Broadband customers face dramatically higher prices for Internet service from a telecom company that wants to define for Alaskans an “appropriate” amount of “fair usage” of the Internet.

GCI, Alaska’s largest cable company, is currently embarked on a so-called “education” campaign over the summer telling residential customers it might be time for them to log off, or face the consequences of enormously higher broadband bills.

For one Anchorage coffee shop, that added up for several hundred dollars for just a single month of usage — all because they offer free Wi-Fi to their customers.

“People use it for their second space. Their home office,” Kaladi Brothers Coffee COO Dale Tran told KTVA news. “We’ve always offered an open network in our cafes, and after hours some people come by and park out front.”

Tran says the result was a bill from GCI several hundred dollars higher than expected.

GCI Communications Manager David Morris says at least two percent of their 110,000 customers are using “too much” service and violating the company’s “fair use” policies.  Morris also warned customers with wireless equipment that if they don’t take steps to lock down their routers with passwords and security, they could be exposed to a huge bill from GCI for providing free Internet service to the entire neighborhood.

Morris claims the company wants to specifically define what it considers “fair use,” claiming it will make things more equitable for everyone.

But GCI’s Internet Overcharging scheme will never save a single customer a penny.  Instead, customers will see only skyrocketing bills should they not fit within GCI’s arbitrary definition of “fair use”:

The company’s website states, “For a large majority of customers, normal usage activities are not expected to exceed the plan profiles defined below”:

GCI customers are not happy.  One reader of the AK Community forum provided additional insight:

To add a little dimension to this before I start ranting, here are the respective rates for the above service plans:

Now, those prices are misleading because they are only for the internet service portion of the “bundle.”  What they’re not telling you (anywhere on the web site that I can find, in fact) is that in order to receive that price, data transfer rate, and monthly bandwidth, you must also pay for GCI’s digital cable television service ($57.99 when part of a bundle), local phone service ($15.49 a month), and long distance service ($5.99 a month plus taxes and surcharges).

Without factoring in the various FCC fees and whatnot, the above information brings the total cost of GCI’s fastest, highest monthly bandwidth package to $179.46 per month!  That’s actually the cost they quoted me on the phone, too, so at least we know their “customer service” staff are at least intelligent enough to figure out an adding machine.

Oh, and did I mention that those speeds and transfer rates are not available for standalone cable modem [subscribers]?

[...] What happens when you do go over?  BAM!  $5.12 per gig tacked on to your bill!  I don’t know about you guys, but I’m sick of getting ripped off by GCI.  Those of you who live outside of Alaska can confirm this, but GCI is just about the only cable company that still meters their customers’ bandwidth.  I have friends who tell me that they’re paying $49.00 a month for 8Mb/s transfer rate and unlimited bandwidth!

What GCI is doing is highway robbery.  How are they getting away with it?  I’ll tell you: no competition.  For very high speed broadband internet, they’re the only show in town, so they can charge whatever they want to anybody who wants more than 3Mbps (standard speed DSL service from Alaska’s other big telecom provider, the phone company).

KTVA-TV in Anchorage ran this report about GCI’s plans to force many of their broadband customers to pay more if they enjoy the Internet “too much.”  (3 minutes)

Jon Stewart spent a few minutes last night making a tentative stab at Net Neutrality on The Daily Show, trying to begin educating viewers about an Internet controversy many net users don’t even know exists. (3 minutes)

From the people who brought you the incredibly creepy computer animation re-enactments of Tiger Woods’ blowout and Lindsay Lohan’s jail stint for Taiwanese television, the Verizon-Google deal is now fair play, right down to devil’s horns for executives at both companies.  (1 minute)

A new report published by the Federal Communications Commission this week finds Americans are being ripped off by their broadband providers who promise speeds 50 percent faster than they actually receive.

In a generically named report, “Broadband Performance,” the FCC finds Americans love spending increasing amounts of time on the Internet, but face providers making bogus marketing claims for speeds they’ll never actually receive.

In 2009, average [...] advertised download speeds were 7–8 Mbps, across technologies. However, FCC analysis shows that the median actual speed consumers experienced in the first half of 2009 was roughly 3 Mbps, while the average (mean) actual speed was approximately 4 Mbps. Therefore actual download speeds experienced by U.S. consumers appear to lag advertised speeds by roughly 50%.

[...] The “up to” speed, however, does not provide an accurate measure of likely end-user broadband experience. That experience depends on multiple factors, including the actual speed that consumers realize, taking into account the impact of network congestion; and other metrics like the availability of the network, latency, jitter and packet loss. In other words, consumers need a better, publicly agreed upon measure of broadband performance that reflects the network operation and end-user experience.

No surprises here - the FCC found fiber delivered the fastest broadband speeds with wireless and satellite service delivering the slowest

Providers in several countries have been called to account for marketing claims that never seem to be realized by customers.

For years, providers have relied on the weasel words “up to” to escape charges of outright misrepresentation of their products.  The FCC doesn’t believe the status quo properly informs consumers about true broadband speeds, especially when comparison shopping.

Some of the widest gaps between advertised and actually delivered speeds came from telephone company DSL service.  Many phone companies define their maximum speeds based on theoretical maximums, not the actual average speeds encountered by customers.  While some providers claimed up to 10Mbps service, they only actually delivered up to 3Mbps to many customers.

The report recommends new disclosures, including average actual speeds delivered to customers, what kind of speeds customers can expect during peak usage times, and what speeds consumers will encounter while using certain online applications.

Speeds can make all the difference for certain classes of broadband users, also defined in the FCC report:

➤ Advanced. These consumers use large amounts of data and tend to use the highest quality voice, video, and other cutting-edge applications.

➤ Full media. These consumers are moderately heavy users of broadband and mobile applications, seeking to access high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video communications but, typically not in the most cutting-edge forms.

➤ Emerging multimedia. These consumers utilize some video and graphical content but still see the Internet primarily as a way to communicate and access news and entertainment in a richer format than found in offline content.

➤ Utility. These consumers are largely content to access the Internet for basic news, communication, and basic entertainment.

The New America Foundation thinks the gulf between promises and reality has grown so large, it’s time to bring “The Schumer Box” to broadband.  Named after Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the “Schumer Box” was made a part of every credit card application and cardholder agreement.  It breaks out in large print fact-based disclosures to consumers about what kind of service and pricing to expect.  The Foundation wants consumers to have truth-in-labeling introduced for Internet users who will be able to comparison shop providers more effectively.

One consumer group wants a credit card-style disclosure of broadband speeds and policies

While the FCC’s findings may not reach the level of credit card-style disclosures, the agency does recognize there is a significant problem with providers misrepresenting their broadband speeds.

The report also found consumers are increasing their amount of monthly usage, often correlated to the speeds they receive.  Those with the fastest broadband accounts consume the most (and typically also pay the most for service).  Those with slower speeds consume less.

That finding supports the contention among many consumer groups that today’s speed-based broadband tiers fairly compensate providers for customer usage.  Those who use the most pay the most for the fastest speeds. Those who use the least pay lower prices for lower speed tiers.

The agency also rated fiber to the home America’s fastest broadband technology, followed by cable broadband, then DSL service, and finally wireless/satellite-delivered service.

Phillip "Cry Me a River, Guys" Dampier

Like two peas in a pod, Robert Cyran and Bob Cox are back for the umpteenth time with their views on something.  A few years ago, they were upset because the group Radiohead decided consumers should name their own price for one of their albums.  This time it’s about Net Neutrality and variable pricing for broadband.  Writing for Reuters BreakingViews, they’re deeply concerned poor traditional phone and cable companies are being shortchanged — saddled with the costs of building and maintaining networks that content companies like Google, Apple, Cisco, and Microsoft get to use for free.

As for the four leading [content companies], they have a combined net cash pile of around $140 billion. Last year they spent $4.9 billion on capital expansion, a tenth of what the big four [telecom companies] paid to erect new cell towers, buy routers and extend fiber-optic cables.

[...]The introduction of variable pricing, or charging customers based on the data they consume, will help pay for the needed gear. But it means that the already unpopular [telecoms] will stick their customers with far larger bills — a recipe for political interference. Meantime, the [content companies] would continue to carry away what the telecom operators see as a disproportionate share of the benefits.

This analysis is a mile wide and an inch deep — fundamentally flawed because of information Cyran and Cox either ignored, didn’t know about, or didn’t care to consider.

First, Cisco is hardly a content company.  It is doing quite nicely feeding rumors of the forthcoming great tsunami of data — the “zettabyte era of broadband” that will result in a global traffic jam only they can help overcome. Cisco’s success comes from the sale of advanced networking equipment that can manage the growth of the Internet.  The amount of data that crosses today’s broadband wires has grown exponentially, even as the costs to manage it are increasingly declining on a per-gigabyte basis.  Apple is partly a content company, but more importantly is a developer of devices like the iPad and iPhone which are driving growth in wireless networks and helping justify the acceptance of monthly wireless phone bills easily over $100 a month in many households.  Google has content, but is also willing to take a plunge into being a provider itself, with plans to deploy an advanced 1Gbps fiber network that big telecom providers say cannot be built in a sensible way (to their investors.)  Finally, love or hate Microsoft, they have successfully powered the growth of personal computing which made the concept of broadband something telecom companies could actually sell to their shareholders as a viable business.

Cyran and Cox equate content providers and big telecom companies as unequal beneficiaries of the broadband revolution.  But just like many other powerful interests opposed to Net Neutrality, they forget those big telecom companies earn enormous revenue and profits from their customers — you and I.  The financial reports of all of these companies tell the story Cox and Cyran don’t.  Broadband profits among large telecom companies are the biggest growth area these companies have.  Deploying the service reaps financial windfalls.  Even with capital expenses involved in constructing fiber optic networks, broadband revenue can still make shareholders smile like no other component in today’s triple play packages.

On the wired side, Verizon has announced it has suspended further expansion of its fiber network FiOS indefinitely.  No other national cable or phone company is currently constructing true fiber to the home networks. Instead, most deploy fiber to the neighborhood and let coaxial or copper wiring cover the rest of the way.  Indeed, capital spending by many telecom companies is actually dropping.

On the wireless side, more than 90 percent of Americans now carry cell phones.  The monthly prices most pay for service exceeds that of their landline provider, if they have one.  Yet for all of the awful costs wireless providers face, AT&T and Verizon can’t wait to devote more time and energy to the wireless side of their business, because that is where the real money can be found.

It’s difficult to claim “victim” status of unequal treatment when you’re standing in a room filled with piles of cash.

The authors also completely ignore the fact companies that produce content don’t just throw it on the web for free.  An entire industry devoted to delivery of streaming media and other high bandwidth content buys fat pipelines from these telecom companies to deliver content to consumers.  Every content provider already pays their fair share for the traffic they generate.  Consumers pick up the rest as part of their monthly bill.

But Cyran and Cox believe these content companies (and consumers) should pay dramatically more to telecom companies for “upgrades” that may or may not materialize, and are frankly just the cost of doing business, which can be recouped from the relatively expensive broadband pricing Americans already pay for service.  The profit margins for broadband service are enormous.

Variable pricing, which we consistently call Internet Overcharging, is nothing more than price gouging, and the one true fact in their piece we agree with is that customers will get stuck with the bill.

Time Warner Cable faces an increasing number of subscribers cutting their cable television service off, choosing to watch their video entertainment online.

Now the nation’s second largest cable company is trying to mitigate the potential damage with a series of new applications designed to bring cable television and your computer, cell phone, and iPad together.

Time Warner is getting started with the iPad, developing an application that will help cable subscribers remotely control their DVR cable box to record and manage programming.  Away from home and want to scan a program guide and record an upcoming show?  The new app will let you do it.  Need to grab some video on-demand from Time Warner?  Not a problem.  You can even start watching on your iPad and pick up where you left off from your home.

Integrating the many devices consumers use as part of their daily lives with cable television could bring the cable viewing experience back front and center among at least some subscribers.  That reduces the chance customers will decide they can do without cable TV.  Since most of Time Warner Cable’s on demand library will only be available to current cable subscribers, cutting cable’s cord also means an end to online on-demand viewing of cable-licensed programming.

Time Warner Cable's prototype iPad app

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt has repeatedly emphasized his interest in delivering cable services the way customers want, and claims the new generation of applications on the way from the cable company will provide just that.

Although Time Warner will start with the iPad, the application will quickly become available for the iPhone and iPod Touch series.  Additionally, versions for other smartphones as well as portable and home computers will soon follow.

Ironically, this integration process could drive data volumes on Time Warner Cable’s broadband network to new heights.  Video streaming alone will dramatically increase traffic.  Yet the same company that is ready and willing to provide these bandwidth-intensive services also complained about existing broadband customers “using too much” of their existing broadband service.  In the spring of 2009, the company sought to implement a 40GB usage limit on some its broadband customers and charge up to three times more — $150 a month for unlimited access.  At the time, Britt and other company officials blamed the burden of online video and other usage-intensive applications for spiking the demand on their network.

Customers may wonder whether Britt’s new enthusiasm for online video means he recognizes their network has plenty of capacity to support unlimited access or is looking for a new excuse to justify a return to Internet Overcharging schemes.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, CTO Mike LaJoie, VP of Web Services Jason Gaedtke and Director of Digital Communications Jeff Simmermon ponder their prototype iPad app and discuss the implications of integrating cable TV with other electronic devices.  For Time Warner Cable, it’s a matter of preserving cable TV subscribers who might contemplate cutting the cable TV cord and watching everything online.  (13 minutes)

Reardon is fine with this vision of your online future.

Marguerite Reardon confesses she’s confused.  She doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about regarding Google and Verizon teaming up to deliver a blueprint for a corporate compromise on Net Neutrality.  In a column published today, Reardon is convinced she’s on a debunking mission — to deliver the message that rumors of the Internet apocalypse are premature.

As I read the criticism of Google and Verizon’s supposed evil plan to demolish the Internet, and as I hear about “protests” of several dozen people at Google’s headquarters, I scratch my head and wonder: am I missing something?

The Google-Verizon Net neutrality proposal I read last week doesn’t sound nearly as apocalyptic as Free Press, a media advocacy group, and some of the most vocal critics out there have made it sound.

In fact, most of proposal sounded a lot like a plan FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski offered nearly a year ago, which many Net neutrality proponents seemed to support.

In short, Google and Verizon say they agree to a set of rules for the Internet that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or degrading lawful content on the Internet. Broadband providers would also not be allowed to take action to impede competition.

This is pretty much what Genachowski has proposed.

OK, terrific. There is agreement.

But wait, Net neutrality zealots are still unhappy.

Hmmm… “zealots?”  Reardon probably just angered the majority of CNET’s readers, who now find themselves labeled as crazed Internet online freedom fighters — net fundamentalists who want absolute protection against big Internet Service Providers tampering with their Internet Experience.

Where can I get my membership card?

Reardon’s “debunk” consists of her narrow, inaccurate definition of Net Neutrality pounded into a pre-conceived notion of what is and is not possible in a competitive broadband marketplace.  In short, she’s satisfied we can all move along… there is nothing to see here:

What Free Press and Public Knowledge don’t seem to realize is that AT&T and Verizon already offer differentiated services today with enhanced quality of service to business customers. Verizon’s Fios TV and AT&T’s U-verse TV services are also examples of managed Internet services that are delivered to consumers. And the last time I checked, no one, other than their cable competitors, has complained about AT&T and Verizon offering competition in the TV market.

The truth is that if Verizon and AT&T wanted to cannibalize their broadband business with premium broadband services, they’d already be doing it. But they aren’t, because there hasn’t been a market for it.

The reality is that consumers are in control of what type of services are offered. If the public Internet can adequately deliver a service for free, then there’s no need to pay for it. But if someone can provide a better service over a dedicated network and there are consumers willing to pay for it, then why shouldn’t it be offered? Isn’t that why some people subscribe to a 768Kbps broadband service for $15 a month, and others pay $100 for a 50Mbps service?

So let’s debunk the debunk.

First, Net Neutrality is not about stopping broadband providers from offering speed-based tiers of service.  In fact, that’s the Internet pricing model we’ve all come to know and love (although those prices are just a tad high, aren’t they?)  Free Press and Public Knowledge do not object to ISPs selling different levels of broadband speed tiers to consumers and businesses to access online content.

Net Neutrality isn’t about stopping ISPs from selling some customers “lite” service and others “mega-super-zippy Turbo” service — it’s about stopping plans from some ISPs to establish their own toll booths on the Internet to charge content producers twice — once to upload and distribute their content and then a second time to ensure that content reaches a particular ISPs customers on a timely, non-speed-throttled basis.  Consider this: you already pay good money for your own broadband account.  How would you feel if you sent an e-mail to a friend who uses another ISP and that provider wanted to charge you 20 cents to deliver that e-mail?  Don’t want to pay?  That’s fine, but your e-mail might be delayed, as paying customers enjoy priority over your freebie e-mail.

A lot of broadband customers may never understand the implications of giant telecom companies building their own toll lanes for “preferred content partners” on the Internet because they’ll just assume that stuck online video or constantly rebuffering stream is the fault of the website delivering it, not their provider intentionally pushing it aside to make room for content from companies who paid protection money to make sure their videos played splendidly.

Second, Reardon need only look to our neighbors in the north to see a non Net Neutral Internet experience in Canada.  There, ISPs intentionally throttle broadband applications they don’t want users running on their networks.  They also spank customers who dare to try what Reardon insists Verizon would never stop — using their broadband service to watch someone else’s content.  With the application of Internet Overcharging like usage limits and consumption billing schemes, cable companies like Rogers don’t need to directly block competitors like Netflix.  They need only spike customers’ broadband bills to teach them a lesson they’ll not soon forget.

Within days of Netflix announcing their imminent arrival in Canada, Rogers actually reduced the usage allowances of some of their broadband customers.  If you still want to watch Netflix instead of visiting Rogers pay-per-view cable menu or video rental stores, it will cost you plenty — up to $5 per gigabyte of viewing.

Reardon seems to think giant providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast care about what their customers want and wouldn’t jeopardize the customer relationship.  Really?  She herself admits she hates paying for hundreds of channels she never watches, yet providers are deaf to complaints from customers demanding an end to this practice.  What about the relentless price hikes?  Wouldn’t that drive off customers?  Perhaps… if customers had real alternatives.  Instead, with an effective duopoly market in place, subscribers pay “the man,” pay an almost identical price from the “other guy,” or go without.

Providers understand their power and leverage in the marketplace.  Until serious competition arrives, it would be a disservice to stockholders not to monetize every possible aspect of broadband service in the United States.

The check against this naked aggression on consumers’ wallets is from consumer groups who are fighting against these big telecom interests.

Before dismissing Net Neutrality “zealotry,” Reardon should experience the Internet in Canada and then get back to us, and more importantly those consumer groups she flicks away with disdain, and join the fight.

Dream On: WildBlue's home page shows a user thrilled about an Internet experience she'll never truly enjoy with a monthly usage limit at low as 2.3GB. Exceed it and face the consequences: WildBlue's Time Out Corner: a speed throttle delivering 128kbps downstream and just 28kbps upstream.

When is broadband not broadband?  When it is delivered by hopelessly overloaded and underpowered satellite providers that annoy their subscribers with high prices and low usage allowances.

For many customers of WildBlue and HughesNet, getting high speed Internet access remains a far off dream. No broadband Internet service is more rationed and speed throttled than satellite “fraudband.”

Most satellite broadband customers live in America’s most rural areas, literally miles away from the nearest telephone exchange and often hundreds of miles away from a town with cable broadband.  Even wireless Internet providers can’t find enough customers to justify the costs of delivering service.

For America’s most rural, there are three choices:

1. Go without.
2. Use dial-up service.
3. Choose the least annoying satellite provider you can afford.

Just over one million Americans have stuck it out with choice number three, paying twice as much wired Americans pay for broadband and getting just a fraction of the speed and use.

But both providers claim that is all about to change.

WildBlue and HughesNet are in a hurry to launch brand new satellites with dramatically improved capacity that will deliver, they claim, “speeds as fast as fiber.”

For Stop the Cap! reader Adele in a rural part of Arizona, she’ll believe it when she sees it.

“As Stop the Cap! has said all along, anyone who thinks satellite ‘broadband’ is a useful alternative to DSL or cable Internet should be condemned to use it,” she writes.  ”Everyday brings a new frustration, especially with so-called ‘Fair Access Policies’ that effectively restrict your use to web page browsing and e-mail.”

HughesNet explains how their satellite service uses your satellite dish to send and receive Internet data. (click to enlarge)

For many people running Microsoft Windows, the company’s monthly gift of bug fixes, service packs, and updates is just a minor nuisance. For satellite Internet customers, it can sometimes mean the “day of no Internet.”

Adele explains:

If you have multiple computers and Microsoft determines it has a lot of screw-ups to fix, the monthly updates can easily run into the hundreds of megabytes when every computer receives their individual updates.  HughesNet’s “budget” Home and Pro Plans cost up to $70 a month and only include a daily allowance of up to 300 megabytes.  It’s no trouble at all to exceed that usage on increasingly large web pages loaded down with video advertising, pop-ups, and other content.  Now deal with Microsoft Update Day and in our house, that means you get a good book and stay offline.

If she doesn’t, HughesNet inflicts a stinging punishment — 24 hours in the time out corner with barely dial-up speed penalties for exceeding the limit.

But both satellite providers promise better days ahead when their newest satellites are launched into space.

The New York Times notes WildBlue’s next generation of satellites will bring 10 times the capacity of its three current satellites combined.  That opens the door for faster satellite broadband, according to both companies, without price increases.

HughesNet believes satellite broadband’s best days lie ahead, especially as a contender in the rural broadband market.

“One advantage satellite has is ubiquity,” Arunas G. Slekys, vice president for Hughes Network Systems, said. “The cost of reaching you with a satellite dish is independent of where you are. Fiber or cable is labor-intensive and dependent on distance.”

As to satellite’s potential in rural regions, “clearly, there’s an unserved market,” Mr. Slekys said. “And it’s not as though they have terrestrial or satellite. They only have satellite as a choice.”

Can a new generation of satellites save satellite broadband?

One question the Times didn’t ask is whether increased capacity will mean the end of so-called “Fair Access Policies” that strictly ration the amount of browsing customers can manage before the speed throttle punishment begins.  Neither company is saying.

“When pigs fly,” Adele thinks.  ”Sometimes these satellite companies think rural people are just plain stupid.  When you live this far out in the country, you learn to recognize snake oil salesmen when you see them.  Why give us more access when nobody else will provide the service?”

The sudden interest in satellite broadband in the nation’s paper of record is no coincidence.  Both HughesNet and WildBlue are upset they are not getting a bigger piece of the broadband stimulus pie.  The Times notes just $100 million out of $2.5 billion in U.S. Department of Agriculture grants for rural broadband will go to satellite companies.  Raising the question in a newspaper widely read in Washington can’t hurt your cause.

Thomas E. Moore, chief of WildBlue, said satellite technology would be able to serve thousands more rural residents than terrestrial services at a fraction of the cost. He cited a $28 million grant to a nonprofit group in North Carolina to extend fiber to 420 schools and libraries. That same grant could have instead directly served 70,000 residents in North Carolina through satellite service, Mr. Moore said.

“For every one of those people, there are literally hundreds more who won’t have access to stimulus funds,” he said.

But Joseph Freddoso, president of MCNC, the nonprofit group that manages North Carolina’s public education technology network, said satellites were not an ideal primary service for his users, who require a more reliable network for their research and data-heavy applications.

“To compare what we do with what satellite does as a service is an apples-to-oranges comparison,” Mr. Freddoso said, adding that the grant will serve one million students in 37 counties.

Adele is concerned that means even more people will fight for the limited resources satellite has until the next generation of satellites get launched, especially for rural customers trying to share a spot beam in North Carolina.

“These companies have really stopped heavily promoting themselves in parts of rural America because both are already at or over capacity in many places,” she says. “The advertised speeds for some parts of the country are straight out of Alice in Wonderland — total fiction, and with the lag time that comes naturally from sending and receiving data over a distance of 22,000 miles, it’s not getting any better.”

Adele is referring to the satellite providers’ regionally-directed signals.  Much like how satellite TV companies can deliver local stations within limited regions of the country, satellite Internet service can be divided up and delivered to certain parts of the United States.  One beam might serve rural Louisiana, another could be directed to northern California, and so on.  Once a region’s capacity nears saturation, speed and performance suffers.  In areas where capacity remains underused, the service performs better.

Regardless of the promises for enhanced satellite broadband, most cable and fiber broadband providers spend no time pondering the competitive impact, because there is none.  They plan to continue ignoring the likes of WildBlue and HughesNet for years to come.

Kevin Laverty from Verizon told the Times their FiOS fiber network is expensive to deploy but is light years ahead of satellite when it comes to speed and easy upgrades.

“Fiber optic is virtually an unlimited technology,” he said. “All you have to do is change the electronics on either end.”

A spokesman for Time Warner Cable said cable broadband speeds already easily exceed the satellite providers’ proposed new speeds, so they have nothing to worry about.

For most satellite customers, WildBlue and HughesNet are not choices, they are realities if rural Americans want to participate in the broadband revolution.

“Nobody chooses these satellite providers over DSL, cable, fiber, or even most wireless ISPs,” Adele says. “They choose satellite because of the absence of these other providers.”

Should Adele’s local phone company offer her DSL or a wireless broadband provider arrive to deliver service, would she switch away from HughesNet?

“In a shot,” she says. “I dream about throwing their dish into the biggest bonfire I can build and then my neighbors and I visit their headquarters to horse-whip them for years of horrible service and throttled speeds.”

We’ve assembled some examples of advertising for both HughesNet and WildBlue, typically seen on networks catering to rural Americans, a brief interview with a representative from WildBlue, and some actual customer… uh… “testimonials” about the quality of service actually received.  Finally, we’ve included the most painful speed test ever encountered.  The original video was silent and some might think it’s actually stuck.  It’s not.  We’ve added some music to spice things up or to increase your pain and suffering.  You might want to get a piece of cake for this. Oh, and one last thing:  If you are using a satellite provider to access Stop the Cap!, forget about the video.  Watching it will eat almost a quarter of your daily usage allowance.  (6 minutes)

An increasing number of Verizon’s DSL customers are discovering their broadband speeds cut, sometimes significantly, by the phone company’s internal line testing “optimization” tool, designed to deliver stable DSL service over a deteriorating, aging network of copper phone lines.

Regular Stop the Cap! reader Smith6612, who is extremely familiar with the technical workings of DSL service, dropped us a note to report a disturbing trend of complaints from Verizon customers who are waking up to speed cuts that often don’t make sense.

At issue here is the highly variable nature of DSL speed and how providers manage it for customers.  Data delivery over America’s aging copper wire, meant-for-voice-calls-network has always been somewhat of a bootstrapped affair, all the way back to the days of dial-up.  Most phone companies have always included detailed disclaimers for customers relying on a phone network envisioned more than 100 years ago for 21st century data communications.  No guarantees on speed or access are among the most common, especially with DSL service which is highly distance and line quality sensitive.

In short, the further away you live or work from the phone company’s exchange (where your individual phone line eventually ends up), the lower the speeds that line can support, if it can support DSL service at all.  Badly managed wiring along the way can dramatically reduce the quality of your service.  Sammy the Squirrel could chew enough insulation off a phone cable to expose it to interference from radio signals.  Water finding its way into cables and connection boxes can turn excellent DSL service into no service at all during bad weather.  Even temperature variations between seasons can eventually corrode, degrade, or destroy fittings, connectors, or any number of vital components necessary for good service.

Unfortunately, if companies do not properly invest resources to maintain their legacy phone networks, service problems are bound to increase sooner or later.

Many DSL customers do not really have an understanding of what speeds they should be getting from their providers, much less be able to easily identify when those speeds have declined.  But they do understand service outages.  When a DSL modem runs into trouble supporting the speeds it is configured for, the unit will try to re-establish the connection.  This “sync” process can occur once a day or continuously — it all depends on what condition the line is in.

While this process is underway, anyone trying to use the Internet is likely to find their service unavailable.  That often results in a service call.

Calling to complain about a troublesome Internet connection is expensive — even when reaching one of the overseas call centers Verizon regularly uses for customer support.  Sending a repair truck to your home is even more costly.

One way to reduce these expenses, without upgrading or improving maintenance of your network, is to simply reduce the speed of the connection.

Verizon ironically calls their line testing process “optimization.”  Verizon’s software is designed to ascertain the maximum possible downstream and upstream speeds a line can continually support.  Those measurements are used as a basis for configuring the customer’s modem, placing a speed limit on how fast of a connection to negotiate, even if a customer is paying for a faster tier of service.  The goal is to stop the modem from losing a connection.

Unfortunately, sometimes customers with no service problems at all take a hit in speed along the way. For several weeks now, many long-standing Verizon DSL customers are discovering their speeds have been reduced and are finding Verizon’s “optimization” procedures directly responsible.  Some are accusing Verizon of recently configuring connections more conservatively to avoid service calls caused, in part, by years of neglect maintaining their landline network.

Bob in North Billerica, Massachusetts has experienced a speed cut himself.

Writing on the Verizon DSL forum at Broadband Reports, he noticed years of stable service at 1.792Mbps/448kbps are no more.  His maximum download speed has been cut to 1.5Mbps.

The same thing happened to Zaii in Philadelphia — despite stable service at higher speeds, he found himself cut back to 1.5Mbps as well.

Jack in Lakeland, Florida discovered his speeds has been “optimized” nearly in half by Verizon, and the company admitted it had capped his maximum speed as part of that process.  He was paying for 1.5Mbps service and received 700kbps-1Mbps service.

“The technician [sent to my house] found I could receive 2.6Mbps but Verizon had me “optimized” at 1.2Mbps because of my location,” Jack writes.  ”The technician made a call and had the “optimize” cap removed and I am back to 1.54Mbps.”

It’s the same story in Ridgecrest, California where one Verizon DSL customer suddenly noticed a dramatic speed cut.  He pays for 1.5-2Mbps service and barely manages 1Mbps these days.  A Verizon technician thought even with the sudden speed loss, his speeds were still “pretty good.”

That attitude doesn’t exactly placate Verizon customers paying for more and receiving less.

Often, technicians sent to the home find their own line tests are far more optimistic about the speeds Verizon can support.  The customer in Ridgecrest, for example, learned from a technician his line can support 3Mbps, but Verizon’s corporate “optimization” software says otherwise.

A few anecdotal reports from customers listening to Verizon field technicians suggests many of these issues are being caused by Verizon’s “optimizing” software.  Once a service call commences, knowledgeable technicians manage to override the software settings and reset the connection back to support earlier, faster speeds.  But often these changes last only a few weeks before the problem returns.

Unfortunately, Verizon’s customer service department usually seems unconcerned about speed complaints.

“SDillman” in Uxbridge, Massachusetts relayed his experiences:

I talked Verizon DSL support and got them to run a line test and they confirm the data rate they are seeing is 1.216Mbps, which is exactly what I reported. Unless it drops under 1Mbps they won’t do anything because it is considered an acceptable speed.

What stinks is that up until last week my data rate was a constant 1.792Mbps and all my speed tests showed 1.5Mbps.  I even swapped out the modem today to try my backup and got the same rate.  So I’ve lost 500k for no reason at all and there is nothing I can do about it. It wouldn’t be so bad if I never had it, but losing it just doesn’t sit right with me. I might be looking at alternate providers and or mediums of broadband in the near future because that just leaves a poor taste in my mouth.

A Verizon DSL Modem/Router

Angry, motivated customers can wreak havoc on bad customer service practices, and SDillman managed to overcome Verizon’s speed throttles and shares advice for others in the same situation:

1. Visit and register for an account on Broadband Reports.  Then visit and post a message in the Verizon Direct Support forum.  Those messages are kept private between you and a Verizon technical representative.  They have enhanced skills and authority over the traditional offshore customer service people, and in the words of “SDillman,” “are amazing — after getting the runaround from everyone else, those guys had a proper repair ticket created in no time.”
2. Carefully listen to the technicians that are sent to your home.  The technician in Uxbridge was frustrated that his service visit revealed a line in what he called “pristine condition,” yet Verizon’s “optimization” speed throttle said otherwise and was directly implicated in the speed reduction.  The frustration mounted when Verizon’s own employee encountered the same roadblocks Verizon’s customers do from overseas customer service agents.  In this case, a call center employee attempted to explain the basics of how telephone lines work to a Verizon technician with over 30 years of experience.  The technician also didn’t respond any better to arguments that 1.2Mbps was a good speed when the customer is paying for a higher level of service.
3. Most of these issues are best resolved between a Verizon service technician and employees at the central office exchange serving your home or business. Encourage a direct service call and do not accept over-the-phone assertions about speed issues, particularly from call center employees a half-world away.  If the problems go unresolved, a compliant about bad phone/broadband service filed with your state’s Public Service/Public Utilities Commission may bring about a higher level of response, even if broadband speeds are unregulated.

As SDillman shares, “For now my speeds are back up, until they ‘optimize’ the line again to try to free up some of the congestion on their crowded routers and begin stealing bandwidth [again]. I don’t know if this practice is illegal, but it certainly doesn’t pass the smell test. It feels a lot like going into a gas station and filling up your tank and then finding out 30% of it is water.”

Qwest, the former-Baby Bell serving the upper midwest, mountain west, and desert states got caught on tape telling customers the company’s intent is to eliminate competition from independent Internet Service Providers by banning them from their network.

One such ISP, XMission, has blown the whistle on the anti-competitive practice, noting they could potentially be run out of business if Qwest manages to keep them from delivering competitive service over Qwest’s upgraded partly-fiber network.

In 1997, XMission first started providing service over Qwest’s DSL.  We have literally paid millions of dollars of revenue to Qwest for the privilege, all the while relieving them of the difficult task of providing excellent customer support.  In 2008, Qwest launched their “Fiber-to-the-Node” product which is usually falsely advertised as just plain “fiber”.  Unlike the UTOPIA system which runs fiber optics all the way to the home, Qwest FTTN runs fiber to a neighborhood, then copper DSL lines to the customer.  Because of the subsequent shorter distances on copper, they are able to attain download speeds of up to 40Mbit to the customer and 5Mbit from the customer.  This is normally referred to “download” and “upload” respectively.

There is one key difference in the FTTN product.  Qwest is not not allowing 3rd party ISPs like XMission to sell their own service over it, as we traditionally have with their first DSL product.  In addition, Qwest has been notorious for disinformation and service problems that motivate customers to drop their current ISP and change over to Qwest.  Technical problems exist, such as radio interference that degrades existing XMission customer DSL speeds, sometimes making their Internet connection unusable.  The solution offered by Qwest was not to shield the radio interference, but to switch customers off XMission and to their own product.  We have also had reports and in one case, a recording, of Qwest sales representatives telling customers that Qwest’s intent is to “eliminate” 3rd party ISPs.   Today, I received an email from a customer who was told by Qwest that XMission’s equipment is “too slow” to handle FTTN service.  Considering that we service customers on fiber and in our data center with up to a gigabit in solid bandwidth, one has to wonder why Qwest feels the need to lie to sell their service.  There is no technical reason why Qwest could not allow 3rd party ISPs like XMission to provide service over their FTTN network.

XMission has been hemorrhaging DSL customers for the past year, and I really don’t blame them for looking for bigger Internet connections.  I personally can only get 3Mbit download and 500Kbit upload to my own home and it is not enough bandwidth for me.  With Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and other services demanding more and more bandwidth, homes will need larger and larger connections.  Unless they’re in a UTOPIA connected city, chances are that they are going to choose from two companies to buy Internet from in the future, neither of them stellar.

UTOPIA is Utah’s publicly-owned fiber optic platform delivering competitive choice to residents of 16 Utah cities.  Residents enjoy true fiber optic service and can select from 11 different Internet Service Providers, each offering their own speed levels, bundles, and pricing.  How many ISPs can you choose from?

Qwest’s newest network upgrades deliver service somewhat comparable to AT&T’s U-verse — faster broadband through a hybrid fiber, copper phone line-based network.  Qwest also sells traditional DSL service over standard phone lines, including so-called “dry loop” service that delivers broadband service without also buying a phone line.  While competing providers can sell service over many of Qwest’s DSL lines, they have been barred from selling access over these new, faster-speed lines.

Customers have been unimpressed with Qwest’s traditional DSL services which often promises far more than it actually delivers.

Alex Langshall in South Salt Lake was guaranteed 7Mbps DSL service from Qwest, but ended up with only 640kbps.  The reason?  His distance from the central office and the deteriorating quality of Qwest’s landline network.  Qwest’s technicians told Alex even after line conditioning and rehabilitation, he would only get 1.5Mbps service.

XMission publicized this recording between Qwest and one of their customers about the phone company’s intentions for independent ISPs on their network (July 21, 2010) (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The firebrand Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida), normally a plain-spoken kind of guy, has managed to tie himself into a human pretzel over the issue of Net Neutrality.  In less than a week, he’s adopted every side of the issue as his own.

Grayson shocked many of his supporters last week when he signed on with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to pressure the Federal Communications Commission not to regulate Internet principles like Net Neutrality.

Grayson’s increasingly high profile in the Democratic party and his hero status among many progressives made his allegiance to big telecom stick out like a sore thumb.  Liberal blogs immediately blasted Grayson’s decision to side with the “you can’t use my pipes for free” crowd.  Some bloggers called his position “curious” while others accused him of selling out.

Grayson has been engaged in damage control ever since.

His letter to the FCC echoed earlier letters from Democrats hostile to broadband reform (but receptive to campaign contributions from the phone and cable companies).  But Grayson insists he has been misunderstood.

The Orlando Democrat told the Huffington Post that he is in favor of Net Neutrality and that his alliance with the telecom industry is a coincidental case of “strange bedfellows.”

“I say in the letter that I support the policy of Net Neutrality. I don’t know how I could be more explicit than that,” he told HuffPost. “There is a question, though, of how to reach that conclusion, and it’s a legitimate question. My own feeling is that we should not allow a matter like this to be resolved by regulation, because regulations can be changed very easily. We saw this all the time with the Bush administration. I think it is preferable to have the principle of net neutrality enshrined in statute.”

Grayson

Grayson’s position does not make sense to many Net Neutrality advocates who do not understand why Grayson cannot be supportive of both regulatory reform and legislative changes.

“I think Grayson is mistaken to think that good Net Neutrality legislation could come out of this Congress. And certainly he’s mistaken to think that good Net Neutrality legislation would come out of the next Congress,” said Tim Karr of Free Press.

Karr told HuffPost he hoped Grayson would note conservative bloggers are in love with the congressman’s position on Net Neutrality and rethink his position. “Given that Grayson is considered a progressive lion in the House of Representatives, that the people who routinely vilify him are now seeing him as a champion should make him think twice,” he said.

Grayson argues that getting the FCC to reform broadband and make Net Neutrality a formal agency directive would be a waste of time because Republicans would simply throw it out the next time they occupy the White House.

For many Net Neutrality advocates, that kind of defeatist attitude is symbolic of a problem Democrats have long faced — the impression they’ll cave-in when challenged by Republicans.

Marvin Ammori, a law professor at the University of Nebraska:

“What he’s implying is that Republicans actually do what they want to do and implement the policies they want and Democrats don’t,” said Ammori. “It sounds like they’re unwilling to change regulations because they’re worried Republicans will change them back… It just highlights that Republicans are willing to change the law and Democrats aren’t.”

Perhaps most upsetting to Net Neutrality supporters is Grayson’s belief that many phone and cable companies support Net Neutrality, at least how they define it.

Ammori thinks that is nonsense, and easily dismissed as lip service when one considers the actions of the telecom industry.

“If they supported Net Neutrality, we’d have it by now,” he said. “They’ve spent hundreds of millions fighting against Net Neutrality… This is part of their pitch: ‘We don’t plan on blocking anything on the Internet. We just want the right to do so’… He’s essentially crediting their PR claims.”

Grayson faced questions about his position on MSNBC about his Net Neutrality views, and was lectured by progressive talk show host Cenk Uygur.  Grayson called the FCC “a fundamentally corrupt organization.”  (2 minutes)