TDS Ups Ante in Monticello with Predatory Pricing

Monticello Minnesota, the small community located 40 miles northwest of the Twin Cities, recently returned to the news when its telephone incumbent, TDS, began offering a fast 50/20 Mbps residential broadband connection for $50/month.

Nate Anderson, of Ars Technica, covered both the story and backstory (something he has extensively reported).

But the entire congratulatory press release glosses over a key fact: the reason that Monticello received a fiber network was the town's decision to install a municipal-owned fiber network to every home in town… spawning a set of TDS lawsuits that went all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the town.

I might also note that the press release and much of the coverage also glosses over a one-year contract and early termination fee (though it isn't clear if this is applied in all circumstances). However, Nate nails the story by framing it with the title "Want 50Mbps Internet in your town? Threaten to roll out your own."

We spoke to TDS about the situation last year, and its director of legislative and public relations told us that TDS didn't act earlier because it didn't actually know that people really, really wanted fiber; once the referendum was a success, the company moved quickly to give people what it now knew they wanted.

Of course, TDS did not start rolling fiber after the referendum. They waited. It was only after the City successfully bonded for the project that TDS acted (first by filing a lawsuit to block competition and second by investing in their network to be competitive when the doomed lawsuit would inevitably be dismissed). TDS did not change course because they suddenly realized that people wanted better broadband, they did it because they knew that they would have to invest or perish when confronted with actual competition.

Nate's article looks at other communities that have followed a similar trajectory. This story seems to have inspired another excellent post by Phillip Dampier at Stop the Cap: Municipalities: If You Threaten to Build It Yourself, Your Faster Speeds Will Come.

I take some issue with the title - hollow threats are rarely enough. While the threat of competition may be enough, in some circumstances, to temporarily boost investment from incumbents, only actual competition will ensure that investment continues and rates remain affordable.

Karl Bode picked up on the story which led to some interesting posts in the comment section ... especially toward the bottom when other TDS customers weigh in on their inability to get broadband at any speed. I have to fully agree with this commenter:

This might be one of the few instances when I feel a telecom did the wrong thing by offering FTTH. If TDS actually cared about being providing faster and better service to their customers they would be wiring cities that don't have a FTTH alternative.

After fighting, delaying and losing FTTH all in an attempt to maintain their monopoly, TDS has developed a new strategy. Undercut muni FTTH till it fails. They can subsidize FTTH in monticello with money from the rest of their network. As soon as muni fiber fails they can shut down or raise price of their own fiber network.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Monticello MN population 10,000 (very rural) is such as lucrative market that TDS is a visionary by offering FTTH. That must be why verizon wires only rural cities and sells off urban and suburban ones. [sarcasm noted]

The commenter goes on to note that if people continue signing up with TDS (after overwhelmingly supporting the referendum to build the network), they will suffer from the fallout of not being able to pay off the revenue bonds and TDS will resume its poor practices if competition ceases.

fnm-prices.pngThough TDS grabbed headlines with its bold (read: predatory) 50/20 offering, Monticello Fibernet is no slouch. See prices on right - no contracts, no "introductory" prices, and all connections are symmetrical. Some have asked me how Monticello will respond to the new pricing and speeds from TDS and I do not know the answer.

I think it important to note that Monticello owns the network, but the network is operated by, and services offered by Hiawatha Broadband Communications, not the municipal government. Though HBC (a company out of SE MN with a great reputation for customer support and meeting community needs) is far more responsive that the incumbents, Monticello has different constraints upon it than most community fiber networks where the services are offered by the network owner.

TDS-fiber.pngMeanwhile, this graphic from the comments of Karl Bode's DSL reports story reveals a fundamental truth: Monticello citizens have a unique opportunity. No one outside the community has access to faster speeds or lower prices. They have the deal with same annoying practices where the user very rarely achieves the advertised speeds and price spikes following the "introductory" period. Further, many of the DSL packages require a phone package as well, making prices higher than advertised.

Comments

Wake up and smell the coffee Monticello

Wake up and smell the coffee Monticello! I do not understand the outcry of support for the City’s fiber project against TDS. At face value, the proposition seemed valid. The city told us, we will provide technology you do not currently have access to for 15% less than you are currently paying. Great! That was 2 years ago. Today, the technology is available through both TDS and Charter, and the rates have been reduced dramatically – no doubt due to the mere threat of competition.

Where does that leave the value proposition for the city? Now that the fiber is available (really it always was, but few were willing to pay for it), the only valid component of the city offering is price.

Let’s compare another city offered utility – your water service. In the last 5 years, the cost of city water has tripled! Why? According to city hall, costs have gone up and the city became aware that comparable cities were charging more – so up went the bill. What can you do? The system is in place, and water IS a basic need (just like internet, right?). What happens if you pay the water bill late? A recent Monticello water bill of just over $100 that was paid after the due date incurred a late ‘charge’ of $17. Is there a Vinnie the Icepick or Big Pauly lurking at city hall? The point being, it would be easier to swallow the ‘best interest of the community’ pill if the city had a history of providing other services in that manner. Instead we are taxed ruthlessly and mandated on how our services; and even our property are used.

So what do you think is going to happen after the system is in place and the city realizes it actually costs money to run a competent technology hub? This year, Charter Communications is filing bankruptcy because they can’t pay their bills. They’ve been doing this since 1993, but they’re charging too much, remember? It’s easy to say no contract, no commitment, and no tax impact when you’re not fighting to keep the lights on. Monticello residents saw how quickly and easily the reserves were tapped the first time things didn’t go as planned. (We did get an ‘apology’ for that, so I guess it’s alright).

Then we address the topic of fair competition. The city cries “Monopoly!” (even though TDS, Charter, and Citiscape all provide high speed solutions). How then, does there seem to be a blind eye turned when it comes to our HiWay ‘Robbery’ in town. How much fun is it to cross hwy 25 at 5:00 on Friday to get a bottle of wine? I’m just guessing, but pretty confident there would be some serious city hall opposition to bringing in a liquor store to serve the east side of town. So Monticello monopolies are OK, sometimes.

Where does this leave us? TDS, like any business, exists to make money. Just like any other business, they take every competitive advantage they have. They are not your friend, but it doesn’t make them evil. On the same note, the city is not your friend either. The fiber concept arose because it is an opportunity to make Monticello more competitive and to GENERATE MONEY. The residents have already won. Fiber is available and rates are down. We just need to realize that there is no shining knight in this story. The bottom line is, how would the city react if, based on the current information, any other private business were attempting what they are? Based on historical patterns, do you think the project be supported, ignored, or simple swashed by city hall?

Unfortunately signed anonymously for fear of retaliation by the biggest business in town - the city government.

Some corrections

Thanks for leaving a comment - but I wanted to correct a few misconceptions relating to the network. I know little about the water utility or other issues, so I won't touch those.

Charter does not offer anything close to the services available through the city or now via TDS. The fiber was not available for almost any price (sure if one had a million dollars to spend on it, it was "avaialable," but that seems a silly distinction. Charter going bankrupt has little relevance except to note that relying on those who live outside the community and don't care at all about the community is probably not a wise policy when it comes to essential infrastructure.

Your arguments might carry more weight if you had a better understanding of how the network works. The City does not provide services so it doesn't really matter what the city thinks it costs to offer services - a private company is offering the services under contract from the city.

I do wonder just how long the rates would remain down if the publicly owned network ceased to exist - I'm guessing the rates would go up faster than they could publish the new advertising.

Gulp

By responding, my 'anonymity' gets increasingly thin. Honestly I have tried for 2 years to just stay out of it, however sometimes you just have to stand up and say ‘This is Wrong’.

Granted, the laws of supply and demand certainly apply. Prices are set by what the market will bear. Right now the pricing structure offered in the area is an anomaly (even though the locals already consider it the new normal). The bottom line is that a market the size of Monticello does not justify the infrastructure. Neither TDS nor the city can hope to cash flow this business at the rates offered within a reasonable ROI. TDS has the luxury of being an entity large enough to absorb the hit. The City has the luxury of sticking the taxpayers. Already the lines are disappearing. The city (taxpayers) bought a new building for the project. 75% of the time of our Economic Developer is committed to the project (53K annually). Guess who pays for the postage on the junk mail they regularly send? For the next 15 years or so I will be paying for the cities decision that I needed new streets. Fine - that fits the role of the city; to maintain our roadways. But when I decide Internet no longer fits my budget or lifestyle, I don't want to be stuck with the bill.

I will be the first to admit I don’t understand the ins-&-outs of a bonded project. But as someone trying desperately to scratch out a living in a small business, I wish I could ‘borrow’ a Marketing director that someone else is paying for. I wish when things didn’t go as planned; I had 1.5 million dollars of other people’s money to cover up the mistake.

It will be interesting when they actually light the fire, so there is deliverable that can be evaluated. This issue has obviously been hashed over for some time, and I don’t mean to re-stoke the fire. I will admit it keeps me up at night, because it's our kids that are going to pay for the foolishness.

the mythical Market

Prices are set by what the market will bear ... when you are in a market. Broadband is a natural monopoly (or rather, fast broadband is, not necessarily the cheap DSL the FCC classifies as broadband). Your statement that a market the size of Monticello does not justify the infrastructure could have come straight from 100 years ago when the country was arguing over just big a city had to be to justify the costs of electricity. Just as cities built electrical networks then, cities are building broadband now. Other cities don't have to - they can choose to wait. Some who waited too long for electricity disappeared - but not all of them did. However, the idea that Monticello cannot support that level of service is contradicted by the fact that cities smaller than Monticello - in the U.S. and certainly in peer nations - have equally good broadband networks available.

As for the City having the luxury of "sticking the taxpayers," - this again is what we hear time and time again from those who argue against the City providing what the private sector will not (unless forced to - as in Monticello) despite a considerable lack of examples of cities "sticking the taxpayers" with bills. Instead, we have lots of evidence that these networks save taxpayer dollars - because the city, schools, and core functions no longer have to drastically overpay for poor broadband services. Schools and city departments get faster, more reliable networks, at lower prices.

As for the comment about kids paying for the foolishness - we heard the same arguments for all kinds of infrastructure in the past. Smart government investments at all levels laid the foundation for the economic boom of the 20th century. I have had to pay for that foolishness with a high standard of living. Those who focus on entirely on the cost of taxes rather than looking at the benefits of government-provided infrastructure should spend some time in Africa - I did and the memories make me laugh when I hear people talking about the magical "free market." I've seen "free markets" in the absence of infrastructure and it ain't pretty.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <blockquote> <h1> <h2> <h3> <br> <p> <hr> <strike>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Glossary terms will be automatically marked with links to their descriptions. If there are certain phrases or sections of text that should be excluded from glossary marking and linking, use the special markup, [no-glossary] ... [/no-glossary]. Additionally, these HTML elements will not be scanned: a, abbr, acronym, code, pre.

More information about formatting options