Bell's Usage Allowance and Speed Chart (click to enlarge)

Broadband Providers: How Low Can They Go?

When a broadband provider insists on the need to implement Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers to control costs and “manage their network,” it’s a safe bet they’ll also manage to find a way to increase your bill.  Bell, one of Canada’s largest Internet service providers, has reduced usage allowances on some of their popular Internet service plans, in some cases substantially.

Usage Allowances

Essential Plus:  2GB usage allowance (was 20GB)
Performance: 25GB usage allowance (was 60GB) (Bell’s most popular plan) 

Customers can now purchase ”Usage Insurance” policies from Bell for “peace of mind” in case they go over plan limits starting at $5/month, which provide additional allowances.

Bell claims the reduction in usage allowances comes with reduced pricing for broadband service, but many customers who forget to purchase “insurance” could be subjected to overlimit penalties of $2-2.50/GB, with a maximum penalty of $30 per month.

Bell customers looking for a place to complain have one less place to do so: Bell pulled the plug Friday on their support forum, popular with thousands of Bell customers looking for support or to share their feelings about Bell service.  The company has remained silent on the reasons for doing so.  No warning or advance notice was given.

Late last week, Rogers Cable announced the launch of an “Ultimate” tier broadband service for residents in greater Toronto, offering speeds of 50Mbps for $149.99 a month.  This morning, new details on a second tier of service, an adjustment to the usage allowances  for both tiers, and more.

New this morning:

• A second tier of service for greater Toronto residents has been announced.  “Extreme Plus” will offer 25Mbps/1Mbps service for $99 a month, with a 125GB monthly allowance.  A digital cable TV subscription is mandatory.
• Some corrected information about the “Ultimate” tier.  Despite what Rogers told one of our readers, this tier will offer 50Mbps/2Mbps service for $149.00 a month, with a 175GB monthly allowance (up from 150GB).
• The purchase of the Rogers Wireless N router for $200 is mandatory for all customers choosing the “Extreme Plus” or “Ultimate” tier.
• The overlimit penalty fee has not yet been established.  Rogers typically charges a maximum of $25 in penalties for exceeding usage allowances. As one reader put it: “What this means is that – IN REALITY – you are paying $124.00/month for an unlimited account at 25Mbps, or $199.00/month for an unlimited account at 50Mbps.”

Although many customers were excited by the initial news of higher speed service, the reality that the usage allowances are only incrementally higher, for a considerably higher priced level of service, reduced enthusiasm considerably.  Customers have also been underwhelmed by the upload speed, and by the news they will be required to purchase a router from Rogers for $200 just to obtain the service.

Rollout date for both services in sections of Toronto in August 17th, with other areas being added in mid-September.  We’ve obtained some preliminary specific dates for service based on Toronto metropolitan area postal codes:

August 17 is the date for implementation in the follow postal codes:

Toronto
M5X
M5J
M5W
M5C
M5G
M5B
M4Y
M5R
M4W (western section)
M4V
M4T
M4S
M5P
M4P
M4R
M4N
M5M
M2P
M2N
M2R
M2M

Markham
L3T

Vaughan
L4J

Richmond Hill
L4B
L4C
L4E

Newmarket
L3X
L3Y

Bradford / East & West Gwillimbury
L9N

September 18th is the targeted date for Phase Two of the rollout in these areas:

Aurora
L4G

All other areas surrounding Toronto (Pickering, Ajax, Brampton, Mississauga, etc.) upgrade is expected on September 18th + in these random postal codes:

L6E
L5W
L4T
L3Z
M5A
M4X
M1J
M1H

Thanks to Digital Home and a Rogers employee who remains anonymous for specific details.

Here comes the Astroturf

Deborah Taylor Tate, a Bush-appointed ex-commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission is now earning her paycheck regurgitating telecommunications industry talking points of behalf of the astroturf group, the Free State Foundation.

In an editorial in today’s Washington Times (thanks to reader Mitchell for alerting us about it), Tate perfectly falls in line with the talking points Stop the Cap! readers can repeat in their sleep, right down to ripping off AT&T’s “grandmother” analogy from several weeks ago.  Her employer, the Free State Foundation, has a long history of advocating pro-industry positions in opposition to consumer interests.  Having a former credentialed FCC official doing the industry talk is designed to impress.

Tate, who was never impressive as an FCC commissioner and maintains her ongoing unimpressive credentials at FSF, phones it in with a fact-free piece entitled, “Paying for Use is Fair,” in which she directly advocates for Internet Overcharging schemes, attempting to convince readers it will somehow save them money on their broadband service.

Her efforts to tell the story of “paying for what you use” will be comical to those in the communities where such “experiments” were conducted, because Tate either doesn’t know or care about the details of the market experiments she writes about.

Most broadband consumers would be astounded that some members of Congress want to block our ability to pay for broadband Internet use in precisely the same way we now pay for other commodities: Pay more if you use more; pay less if you use less.

Most consumers would be astounded an ex-FCC commissioner got the basic facts wrong about the basis of such pricing schemes.  No broadband provider has ever offered a “pay for what you use” pricing scheme.  They have only offered “pay MORE for what you use, and a lot more if you use more than you thought.”

This comes on the heels of Time Warner’s rapid retreat from a pilot test of pay-for-use broadband pricing, bowing to congressional pressure and protests from consumer groups. Studies have indicated the top 25 percent of users have consumed 100 times more bandwidth than the bottom 25 percent. So, what is fair about one-price-fits-all if someone uses 100 times more than you do?

At least Tate barely acknowledges another basic truth about these pricing schemes: the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want this kind of pricing model, and more than half would leave their existing provider if they tried to force them into one.

The “studies” Tate writes about do not exist.  They are claims by the providers themselves, which have never allowed for an independent review of the raw data the companies claim to base their findings on.  Nor does it account for the industry’s “need” to increase every consumer’s broadband bill with overcharging schemes based on limited consumption allowances and credit card-like overlimit penalties and fees.  Indeed, this is an industry with profits well into the billions of dollars whose costs are actually declining, along with their willingness to invest in growing their networks.  One need only review quarterly and annual financial reports issued by the providers’ themselves to learn the truth.  These companies are not hurting for profits.

Even where monopolies exist, pricing has generally been based on the notion that customers are charged more if they consume more and less if they use less. Obviously, beyond basic necessity, they could exercise some self-control, and could even save money through metering that measured consumption. This is especially true in an environment where consumers have options for providers of broadband, cell phones and now, in many cases, electricity.

Broadband pricing has been flat rate since the service was launched by phone companies providing DSL and cable operators launched cable modem service in most areas of this country.  That’s because broadband has been cheap, capacity plentiful, and profits high.  Absolutely nothing has changed in that equation, except a desire by broadband providers to dramatically grab additional profits, reduce demand with threats of overlimit fees or service being cut off for overuse, and attempts to invest less in their networks.  Controlling online video is critical for most of the providers who find that a competitive threat to their television service business model.

Tate doesn’t bother to contemplate increased competition, seeming happy enough to acknowledge monopolies do exist and then moving on to something else.  That mimics the FCC’s position over the past eight years, so that comes as no surprise either.

Whether run by local co-ops, governments or profit-making firms, any network has substantial capital costs to build out infrastructure, provide service, expand capacity and meet higher demand, particularly at peak periods. The same network cost issues also apply to Internet service providers. Expanding bandwidth and capacity for the exponential growth of Internet traffic is expensive. Updating security applications to prevent cybercrime are increasingly necessary for government, business and individuals, driving up costs even further. The supply of fiber optic cable and computer servers is not infinite, and we are already facing network constraints. We have all experienced the network being slowed by periods of heavy usage. Broadband providers — just like wireless providers — should be allowed to use a consumption model without government interference as long as consumers know and understand what they are paying for.

To date, there has been a surprising uniformity in billing for broadband Internet service. But why should a grandmother who checks e-mail once a day or makes an occasional purchase online be charged the same monthly rate as a researcher downloading massive data files or teenagers watching full-length movies every day? Why not provide consumers the freedom to monitor and control their own use — and to benefit from volume-based rate packages?

AT&T should consider legal action against Tate for plagiarizing their talking points.  In fact, her entire argument is part of the grand Re-education campaign we’ve written about since Time Warner Cable temporarily shelved their overcharging scheme back in April.  The “exaflood” nonsense, the “it’s expensive to spend money to upgrade our networks” whining, and the hissyfit over consumers using their service just as these same providers marketed them are all in there.

Deborah Taylor Tate: The Marie Antoinette of Internet Pricing

At least Tate is consistent — she never cared about consumers like you and I during her stay on the FCC, and she still doesn’t care about consumers by doing the bidding of groups like the Free State Foundation.

What do Washington Times readers think?  Not much of Tate or her positions.  Among them:

“Wow, did you just pull a page out of the telecom’s lobbyist manual to come up with this article?  They are doing this to prevent new technologies from making them an antiquated model, and they are doing it to get more money out of the customer. I promise it has nothing and I mean nothing to do with saving your grandma a single cent.”

“Are you being paid by the cable co? Seriously. Do you even realize with the utter lack of competition and the fact that the cable company enjoys a monopoly in most all of their markets, pricing for use is utterly bad for consumers.”

“Bill is right, you’re just reading talking points at this point, and not looking at the actual economics or technology behind it.”

“Deborah, Please take a moment to think for yourself instead of shilling for an industry. Metered billing has nothing to do with customer choice, please don’t pretend that it does. This is about making more money off of existing usage, while avoiding upgrading of networks and services.”

“So for instance, using the same logic and same company, when I call for traditional phone service, they are quick to sell me an “Unlimited” minute plan for $40.00/month.”

“Metered usage is nothing more than a money grab by the content providers. Their current business model is being threaten by media content being available via streaming services.”

In the end, consumers like you and I pay part of our monthly broadband bill to providers that are cutting checks to astroturf groups to advocate against consumer interests.  Imagine if they spent some of that money on their network upgrades, and a little less funneled to inside-the-beltway hackery written by underwhelming ex-officials-turned-insider-special-interests.

Rogers Ultimate Speed Comes At The Ultimate Price of $150/month, Reportedly Capped At 150GB Of Usage

Rogers Cable today announced it was preparing to launch a DOCSIS 3-based upgrade to its cable modem service in parts of metropolitan Toronto this summer with a promotional router giveaway and the unveiling of a 50Mbps “Ultimate” Tier for $149.99 a month.

The first 50 customers who sign up for the company’s First 50 to 50 promotion will receive a wireless “N” router and be the first to get the Ultimate tier when it launches.

Unfortunately, company officials have confirmed there will be a usage cap on the service (all Rogers Cable broadband services are capped), but they have not officially announced the cap limit yet.  One of our Ontario readers contacted Rogers customer service and was told the cap was 150GB per month, which killed his interest in the service immediately.

“That’s $1 a gigabyte, which is completely ridiculous,” Jim Jensen wrote to us this afternoon.  “I currently subscribe to their 10Mbps service which has a ludicrous 95GB cap, and that costs me $50 a month,” he said.

“You’d think this greedy company would at least cough up three times my current cap for three times what they charge me now, but apparently not,” he said.

Jensen told Rogers he’s taking a pass.

“It’s bad enough I am stuck in a country that is in a race to offer us lower caps and throttled speeds for higher prices, but there is no darned way I am giving Rogers $150 a month for 50Mbps which could put me past the cap after two hours of usage a month,” Jensen said.

“What are these people smoking?” he added.

The Rogers representative did not not know what upload speed was provided with the Ultimate tier.

Nearly a third of all UK customers are losing money by not bundling their web access with their home phone or TV packages, says Broadband Choices.

According to the broadband comparison Web site, opting for a bundle could save web users up to £230 per year. The research also revealed that 12 per cent of web users don’t believe bundles offer savings, while 29 per cent are unsure whether a bundle is cost-effective or not.

“The price of bundled packages has been steadily driven downwards as the major providers battle it out for market share and households subscribing separately for their three services could save £230 or more per year through taking out a bundled package,” said Michael Phillips, product director, BroadbandChoices.co.uk.

Broadband Choices also said that over half of those with a bundle had not shopped around for a better deal in the last four year.

“We would encourage these consumers to get online and compare providers to see what bundled packages are available to them – they will almost certainly find they can enjoy superior services for much less than they are currently paying, with the added benefit of only having one monthly bill to keep track of.”

Besides the fact Broadband Choices stands to earn plenty from consumers who do take Phillips’ advice and sign up for new packages on his website, neither he nor the MacWorld UK piece addressed why UK consumers were reluctant to bring all of their telecommunications business to one provider.

For that, one has to scroll down to the bottom of the MacWorld UK piece where reader comments tell the story:

“Heaven forbid Quality of Service being an issue. Why pay less for rubbish customer service when it goes wrong, if you can get through, on a [toll-charge customer support] 0845/0870 line? Seriously, there’s something to be said for paying a quid or two more for just better service and better reliability.”

“None of these providers/companies are in it for the customer’s benefit, they’re in it for profit. Customer service can be atrocious, especially if a problem turns out to be slightly more than requiring a routine solution. And with their 0845 type numbers it rapidly becomes costly trying to sort out something that is their responsibility (yet we pay for simply trying to tell them). By keeping services separate at least when one goes wrong/has a problem the others aren’t affected.”

“Sky are putting every one up from 8Mb to 10Mb for free! And then also capping them at 10Gb instead of 40Gb with less than a months notice to get out of your contract for free. This is only one reason why a 3rd of the country would rather pay more for good service and support.”

“Agree with what everyone just said.. Plus, they’ll ask you to sign up to a minimum contract, usually 12 months. If you’re already past your minimum term on an existing contract it’s a risk you may not want to take – tying yourself into worse service for a fixed term?”

“As all the other posters have noted, ALL the companies doing bundled phone, broadband and TV are terrible ISPs with crippling usage caps and horrible customer support. I’m amazed only a third of customers are avoiding them.”

Phillip Dampier

I have been following the Canadian hearings on Net Neutrality and Canada’s widespread use of bandwidth throttles and usage limits on broadband access.  It has been an issue confronting customers of the largest telephone and cable providers across Canada for at least a year.  Now that these practices have spread to wholesale accounts, which directly impact independent Internet Service Providers, it has created a major hullabaloo across the country.

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has decided to address these two issues together during the week-long hearings.

Unfortunately for Canadians, there is considerable division about how to manage Internet traffic, based on a premise from the largest providers that they do not have the capacity to provide everything to everybody.  Of course, getting providers to cough up raw data and allowing an independent group to verify it is like trying to feed your dog a head of lettuce.  You always have a fight on your hands.

Everyone attending has an agenda, and more than a few are willing to throw each other under the bus if it means getting what they want.  Some pro-content groups who also claim to be pro-consumer, but receive money from private businesses want no bandwidth throttles and suggest usage based pricing is the better option.  Some wholesale ISPs would prefer to put up with peer-to-peer usage throttling and “equal” throttling of other Internet applications if it means no usage based pricing for their wholesale accounts.

Consumers don’t want either one, and cannot understand why an industry raking in such enormous profits can’t simply make the investments required to rake in even more profits, especially if they create their own new products and services to take advantage of the broadband marketplace they are helping to create.

Canada’s largest providers have enjoyed the fight, and have managed to take advantage of the divisions created by groups willing to sacrifice each others’ interests for their own sake: they imposed BOTH usage based pricing and bandwidth throttles.  Oh, and raised your broadband bill by at least 10% for good measure.

This comes as a result of the myopic “only my interests matter” agendas some of these groups bring to the hearing room, and Commissioners obviously realize it, based on some of their challenging questions back to those testifying.

No hearing on these issues should ever rely on an unproven premise: the great exaflood, the clogged pipes, the torrent of data is upon us and we cannot survive without imposing limits, rate increases, and try to control usage.  Bring in an independent auditor and provide full access to raw usage data, consider how much investment companies are making in their networks compared with the profits they extract from them, and then consider whether we have a problem and examine possible solutions to it.  These third party astroturf groups releasing bought-and-paid-for “independent research” and equipment manufacturers with an agenda are not suitable for the task either.

Just as we’ve seen providers attempt to custom-draw their own maps for broadband penetration, providers are only too happy to release their own massaged data, but won’t allow anyone outside of the company to do so, ostensibly for privacy and competitive reasons.  Sorry, that’s not even close to being acceptable.

Stop the Cap! opposes Internet Overcharging schemes, which include usage based pricing and limits.  But we also oppose bandwidth throttles, free passes for provider-owned content while everyone else faces some “meter,” and companies that believe in “this is fast enough for you” broadband speeds which are far slower than those in more competitive markets.  We support Net Neutrality.  We support public investment in broadband development, as well as private investment.  We’re happy to support a deregulated framework for broadband when it works for consumers.  But we want oversight and regulation where competition is insufficient or non-existent.

As we’re watching events unfold to our immediate north, it’s clear other pro-consumer organizations and those that want to claim to represent consumers must also be on the same page so we don’t make the same mistakes.  We cannot be willing to throw in the towel on Net Neutrality if it means no Internet Overcharging, and we should never support Net Neutrality alone if it subjects consumers to enormous Internet bills because of some rationing plan that subjects people to overlimit fees and paltry usage allowances.

The only real choice is fast, affordable, reliable broadband service.  If private companies can’t or aren’t willing to provide it, than it’s time for municipal or public sector projects to build the infrastructure necessary to guarantee it.

I got word on the heels of tomorrow’s Public Utilities Committee meeting that S1004 has been gutted and changed in the Senate!  So again we can scream Victory!

The low-down on what exactly happened goes something like this:

The North Carolina Senate has a very odd procedural rule that allows it to gut a bill and replace it with a completely different bill.  They can do this as long as the bill number and title remain the same.  In S1004′s case they kept the name and title and are changing the text of the bill to allow Progress Energy to change some of its coal fired plants to natural gas.

Be aware that HB1252 is still the bill we have been fighting and I am tracking it continuously.  We are half way there on defeating big cable’s sleeper hold on competition.  As long as we all keep the fight up, we won’t be saying goodnight to Irene any time soon!

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission is investigating Canadian ISP practices all week in a series of public hearings.

All week long, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada’s telecommunications regulator, is investigating Canadian ISPs who are throttling back speeds on certain Internet applications and engaging in “usage based pricing” of their wholesale accounts.

The hearings, which will run until Monday, will help the CRTC create regulations for how service providers manage their Internet traffic and address provider claims of network congestion.

A wide array of interests are represented at this week’s hearings (courtesy CBC):

1. ISPs that use internet traffic management for P2P file transfers

• Specifically: Bell Aliant, Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw, Barrett Xplor.
• What they are expected to say: Practices such as throttling are necessary to ensure fairness among internet users and prevent a few bandwidth hogs from slowing down the internet for everyone. Barrett Xplor use traffic management for satellite services, arguing that satellites are expensive and hard to upgrade.

2. ISPs that use other methods to deal with congestion

• Specifically: Telus, MTS Allstream, Primus, Quebecor on behalf of Videotron
• What they are expected to say: Methods such as usage-based pricing and network upgrades work well to deal with congestion, but each ISP should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding how they deal with congestion. Primus argues in its written submission that internet wholesalers such as Bell should not be allowed to impose their traffic management practices on the customers of other ISPs that buy wholesale network access from them.

3. Small ISPs, including those that may be throttled by their wholesalers

• Specifically: Coalition of Internet Service Providers Inc., Canadian Association of Internet Providers, Execulink, Cybersurf.
• What they are expected to say: Many of these companies buy internet access wholesale from companies such as Bell, create packages and resell it to their own retail customers. They argue that allowing wholesalers to apply traffic management to customers of other ISPs is anti-competitive.

4. The entertainment industry

• Specifically: Independent Film and Television Alliance, Canadian Film and Television Production Association, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists.
• What they are expected to say: The internet is an important platform for distributing music, film and TV. ISPs should not act as gatekeepers for those.

5. Other businesses and organizations that rely on the internet to deliver services

• Specifically: Zip.ca, Jason Roks, Vaxination informatique, Norm Friesen, Canada research chair in e-learning practices at Thompson Rivers University, Open Internet Coalition
• What they are expected to say: Traffic management practices that discriminate against certain types of data could reduce investment in broadband networks and consumer choice, inhibit innovation and freedom of expression and be abused to engage in anti-competitive practices.

6. Consumer and public interest advocacy groups

• Specifically: Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Union des consommateurs, National Union of Public and General Employees, Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic on behalf of Campaign for Democratic Media, Council of Canadians with Disabilities and ARCH Disability Law Centre
• What they are expected to say: Their position is similar to that of businesses and organizations that rely on the internet, but they are also concerned that technologies such as deep packet inspection could invade consumers’ privacy.

Several interest groups are willing to advocate for certain bandwidth management techniques over others, much to the consternation of some consumers following the hearings.  Jacob Glick, Canada policy counsel for Google, for example, told CRTC commissioners he supported usage based pricing if it meant throttled broadband would end.  In his written and spoken comments before the CRTC, he indicated that throttled broadband was the worst choice for ISPs:

They have the potential to hurt innovation and other techniques are preferable, including:

• Boosting network capacity.
• Using different pricing models.
• Using techniques that target the amount of bandwidth use rather than the type of application using the bandwidth; for example, slowing a user’s connection after reaching a certain limit.

Glick argued that such techniques helped Comcast reduce network congestion after it was ordered by regulators to stop throttling its customers.  Comcast has a 250GB monthly consumption allowance.

John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which claims to represent three Canadian consumers groups, also advocated usage based pricing telling the Commission it was an acceptable alternative to dealing with network congestion issues.

But Timothy Denton, national commissioner for the CRTC, inquired about whether usage based pricing would inhibit the development of innovative, but bandwidth intensive, services like online video.  Marvin Ammori, general counsel for Free Press argued that it very well could.  Ammori pointed out there are anti-competitive issues to consider because many online innovations, particularly video, may compete with Internet providers’ own services.

Canadian consumers following the hearings on several technology websites were hostile to both usage based pricing and Net Neutrality violations.

John from St. Catherines wrote Stop the Cap!:

“I don’t know who these groups claim to represent but they sure as hell don’t represent me or any of the other consumers I know.  It sounds like some of these so-called pro-consumer groups are being funded by commercial services that will be harmed more by bandwidth throttles than with these overcharging scams.  Rogers does it all – they throttle, they cap, they charge penalties, and they raised their prices anyway!  Glick is part of Google which has their own agenda which isn’t consumers, and Lawford is full of crap.  He and his friends are like the passengers on the Titanic clawing their way to the front of the ship as it goes down. He’s not smart enough to realize all he’s accomplishing is going down with the ship a few minutes after the rest of us. He’s still going to drown, along with all of the consumers these people claim to represent.”

Canada’s largest online movie rental firm was particularly concerned about usage pricing models.

Rob Hall, Chairman of Zip.ca, Canada's leading online movie rental firm, told the Commission his business could go down if providers continue throttling traffic and limiting usage.

Rob Hall, chairman of  Zip.ca and CEO of its parent company told the Commission its plans to provide direct delivery of movies and other programming directly to consumers online, without waiting for a DVD to arrive in the mail, could be jeopardized by speed throttles and usage limits.  Hall said that cable and telephone video providers get to deliver their own programming to viewers over the same wires as their Internet service, but without any limitations.  Hall said that represents evidence that providers are giving priority to their own network traffic over others.

“The same rules must apply to both,” Hall said.

Hall was also concerned about ISPs spying on customers and potentially taking advantage of the data they collect:

Some ISPs are throttling peer-to-peer file transfers using programs such as BitTorrent, which “might be an ideal platform” to deliver Zip.ca’s movies, as it uses the network efficiently.

Deep packet inspection, a technique used for traffic control, will be abused to access marketing information about users that his company has collected.

If rules change suddenly, and there is no way to resolve the problem quickly, his company could be put out of business.

Independent ISPs are also concerned about the implications of throttled service.  They purchase Internet access from large providers like Bell (Canada) and then resell that connectivity to their customers.  Recently, Bell started imposing usage based billing on their wholesale accounts and throttled their speeds, forcing providers to raise prices and limit access.

The proposition, according to several providers, is that they are supposed to compete with Bell and large cable operators with a service that is identical or worse than what those providers offer, with the same limitations on usage and service, at a price that reduces or eliminates potential savings and benefits for their customers.  They believe many providers will be driven out of business because of the anti-competitive marketplace.

Many appearing at the hearing were skeptical about the effectiveness of bandwidth throttling, particularly of peer to peer applications.  Many such networks are rapidly moving to hiding traffic to avoid the network throttle.  Jean François Mezei, who runs the consulting company Vaxination Informatique, told the Commission that those heavy users of such applications will switch to a less efficient protocol to hide their traffic, which would only increase congestion further.

Toronto-based technology consultant Jason Roks said the real problem is false advertising by providers who are overselling their networks to subscribers.  Roks said advertised speeds in provider promotions rarely meet expectations, companies do not disclose the actual speeds of throttled services, and consumers are not given access to that information.  Roks told the Commission bandwidth providers are using throttles and other control measures to avoid investing in expanding their networks.

“If they can’t afford to upgrade their networks to support that many customers at advertised speeds, they should let customers go,” he argued.

More reactions from Canadian consumers below the fold.

… Continue Reading

Is this worth $350 million of your taxpayer dollars?

North Carolina residents should be outraged at Rep. Bill Faison, the Democratic chairman of the state House Select Committee on High-Speed Internet Access in Rural Areas.  He’s set to do for North Carolina broadband what Hurricane Katrina did for urban renewal in New Orleans.  Faison, along with some other cronies, are examples of what is wrong with broadband stimulus planning when certain elected officials open their doors on big special interests, and slam them on the fingers of actual consumers.

Eight years ago, the North Carolina legislature commissioned the state to produce accurate, detailed broadband maps, depicting who has access to what broadband services, if any, across the Tar Heel State. e-NC, an organization of excellence recognized worldwide, set about not only doing broadband mapping, but also advocating for consumer and business interests across the state by pushing for higher quality and faster service.  e-NC’s mapping standard has been recognized by the European Commission, Microsoft, and IBM for its detailed, accurate depictions of broadband service.

e-NC has had its work cut out for it.  AT&T and other North Carolina telecom providers have stonewalled the group since day one, refusing to disclose “private company information.”  Where e-NC could obtain agreements, they came with ludicrous non-disclosure agreements that were the equivalent of ‘here is the information you requested, but you cannot use it in your maps.’

That’s where Faison comes in.  He sends out an invitation to the media to announce North Carolina finally has a broadband map available, and then proceeds to slam e-NC because it produced maps that, at one point, he compared with “swiss cheese.”  Faison is fully aware that e-NC had been complaining about provider stonewalling, and he did nothing to stop it.  But then he did something even worse: he praised the very providers who did the stonewalling and are now in charge of producing the “detailed maps” that the providers want the legislature to see.

Faison said, “In the face of legislation recommended by the Committee which would have required the providers to disclose precise information to the Legislature for our staff to generate a detailed map of availability, the providers have come together and collectively decided to provide the information through Connected Nation, to not only provide the “street address” map but also to make the map both accessible and interactive through the internet. Special recognition should be given to AT&T, Embarq, Sprint, Time Warner Cable, The Cable Association, the Telephone Co-op association, and Alltel for their work on this matter.”

Shameful.

Of course, Faison’s anti-consumer efforts on behalf of his good friends in the telecommunications industry are no secret to our North Carolina readers.  Faison was one of the proponents of the anti-consumer nightmare legislation S1004, which was hand-crafted by big cable and telephone companies to stop municipal broadband projects across the state.  Faison is a menace for consumer interests in North Carolina.

Faison doesn’t care, of course.  He has his eyes on some of that $7.4 billion in broadband stimulus money he hopes to grab for the state AT&T, Embarq, Sprint, Time Warner Cable, and any other provider that will try and use their own maps to “qualify” for the tax dollars you and I are going to hand over for broadband development.

Faison said: “North Carolina will be one of only six states with a detailed “street address” interactive map of broadband availability. It positions us advantageously to obtain a portion of $7.4 billion in Stimulus money available for broadband deployment. A map, such as ours, is now a precondition for obtaining this portion of the Stimulus money. The collaborative work of the Committee and the providers has now postured North Carolina in the most favorable of positions to not only obtain this portion of the Stimulus money, but also to advance broadband deployment for our people.”

In other words, by replacing reality with the telecom industry’s own version of reality, they hope to sneak through applications that look good on paper, whether or not they accurately depict the real “on the ground” state of broadband in North Carolina.  If I were a grant application reviewer with this kind of “detailed” conflict-of-interest map work, I’d disqualify the entire state from getting one penny.

As the excellent investigative piece by Art Brodsky points out over on Public Knowledge (thanks Stop the Cap! reader Michael for showing the way):

AT&T stiffs the state, and then makes up its own map, which state legislators accept. There is no transparency, no verification, no nothing. (But it is interactive.) The only way in which this can not be a total conflict of interest is to recall the (perhaps) apocryphal story of the Maryland state legislator who also owned a liquor store. He introduced a bill to help liquor stores and was asked if this bill was a conflict of interest. “How does this conflict with my interests,” he was said to have replied. Exactly.

Meanwhile, the oh-so-aptly named (well-)Connected Nation, packed to the rafters with big cable and telephone company lobbyists, is busily doing its part to flush $350,000,000 of taxpayer funding down the drain with its own “broadband maps” which resemble the crayoning work your 1st grade son brought home from school.

Connected Nation, a creature of AT&T, spent $7 million dollars of your taxpayer money to commission Connect Ohio, an affiliate, to map broadband availability in that state.  The result was a map you could have drawn yourself during a TV show commercial break.  I think I’ll use Light Pink myself.

Connect Ohio's "Broadband Map" for Summit County, Ohio

No, the blue speckles are not from blueberry pie stains.  Those are bodies of water.  What exactly does Connect Ohio’s map say?  Not a whole lot.  Basically, it claims the areas in beautiful pink are locations where broadband service is supposed to be available.  The whitish areas are outta luck.

Seven million well spent dollars there!

Meanwhile, here is a map from Strategic Networks Group, a company that was never eligible for federal mapping grant money:

Map from Strategic Networks Group, that didn't cost taxpayers a cent

Which map would you prefer to rely on?  The $7 million dollar boondoggle from Connect Ohio or the zero taxpayer dollar map from Strategic?

Why didn’t Strategic get the contract?  Because Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois custom wrote language into the Broadband Data Improvement Act, that specifically defined who received the award money.  Basically, it came down to only those well-connected politically with state governments (Connected Nation) getting the lion’s share.  No merit-based mappers need apply.

Strategic’s maps were apparently too good. Take a look at this exceptionally detailed map they produced for just western Akron, Ohio (and notice this is page four of a series of detailed maps):

Unlike Connected Nation's maps, you WILL have to click to enlarge!

Stop the Cap! stands with Art Brodsky and Public Knowledge regarding this travesty:

The government notice setting out the terms for the mapping grants was sadly deficient. Even if one grants that Connected Nation was wired in under the terms of a misguided bill, the agency notice of funds availability had no conflict-of-interest safeguards. There are no requirements for transparency or for verification of information. There are no standard data sets to make sure all the maps measure the same things. Instead, there are what appear to be protections for “confidential” information that could render the process useless.

Perhaps some of these deficiencies can be cured at the program moves forward. Perhaps not. In either case, these cautionary tales are getting a bit tiresome. Jury-rigged RFPs, no-bid contracts, hot-wired legislatures and state agencies are no way to run a program as important as broadband.

The stimulus broadband mapping program is set up for massive failure unless changes are made. Congress has to allow more competition for grants. The Durbin argument that private, for-profit companies shouldn’t do public work like broadband mapping, while non-profits should, falls apart when one considers the advantages of an independent company vs. a compromised non-profit. The agencies responsible need more detailed criteria to protect the public investment. Consistency, transparency, public verification and less protection of information are needed. Maybe then can an #epic fail can be avoided.

The Communications Workers of America (CWA) has been running a project I have subscribed to for awhile now, called Speed Matters. Today I received this e-mail from them:

What’s next for SpeedMatters? Growing our movement.

Dear Jason,

Time’s up. Pencils down.

How did you do on the SpeedMatters.org speed test?

Believe it or not, you had one of fastest connection speeds in the country – and you’re probably paying a pretty penny for it. The majority of people who took the test didn’t come close to scoring as high as you did.

But fact is, even some of the fastest internet connections in the United States pale in comparison to many of our global competitors like Korea, Sweden, and Japan. These countries have average speeds that are almost ten times faster than the United States — at about 1/12 the cost to the consumer.

FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps has admitted “America’s record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country.”

It’s time to fix this problem, and the first step is determining exactly where our current high speed networks reach — and who is getting left behind.

You’ve already helped us begin to gather this crucial data by testing your Internet speed.

So what’s next? Now you can help grow our movement and educate as many people as possible about the importance of improving our country’s high speed Internet access. That way, when we demand our elected representatives take action, they’ll hear us loud and clear.

Forward the message below to everyone you know, and ask them to join you in getting the U.S. up to speed.

Thank you,

Beth Allen
speedmatters.org Online Mobilization Coordinator

P.S. Don’t forget to sign up for our weekly SpeedMatters.org blog update email to stay up-to-date on the nationwide effort to expand high speed Internet access and the amazing things that people are doing with the improved technology.

Dear Friend,

Americans are charged more for slower internet speeds, and our current high-speed networks don’t even reach millions of households. It’s time for that to change — and you can play a part. Testing your own speed will help make our new community research project, SpeedMatters.org, a success.

We’re falling behind in the global economy because we won’t invest in the technology to bring the benefits of this telecommunications revolution to most of our population. We’re the only industrialized country without a national policy to promote high- speed Internet access.

That’s why you’re getting this email. Testing your connection’s speed now will help us better understand the American average — and craft an effective public policy and awareness campaign.

Take the speed test:

High speed Internet means more than smooth web videos or fast downloads.

Advanced high capacity communications networks can increase democratic and civic participation, improve the delivery of health care, education, job training, public safety and other vital services.

What are we waiting for? It’s time to close the digital divide.

Thanks!

What I found interesting was the quote from FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, “America’s record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country.”

Commissioner Copps is right. It is an outrage. When the rest of the world is moving on average 10 times faster and at 1/12 the cost to consumers, I am a little more then outraged. Speed does matter and I urge you all to join and spread the word about Speedmatters.org.  They have a lot of useful information at their site, including speed by state and listing of broadband initiatives.

I took the speed test here in Greensboro, North Carolina, using Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner Turbo and my results were 11.114Mbps download and 4.85Mbps upload.  What is your speed?

I know here in Greensboro, the CWA had tried to to unionize the local Time Warner Cable workers and the company pushed back and won. Now a lot of those same TWC employees have been pink slipped in favor of non-union contract workers or demoted to lesser positions with less pay. I am sure this isn’t the only city this is happening in.  Just goes to show that TWC isn’t just effecting your families with their greed, but their own workers’ families too.

The only downside to this organization I see is that they have a partnership with Connected Nation, which is the cable/telecom industries mapping group.  I would urge the good folks at the CWA to tread lightly with Connected Nation.  They are Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and the other companies in disguise.  They have their own interests at heart.  This is what Connected Nation is doing here in North Carolina.