CanadianDownload fills the marketplace niche of delivering websites that are now too big to download under Canada's Internet Overcharging schemes.

America, the home of the free and the brave… and the unlimited use Internet service plan, is coming to Canada’s rescue.

Want to watch the latest CRTC hearing about broadband or download a Linux distribution, but don’t want to blow through your puny usage allowance?  Let a new website do the downloading for you.

American-based CanadianDownload.com is part mission of mercy, part online embarrassment for Canadian officials who have allowed the country’s broadband to lapse into a highly expensive, slow, and irritating mess.

Justin Bowman and his business partner Matthew Neder Laden are behind the website, which fielded 130,000 visits on its first day of operation.  The two run a security camera outfit that has nothing to do with Canadian broadband, but considering their headquarters are in the mountains of North Carolina, one of the hotbed states for Internet Overcharging experiments south of the Canadian border, they strongly sympathize with the plight of ordinary citizens paying too much, for too little service.  And because many of their customers want to remotely access the cameras they sell, their business could ultimately be impacted by paltry usage limits, too.

“The initial idea was just a protest of the ludicrous bandwidth caps that [Canadian ISPs] have placed on their customers,” Bowman told the Financial Post. “But the other part of it was just to provide a service.”

“We had no idea it would actually catch on and that people would actually give a rat’s ass about [the site], but they did,” he said.

Considering most Canadian cable and phone company Internet service plans are limited to 60 or fewer “rat asses” per month (and dropping), their surprise might be unwarranted.

Visitors are invited to enter the URL of the website they want shipped north, and the service will mail the discs at no charge using the cheapest possible shipping method.

Bowman and Laden

The two have spent countless hours burning DVD’s for consumers across Canada since the site launched earlier this month.  But there are limits.  Nearly 90 percent of the requests are “not serious,” according to Bowman.  Requests for “Google” as well as racy online content can’t be fulfilled, and the service is careful to avoid running afoul of copyright law.

“I don’t want to mess with that, having the FBI on my ass because I’m shipping bootleg items across international lines, I’m just not going to do that,” Bowman said. “Basically we’re keeping it to open source software, a lot of those data files are pretty massive.”

All in all, CanadianDownload.com exists to make a point — that broadband service in Canada can never be a success story with Internet Overcharging schemes hanging over its head.  Just as a carrier pigeon in South Africa proved it could deliver faster service than the overpriced broadband incumbent, an American website has called out the current Canadian broadband nightmare of high prices and usage caps.  The scariest part of the story is that mailing DVD’s with web content could eventually become financially viable.

At least the United States Postal Service and Canada Post, who will reap the revenue delivering all those discs, hope so.

“We’ll [continue] for as long as we can,” Bowman told the Post. “So long as we can still make rent and feed ourselves… yeah we’ll keep on mailing you guys stuff.”

From CanadianDownload’s blog:

The metered bandwidth decision was and always has been about Netflix, iTunes, torrents, and other threats to dying media business models. From CRTC to Comcast, here in the states, the international business community must fight back against the monopolies who (for the most part) ran their cables on the back of public subsidies and now want to dictate how these pipes are used. We broke up big-Bell, it’s time to do the same here.

Here at SCW, we have been very concerned with bandwidth caps. We’ve been called [innovative] for our work with CanadianDownload.com, but we aren’t; we just hearkened back to old school business models. Bandwidth caps reduce innovation; they don’t increase it. Also for all the talk of “smarter way to ship data,” we have to state that we want this business model to fail. Although there is a need for this type of service in places like South Africa, Australia, and many other parts of the world, more innovation will be possible with an open and accessible Internet than with the “innovation” associated with bottling it up and shipping it.

The actions by ISP monopolies puts all online business at risk – and not just services like Netflix, imgur, and iTunes. In a world of metered bandwidth, low bandwidth versions of sites will have to be created — which squashes rather than creates innovation. Furthermore, this puts any site that serves online advertising at risk. If you bandwith is metered, who could blame someone for using tools such as ad-block-plus to take more control of your bandwidth allowance. This translates to a direct reduction in revenue for sites that support themselves via advertisement. The saddest part of this is that even the portal sites for ISPs, (where you can see your bandwidth usage), show ads.

EchoStar Corporation, which makes equipment and provides satellites for Dish Network, today announced it has agreed to buy Hughes Communications, Inc., for about $1.32 billion.

The deal means Dish, the second-largest U.S. satellite television provider, could be one step closer to providing a national data service to its customers.  Hughes operates a “broadband” satellite network, which almost entirely serves rural areas.

Much maligned by its customers, who consider the service’s high prices, low speeds and even lower usage caps “fraudband,” Hughes’ satellite service has been up for sale for some time.

The purchase “brings together the two premier providers of satellite communications services and delivers substantial value to our shareholders,” Pradman Kaul, chief executive officer of Hughes said in the statement.

Satellite television companies have increasingly been at a disadvantage because they cannot sell a true “triple-play” package of television, Internet, and phone service to customers who commonly bundle the three services together.  Instead, Dish and its larger competitor DirecTV have been relying on partnerships with telephone companies who provide phone and Internet service with a satellite television package.

The current generation of satellite broadband services are not well-rated by their customers.  Capacity shortages force providers to place strict limits on usage, which makes the service largely useless for high bandwidth applications — especially video.

The deal is expected to close later this year.

Watch HughesNet’s advertisement promising “blazing fast” speeds in contrast to an actual speed test completed by one of their customers, at a non-peak-usage time.  (2 minutes)

During the third day of hearings on usage-based billing, Mirko Bibic from Bell admitted that usage-based billing “prevents [other ISPs] from differentiating their offers from our own.”

That remarkable admission is exactly what independent Internet Service Providers have been arguing since the issue of wholesale usage-based billing was first proposed by Canada’s largest broadband supplier.

Independent providers have managed to carve out a niche supplying primarily residential DSL customers with flat rate usage plans, made possible because of wholesale access provisions assured under Canada’s telecommunications regulations.  As Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron have systematically imposed usage limits on their residential customers (and occasionally lowered them), consumers seeking better value have found it from smaller ISPs that still offer unlimited access.

As Bell frets over its inability to reap retail revenue from customers departing for other providers, the idea of imposing usage-based billing on wholesale accounts ends that revenue erosion once and for all.  As Bell admits, it forces every provider in Canada to charge the same high prices they do for Internet access.

Canada’s telecom regulator, the CRTC, still cannot define what a “heavy user” is, and neither could Bibic.  But with these pricing schemes, now they don’t have to.  Imposing higher prices with vague promises that the resulting revenue will expand Canada’s broadband networks is eerily familiar to what Time Warner promised residents in several major cities, and then didn’t deliver.

In western New York, the cable company promised a new generation of blazing fast speeds on a world class broadband network, as long as customers agreed to pay up to $150 for unlimited residential service per month.  The old price was $50.  But the cable company provided those upgrades in other cities instead — without usage based pricing.  No wonder residents were furious.  After two weeks of protest, Time Warner threw in the towel.

Two years later, the promised upgrades are finally slated to arrive, long after being made available in most large cities in New York State.

Provider-promised bait and switch broadband upgrades merely represent sucker bets, and no one except the provider wins.

If Bell gets its way, there will be no reason for anyone to do business with an independent service provider.  They’ll be forced to charge increased prices, sometimes even higher than Bell itself.

The telephone landline business is hardly a growth industry, as an average of 5-7 percent of customers disconnect their home phone service every quarter, but you wouldn’t know that from the dividends being paid to stockholders.

From AT&T, Bell Canada, Frontier to Qwest — the companies that speak in terms of keeping their customer defection rates down are paying dividends that often exceed earnings.

Among the worst of all — Frontier Communications, whose outsized dividend is expected to reach 75 cents a share.  That, despite the fact analysts predict the phone company will earn only 40 cents a share or so this year.

Where do these phone companies expect to make their money?  Their broadband and wireless divisions.  AT&T and Bell Canada are able to cover landline losses with enhanced profits from their IPTV services like U-verse and Fibe.  Frontier and Qwest expect to survive on providing cheap-to-deploy DSL service in rural areas avoided by cable operators.

Phillip "I've heard this all somewhere before" Dampier

Shaw Communications today suspended its Internet Overcharging scheme as Canada’s firestorm over Internet Overcharging continues.  Western Canada’s largest cable company is taking a page from Time Warner Cable’s 2009 failed playbook and promising a ‘listening tour’ to “hear the views” of their customers on the subject of usage-based billing.

Evidently, the half-million Canadians signing Openmedia’s petition rejecting this kind of pillage pricing out of hand isn’t sufficient, nor are polls showing overwhelming opposition to the end of flat rate usage plans in the country.  So in a bold PR move, Shaw is throwing the doors open to listen to their customers.*

It’s all just wonderful….  Hey, wait a minute.  Is that a speck on my monitor?  What is that spot at the end of the sentence up there?

Uh oh, it’s an asterisk.  I’d better scroll down to find out what that is all about:

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Are you still with me?  We’re on a tour of our own….

|

This part of the tour is brought to you by Shaw.

|

|

|

(*- If you want to be involved in the discussions, which are being held face to face – then you’ll need to email shawfeedback@sjrb.ca to ask for an invite.  Use “Please send me an invitation to attend the Internet usage discussion” as the subject line.)

Oh.  You have to be “invited” to attend.  Because I need permission to speak my mind about Shaw’s overcharging schemes.

Yes folks, it’s all very reminiscent of the Tweeting Trio at TWC back in 2009, who promised us they’d value our feedback, right up until we learned they deleted it, unread.

It’s really quite simple.  The overwhelming majority of Shaw customers are already paying good money for the service they receive today, and they don’t want to pay a penny more.  Shaw is not hurting financially — Internet Overcharging just adds more sugar to the quarterly financial reports.

But Shaw persists in writing replies like this to those writing them on the subject:

Thank you for your interest in voicing your opinion over this controversial topic.

We will be posting a detailed signup form within the next week or so once we get venues arranged. Times will also be posted once venues are established. At this point in time though, only customers like yourself will be invited to attend. Please check back on the 14th of February (Monday) for the posted meeting dates and times. The site to visit will be: http://shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data-Usage/

In its current form, UBB has been put on hold until we can determine the more customer friendly approach to this topic. It will still be rolling out as the objectives are the same – increase overall effectiveness of the network, manage the high users, and improve overall functionality/customer experience with our products. As the current model has caused all kinds of backlash from our customer population, your input as to what would make the process amicable to you would be appreciated.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Cheers,

Neil – Rep 7368

eCare Team

Shaw Cablesystems GP

The “customer friendly approach” to Internet Overcharging is not to engage in it.  The “signup form” and meeting dates provide Shaw with a nice list from which to handpick those selected to attend.  What they’ll be treated to is a circus of slides showing why Shaw simply must overcharge Canadians for their Internet service.  There is no surprise why ordinary citizens have caused all kinds of backlash.  These wounds are self-inflicted.

A better idea is to set up an independent debate on the subject, say with representatives from Shaw and Openmedia.ca and let the truth prevail.  Throw the doors open to anyone who wants to attend.  If Shaw wants to really listen, let them hear.

Unfortunately, I fear Shaw is not in a listening mood, otherwise they would scrap their usage based billing schemes and deliver quality service at a fair price, no invitation required.

CBC Radio One: The Current explores Internet Overcharging in Canada:

It’s hard to believe that just eighteen years ago — back in 1993 — we were only beginning to grasp what the Internet could do for us. Today, the Internet is an integral part of the global economy, a powerful political tool, and something many couldn’t imagine living without. That’s partly why the cost of Internet access has been at the centre of a national debate for the past week.

The debate was sparked by the CRTC’s decision to approve what’s known as “usage-based billing.” Then Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement tweeted that Ottawa wouldn’t accept the ruling. And the CRTC is now reviewing its decision and has put out a call to Canadians asking them to weigh in with their opinions.

Today we look at the implications of the different ways of charging for Internet access and we also ask if the Internet should be treated more like a utility or even a human right.

CBC Radio One’s program, The Current explores Canada’s attitude towards usage-based billing and what implications it hold for an increasingly digital society. Steve Anderson from Openmedia.ca joins the program to debate the notion usage-based billing “saves” light users’ money.  (28 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Despite claims from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that it is reviewing its recent decision about usage-based billing on its own accord, the telecommunications regulator has bowed under government pressure to begin an immediate review of the Internet billing practice.

At issue is how Bell prices wholesale access to Internet bandwidth, utilized by most independent Internet Service Providers who resell that access to residential and business customers, often for a flat monthly rate.

The original CRTC decision would allow Bell to charge wholesale prices not based on annual contracts, but rather on the amount of usage consumed by their wholesale clients.  The CRTC ordered Bell to discount its wholesale rates by 15 percent earlier this month, but that amount was too small to stop providers from canceling unlimited use service plans across Canada.

The decision sparked a public outcry.  Hundreds of thousands signed a petition demanding the CRTC rescind its decision.  In fact, so many signed it broke all-time records for a petition drive.

Industry Minister Tony Clement announced last week that if the CRTC didn’t reverse its decision, the government would.  Despite an intransigent appearance before a Commons committee late last week, CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein has been moderating his position this week.

“The great concern expressed by Canadians over this issue is telling of how much the internet has become an integral part of their lives,” the chairman acknowledged in a statement issued yesterday.

The CRTC now says it is open to views from the public about Internet pricing as part of its review.

The commission will seek public comments until April 29 through an online form on:

• How to make sure ordinary consumers served by small ISPs don’t have to “fund the bandwidth used by the heaviest residential internet consumers.”
• How to ensure small ISPs offering “competitive alternatives” to large ISPs can continue to do so.
• Whether small ISPs should be required to buy a minimum amount of bandwidth per retail customer when purchasing network access wholesale from large ISPs, and, if so, what that minimum should be.
• Whether the CRTC should hold an online consultation as part of its review.
• Whether the CRTC should hold an oral public hearing as part of its review.

CBC News reports the CRTC will review its earlier decision that eliminated flat-rate broadband plans in Canada.  (2 minutes)

Here in West Virginia, cell phone reception is often by the grace of God.  The incredibly mountainous state makes “line of sight” communications a real problem when the nearest cell tower is blocked by a gigantic shale rock formation someone blasted through to build a road decades earlier.

AT&T probably still delivers the largest coverage of rural areas in the state because its towers expand beyond the major highways other carriers cover. But even with that expanded service, using a smartphone indoors is going to be a problem in many places.

Recently, AT&T sent letters to approximately 7.5 percent of their customers in the rural areas most likely to have reception problems, offering a free “MicroCell,” which is comparable to a mini cell tower inside your home or office.  The equipment works with your existing broadband connection to expand “coverage” inside your home.  For data purposes, the MicroCell doesn’t deliver anything your personal Wi-Fi connection couldn’t, but if you rely on a cell phone, having signal bars makes all the difference if you are waiting for an important call.

A considerable number of those letters reached families in West Virginia, and that is no surprise considering the state is by far the most difficult to blanket with wireless coverage in the eastern half of the country.

A letter to AT&T customers inviting them to receive a free MicroCell

But the problem is, some families are receiving the free offers, while others are not, and that is creating reception envy.

AT&T 3G MicroCell

Charlotte, who lives in Whipple, W.V., outside of Oak Hill, was visiting with her neighbor Joy last week and noticed her husband fiddling with the latest gadget on his computer desk.

“It looked odd because of the way it spread out on the bottom, so I asked Joy what in the world he was installing,” Charlotte says.

“It’s a cell tower thing AT&T gave us to get better reception,” Joy responded.

Despite the fact the two families live only a few homes apart and signed up for AT&T service with the exact same phones within weeks of each other, Charlotte was never offered AT&T’s MicroCell.

AT&T notified qualified customers with a letter containing a personal reservation code, and the offer was not transferable.

“Maybe you got it and threw it away,” Joy offered.

“No, ever since the credit card companies started changing terms on us, we open every envelope that comes into this house,” Charlotte replied.

Assuming it must be an oversight, Charlotte dropped by her local AT&T store to inquire about the offer.

“We quickly learned we were not the first family to bring up this issue with AT&T as the store manager told us he was fielding complaints from all over town about the highly-selective offer,” Charlotte said.

Even worse, there was nothing the manager could do to rectify the situation.

“His hands were as tied as my patience was tried,” Charlotte tells Stop the Cap!

“The store manager offered to sell me the MicroCell for around $100 with a rebate, but why should I pay AT&T for better reception they should already be providing?” Charlotte asks.  “It seems to me if they are giving away these things to some people in a neighborhood, they should be doing it for everyone, because we pay the same bill our neighbors do.”

The seemingly random offers of MicroCell units are not limited to West Virginia.  We’ve noticed complaints from residents in northern California, the Pacific Northwest, and northern New England from others who get reception while outdoors or on the go, but find their phones useless for making and receiving calls at home.

In most cases, irate customers seeking redress from AT&T run into a bureaucratic brick wall.

Rick McGee, commenting on Engadget’s website:

I have talked to Marketing, Technical Support, and my local store, and nobody can tell me who to contact to qualify for a MicroCell. I have been an AT&T Mobility customer for over four years, with four family plan phones and two more phones on corporate contracts. The reception at my house is usually zero, at times maybe one bar, but never enough to maintain an incoming call or make an outgoing call. I guess I am a glutton for punishment, but this is the last straw.

If AT&T does not magically send me one of the MicroCell coupons, I will total up my termination fees and determine the earliest date I am willing to dump AT&T and try another carrier. In addition to the cell phones, I have two AT&T land lines, plus an AT&T internet account, so I am likely in the top tier of residential customers. With no reception at my house, I don’t see how I would fail to qualify for a MicroCell, but AT&T has no process to help individual customers with bad reception. Everyone I talk to claims ignorance. I’ve done my part, AT&T — either step up, or I am gone.

Others find similar experiences — apologies from in-person sales staff about the corporate roadblocks even they cannot navigate around.

But every once in awhile, one does.  Casey Robinson’s neighborhood lost all AT&T cell phone service when their local cell tower was destroyed in a storm.  The replacement redirected most of its signal elsewhere, leaving them with no bars.

After arguing with corporate phone support in the AT&T store for 2 hours they told me pay the $149 [for a MicroCell] or tough luck. I responded by telling them to take my family plan +2 lines, my roommates family plan +3 lines, and our Uverse U400 package with high speed internet and shove it, we will be changing carriers immediately since I have tower data from AT&T pre and post storm to show they breached our contract.

The AT&T store rep was amazing through all of this. He apologized continuously and said if it was up to them they would give out the MicroCell as soon as we walked in the door, unfortunately their computers physically block them from comping a MicroCell. While I was very distraught on the phone with AT&T, he called his manager at home and explained the situation. She drove in to the store, again apologizing for everything we had to go through, checked us out with the MicroCell then credited our account for the full purchase price and credited a month’s service to both my line and my roommate’s line for the issues we had been having. They are the only reason we still have AT&T. Of course we wrote to their district manager and AT&T corporate applauding the employee and manager, and of course from what we’ve heard they still haven’t been acknowledged for their good work.

Some others have had recent success filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau, when executive level customer service representatives come to the rescue with a free MicroCell.

Charlotte’s family intends to deal with the MicroCell Gap in their own way — by switching to Verizon Wireless, which improved service in the Oak Hill region a few years ago while they’ve been under contract with AT&T.

“We were willing to put up with the MicroCell doing the job their own cell towers should be doing, but because they don’t care about us, we’re done with them,” Charlotte says.

Customers accepting AT&T’s free offer must verbally commit to stay with the carrier at least 12 months or return the MicroCell when they depart.  If they don’t, AT&T will bill an equipment fee up to $199.

Engadget obtained this inside memo about the MicroCell offer.

Standing in line for an iPhone tonight will be a little less comfortable than Apple's traditional summer release dates.

That stunning conclusion from online research firm uSamp is raising eyebrows because of the shockingly high number of people willing to brave the elements (and the cost) to grab iPhone 4 on Verizon’s network, even if it means pitching their existing phone in the waste bin.

Smartphone-lovers will have that chance as customers queue up tonight for Verizon’s iPhone tomorrow.

uSamp surveyed more than 700 smartphone users, finding that 29 percent of AT&T customers who intend to switch to Verizon for the iPhone are willing to wait in line on Feb. 10 to get it. Among existing Verizon customers who plan to get the iPhone, 24 percent report a willingness to stand in line, too.  When weighted across customers willing to switch handsets, more than one-quarter of all current iPhone owners will end their contracts with AT&T sometime this year.

For young consumers, devotion to the iPhone is even more intense: among AT&T customers intending to switch, 35 percent of those ages 18-24 and 50 percent of those ages 25-34 are willing to wait in line on the Feb. 10 launch day.

For Verizon’s current BlackBerry and Android users who report plans to switch to the iPhone, 46 percent of those ages 18-24 and 34 percent of those ages 25-34 agree they will wait in line on day one.

uSamp’s research shows diverging reasons for the willingness to switch.  For current AT&T customers, displeasure with AT&T’s network is by far the most important reason.  Nearly half of all respondents planning to leave cite dropped calls, followed by complaints about coverage and customer service.

The most recent example of AT&T’s high-profile failures was a very unhappy Will.i.am, whose attempts to tweet messages during the Super Bowl were met with frustration at every turn.  It seems AT&T didn’t deliver a reliable signal inside the stadium in Dallas, ironic considering AT&T is headquartered in that city.

“Att crashed … ahhhh!!!! The worse [sic],” tweeted Will.i.am, who has more than 800,000 followers of his Twitter account. That was shortly followed with “At&t??? Wow…no service during halftime…unbelievable.”

For Verizon customers, the largest group planning to abandon their existing phones are Blackberry owners.  Nearly two-thirds of respondents are prepared to give up a phone that used to be known as a “Crackberry.”  Why?  It’s yesterday’s phone, according to many respondents prepared to move on.

Many Android owners are also prepared to switch to the iPhone, even if their existing phones are just months old. These customers originally craved the iPhone, but settled on an Android phone just to stay with Verizon.  Now that they can have both the phone and the carrier, they will.

uSamp even measured regional differences in the motivation to switch.  Southern Verizon customers are most eager for the iPhone (30 percent), Midwesterners the least (13 percent).  AT&T customers who consider that company’s service as worthwhile as a stale Triscuit are evenly spread from coast to coast, averaging around 28 percent of all customers surveyed.

Tomorrow’s introduction will be followed by the next generation of iPhones early this summer, so some are planning to wait before upgrading.

WTTG-TV in Washington, D.C. explores the differences between AT&T and Verizon iPhones with Mark Kellner, technology correspondent for the Washington Times.  (5 minutes)

AT&T, trying to maintain its visibility on the eve of the release of the Apple iPhone on Verizon’s network, today announced it was giving away unlimited mobile-to-mobile calling, regardless of what cell phone carrier the called party uses.

Beginning Thursday, Mobile to Any Mobile will be available to new and existing AT&T customers with qualifying Nation and FamilyTalk voice plans who also subscribe to unlimited messaging plans. Existing customers with an unlimited messaging plan can activate Mobile to Any Mobile by visiting www.att.com/anymobile. The URL will be available beginning Thursday.

An unlimited messaging plan costs an extra $20 per month for individuals, $30 per month on a FamilyTalk plan, covering up to five lines.

“Mobile to Any Mobile is an exciting offer that will keep our customers connected to the people they want to talk to, when they want to talk to them, without the hassle of watching minutes,” said David Christopher, chief marketing officer, AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets.