Home » Broadband Speed »Competition »Internet Overcharging »Knology-Sunflower (Kansas) » Currently Reading:

Internet in the Heartland: Continuing Broadband Adventures in Lawrence, Kansas

Phillip Dampier January 13, 2010 Broadband Speed, Competition, Internet Overcharging, Knology-Sunflower (Kansas) 10 Comments

Lawrence, Kansas is a unique place to live.  Its local newspaper, the Lawrence Journal-World, was one of the first in America to begin an online edition in 1995.  Its owner, The World Company, just so happens to also own the independent cable system serving the community, which also provides broadband and phone service to the city’s 90,000 residents.  Its biggest competitor is AT&T, which has been upgrading parts of Lawrence with its U-verse system to stay competitive.

Sunflower Broadband, which provides a “triple play” package of Internet, cable TV and telephone service, has remained controversial among service providers because it instituted an Internet Overcharging scheme with usage caps and overlimit fees.  The company has been used by the American Cable Association, a trade and lobbying group serving independent cable operators, as a poster child for effective rationed broadband schemes that reduce demand and increase broadband profits.

Lawrence, Kansas

Customers generally have loathed usage caps, particularly when they were stuck choosing between Sunflower’s faster, usage capped broadband service or a low speed DSL product from AT&T.  Stop the Cap! receives more complaints about Sunflower Broadband than any other provider, except Time Warner Cable during its own Internet Overcharging experiment in April 2009.  Lawrence residents appreciate the relatively fast speeds Sunflower can provide, but complain they can’t get much use from a service that limits customers to a set allowance and then bills them up to $2 per gigabyte in overlimit penalties when they exceed them.

Last fall, things started to change in Lawrence as AT&T began offering it’s U-verse service in parts of the community.  We began receiving e-mail from Lawrence residents pondering a new service plan Sunflower Broadband introduced — Palladium, an unmetered broadband option priced at $49.95 per month.  It sounded like a good deal, perhaps introduced to protect them from U-verse customer poaching, until they noticed Sunflower was  selling the plan without a fixed downstream or upstream speed.  In fact, no speed was mentioned at all.  Indeed, Sunflower’s Palladium is nothing new to those living abroad under various cap ‘n tier broadband regimes.  It’s comparable to New Zealand Telecom’s Big Time plan, where customers need not fear overlimit fees and penalties, but have to live with a “traffic management” scheme that gives priority to customers on other plans living under a usage cap.

In other words, Palladium customers get last priority on Sunflower’s network.  If the network is not congested, these customers should enjoy relatively fast connections.  But during primetime, expect speeds to drop… and dramatically so according to customers writing us.

Sunflower Broadband's Internet pricing - add $10 if you want standalone service

That customers debate just how slow those speeds can get testify to the nature of cable’s “shared infrastructure.”  Groups of subscribers are pooled together in geographic areas and share a set amount of bandwidth.  As usage increases, so does congestion.  Responsible operators measure that congestion and can split particularly busy neighborhoods into two or more distinct “pools,” each sharing their own bandwidth.  Based on the variable reports we’ve read, it’s apparent Palladium works better in some parts of Lawrence, namely those with fewer broadband enthusiasts, than others.

Network management is a major concern of Net Neutrality proponents.  It allows an operator to artificially impede traffic based on its type, who generates it, and potentially how much a customer has paid to prevent that throttling of their speed.  In the case of Palladium, network management is used to give usage-capped customers first priority for available bandwidth, and push Palladium customers further back in line.

Judging the quality of such a service is a classic case of “your results may vary,” because it is entirely dependent on when one uses the Internet, how many others are logged in and trying to use it at the same time, how many customers are saturating their connections with high traffic downloading and uploading, and how many people are sharing your “pool” of bandwidth.  Oh, and the quality of your cable line can create a major impact as well.

Sunflower Broadband representatives claim Palladium is “optimized for video” and should provide at least 2Mbps service during peak usage and up to 21Mbps service at non-peak times.  That’s a tremendous gap, and we wanted to find out whether most customers were getting closer to the low end or the high end of that range.

Back in October, we wrote a request in the comments section of the Journal-World asking customers to e-mail us with answers to several questions about their experiences with Sunflower Broadband:

  • 1) whether you ever exceed the cap.
  • 2) do you think there should be one.
  • 3) would you prefer faster speed with a cap or slightly slower speed with no cap.
  • 4) your experience with the new unlimited option.
  • 5) whether you would contemplate switching to AT&T U-verse if it meant escaping a usage cap, even if it had slower speeds.
  • 6) Would you pay more for faster speed and no cap?
  • 7) your overall feelings about Sunflower Broadband.

We heard from just over two dozen readers sharing their thoughts about the company and its service.  The response was mixed.

Generally speaking, customers hate the usage caps Sunflower Broadband maintains on most of their broadband tiers.  All thought it was unfair and unreasonable to limit broadband service under Sunflower’s Bronze tier to just 2GB per month and their Silver tier to just 25GB per month.  Most customers who wrote subscribed to the Silver tier of service with 7Mbps/256kbps speeds at $29.95 per month.  They also paid a $5 monthly modem rental charge.  Those who wrote who fit the “broadband enthusiast” category were internally debating whether the Gold plan, with its assured 50Mbps/1Mbps speeds for $59.95 per month was a better option, even with a 120GB allowance, or whether they should opt for Palladium’s $49.95 option to escape the usage cap.

Among enthusiasts, some felt Sunflower responded to customer demands by offering an unlimited plan in the first place, and thought it was an acceptable trade-off to obtain lower speeds at peak usage times for a correspondingly lower price, and no cap, as long as speeds were reasonable at all times.  Others were offended they had to make the choice in the first place.

“If I lived anywhere else, I wouldn’t have to choose between a throttled service or one that asks for $60 a month for 120GB of service,” writes Steve from Lawrence.  “AT&T DSL for me is 1.5Mbps service because I live close to the edge of the distance limit from AT&T’s exchange.”

But Justin, also from Lawrence, has a more favorable view. “I hate their usage cap with a passion, but when you look at what small cable companies usually offer their customers, it’s slow speed service at terribly high prices,” he writes. “At least Sunflower did DOCSIS 3 upgrades and can offer big city speeds here.  How long will that take other small independent providers?”

Troy adds, “at least they gave us one choice for unlimited service.  Time Warner Cable and Comcast sure didn’t.”

About half of those who wrote did exceed their usage cap by underestimating the amount of usage in their respective households.  Most of those who did were on the Silver plan.

Dave writes, “I knew right off the bat the Bronze tier was ridiculous for anyone to choose, and our family has three teenagers so we knew that was not an option.  We tried the Silver plan when we switched from AT&T DSL service and blew the lid off that 25GB cap probably within two weeks and got a crazy bill.  At least Sunflower forgave the overlimit fees for the first month, but they could afford to because we upgraded to Palladium, paying them $20 more per month.”

One customer's dismal Palladium speed test result from last October, likely the result of a signal problem

Angela, who shares an apartment with two other roommates had their share of fights over who used up all the broadband allowance.

“We have a wireless network and everyone splits the bill, but when we ran up almost 200GB of usage, we freaked.  Nobody would admit to using that much Internet.  Thanks to my boyfriend, we discovered our wireless router was wide open and one of our lovely neighbors probably hopped on to enjoy,” Angela writes.

Sunflower also forgave their overlimit bill for the first month, but they decided to take advantage of an introductory offer from AT&T and switched to U-verse and are much happier.

“At least with AT&T, we know what our broadband bill is going to be and we don’t have fights or worries about getting a huge bill from Sunflower,” she adds.

Among those answering our question about reduced speed in return for no cap, the consensus view was “we would need to know what speed they are providing.”  Broadband speed was important to most who wrote.  While many may not be able to discern a difference between 10 and 20Mbps service for most online activities, obtaining 2Mbps service when expecting closer to 20Mbps is readily apparent, and that was the biggest problem with Palladium users unimpressed with its performance.

“Palladium is god awful, and close to unusable on the weekends and during the early evening when everyone is online,” writes Kelly, also in Lawrence.  “We have college students all over the neighborhood and these people can’t be unconnected for a minute, so I’m not surprised Palladium crawls when everyone is online.”

Kyle, a regular Stop the Cap! reader writes the whole concept of Palladium leaves a bad taste in his mouth.

“Palladium is the equivalent of going into a restaurant and eating leftovers — whatever speed is leftover, it’s yours.  Sometimes it might be a whole meal, other times scraps!  It’s an example of crappy customer service coming from a provider which doesn’t have much competition (although maybe that will change with U-verse),” he says.

Kyle is on the Gold plan, but remains unimpressed with Sunflower:

“Is there another DOCSIS 3 system in the country that limits upload speed to 1Mbps or has a bandwidth cap this low (120 GB) with DOCSIS 3?”

Stop the Cap! also obtained access to the company’s subscriber-only forums and discovered considerable discontent with Sunflower’s broadband service.

“I recently switched over to Palladium to avoid the new Gold price gouging. I bought the new modem set it up and much to my surprise my speeds were HORRIFIC! Consistently 4.5Mbps service over the course of a week at various times. Upload speeds were so terrible it took 15 minutes to send emails with one minute movies,” writes one user.  “So, for $20 more a month Palladium offers much slower speeds BUT unlimited bandwidth (which according to Sunflower’s own statistics almost no one exceeds their limits anyway.)  What a rip-off. All I want is my old Gold back, same speed and price. I am absolutely disgusted with Sunflower. Calling Palladium “variable speed” is a lie. You are throttling customers – period.”

“So I have Palladium and the speeds are decent, usually around 10Mbps down (we won’t talk about up speeds.) But every time I run a torrent my speeds go down to about 500kbps. The second I turn off my torrent client and run a speed test again its right back up to 10. Has anyone else been having similar issues? It seems like Sunflower throttles my entire connection when they detect a torrent,” writes another.

One Lawrence resident claims he was blacklisted by Sunflower Broadband after criticizing them.

“Their blacklisting of me served as a warning to others after I spoke out nationally.  They are quite pissed and I’m not allowed to go to any event sponsored by them.  I even got removed from the local Twitter festival,” a person who I have chosen to keep anonymous writes. “The nutshell is that the bandwidth from DOCSIS 3.0 is extremely throttled for Palladium users. If they have done heavy downloading the throttle drops speed to about 2Mbps.”

For Lawrence residents who have decided they don’t like the choices Sunflower provides for broadband service, the good news is that AT&T is upgrading their network in the city to provide U-verse service, and many who wrote us have switched just because AT&T does not engage in Internet Overcharging caps and limits in Lawrence.

There is even a blog devoted to comparing Sunflower Broadband service with AT&T U-verse.  The Lawrence Broadband Observer has been reporting on the dueling providers since August.  His verdict: AT&T U-verse wins for broadband for its more stable speeds, and no Internet Overcharging schemes, even if it costs more:

We decided to go with U-verse for our Internet service, canceling our Sunflower Broadband Internet, which we had used for over 13 years. U-verse’ top line internet costs $15 more per month then Sunflower’s; we decided that the advantages of U-Verse for Internet were enough to make this extra $15 per month a reasonable value.

Furthermore, the speed of U-verse has been remarkably consistent, always ranging between 16 and 17Mbps down and about 1.4Mbps up, no matter the time of day.

While Sunflower’s service is very fast at certain times of day, it frequently slows down during evenings or other times of heavy network use, sometimes to less then half of the speed we were paying for.

The other primary reason we went with U-verse was because U-verse does not have bandwidth overage fees or any kind of bandwidth limits. Although we have been careful with Sunflower and managed to avoid any bandwidth overage charges, having “the meter running” all the time was annoying, and we worried that we could always be surprised with an unexpected charge. With U-verse we do not have this worry.  One could almost think of the $15 extra for U-verse as an insurance policy…it buys peace of mind not having to worry about bandwidth overages.

Share

Other stories of interest:

  1. Call for Apple to Get Involved in Campaign Against Internet Overcharging
  2. Caps Are Coming, Says American Cable Association – But Look Who Is Saying It!
  3. AT&T U-verse Celebrates 2 Million Customers With New 24Mbps Speed Tier in Austin, San Antonio, and St. Louis
  4. Hill Country About To Get Fastest Internet in South Texas: Non-Profit Co-Op Provides Fiber That Bigger Providers Won’t
  5. Cable ONE: Turning Broadband Service Into a Math Problem

Currently there are 10 comments on this Article:

  1. Thanks for the link to my blog. This is an excellent port covering the more, uh, disappointing aspects of Sunflower’s Palladium service. I appreciate all your coverage of the unfairness of broadband caps.

    I would love for broadband providers to use true per-bit metered billing, but they will never do so because while they would get plenty of money from big users, the grandma who checks email once a day would probably only pay a couple dollars a month. Metering is the cable providers’ attempt to have their cake and eat it to…not that I can blame them, it is a nice profit center for companies, but is very consumer-unfriendly.

    Bandwidth caps should be seen for what they are…not “network management” or “making hogs pay their fair share” but rather simple easy profit-taking, the same as phone companies tacking on a myriad of fees or banks charging customers $15 to cash a two-party check.

    In Lawrence, most people, myself included, have a love-hate relationship with Sunflower. It is great that they are a local company employing local people, rather then Comcast or Time Warner, and it is great when you call tech support that you get an Kansan speaking English….but their bandwidth policies and internet packages are definitely “small town” frustrating.

  2. Hello my name is Jason and I work for Sunflower Broadband in Lawrence, KS. After reading your article and the comments made by the Lawrence Broadband Observer, I would like to respond with an explanation of the billing model we have chosen for our internet services. The idea behind charging for bandwidth isn’t to prevent people from using internet video, it is to prevent having to repeatedly raise the baseline price of the service because of a small percentage of the user base is saturating the upstream so much that we (as a provider) have to spend more money on a fatter pipe to guarantee a higher level of service for everyone.

    In 2003 Sunflower saw exponential growth in data transfer starting to impact the network and the business model under which we could sustain our goal of providing the highest speed for the lowest cost in the increasingly competitive high speed data (HSD) market. The Lawrence HSD market is well ahead of most markets in their demand for internet speeds. We were on top of this demand in 1995 when were one of the very first ISPs in the country to offer HSD to its customers (Time Warner Kansas City didn’t launch HSD until almost 4 years after Sunflower). This became true for the amount of data being transferred by our customers as well. We asked peers in other markets about their increase in demand for data transfer bandwidth and they had not seen the levels we were seeing. We had a decision to make.

    Through analysis it was easily determined that about 10% of users were using the majority of the data transfer across our network. The other 90% of our users had very little data transfer in comparison to these top users yet we were looking at having to make very expensive upgrades to the plant to sustain the speeds we offered based on the trend of top users only. We had to take control of the network costs otherwise we would have to raise the price of our service and end up pricing ourselves out of the market and out of the business.

    Our choice at this point was A) Use tools to prevent top users from transferring so much data by slowing down their connection or breaking their connections to keep the costs down or B) We could leave the network open for the top users who may have legitimate reasons for their usage and instead charge customers based on their individual usage of the network. We chose B. Why? It allowed customers to self-police their use of the network instead of us having to do it for them when we didn’t know what their personal needs might be for why they were transferring so much. We set allotments with each level of service based on the price, speed and expected type of use then developed a formula whereby we would increase the amount of data transfer allotted to each level of service within a measure to ensure 90% of our customers would not be charged for data transfer over the allotments.

    Since 2003, we have kept our promise by ever increasing the bandwidth threshold for our internet packages. For example, our Silver Internet package has gone from 3-7 Mbps and from 6-25 GB included usage per month; our Gold Internet package from 10-50 Mbps and from 30-120 GB include usage per month. These numbers set to increase yet again in the coming months. For those enthusiasts that require a lot of bandwidth, we offer blocks of 10-50 GB that can be purchased for less than the overage rate of $2 per GB. If we are after nothing but profit from implementing this system, why do we continue to raise our thresholds? I would also argue that we could make much more money by raising the price of internet for each of our customers rather than selectively billing those 10% or less who may exceed their included usage per month.

    While this model is probably not ideal for “power users” it is the model we chose to keep our base internet products priced appropriately in a very competitive market. We did however gain a lot of valuable feedback from our customers over time and we listened to them. As a result, we launched our variable speed Palladium tier of internet service in late 2009. Palladium is geared towards those users who do not want to be bothered with usage limits, so therefore there must be a trade off between speed based services and this no overage service. Palladium is a variable speed product (2-21 Mbps) that may adjust depending on usage to both maintain our network and allow customers to have an uninterrupted viewing experience. Palladium is not a product for customers who wish to upload or download large files or have guaranteed speeds. However, Palladium users can expect to always have service that offers multi-megabit download speeds and not to incur overage charges. To specifically respond to the user who posted in our internet forums about his challenges with the use of a torrent on Palladium, his was an issue of torrent settings and not quality of service as pointed out by another user’s response to his post.

    We here at Sunflower Broadband love to receive feedback from this site and others, like the Lawrence Broadband Observer, because we want to be able to use it to strengthen our products going forward in a way that makes sense for customer and company. We know that all consumers have a choice when it comes to video and/or internet and I am personally impressed by the time and effort the Lawrence Broadband Observer put into making their decision on which products worked best for them. Of course, we were deeply saddened that our internet product did not come out on top, but thrilled that our cable TV package did! We profoundly appreciate the fact that you recognize our commitment to local customer service and hometown care. Thank you again for your feedback and loyal business!!

    • preventCAPS says:

      So we havea provider stating that they don’t want to spend money on network upgrades to meet demand because it would raise the base price for everyone…

      *Rolls eyes*

      STC has shown that broadband proviers have more than enough padding in profit, such as TWC with 19 Billion (http://stopthecap.com/2010/01/11/time-warner-cable-powered-by-prices-increases-18-billion-in-revenue-for-2009-19-billion-for-2010/), to upgrade network to meet demand without needing to raise the base price, an option C that was not explored by SF according to Jason.

      I wish WallStreet would frown upon providers not investing in themselves to met future demand.

      Also, STC has also shown that power users (the 10% or so causing the “problem”) would pay premium for premium tiers of service (aka fatter pipes), helping recover cost of upgrades.

    • Michael Chaney says:

      “In 2003 Sunflower saw exponential growth in data transfer starting to impact the network…” …ad nauseum. I don’t supposed you’d like to share any hard verifiable numbers with us? No…of course not. You’re just making blanket statements to prop up the same, tired industry talking points we keep hearing over and over.

      Oh, and here’s another question for you. Did the LIGHTEST 10% of your users see a proportional DISCOUNT in the cost of their services? Of course they didn’t, because CABLE BILLS NEVER GO DOWN! They only go up. Congrats on squeezing exponentially more out of your leading-edge users while offering NO ADDITIONAL VALUE!

      “We had to take control of the network costs otherwise we would have to raise the price of our service and end up pricing ourselves out of the market and out of the business.” I don’t buy it. I’ll just consider this statement BS until you show me data proving otherwise.

  3. KC says:

    I’m sure all those Silver users with their 25 GB of data transfer PER MONTH are really straining your DOCSIS 3.0 network. Think twice before you increase their bandwidth cap, because you may face data flow so torrential, it could destroy your network completely!

  4. Jason says:

    *not jason from sunflower*

    I started out in this industry when the internet first went commercial offering local dialup and DSL service later on. There’s always been a 10% ratio of users that would use the majority of bandwidth or dialup lines.

    Excessive abuse by the top 5% would get a warning according to the ToS if it was affecting actual usage by other customers, but generally that top 10% were simply using pooled resources that weren’t actively used by other customers. If people continued to abuse lines or bandwidth we’d ask they upgrade to a dedicated line or higher tier plan otherwise their account would be terminated, it was that simple.

    To punish the remaining 90% of your customer base with metered internet while claiming it’s due to the abuse of the top 10% is rediculous and a pure money grab. Metering is simply double dipping, taking your monthly recurring revenue then getting overage revenue on top of that from a customer base that can’t accurately guage or monitor their use in a reasonable way. This is a huge step backward for consumers and a poor solution to a problem that wasn’t really that bad.

    • Michael Chaney says:

      Using this 10% ratio and punishing the top 5% is akin to a company who, according to some metric, fires the bottom 5% of it’s employees every year regardless of how they actually performed or whether that number was actually fiscally necessary. The fact is it’s just a sh**ty thing to do…..to employees or customers

  5. [...] the price from $49.95 to $44.95 a month, perhaps in response to an underwhelmed customer base.  As we reported in January, Palladium speeds do not impress many Sunflower customers.  But some local residents report speeds [...]

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • Ron: What a bunch of dumb ass idiots you all are. If you fools fall for a marketing ploy like this piece of crap then you deserve to get screwed. Doesn't a...
  • Earl: I thought AT$T had already lobbied for legislation against this in Ohio....
  • Andrew Madigan: It was conditional to allow the company to try to prove that they had a way around the interference. They didn't have any way to avoid interference, ...
  • Phillip Dampier: I believe Verizon kicked in some additional routers for free, if I recall correctly, but that probably turned into a grand write-off of equipment they...
  • Jerry: Comcast may be the favorite in Fort Wayne but I remember when they were tossed out of Southern California for poor service. I am no way a fran of...
  • Keania: @Audie, Customer service is available from Mon-Wed: 8:30am – 9:00pm, Thurs: 9:00am – 9:00pm and Fri: 8:30am – 9:00pm If you every need clarification o...
  • dorothy grun ewald: i have filled out the forms with the asistance of the att.gen office and yet to recieve refund and am still being charged for roadside assistance, af...
  • George Douglas: The vendor was Verizon Network Integration, not Cisco. Cisco sales agents recommended a $487 router when asked by the newspaper what was needed for th...
  • Audie: The clear cast paper advertisement was meant to deceive people. By the way it was written, it was clearly a cloudy way of presentation. It is also pri...
  • Brad: I just received an ad in the mail for this "revolution" promising I could get it for $47 if I was one of the first people to call in. I don't have a ...
  • Phillip Dampier: My personal guess is they will not be touched for the foreseeable future. E-mail addresses are an incredibly customer sensitive issue and many people ...
  • Phillip Dampier: KCMO and KCK will almost certainly remain very aggressively priced because of Google competition, and the granularity of that pricing should be city-w...

Your Account: