Just a few weeks after announcing $2 rate increases on most tiers of the company’s broadband service, Rogers Communications has announced speed upgrades and tiny increases in usage allowances for certain customers:

• Express: download speeds will increase from up to 12Mbps to up to 18Mbps and data allowance will increase from 60GB to 70GB.
• Extreme: download speeds will increase from up to 24Mbps to up to 28Mbps and data allowance will increase from 100GB to 120GB.

These enhancements apply to customers utilizing Rogers DOCSIS 3.0 capabilities. Rogers will start rolling out the faster speeds to existing Express tier customers currently receiving download speeds of up to 12 Mbps starting January 26^th and will continue over the following weeks. New customers will experience faster speeds beginning February 21^st. All new and existing customers will benefit from higher data allowances starting March 8^th.

Rogers has played repeatedly with their usage allowances, particularly for its Extreme tier, which has seen increases and decreases over the past few years:

Rogers Extreme Tier Usage Cap History

• 2009: 95GB per month
• 2010: Reduced to 80GB per month (-15GB)
• 2011: Increased to 100GB per month (+20GB)
• 2012: Increased to 120GB per month (+20GB)

Rogers’ Express service gets just a 10GB monthly bump, making the speed upgrade less valuable because customers are restrained from using the service.

Rogers says the incremental upgrades are a result of Canadians using the Internet more than ever.

“Rogers customers are increasingly watching movies on Rogers on Demand Online, working from home and using multiple devices like tablets and laptops connected by Wi-Fi to the internet,” said John Boynton, executive vice-president and chief marketing officer at Rogers Communications. “The ways Canadians are using the internet are changing dramatically and we are constantly reviewing our plans and policies to ensure they deliver the best possible customer experience that lines up with evolving needs and usage patterns.”

Apparently those living in western Canada use the Internet even more, because Shaw Communications’ comparable broadband tiers are much more generous:

Shaw Communications Usage Allowances

• High Speed 10Mbps: 125GB per month
• High Speed 20Mbps: 200GB per month
• Broadband 50Mbps: 400GB per month

Katz

A former executive at Bell Canada and Rogers Communications has been named interim chairman of Canada’s telecommunications regulator.

Current Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) vice-chairman Leonard Katz was appointed interim chairman Wednesday, following the departure of Konrad von Finckenstein.

Katz is not expected to hold the position for long.  Political insiders point to Conservative government favorite Tom Pentefountas, who has spent months lobbying for the CRTC top spot.  In July, Pentefountas asked a consumer group, “what is so undemocratic about allowing a few companies to control the Internet?”

Katz is yet another regulator who has spent most of his professional life working for the companies he is now expected to oversee.  Katz held senior posts at both Bell and Rogers, Canada’s largest telecommunications companies, before joining the CRTC in 2005.  He has served as its vice-chairman since 2007.

Katz has crossed swords with the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper on more than one occasion, most recently being embroiled in the controversy over Usage Based Billing.  An initial decision by the CRTC to adopt much of a plan submitted by Bell that would end unlimited flat rate access to the Internet in Canada was reversed by then-Industry Minister Tony Clement.  The government’s decision to overrule the Commission opened the door for ridicule by opposition Liberal and NDP MPs, who questioned the credibility of the CRTC and its authority under Conservative leadership.

Departing chairman Von Finckenstein blamed outdated regulatory policies for much of the controversy at the CRTC.  The government agency has been forced to adopt a largely deregulatory stance towards telecommunications, and has regularly been accused of catering to the interests of some of Canada’s largest telecommunications companies.

In the past several years, the CRTC has overseen a telecommunications marketplace that is rapidly consolidating, especially around companies like Bell, Rogers, and Shaw Communications, which have interests in broadcasting, publishing, entertainment, and telecommunications services.

Pentefountas

Katz could be replaced as early as this fall, and the controversial Conservative Montreal lawyer Tom Pentefountas remains the favorite pick among political watchers in Ottawa.

But Pentefountas has his enemies.  He has been roundly attacked for lacking the necessary experience and credentials to act as a commissioner on the CRTC, much less serve as its chairman, particularly by NDP Heritage Minister Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay).

Pentefountas, Angus claimed, told national media five months after being considered for the post of vice-chairman of the CRTC, “he didn’t know anything about the job.”

One unnamed source told Postmedia News Mr. Pentefountas may not grasp the transformational nature of the Internet and its impact on traditional broadcasting and telecommunications companies.

“He’s occasionally comes out of left field,” the source said.

CBC-TV aired this exchange last February between NDP Heritage Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins/James Bay), Dean Del Mastro, Parl. Secretary for the Minister of Heritage, and Liberal MP Marc Garneau (Westmount/Ville-Marie) regarding Tom Pentefountas, the challenges at the CRTC, and controversy over a new policy that would allow the reporting of “false news.”  (12 minutes)

Heartland Institute: "By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."

In an eyebrow-raising exchange between the Heartland Institute’s Bruce Edward Walker and Dr. Joseph P. Fuhr, Jr., who produced a dollar-a-holler “research report” on behalf of corporate-backed astroturf group the Coalition for the New Economy (which lists the Heartland Institute’s Florida chapter as a member), the two dismiss Chattanooga’s award-winning EPB Fiber Network as providing lesser service than private competitors AT&T (also a member of the Coalition) and Comcast, in part because EPB “only sells customers a gig.”

An exchange between Heartland Institute’s Bruce Edward Walker and Dr. Joseph P. Fuhr, Jr. fundamentally misrepresents Chattanooga’s EPB Fiber network. At no point does Walker disclose Heartland Institute’s chapter in Florida is a member of the group that sponsored the production of Fuhr’s report. (1 minute)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Walker: The government broadband services are always one step behind private industry and I’m thinking in Chattanooga, the law [sic] that they have the fastest download speeds of all government broadband in the United States, but they only offer 1Gbps service.

Fuhr: Well, one of the issues there is, well, the supply is there but they kind of have the feeling that if you build it, they will come.  Well, they haven’t come.  I mean they are charging $350 a month for that service and very few people are willing to subscribe.  People are, for the most part, happy with slower speeds.  Who really needs a gigabyte (sic) and the market shows that people don’t really need that.

Dr. Fuhr apparently does not know the difference between a “gigabyte” and a “gigabit,” so I am not sure how seriously we are supposed to take this “broadband expert.”  He also does nothing to challenge Walker’s wholly-inaccurate declaration that EPB only sells customers $350 1Gbps broadband.

In fact, most of Heartland Institute’s views about EPB broadband are a big bucket of wrong:

1. EPB Fiber offers the fastest fiber broadband in the United States.  It is “private industry” providers Comcast and AT&T who are more than one step behind, and they refuse to sell faster service and upgrade their networks to the speeds seen in Asia and Europe that Chattanooga’s EPB customers can have today.
2. There is no “law” involved in the delivery of broadband by EPB.  In fact, EPB fought off attempts by incumbent operators to sue the municipally-owned provider out of the broadband business, and some of those same companies are backing the “Coalition for the New Economy” in their efforts to curtail community broadband with new laws that would make networks like EPB next to impossible to provide.
3. EPB does not only offer 1Gbps service.  Consumers and businesses are free to choose between several different speed tiers.  As any commercial entity will tell, you 1Gbps at just $350 a month is a steal compared to the prices AT&T and Comcast would charge.
4. When EPB built their fiber network, private businesses did come.  In addition to media reports documenting expansion in Chattanooga from one Knoxville business, Amazon.com has announced hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments building and expanding distribution centers in and around Chattanooga, in part because EPB Fiber was available for their use.
5. People are not happy with the slow speeds some providers force them to accept.  It is no surprise, however, that industry-funded astroturf groups would repeat the usual provider line that people “don’t need” fast broadband that they have no plans to deliver anyway.

Sen. Chip Rogers, a new-found friend of Comcast, AT&T, Charter Cable, Verizon, and the Georgia state cable lobby.

A new bill designed to hamstring local community broadband development with onerous government regulation and requirements has been introduced by a Republican state senator in Georgia, backed by the state’s largest phone and cable companies and the astroturf dollar-a-holler groups they financially support.

Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock), is the chief sponsor of the ironically-named SB 313, the ‘Broadband Investment Equity Act,’ which claims to “provide regulation of competition between public and private providers of communications service.”  The self-professed member of the party of “small government” wrote a bill that creates whole new levels of broadband bureaucracy, and applies it exclusively to community-owned networks, while completely exempting private companies, most of which have recently contributed generously to his campaign.

SB 313 micromanages publicly-owned broadband networks, regulating the prices they can charge, the number of public votes that must be held before such networks can be built, how they can be paid for, where they can serve, and gives private companies the right to stop the construction of such networks if they agree to eventually provide a similar type of service at some point in the future.

Even worse, Rogers’ bill would prohibit community providers from advertising their services, defending themselves against well-financed special interest attacks bought and paid for by existing cable and phone companies, and requires publicly-owned networks to allow their marketing and service strategies to be fully open for inspection by private competitors.

Rogers’ legislation is exceptionally friendly to the state’s incumbent phone and cable companies, and they have returned the favor with a sudden interest in financing Rogers’ 2012 re-election bid.  In the last quarter alone, Georgia’s largest cable and phone companies have sent some big thank-you checks to the senator’s campaign:

• Cable Television Association of Georgia ($500)
• Verizon ($500)
• Charter Communications ($500)
• Comcast ($1,000)
• AT&T ($1,500)

A review of the senator’s earlier campaign contributions showed no interest among large telecommunications companies operating in Georgia.  That all changed, however, when the senator announced he was getting into the community broadband over-regulation business.

It is difficult to see what, besides campaign contributions, prompted Rogers’ sudden interest in community broadband, considering Georgia has not been a hotbed of broadband development.

Rogers claims cities like Tifton, Marietta and Acworth have tried unsuccessfully to be public providers and that the legislation “levels the playing field for public and private broadband providers.”  Hardly, and the senator’s dismissal of earlier efforts fails to share the true story of broadband expansion in those communities.

The new owner of Tifton's CityNet carries on the tradition the city started providing broadband to a woefully underserved part of Georgia.

Tifton: Either the city provides broadband or no one else will

Tifton’s misadventure with the city-owned CityNet, eventually sold to Plant Communications, was hardly all bad news.  When city officials launched CityNet a few years ago, much of the community was bypassed by broadband providers.  Today, the new owner Plant continues competing with bottom-rated Mediacom, which admitted in 2001 it bought an AT&T Broadband cable system that “underserved” the residents of Tifton.  At the same time, the Tifton Gazette, which has loathed CityNet in editorials from its beginnings, freely admits the network brought lower prices and competition to Tifton residents over its history:

At the same time, having CityNet here has meant increased competition and therefore lower service rates for residents. We would probably have had to wait longer for high-speed Internet to make it to Tifton, and the system makes it possible for local governments to receive services here.

That’s a far cry from Rogers’ claim that the “private sector is handling [broadband] exceptionally well.”

“What they don’t need is for a governmental entity to come in and compete with them where these types of services already exist,” Rogers added.

In fact, in Tifton they needed exactly that to force Mediacom to upgrade the outdated cable system they bought from AT&T.

The Curious Case of Marietta FiberNet: When politics kills a golden opportunity

On track to be profitable by 2006, local politics forced an early sale of the community fiber network that was succeeding.

In Marietta, the public broadband “collapse” was one-part political intrigue and two-parts media myth.

Marietta FiberNet was never built as a fiber-to-the-home service for residential customers.  Instead, it was created as an institutional and business-only fiber network, primarily for the benefit of large companies in northern Cobb County and parts of Atlanta.  The Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported on July 29, 2004 that Marietta FiberNet “lost” $24 million and then sold out at a loss to avoid any further losses.  But in fact, the sloppy journalist simply calculated the “loss” by subtracting the construction costs from the sale price, completely ignoring the revenue the network was generating for several years to pay off the costs to build the network.

In reality, Marietta FiberNet had been generating positive earnings every year since 2001 and was fully on track to be in the black by the first quarter of 2006.

So why did Marietta sell the network?  Politics.

Marietta’s then-candidate for mayor, Bill Dunway, did not want the city competing with private telecommunications companies.  If elected, he promised he would sell the fiber network to the highest bidder.

He won and he did, with telecommunications companies underbidding for a network worth considerably more, knowing full well the mayor treated the asset as “must go at any price.”  The ultimate winner, American Fiber Systems, got the whole network for a song.  Contrary to claims from Dunway (and now Rogers) that the network was a “failure,” AFS retained the entire management of the municipal system and continued following the city’s marketing plan.  So much for the meme government doesn’t know how to operate a broadband business.

Acworth: Success forces the city to sell to a private company that later defaults

Acworth CableNet: Too popular for its own good?

But of all the bad examples Rogers uses to sell his telecom special interest legislation, none is more ironic than the case of Acworth, Ga.  The Atlanta suburb suffered for years with the dreadfully-performing MediaOne.  Throughout the 1990s, MediaOne spent as little as possible on its antiquated cable system serving the growing population, many working high-tech day jobs in downtown Atlanta.  MediaOne had no plans to get into the cable broadband business, while other cable systems around metro-Atlanta had already begun receiving the service.  That left Acworth at a serious disadvantage, so local officials issued $6.8 million in tax-exempt bonds to construct Acworth CableNet.  Demand was so great, the city simply couldn’t keep up.

As Multichannel News reported in 2002, “the Atlanta suburb of Acworth, Ga., isn’t selling because business is bad. Rather, officials said they’ve received so many requests for service from outside the city limits that they’ve decided to sell the operation to an independent company that may expand beyond Acworth’s borders.”

That is where the trouble started.  The city contracted with United Telesystems Inc. of Savannah, Ga., a private company, first to lease and then eventually buy the cable system, maintaining and expanding it along the way.  But in 2003, United Telesystems defaulted on its lease-sale agreement, forcing the city to foreclose on the system and ultimately sell it to a second company.

Acworth’s “failure” wasn’t actually the city’s, it was the private company that defaulted on its contract.

So much for Rogers’ record of municipal broadband failure.

The Hidden Problems of Industry-Funded Research Reports

In fact, many of Rogers’ talking points about his new bill come courtesy of the industry-backed astroturf group, the “Coalition for the New Economy.”  With chapters in the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida, this tea-party and AT&T/Time Warner Cable-funded group takes a major interest in slamming community broadband.

Most of their findings come courtesy of a shallow dollar-a-holler study, The Hidden Problems with Government-Owned Networks, by Dr. Joseph P. Fuhr, Jr., professor of economics at Widener University.  The report, mostly an exercise in Google searching for cherry-picked bullet points highlighting what the author sees as weaknesses and failures in community broadband, even slams success stories like EPB Fiber.  The Chattanooga, Tenn., network just earned credit for helping to attract hundreds of millions in new private investment and jobs from Amazon.com, but Fuhr’s conclusion is that EPB operates without any “real business plan concerning EPB’s investment.”

Fuhr and his friends at Heartland Institute even misrepresent EPB as delivering only 1Gbps service at $350 a month in an attempt to illustrate municipalities are out of touch with the private broadband marketplace.

Christopher Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks dismisses the bill as more of the same from a telecommunications industry that wants to tie down community broadband networks in ways that guarantee they will fail:

In short, this bill will make it all but impossible for communities to build networks — even in areas that are presently unserved. The bill purports to exempt some unserved areas, but does so in a cynically evasive way. The only way a community could meet the unserved exemption is if it vowed to only build in the least economical areas — meaning it would have to be significantly subsidized. Serving unserved areas and breaking even financially almost always requires building a network that will also cover some areas already served (because that is where you can find the margins that will cover the losses in higher expense areas).

The bill is presently in the Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities committee.  Stop the Cap! urges Georgia residents to contact state legislators and ask they oppose this special-interest legislation that is designed primarily to protect the broadband status quo and provider profits in Georgia, instead of allowing communities to manage their broadband needs themselves.  After all, they are accountable to the voters, too.

A Hartville, Ohio grandmother is upset after learning she has been paying Time Warner Cable for a box she claims she returned six years earlier.  Now, the 85-year old former subscriber is appealing to the cable company for a refund totaling more than $600, which represents nearly six years of rental fees.  Her son called Time Warner, who at first admitted they had made a mistake, but only offered to credit Florence Nichols $100, not the $600 she spent on a box she claims she never used.

“I just could not believe it was a bargaining thing now,” said Florence’s son Randy. “Whatever happened to the part about where [Time Warner says] we made a mistake [and] we’ll make it right?”

Several weeks later, the cable company reneged on its earlier offer and refused to give Florence any credit at all.  WEWS-TV in Cleveland called Time Warner, who produced an invoice they say shows the cable company installed two boxes in her home, and she was not entitled to any refund.  Nichols claims she never used two boxes and was only billed for one.  The cable company records claim they picked up her “second box” in 2011.

Nichols is done talking with Time Warner, and is now taking her case to the Ohio State Attorney General and the Better Business Bureau.

Nichols wonders how many other customers are paying for phantom cable equipment and for services they don’t actually receive.  Cable customers are advised to scrutinize their bills carefully, paying careful attention to equipment rental charges and service fees.  Time Warner generally includes the first set top box in the price of certain cable television packages.  Extra boxes cost more.  DVR equipment can carry an equipment charge and a separate service charge, which can really add up.

The longer you wait to protest a potential billing error, the more difficult it will be to obtain a full refund, even if the problem was the company’s fault.

WEWS-TV in Cleveland covers the story of an 85-year old grandmother in Hartville, Ohio who is fighting Time Warner Cable for six years of fees charged for a cable box she claims she returned.  (2 minutes)

Obama

In his State of the Union address last night to Congress, President Barack Obama complained that America’s digital infrastructure is inadequate to allow entrepreneurs and small businesses to successfully market their goods and services over the Internet.

“So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges, a power grid that wastes too much energy, an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small-business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”

President Obama also touched on the problem of online piracy and imported counterfeit goods.  Last week, controversy over online piracy legislation including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), brought consumer opposition to both, temporarily shelving the measures.  But the president acknowledged the problem was not going away.

“It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated,” he said. “Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit (TEU) that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders.”

Upton

Republicans fired back at the president over his rural broadband remarks, accusing the administration and the Federal Communications Commission of supporting pre-conditions on forthcoming spectrum auctions.  One House committee chairman tasked with broadband issues said the FCC was supporting policies that could reduce auction proceeds by reserving certain frequencies for up-and-coming wireless competitors or restrict how much spectrum a current market leader like AT&T or Verizon Wireless could acquire.

“The President said we have an incomplete high-speed broadband network, but his Federal Communications Commission is protecting its turf instead of joining us to free up airwaves to build the next generation communications networks,” said House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has had little regard for the House Republican-backed proposal that could potentially tie the FCC’s hands to set rules for spectrum auctions.  House Republicans also oppose setting aside certain spectrum for free, unlicensed high-power Wi-Fi use, preferring to auction as much spectrum as possible.

Earlier this month, Upton blasted the FCC chairman for opposing a “winner take all” auction approach:

“Bluster aside, it sounds like we have a federal agency more concerned about preserving its own power than offering serious improvements as we prepare to finalize this legislation. We worked with the FCC’s auction experts to give the agency the legitimate flexibility it needs to design the mechanics of the auction. It’s time to stop the FCC from engaging in political mischief that will hurt competition and steal money from the taxpayer’s coffers. Don’t take our word for it – look at the 2008 auction. The FCC imposed conditions on the C and D blocks that ultimately prevented the D-block from selling and pushed smaller carriers out of the auction. Taxpayers lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 billion, and spectrum remains sidelined. And speaking of protecting taxpayers, it’s time for the FCC and others to be honest about how taxpayers would be affected by their plans to give away valuable spectrum to favored constituencies. Our goal is to strike the right balance by keeping plenty of opportunity for unlicensed use without forcing taxpayers to forfeit any return on a resource that everyone agrees is worth billions.”

A Virginia television station is warning customers planning to switch their wireless service to AT&T to think twice.  The company recently announced it was increasing prices on data plans for new customers, although existing ones can keep their current plans.  Virginians considering leaving Sprint, Verizon Wireless, or T-Mobile will find themselves locked into the new, higher prices if they move to AT&T, WTKR in Norfolk reports.  The “grandfathered” service plan, exempted from price hikes and service restrictions, is increasingly becoming a customer retention tool.  (1 minute)

Courtesy: WCVB Boston

Correction: In an effort to concatenate two stories regarding Springfield, we erred in reporting about Springfield’s move to sell its municipal cable operation to Knology.  That story referred to Springfield, Fla., not Springfield, Mass.  We appreciate one of our readers bringing this to our attention, and we regret the error. –PMD

Comcast customers in Massachusetts are hopping mad over the latest round of rate increases from the state’s largest cable operator — the second in 10 months in some areas.  Higher cable bills for customers will start arriving by early spring.

City officials in Boston expect eastern Massachusetts customers will face up to 2.9% more for basic service this spring.  In western Massachusetts, Springfield city officials finally resolved a prolonged legal battle with the cable operator and granted the company a 10-year franchise renewal that preserves senior discounts for existing customers.

Boston mayor Thomas M. Menino said an examination of Comcast’s cable rates over the past few years proves deregulation “has failed” consumers across greater Boston.  Menino says basic cable rates have increased by 80 percent in the three years since the city’s rate control agreement expired.

Menino wants restored authority to regulate cable rates, and has asked the FCC for permission to bring back the city’s oversight powers.

WCVB in Boston talks with city mayor Tom Menino about the latest round of rate increases for Comcast customers.  Some Boston locals are responding by dumping cable television altogether.  (2 minutes)

Comcast basic service will rise another 4.9 percent this spring, bringing the mostly local-broadcast-channel cable service to $16.58 a month.

The only other major cable provider in Boston, RCN, which serves mostly apartment buildings and other multi-dwelling units, is not planning to increase its prices on the lowest price tier. However, RCN already charges more than Comcast — $17.50 — for comparable service.  Other RCN customers face general rate increases this spring.

Verizon says it has no plans to increase prices in Boston either.  That statement was deemed ironic by some, considering the fact the phone company has never provided FiOS fiber-to-the-home cable service inside the city of Boston.

All affected providers blame increasing programming costs for the rate hikes.

WGGB in Springfield led a recent evening newscast with news Comcast and competing satellite providers are increasing rates in western Massachusetts, with local residents increasingly questioning the value of their cable-TV services.  (2 minutes)

Getting Internet service in rural America can involve a whole lot more than calling the local phone company to check if DSL service is available.  When it is not, satellite broadband is often the only realistic choice to access the Internet.  Unfortunately, navigating through the options, terms and conditions, and restrictions requires the help of a lawyer or rocket scientist.

Kevin Hanssen, a dairy farmer in rural Wisconsin is just one of a dozen Stop the Cap! readers who access us over a satellite Internet connection.  He, along with others, have been writing requesting assistance navigating an increasingly confusing amount of detail about recent upgrades taking place at the parent company of his provider — WildBlue, a service of ViaSat.

As Stop the Cap! recently reported, ViaSat is placing a new satellite into service that will bring improved service for certain customers.  Long time customers like Hanssen have waited more than two years for company-promised upgrades that would bring better speeds and more generous usage policies. Currently, Hanssen faces a tiny usage allowance and “broadband” speeds of well under 1Mbps, especially in the evening.

“As a long term customer, I have lived under a plan that gives me 7.5GB in downloads and 2.3GB in uploads, but my experience with WildBlue may be very different than other customers, because the company has so many legacy and special plans that apply to different customers, so it is very hard to say ‘this is WildBlue’s policy’ because it can vary so much,” Hanssen tells us.

Indeed, over WildBlue’s history, ViaSat has changed its access policies several times, sometimes raising, but often lowering usage allowances accompanied by rate adjustments.  Since 2005, WildBlue customers who originally faced a simple 30-day consumption limit that reset after each billing cycle now face a combination of a usage allowance under the company’s “Fair Access/Data Allowance Policy (FAP),” and an even more confusing rolling speed throttle called the “Quota Management Threshold (QMT).”  Exceeding a monthly usage allowance guarantees broadband speeds of dial-up or less.  Speeds are also curtailed temporarily for customers who run browsing sessions that consume as little as 30MB over a 30 minute period.

WildBlue's Quota Management Threshold starts reducing your speeds after a heavy browsing session.

With the help of Cisco, which created the throttled bandwidth technology, WildBlue’s combined FAP and QMT systems make it impossible for a customer punished just once by speed throttles to completely clear their record as a ‘known bandwidth abuser’ unless they avoid using any bandwidth for a month.  For most customers unequipped to fully grasp the highly technical explanations of both policies, customer service representatives boil it down to something easier to understand: the less service you use, the better the chance you will not face a speed throttle rendering your connection practically unusable.

WildBlue's confusing throttle.

With strict limits in place, WildBlue not surprisingly scores among the lowest of all Internet Service Providers for customer satisfaction, and its nearest competitor Hughes does no better.

“As you have written before, satellite really is ‘take it or leave it broadband’ — heavily rationed, confusing, and very expensive,” Hanssen says.

For Hanssen and other Stop the Cap! readers who rely on satellite Internet, the promise of new capacity and faster speeds were supposed to turn “satellite as a last resort” into something more comparable to 4G wireless in America’s most rural areas.  But as our readers share, there is a big chasm between marketing hype and reality for customers on the ground.

Confusing Brands & Pricing

ViaSat has not been content to offer customers a single brand of satellite broadband service.  In addition to WildBlue itself, ViaSat markets plans under the American Recovery Act (the broadband stimulus program), co-branded service from DirecTV, DISH, AT&T and the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC), and forthcoming service on its newest satellite, ViaSat 1, which the company is marketing as “Exede” Internet. Customers west of the Mississippi who qualify for the American Recovery Act program get free installation and more generous usage allowances of up to 60GB per month.

“For two years, WildBlue has told us better usage allowances and faster service was coming with the new upgraded satellite, which we assumed would service all existing WildBlue customers,” Hanssen shares. “Now it turns out they are leaving existing WildBlue customers behind on the old satellite and creating a brand new service to sell new customers on the new satellite.”

Indeed, for marketing purposes, WildBlue and Exede are two different entities, and WildBlue customers looking for faster speeds from Exede will need to pony up at least $150 for new equipment, sign a new contract, and switch to a new Fair Access Policy that actually delivers many customers a lower usage allowance than their existing service from WildBlue offers.

“It’s total bait and switch, promising us faster service and then reducing the usage allowance that goes with it and adding around an $8/GB over-usage fee on Exede,” Hanssen says.

For customers served by the new ViaSat 1 satellite, Exede sells service based on usage, not speed.  The advertised speed (not independently verified) is 12/3Mbps, which will cost $49.99 for up to 7.5GB per month, $79.99 for 15GB per month, or $129.99 for 25GB per month.

“Highway robbery I call it, because some of those caps are lower than on WildBlue so you are paying for better speed you won’t be able to use unless you agree to pay a lot more for a bigger allowance,” Hanssen says.

New Customers Get Priority Over Old Ones?

Customers eager to switch to the new, faster satellite broadband service report they are encountering roadblocks from ViaSat and their large independent dealer network responsible for sales and service of the satellite reception equipment.  An often-heard accusation is that current customers are taking a back seat to new customers already invited to sign up.

That is a charge ViaSat, through its support forum, has strongly denied.

“We’re not giving preferential treatment to new vs. existing customers,” says WildBlue Forum Administrator Steve. “The dates we’ve quoted to existing customers who call in are approximately April/May, but yes, it could be sooner. It all depends on the number and availability of certified installer technicians in a given area. If someone absolutely wanted it now, we’ll try our best to accommodate that along with the big flood of new orders we’re receiving.”

Steve explains the delays to upgrade existing customers are occurring because new customer installations are currently “through the roof.”

An independent dealer offers new customers a better deal.

But Stop the Cap! has also learned from an independent WildBlue dealer that ViaSat is offering a bonus for dealers who sign new customers, an incentive not paid to upgrade existing ones.  Some new customer promotions also offer free installation and deep discounts until the end of 2012 for 15GB ($49.99) and 25GB ($79.99) service on the new ViaSat 1.  Existing customers do not get the discount pricing and have to pay a $150 installation fee for new equipment required for the new satellite.  Customers within a 2-year initial contract term pay even more: $250.

Customers Revolt

The government-sponsored Broadband Initiative program required WildBlue to provide a more generous usage allowance in return for broadband stimulus money.

Customers learning about the new pricing are unhappy.

Bill Cameron feels let down as a loyal customer by ViaSat’s pricing:

This new Excede 12 plan is an absolute joke. 12Mbps is awesome but the top plan limits you to a up/down total of 25GB and its $129.99 +$9.99 lease fee. So what good is 12Mbps if you really cant use it? Forget Netflix, Hulu or any Video on Demand. I have DirecTV and was hoping to be able to do some streaming but there is no way. If I want to stay at the same $80/mo price point I will loose 7GB of monthly cap since the mid tier plan is 15GB combined up and down. I don’t know what WildBlue is thinking here. Come on, $140/mo in the middle of a recession? Plus there is a $149 setup fee and even customers who have been with them for 7 years, like me, has to pay it. My loyalty is not rewarded one bit. A brand new customer pays the same amount.

A Broadband Reports reader sums up his views about WildBlue’s broken promises:

[...] We have been living with low caps on Wildblue for years, then for several years they -promise- an upgrade that will change everything. Then they up the speed to something most people don’t need, and REDUCE the amount of data available by a LARGE amount, increasing the price as well significantly. It was not what we were lead to believe. This was supposed to be an upgrade, but the speed is useless without quantity, that point has been made over and over.

And it doesn’t take someone sitting all day to go over the caps. It can take a little over an hour every day for one person to go over on the current 512Kbps plan, imagine with more speed how easy the person can go over with about 23% less data available.

Bottom line, it was not an upgrade, period, for many of us. Every neighbor I know is thinking the same thing, some currently drive 30 miles one way to get to a free hotspot to have enough bandwidth for online classes. The offered new plans are not enough for what they do either. Is anyone that understands the limits of satellite asking for anything unreasonable, NO. We were expecting an increase of some sort, any kind, not further insane restrictions after years of being restricted. A downgrade and overcharging is not an upgrade no matter how they try to spin it to us. If so few use what’s available as they say anyway, what would have been the harm of doubling the current caps. PERFECTLY REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS.

Kevin Hanssen wishes he had better options:

At this point, just about anything would be better than WildBlue.  Since AT&T shows no interest in bringing me DSL service, it’s probably going to be wireless broadband or nothing.  We have spotty cell coverage in this part of Wisconsin, but should a provider do something about that, we would still be facing tiny usage allowances in the 2-10GB range.

This is why universal service policies should extend to broadband service, to make certain rural America has reasonable access at reasonable prices.

There is nothing reasonable about satellite or wireless Internet at these speeds, allowances, and prices.  WildBlue wants new customers at all costs, even if they walk over their loyal customers to sign them up. But why shouldn’t they? Their only effective competition is Hughes, and they are actually worse!

Research in Motion headquarters in Ontario

The two co-executives of Waterloo, Ont.-based Research in Motion, maker of the formerly-popular BlackBerry, quietly resigned this weekend, turning over leadership of the faltering company to a new chief executive who suggested little needed to change at what used to be Canada’s most valuable company.

Thorsten Heins will replace co-CEOs Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis effective immediately in what analysts are calling a last-ditch effort to rescue a company that has lost at least 88 percent of its peak value and has a share in the cell phone market now below 10 percent.

Heins’ initial comments, intended to calm investors about the company’s precarious position, have instead caused share prices to tumble further out of fear the new CEO remains in denial about the serious state of RIM’s future.

Heins told reporters that no “drastic change” was needed at the company, even though consumers are increasingly abandoning BlackBerry products in favor of Android or Apple iPhone smartphones.  RIM’s tablet, the PlayBook, never got far off the ground and is now regularly being cleared off store shelves at deeply discounted prices.

“If Thorsten really believes that there are no changes to be made, he will be gone within 15 to 18 months. He will be a transitional CEO and this will be a transitional board,” Jaguar CEO Vic Alboini, who leads an informal group of 16 RIM shareholders calling for a radical restructuring told Reuters.

Heins

Corporate users who formerly appreciated the BlackBerry’s secure platform and business-oriented apps are increasingly allowing employees to adopt competing phones because of recent BlackBerry service outages, fewer BlackBerry-compatible apps, and what some have called “endless” software upgrade delays.

Some analysts have dismissed RIM’s former leadership structure for months as “rudderless,” existing in an environment where cut-throat competition between Google’s Android operating system and Apple’s wildly popular iPhone and iPad are reducing BlackBerry’s place in the North American market to an afterthought.

“RIM had its era, but now it seems very hard to gain back market share in the smartphone market even if the top managers are changed,” Mitsushige Akino of Tokyo-based Ichiyoshi Investment Management told Bloomberg News. “The iPhone and Android are well established in the market.”

RIM acknowledged its market share in North America, particularly among younger consumers, has faltered in recent years, but noted BlackBerry products remain popular in certain European, African, and Middle Eastern countries, with growth also seen in Latin America and parts of Asia.

But perceptions of a company past its prime continued last year with the introduction of RIM’s PlayBook tablet, which was criticized for bringing nothing innovative or new to the tablet marketplace.  Even worse, RIM took a drubbing for releasing the tablet without any e-mail application, an ironic lapse for a company that touted it was “the first to reliably deliver e-mail over airwaves” in the 1990s with its BlackBerry devices.

The BlackBerry Playbook

Several serious service outages, some lasting for days, also had a major impact.  RIM’s next major software overhaul, dubbed BB10, has been long-delayed and will not be released until the latter half of 2012 — perhaps too late for the company to regain its footing.

Still, Heins suggests he is prepared to rejuvenate the company’s products with updates to the PlayBook and a new generation of BlackBerry devices.  The company’s better market share overseas may buy some additional time, but analysts warn RIM will fail to attract much attention in the U.S. or Canada if its products do not deliver something better than current generation Android and Apple phones and tablets.

As consumers invest in a growing number of platform-specific apps, a switch to a competing device becomes correspondingly more difficult.  Corporate users also will not tolerate many more major service outages, especially those that extend for days, not minutes or hours.

“There is yet another ace up RIM’s sleeve — the rate plans of North American wireless companies,” said one optimistic RIM shareholder. “BlackBerry devices are not known for consuming a lot of data, so RIM could market their devices to budget-minded consumers that might not be able afford the latest iPhone or Android phone and a high volume data plan to accompany it.”

Canada’s news networks treat coverage of Research in Motion on about the same level American news media treats Apple, Google or Microsoft.  RIM remains an important contributor to Canada’s economy, so this weekend’s developments got considerable attention from the media.  CTV National News led with the ouster of the two founding co-CEOs of Research in Motion. Here is how CTV viewers saw the news unfold.  (3 minutes)

RIM Resets: CBC introduces its coverage with a round-up of this weekend’s developments, noting a management shakeup could have profound implications on the Ontario company.  (4 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Now Interview with Heins 1-23-12.flv

 CBC’s News Now talks with Research in Motion’s new CEO Thorsten Heins about his plans for a revamped BlackBerry and the long-term future for the company.  (8 minutes)