At any rate, take a look at this odd post on the Verizon Policy blog.

Besides arguing against the business model for their own FiOS deployment, you’ll note that one of their key complaints is that Cablevision’s 101 Mbps is a “parlor trick” because “there is little evidence of market demand for the speed.” This echoes a PCMag.com argument (referenced in this blog post) that higher speeds are unnecessary: “…no average consumer is going to pony up almost $100 for home broadband service—regardless of speed.”

Now, I’m a little confused here. I seem to remember all these arguments over the past couple years (sarcasm alert) about how horrible it was that consumers in Europe and Asia had so much more bandwidth, while we Americans had to struggle along with our anemic speeds. And now we’re told, “Bah, who really needs that much bandwidth?”

Secondly, Verizon pulls out the long-disproven accusation that cable broadband service is shared bandwidth and so it’s not real. Well, I hate to break it to the fine folks at Verizon, but all bandwidth is shared at some point, even at FiOS. Yes, cable broadband is engineered differently than FiOS is. Cable started deploying modem service about 15 years ago and the intention was always that customers would share bandwidth off a node, but that nodes could be split as needs increased.

Verizon issues a clarion call against “parlor tricks.” Here’s a neat trick for you: If you’re a FiOS customer, with its “all-fiber” service, take a look at the back of your TV or at your modem. You’ll find a piece of coaxial cable, making it a hybrid fiber-coax system. So, wasn’t “fiber optics right to the door, true QAM” a bit of marketing? Especially in light of the fact that cable has generally built its broadband customer base and high penetrations while offering its best services and fastest speeds to the homes passed by its network, while Verizon focuses attention on FiOS’ fast speeds but still offers copper-based DSL service across most of its footprint.

Add the fact that Verizon says that Cablevision “claims” they deployed the service across their footprint (when a Cablevision spokesman confirmed that the service will be available across their service area on May 11) and you get the idea.

But this is competition in action. When Verizon thought they had the edge, they bragged pretty loudly. Some blogs, such as GigaOM and CrunchGear, noted that Verizon seems to be protesting a little too much this time.

It’s no surprise that cable operators face competition. That’s a good thing. As we wrote in our 2008 Industry Overview:

Competition is the lifeblood of a successful and thriving marketplace, and the cable industry faces stiff competition across all the markets it serves. The consumer is the beneficiary, enjoying more choice, greater convenience and better value than ever before.

Other companies come out with new products and services and we do likewise. But it may be that Verizon is feeling the heat a bit. I’m assuming that’s why they felt the need last week to launch an attack on the cable industry’s new DOCSIS 3.0 specification, which enables wideband Internet access.

Last year, we tracked Comcast’s deployment of DOCSIS 3.0 in a number of markets. Last week, Charter Communications joined in with the launch of its Ultra60 service. Later that same day, on Verizon’s PolicyBlog, came this post: Behind Cable’s DOCSIS 3.0 Broadband Claims. Let’s break down Verizon’s arguments.

Verizon correctly note that DOCSIS 3.0 equipment employs channel bonding to deliver faster speeds (Comcast’s Extreme 50 offers 50 Mbps downstream; Charter’s Ultra60 is 60 Mbps), but also has the potential to deliver hundreds of megabits per second. Verizon leaves out the context that cable has been migrating towards an all-digital environment for years (Here is one typical post explaining the transition). They also assert that channels for use in DOCSIS 3.0 services will come exclusively by moving basic analog tier channels to digital. That is incorrect, since it ignores the use of switched digital video which allows cable operators to reclaim bandwidth in the digital tier.

Citing many analyses – yet linking only to a report prepared by the Fiber to the Home Council (hardly an unbiased source) – Verizon states that higher speeds on cable will decrease the customer experience and will require cable to upgrade.

In fact, the cable hybrid fiber-coax plant offers a great deal of capacity and flexibility in how nodes are combined to provide optimal service levels based on subscriber penetration and demand. But also unstated is the fact that FiOS also multiplexes (or combines the signals) to customers onto a shared trunk — they just do so in a different portion of their network.  In other words, even though the link to customers might be very fast, there is still a choke point where customers have to compete for bandwidth.  Too many customers trying to access the Internet at the same time can have the same effect on a FiOS network as it could on a DOCSIS network. Funnily enough, the blog post makes it sound as if Verizon doesn’t have to employ any network management at all!

Verizon makes a broad assumption regarding cable operator deployment plans for DOCSIS 3.0 services, somehow minimizing the technology because it is just now being deployed, and citing “indicators” that it won’t be deployed to all customers.

I’m not sure what tea leaves were used to make that assertion.

Comcast has been quite public in indicating it had DOCSIS 3.0 services in front of 10 million homes and businesses at the end of 2008 and plans to have it in front of all the homes and businesses it passes with plant capable of delivering 3.0 service in 2010. That’s just one cable operator out of the dozens that now have plant capable of running DOCSIS 3.0 services. Those operators pass more than 90% of residences in the United States. And DOCSIS 3.0 service has been operating quite successfully outside the US for some time now, with deployments in Japan and Singapore.

All of Verizon’s arguments ignore the huge capital expense that Verizon has made and continues to make to ultimately serve a portion (50%) of its footprint; specifically, Verizon is spending $23 billion to reach 13% of US households. In fact, they are still conspicuously avoiding neighborhoods and whole cities, as this Baltimore columnist notes. The rest of Verizon’s footprint will be relegated to DSL service, which is rapidly losing market share.

In contrast, cable’s investment to deploy DOCSIS 3.0 is modest.  And with the channel bonding that DOCSIS 3.0 permits, network speeds of 100 Mbps, 160 Mbps, and even higher will be possible.  In fact, a 750 MHz cable plant (90% of the country’s cable network miles) has a digital equivalent capacity of approximately 5 Gbps of bandwidth.

Bottom line: The cable industry feels good about the services we’re launching these days. Competition has been pretty good for us; take a look at the growth rates for cable’s phone service. I’ve seen Verizon representatives claim the company’s network is built for “decades to come” and is “future-proof.” We believe in continually getting bigger, better, faster. We believe in delivering more value over time.  I think this will be a good fight, and one that consumers will enjoy.