Home » Editorial & Site News » Recent Articles:

Comcast Introducing Usage Caps in Florida, Then Offers $30 Option to Get Back Unlimited

comcast money pileComcast today quietly announced its broadband customers in Fort Lauderdale, the Keys and Miami, Fla., will find a broadband usage cap of 300GB per month imposed on their Internet access starting Oct. 1, 2015, along with the option of buying a new $30 insurance plan to protect against overlimit fees and restore unlimited access.

Stop the Cap! reader Jose from Hialeah informed us Comcast formally began notifying affected customers in e-mail earlier today and updated their website (thanks to DSL Reports):

***An important update about your XFINITY Internet service:

We’re writing to let you know that we will be trialing a new XFINITY Internet data plan in your area. Starting October 1, 2015, your monthly data plan will include 300GB. We’ll also trial a new “Unlimited Data” option that will give you the choice to purchase unlimited data for $30 per month in addition to your monthly Internet service fee.

The majority of XFINITY customers use less than 300GB of data in a month, and therefore will not be affected by these changes. If you are not sure of your monthly data usage, please refer to the Track and Manage Your Usage section below.

Here are the details of the plan:

You’ll get 300GB of data each month. If for any reason you exceed the 300GB included in your plan in a month, we will automatically add blocks of 50GB to your account for an additional fee of $10 each. We’re also implementing a three-month courtesy program. That means you will not be billed for the first three times you exceed the 300GB included in the monthly data plan.

Here are the details of the Unlimited Data option:

If you don’t want a 300GB data plan, the new Unlimited Data option is an alternative that provides additional choice and flexibility, especially for customers who use lots of data. You can choose to enroll in the Unlimited Data option at any time for an additional $30 a month, regardless of how much data you use. Enrollment in this option goes into effect on the first day of the subsequent calendar month.

Notifications:

If you are on the 300 GB plan, we will send you a courtesy “in-browser” notice and an email letting you know when you reach 90%, 100%, 110%, and 125% of your monthly data usage plan amount. You can also elect to receive notifications at additional thresholds as well as set up mobile text notifications. Notices will not be sent to customers who enroll in the unlimited data option.

$30 a month will let Floridians bypass Comcast's overlimit usage tolls.

$30 a month will let Floridians bypass Comcast’s overlimit usage tolls.

What is remarkable about the introduction of Comcast’s latest usage cap trial is the naked monetization scheme that accompanies it. Comcast’s old arguments that usage caps provide an even usage experience and fairness for all customers has been replaced with a new $30 insurance plan that effectively restores the unlimited usage plan customers had until this month… for $30 more a month than they used to pay. Once Comcast collects your $30, the sky is the limit as far as usage is concerned.

Customers are howling about the changes on Comcast’s social media platforms and customer support forums. Stop the Cap! strongly urges Comcast customers to also complain to the Federal Communications Commission using this online complaint form. The more Americans that complain about capped Internet, the more likely the FCC will act on the issue.

“Comcast can just do whatever they want without asking or giving notice,” writes Jason. “So basically we all just got a $30 a month increase in our Comcast bill, such BS! I’ve been a Comcast customer over 20 years. I am done. This was the last straw.”

“Kiss my business goodbye,” wrote another customer. “I have had nothing but trouble with Comcast since I’ve had it.  Weekly outages, incompetent techs on the phone, etc. AT&T U-verse may not have speeds that are as fast as Comcast, but the service was reliable, and they didn’t try to stab us in the back with ridiculous fees. Hasta la vista, Comcast!”

For now, the Unlimited Data Option is only available to customers in Florida. All other Comcast customers living under the company’s usage caps will continue to face overlimit fees of $10 for each 50GB of usage they run up past their 300GB usage allowance.

Comcast has also suddenly clarified exactly which customers are facing a life with usage caps by publishing a lengthy list of zip codes where unlucky customers will not be allowed to receive unlimited broadband. (Last week, Stop the Cap! shared with readers the story of Comcast customers in Georgia being misled about usage caps by Comcast employees. Woodstock’s two zip codes – 30188 and 30189 – appear on the below list.):

Alabama

35020, 35021, 35023, 35111, 35211, 35401, 35403, 35404, 35405, 35406, 35440, 35444, 35446, 35447, 35453, 35473, 35475, 35476, 35486, 35487, 35490, 35630, 35631, 35632, 35633, 35634, 35645, 35660, 35661, 35674, 35677, 35741, 35748, 35750, 35756, 35758, 35759, 35763, 35773, 35801, 35802, 35803, 35805, 35806, 35810, 35811, 35816, 35824, 35899, 35901, 35903, 35904, 35905, 35906, 35907, 35952, 35953, 35954, 35961, 35972, 35987, 36528, 36571, 36572, 36575, 36582, 36587, 36602, 36603, 36604, 36605, 36606, 36607, 36608, 36609, 36610, 36611, 36612, 36613, 36615, 36617, 36618, 36619, 36652, 36693, 36695

Arizona

85145, 85619, 85653, 85658, 85704, 85705, 85709, 85712, 85713, 85715, 85718, 85719, 85735, 85737, 85739, 85741, 85742, 85743, 85745, 85746, 85749, 85750, 85755, 85757

Arkansas

72301, 72303, 72331, 72364, 72373

Florida – New Area for 300GB Usage Cap; Unlimited Data Option available for $30 extra per month.

33001, 33004, 33009, 33010, 33012, 33013, 33014, 33015, 33016, 33018, 33019, 33020, 33021, 33023, 33024, 33025, 33026, 33027, 33028, 33029, 33030, 33031, 33032, 33033, 33034, 33035, 33036, 33037, 33040, 33042, 33043, 33044, 33045, 33050, 33051, 33054, 33055, 33056, 33060, 33062, 33063, 33064, 33065, 33066, 33067, 33068, 33069, 33070, 33071, 33073, 33076, 33109, 33122, 33125, 33126, 33127, 33128, 33129, 33130, 33131, 33132, 33133, 33134, 33135, 33136, 33137, 33138, 33139, 33140, 33141, 33142, 33143, 33144, 33145, 33146, 33147, 33149, 33150, 33155, 33156, 33157, 33158, 33160, 33161, 33162, 33165, 33166, 33167, 33168, 33169, 33170, 33172, 33173, 33174, 33175, 33176, 33177, 33178, 33179, 33180, 33181, 33182, 33183, 33184, 33185, 33186, 33187, 33189, 33190, 33193, 33194, 33196, 33199, 33233, 33242, 33301, 33304, 33305, 33306, 33308, 33309, 33310, 33311, 33312, 33313, 33314, 33315, 33316, 33317, 33319, 33321, 33322, 33323, 33324, 33325, 33326, 33327, 33328, 33330, 33331, 33332, 33334, 33337, 33351, 33355, 33388, 33394, 33434, 33441, 33442, 34142, 34974

Georgia

30002, 30004, 30005, 30008, 30009, 30011, 30012, 30013, 30014, 30016, 30017, 30018, 30019, 30021, 30022, 30024, 30025, 30028, 30030, 30032, 30033, 30034, 30035, 30038, 30039, 30040, 30041, 30043, 30044, 30045, 30046, 30047, 30052, 30054, 30055, 30056, 30058, 30060, 30062, 30064, 30066, 30067, 30068, 30069, 30071, 30072, 30075, 30076, 30078, 30079, 30080, 30082, 30083, 30084, 30087, 30088, 30090, 30092, 30093, 30094, 30096, 30097, 30098, 30101, 30102, 30103, 30104, 30105, 30106, 30107, 30108, 30109, 30110, 30111, 30114, 30115, 30116, 30117, 30120, 30121, 30122, 30123, 30125, 30126, 30127, 30132, 30134, 30135, 30137, 30139, 30141, 30142, 30144, 30145, 30146, 30147, 30149, 30150, 30152, 30153, 30157, 30161, 30165, 30168, 30171, 30172, 30173, 30176, 30178, 30179, 30180, 30182, 30183, 30184, 30185, 30187, 30188, 30189, 30205, 30213, 30214, 30215, 30220, 30223, 30224, 30228, 30230, 30236, 30238, 30248, 30250, 30252, 30253, 30257, 30260, 30263, 30265, 30266, 30268, 30269, 30272, 30273, 30274, 30276, 30277, 30281, 30288, 30290, 30291, 30292, 30294, 30296, 30297, 30303, 30304, 30305, 30306, 30307, 30308, 30309, 30310, 30311, 30312, 30313, 30314, 30315, 30316, 30317, 30318, 30319, 30320, 30322, 30324, 30326, 30327, 30328, 30329, 30330, 30331, 30332, 30334, 30336, 30337, 30338, 30339, 30340, 30341, 30342, 30344, 30345, 30346, 30349, 30350, 30354, 30358, 30359, 30360, 30361, 30363, 30369, 30410, 30411, 30413, 30414, 30417, 30423, 30427, 30428, 30429, 30434, 30439, 30442, 30445, 30457, 30467, 30471, 30477, 30501, 30504, 30506, 30507, 30517, 30518, 30519, 30520, 30527, 30529, 30530, 30533, 30534, 30542, 30543, 30548, 30549, 30554, 30558, 30564, 30567, 30575, 30606, 30607, 30620, 30622, 30624, 30634, 30635, 30643, 30655, 30656, 30666, 30673, 30677, 30680, 30701, 30733, 30735, 30746, 30802, 30805, 30807, 30808, 30809, 30812, 30813, 30814, 30815, 30816, 30817, 30824, 30828, 30830, 30901, 30904, 30905, 30906, 30907, 30909, 30912, 30914, 31002, 31063, 31064, 31068, 31096, 31301, 31302, 31304, 31305, 31307, 31308, 31309, 31312, 31313, 31314, 31315, 31316, 31318, 31320, 31321, 31322, 31323, 31324, 31326, 31328, 31329, 31331, 31333, 31401, 31404, 31405, 31406, 31407, 31408, 31409, 31410, 31411, 31415, 31419, 31421, 31543, 31545, 31546, 31555, 31560, 31566, 31568, 31569

Illinois

62910, 62960

Indiana

47520, 47586

Kentucky

40150, 40160, 40162, 40175, 42001, 42002, 42003, 42027, 42029, 42048, 42053, 42058, 42069, 42082, 42086, 42127, 42134, 42141, 42152, 42223, 42321, 42323, 42324, 42326, 42330, 42332, 42337, 42344, 42345, 42367, 42374, 42701, 42702, 42712, 42716, 42718, 42724, 42726, 42732, 42733, 42740, 42748, 42749, 42754, 42757, 42758, 42764, 42783, 42788

Louisiana

71201, 71202, 71203, 71209, 71225, 71227, 71229, 71234, 71238, 71280, 71291, 71292, 71294

Maine

03901, 03903, 03904, 03905, 03908, 04003, 04008, 04011, 04032, 04066, 04078, 04079, 04086, 04222, 04287, 04530, 04562, 04565, 04579

Mississippi

38611, 38618, 38619, 38621, 38632, 38635, 38637, 38641, 38649, 38651, 38654, 38661, 38664, 38666, 38668, 38670, 38671, 38672, 38674, 38676, 38680, 38683, 38801, 38802, 38803, 38804, 38824, 38826, 38828, 38829, 38834, 38835, 38843, 38846, 38849, 38855, 38856, 38857, 38860, 38862, 38866, 38868, 38869, 38876, 38879, 39041, 39042, 39043, 39046, 39047, 39056, 39066, 39071, 39073, 39079, 39110, 39145, 39151, 39154, 39157, 39167, 39170, 39174, 39175, 39193, 39201, 39202, 39203, 39204, 39206, 39208, 39209, 39210, 39211, 39212, 39213, 39216, 39217, 39218, 39232, 39269, 39272, 39301, 39302, 39303, 39304, 39305, 39307, 39309, 39320, 39325, 39335, 39338, 39342, 39347, 39348, 39355, 39364, 39366, 39367, 39401, 39402, 39406, 39422, 39437, 39439, 39440, 39441, 39442, 39443, 39455, 39465, 39475, 39477, 39481, 39773

South Carolina

29108, 29127, 29401, 29403, 29404, 29405, 29406, 29407, 29408, 29409, 29410, 29412, 29414, 29418, 29420, 29424, 29425, 29426, 29429, 29438, 29439, 29445, 29449, 29451, 29455, 29456, 29461, 29464, 29466, 29470, 29482, 29483, 29485, 29487, 29488, 29492, 29628, 29803, 29822, 29829, 29831, 29841, 29842, 29847, 29860, 29901, 29902, 29904, 29906, 29907, 29911, 29920, 29924, 29944, 29945

Tennessee

37010, 37013, 37014, 37015, 37020, 37022, 37025, 37026, 37027, 37029, 37030, 37031, 37032, 37033, 37036, 37037, 37042, 37046, 37048, 37049, 37051, 37055, 37059, 37060, 37062, 37064, 37066, 37067, 37069, 37071, 37072, 37073, 37074, 37075, 37076, 37080, 37082, 37083, 37085, 37086, 37087, 37090, 37098, 37115, 37119, 37122, 37127, 37128, 37129, 37130, 37131, 37132, 37135, 37137, 37138, 37141, 37143, 37145, 37148, 37149, 37150, 37152, 37153, 37165, 37166, 37167, 37172, 37179, 37181, 37185, 37186, 37187, 37188, 37189, 37190, 37201, 37203, 37204, 37205, 37206, 37207, 37208, 37209, 37210, 37211, 37212, 37213, 37214, 37215, 37216, 37217, 37218, 37219, 37220, 37221, 37228, 37229, 37232, 37235, 37236, 37238, 37240, 37243, 37246, 37306, 37318, 37324, 37330, 37352, 37366, 37398, 37701, 37705, 37709, 37710, 37713, 37714, 37716, 37719, 37721, 37722, 37725, 37726, 37737, 37738, 37742, 37748, 37754, 37755, 37756, 37757, 37763, 37764, 37766, 37769, 37770, 37771, 37772, 37777, 37779, 37801, 37803, 37804, 37806, 37807, 37820, 37821, 37828, 37829, 37830, 37840, 37841, 37843, 37845, 37847, 37849, 37852, 37853, 37854, 37862, 37863, 37871, 37872, 37876, 37882, 37886, 37887, 37892, 37902, 37909, 37912, 37914, 37915, 37916, 37917, 37918, 37919, 37920, 37921, 37922, 37923, 37924, 37929, 37931, 37932, 37934, 37938, 37996, 37998, 38002, 38010, 38011, 38014, 38015, 38016, 38017, 38018, 38019, 38028, 38029, 38036, 38039, 38046, 38048, 38049, 38052, 38057, 38060, 38061, 38066, 38067, 38068, 38069, 38075, 38076, 38103, 38104, 38105, 38106, 38107, 38108, 38109, 38111, 38112, 38113, 38114, 38115, 38116, 38117, 38118, 38119, 38120, 38122, 38125, 38126, 38127, 38128, 38131, 38132, 38133, 38134, 38135, 38137, 38138, 38139, 38141, 38152, 38157, 38305, 38326, 38339, 38357, 38365, 38367, 38375, 38504, 38547, 38549, 38553, 38555, 38556, 38557, 38558, 38560, 38565, 38570, 38571, 38572, 38577, 38583

Comcast Still Lying About Its Data Caps: Woodstock, Ga. Customer Misled to Believe There Are None

comcast whoppersBefore regulators, the media, and elected officials, Comcast’s executive vice president David Cohen has repeatedly told all who can hear that there are no usage caps on Comcast’s broadband service.

“There isn’t a cap anymore. We’re out of the cap business,” Cohen began saying in May 2012 after the cable company dropped its nationwide 250GB usage cap. But in several markets, mostly in the southern and western United States, Comcast snuck the caps back on residential Internet customers, only this time they claim it isn’t a usage cap at all.

“We effectively offer unlimited usage of our services because customers will have the ability to buy as much data as they want,” says the cable company these days.

But if the “usage caps” are actually gone, why is Comcast issuing executive-level memos to its customer service representatives and supervisors that repeatedly state the company does, in fact, have “data caps” in about a dozen cities across the country — part of an ongoing market trial that suggests Comcast is considering extending a new 300GB usage allowance nationwide.

Stop the Cap! reader Joe, an AT&T U-verse customer in Woodstock, Ga. — 30 miles north of downtown Atlanta — was offered a deal to switch to Comcast for 75Mbps Internet service at an attractive price. All Comcast had to do was convince Joe he would never have to deal with Comcast’s 300GB cap that is being tested in Atlanta. Joe, like many Internet customers, will not sign up with a company that imposes usage allowances on its wired broadband customers. He isn’t interested in checking a usage meter and considers broadband usage overlimit fees a deal-breaker.

So Joe called Comcast to get some straight answers. Does Comcast impose its usage cap on customers in Woodstock, which is part of Comcast’s greater Atlanta service area? Current Comcast broadband customers in Woodstock tell Stop the Cap! the company absolutely does impose a 300GB usage cap on Internet service, and some have the overlimit fees to prove it. But Comcast’s customer service representative insisted it just was not true. To back her up, not one but two Comcast supervisors also swore Woodstock is not affected by “data caps.”

Joe knew enough to record the call. Because if he did sign up for service and maintained his current usage, often in excess of 400GB a month, that “good deal” offered by Comcast would be replaced by nightmarish overlimit fees of $10 for each 50GB increment he exceeded his allowance.

Stop the Cap! reader Joe recorded his Aug. 22, 2015 conversation with Comcast — a company that really, really, really wants to convince potential customers in Georgia there are no Internet data caps on its broadband service outside of the city of Atlanta. Except there are, including in Joe’s city of Woodstock, Ga.

Comcast executives repeatedly claim Comcast doesn’t have “usage caps” on its Internet service anywhere, but you will quickly lose count adding up the number of times Comcast’s representative specifically refers to Comcast’s “data caps” and its official “data cap document.”

(This recording has been edited for brevity and clarity. Tones indicate where significant edits were made, during the time Joe was left on hold and as the representative moves towards a last ditch sales pitch. At the end of the clip, Joe shares his first impressions after he hung up with Comcast. (8:28)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

“What makes me laugh is the fact she is so uncertain. Obviously Comcast doesn’t properly train their employees,” Joe writes. “Comcast reps spreading bad information like this is negligent [when they tell] unsuspecting customers that there is no data cap. I honestly cannot tell if this woman was flat-out lying, or was just poorly trained.”

woodstockJoe isn’t the only one being misinformed by Comcast.

“I’ve been lied to so many times about this,” Jamil Duder wrote. “Sometimes I will get in touch with their online support just to see what they will tell me this time for my own amusement. I’ve been told everything. It has been removed, it never existed, it’s actually 600GB not 300GB, etc.”

In fact, Comcast’s enforcement of its data cap has spread well beyond the city limits of Atlanta. Despite claims from Comcast to the contrary, customers around the state report they are now limited to 300GB of usage before overlimit fees kick in.

“Absolutely unacceptable, and you wonder why they have the reputation as the worst company in America,” Joe writes.

So why would Comcast blatantly misinform customers about usage caps. The company is in an unenviable position in several of the cities where they are testing their caps. Most of Comcast’s competition in the usage cap trial markets comes from AT&T U-verse, which itself claims a 250GB usage cap — one that customers also know isn’t being enforced.

For Joe, sticking with AT&T’s slower Internet speeds in return for peace of mind his usage is not being limited is a better prospect.

comcast cartoonEric Ravenscraft suspects Comcast isn’t too happy with complaints it is getting about data caps from its customers either. He recently received a call from Comcast seeking feedback on what customers would like to see changed about the caps. But in typical Comcast fashion, getting rid of the caps does not seem to be an option. Instead, the representative claimed “obviously, the plans are outdated,” which suggests Comcast will adjust your allowance, not get rid of it.

Ravenscraft believes the most effective force to convince Comcast to ditch its caps altogether might be the Federal Communications Commission.

“If you want to do something about it, rope the FCC in. Let them know how you feel about this,” Ravenscraft writes. “Not only does this give the FCC another complaint to add to the pile, Comcast is required to respond to your complaint—by contacting you directly—within 30 days after the FCC forwards your complaint along.”

Several readers are doing exactly that every time they are charged an overlimit fee by Comcast. Within 30-60 days, Comcast has reportedly credited back the overlimit charges to complaining customers.

“I’ve filed 10 complaints with the FCC each time I get an overlimit fee on my bill, and I always get the overlimit fees credited back,” reports Stop the Cap! reader Jeff in Atlanta. “It takes about five minutes to fill out the complaint form — a minor nuisance, but now I effectively don’t have a Comcast usage cap and I am costing them more money dealing with my complaints every month than they would ever get charging me extra in the first place. Imagine if we all did that.”

“Comcast sucks but we might actually have a shot at making things better if we all do this,” Ravenscraft adds. “Most cities aren’t subject to these restrictive data cap trials, but they’ll eventually roll out nationwide if customers here don’t speak up loudly enough. We’ve got a weirdly unique opportunity to actually change how the internet works in the U.S.”

Cable Operators Told to Get Ready for a Gigabit, But Will Rationed Usage Make It Meaningless?

Phillip Dampier: A cable trade publication is lecturing its readership on better broadband the industry spent years claiming nobody wanted or needed.

Phillip Dampier: A cable trade publication is lecturing its readership on better broadband the industry spent years claiming nobody wanted or needed.

Remember the good old days when cable and phone companies told you there was no demand for faster Internet speeds when 6Mbps from the phone company was all you and your family really needed?

Those days are apparently over.

Multichannel News, the largest trade publication for cable industry executives, warns cable companies gigabit broadband speeds are right around the corner and the technological transformation that will unleash has been constrained for far too long.

Say what?

Proving our theory that those loudest about dismissing the need for faster Internet speeds are the least equipped to deliver them, the forthcoming arrival of DOCSIS 3.1 technology and decreasing costs to deploy fiber optics will allow cable providers to partially meet the gigabit speed challenge, at least on the downstream. Before DOCSIS 3.1, consumers didn’t “need those speeds.” Now companies like Comcast claim it isn’t important what consumers need today — it’s where the world is headed tomorrow.

Comcast 2013:

Comcast executive vice president David L. Cohen writes that the allure of Google Fiber’s gigabit service doesn’t match the needs or capabilities of online Americans.

“For some, the discussion about the broadband Internet seems to begin and end on the issue of ‘gigabit’ access,” Cohen says, in a nod to Google Fiber. “The issue with such speed is really more about demand than supply. Our business customers can already order 10-gig connections. Most websites can’t deliver content as fast as current networks move, and most U.S. homes have routers that can’t support the speed already available to the home.” Essentially, Cohen argues that even if Comcast were to deliver web service as fast as Google Fiber’s 1,000Mbps downloads and uploads, most customers wouldn’t be able to get those speeds because they’ve got the wrong equipment at home.

Comcast 2015:

“We’ve consistently offered the most speeds to the most homes, but with the current pace of tech innovation, sometimes you need to go to where the world is headed and not focus on where it is today.”

“The next great Internet innovation is only an idea away, and we want to help customers push the boundaries of what the Internet can do and do our part to inspire developers to think about what’s possible in a multi-gigabit future.  So, next month we will introduce Gigabit Pro, a new residential Internet service that offers symmetrical, 2-Gigabits-per-second (Gbps) speeds over fiber – at least double what anyone else provides.”

Nelson (Image: Multichannel News)

Nelson (Image: Multichannel News)

Rich Nelson’s guest column in Multichannel News makes it clear American broadband is behind the times. The senior vice president of marketing, broadband & connectivity at Broadcom Corporation says the average U.S. Internet connection of 11.5Mbps “is no longer enough” to support multiple family members streaming over-the-top video content, cloud storage, sharing high-resolution images, interactive online gaming and more.

Nelson credits Google Fiber with lighting a fire under providers to reconsider broadband speeds.

“Google’s Fiber program may have been the spark to light the fuse — Gigabit services have fostered healthy competition among Internet and telecommunications providers, who are now in a position to consider not ‘if’ but ‘when and how’ to deploy Gigabit broadband in order to meet consumer’s perceived ‘need for speed’ and maintain their competitive edge,” Nelson wrote.

But the greatest bottleneck to speed advances is spending money to pay for them. Verizon FiOS was one of the most extravagant network upgrades in years among large American telecom companies and the company was savaged by Wall Street for doing it. Although AT&T got less heat because its U-verse development costs were lower, most analysts still instinctively frown when a company proposes spending billions on network upgrades.

Customer demand for faster broadband is apparent as providers boost Internet speeds.

Customer demand for faster broadband is apparent as providers boost Internet speeds.

The advent of DOCSIS 3.1 — the next generation of cable broadband technology — suggests a win-win-win for Wall Street, cable operators, and consumers. No streets will have to be torn up, no new fiber cables will have to be laid. Most providers will be able to exponentially boost Internet speeds by reallocating bandwidth formerly reserved for analog cable television channels to broadband. The more available bandwidth reserved for broadband, the faster the speeds a company can offer.

Many industry observers predict the cable line will eventually be 100% devoted to broadband, over which telephone, television and Internet access can be delivered just as Verizon does today with FiOS and AT&T manages with its U-verse service.

The benefits of gigabit speeds are not limited to faster Internet browsing however.

Nelson notes communities and municipalities are now using gigabit broadband speeds as a competitive tool selling homes and attracting new businesses to an area. According to a study from the Fiber to the Home (FTTH) Council, communities with widely available gigabit access have experienced a positive impact on economic activity — to the tune of more than $1.4 billion in GDP growth. Those bypassed or stuck in a broadband backwater are now at risk of losing digital economy jobs as businesses and entrepreneurs look elsewhere.

The gigabit broadband gap will increasingly impact the local economies of communities left behind with inadequate Internet speeds as app developers, content producers, and other innovative startups leverage gigabit broadband to market new products and services.

The Pew Research Center envisioned what the next generation of gigabit killer apps might look like. Those communities stuck on the slow lane will likely not have access to an entire generation of applications that simply will never work over DSL.

But before celebrating the fact your local cable company promises to deliver the speed the new apps will need, there is a skunk that threatens to ruin your ultra high speed future: usage-based pricing and caps.

At the same time DOCSIS 3.1 will save the cable industry billions on infrastructure upgrade costs, the price for moving data across the next generation of super high-capacity broadband networks will be lower than ever before. But cable operators are not planning to pass their savings on to you. In fact, broadband prices are rising, along with efforts to apply arbitrary usage limits or charge usage-based pricing. Both are counter-intuitive and unjustified. It would be like charging for a bag of sand in the Sahara Desert or handing a ration book to shoreline residents with coupons allowing them one glass of water each from Lake Ontario.

skunkCox plans to limit its gigabit customers to 2TB of usage a month. AT&T U-verse with GigaPower has a (currently unenforced) limit of 1TB a month, while Suddenlink thinks 550GB is more than enough for its gigabit customers. Comcast is market testing 300GB usage caps in several cities but strangely has no usage cap on its usage-gobbling gigabit plan. Why cap the customers least-equipped to run up usage into the ionosphere while giving gigabit customers a free pass? It doesn’t make much sense.

But then usage caps have never made sense or been justified on wired broadband networks and are questionable on some wireless ones as well.

Stop the Cap! began fighting against usage caps and usage pricing in the summer of 2008 when Frontier Communications proposed to limit its DSL customers to an ‘ample’ 5GB of usage per month. That’s right — 5GB. We predicted then that usage caps would become a growing problem in the United States. With a comfortable duopoly, providers could easily ration Internet access with the flimsiest of excuses to boost profits. Here is what we told the Associated Press seven years ago:

“This isn’t really an issue that’s just going to be about Frontier,” said Phillip Dampier, a Rochester-based technology writer who is campaigning to get Frontier to back off its plans. “Virtually every broadband provider has been suddenly discovering that there’s this so-called ‘bandwidth crisis’ going on in the United States.”

That year, Frontier claimed most of its 559,300 broadband subscribers consumed less than 1.5 gigabytes per month, so 5GB was generous. Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter trotted out the same excuses companies like Cox and Suddenlink are still using today to justify these pricing schemes: “The growth of traffic means the company has to invest millions in its network and infrastructure, threatening its profitability.”

Just one year later, Frontier spent $5.3 billion to acquire Verizon landline customers in around two dozen states, so apparently Internet usage growth did not hurt them financially after all. Frankly, usage growth never does. As we told the AP in 2008, the costs of network equipment and connecting to the wider Internet are falling. It still is.

“If they continue to make the necessary investments … there’s no reason they can’t keep up” with increasing customer traffic, we said at the time.

We are happy to report we won our battle with Frontier Communications and today the company even markets the fact their broadband service comes without usage caps. In many of Frontier’s rural service areas, they are the only Internet Service Provider available. Imagine the impact a 5GB usage cap would have had on customers trying to run a home-based business, have kids using the Internet to complete homework assignments, or rely on the Internet for video entertainment.

So why do some providers still try to ration Internet usage? To make more money of course. When the public believes the phony tales of network costs and traffic growth, the duped masses open their wallets and pay even more for what is already overpriced broadband service. Just check this chart produced by the BBC, based on data from the Organization for Economic Co‑operation and Development. Value for money is an alien concept to U.S. providers:

_70717869_countries_with_high_speed_broadband

The usual method of combating pricing excess is robust competition. With a chasm-sized gap between fat profits and the real cost of the service, competitors usually lower the price to attract more customers. But the fewer competitors, the bigger the chance the marketplace will gravitate towards comfort-level pricing and avoid rocking the boat with a ruinous price war. It is one of the first principles of capitalism — charging what the market will bear. We’ve seen how well that works in the past 100+ years. Back in 2010, we found an uncomfortable similarity between broadband prices of today with the railroad pricing schemes of the 1800s. A handful of executives and shareholders reap the rewards of monopolistic pricing and pillage not only consumers but threaten local economies as well.

special reportThe abuses were so bad, Congress finally stepped in and authorized regulators to break up the railroad monopolies and regulate abusive pricing. We may be headed in the same direction with broadband. We do not advocate regulation for the sake of regulation. Competition is a much more efficient way to check abusive business practices. But where an effective monopoly or duopoly exists, competition alone will not help. Without consumer-conscious oversight, the forthcoming gigabit broadband revolution will be stalled by speed bumps and toll booths for the benefit of a few giant telecommunications corporations. That will allow other countries to once again leap ahead of the United States and Canada, just as they have done with Internet speeds, delivering superior service at a lower price.

China now ranks first in the world in terms of the total number of fiber to the home broadband subscribers. So far, it isn’t even close to the fastest broadband country because much of China still gets access to the Internet over DSL. The Chinese government considers that unacceptable. It sees the economic opportunities of widespread fiber broadband and has targeted the scrapping of every DSL Internet connection in favor of fiber optics by the end of 2017. As a result, with more than 200 million likely fiber customers, China will become the global leader in fiber infrastructure, fiber technology, and fiber development. What country will lose the most from that transition? The United States. Today, Corning produces 40% of the world’s optical fiber.

Global optical fiber capacity amounted to 13,000 tons in 2014, mainly concentrated in the United States, Japan and China (totaling as much as 85.2% of the world’s total), of which China already ranked first with a share of 39.8%. Besides a big producer of optical fiber, China is also a large consumer, demanding 6,639 tons in 2014, 60.9% of global demand. The figure is expected to increase to 7,144 tons in 2015. Before 2010, over 70% of China’s optical fiber was imported, primarily from the United States. This year, 72.6% of China’s optical fiber will be produced by Chinese companies, which are also exporting a growing amount of fiber around the world.

John Lively, principal analyst at LightCounting Market Research, predicts China could conquer the fiber market in just a few short years and become a global broadband leader, “exporting their broadband networking expertise and technology, just like it does with its energy and transportation programs.”

Meanwhile in the United States, customers will be arguing with Comcast about the accuracy of their usage meter in light of a 300GB usage cap and Frontier’s DSL customers will still be fighting to get speeds better than the 3-6Mbps they get today.

Comcast Calls Cable Modem Owners to Scare Them Into a $10/mo Alternative

The Don't Care Bears

The “New and Improved” Don’t Care Bears

Rob Frieden has two words for Comcast customers getting scary letters and phone calls threatening to turn their legacy cable modems into paperweights: caveat emptor.

Frieden, author of Winning the Silicon Sweepstakes: Can the United States Compete in Global Telecommunications? knows enough to fend off the misinformation used to upsell customers away from the modems they own free and clear into Comcast’s rented $10/month alternative.

“Despite its commitment to improving its customer service, Comcast keeps writing and robocalling me with an offer I can refuse,” Frieden writes on his blog. “In a rather alarmist tone, Comcast wants subscribers to infer that their modem soon will no longer work.”

At issue are customers still using legacy DOCSIS 2.0 cable modems — one generation behind the current DOCSIS 3.0 modems Comcast wants customers to use. Frieden knows one day Comcast may decide to stop supporting DOCSIS 2.0, an older, less-capable cable broadband standard. Although that day is nowhere in view yet, it hasn’t stopped aggressive Comcast telemarketers from warning customers they “need upgraded equipment” that comes with a never-ending $10 a month rental fee.

“My Motorola DOCSIS 2.0 compliant modem works just fine and it cost me a princely $5 at a garage sale,” Frieden writes.

Frieden

Frieden

As soon as Comcast finds out you are using an older modem you own, Frieden writes they may try to dissuade you from using it and push you towards their alternative.

“Comcast does not want you to know that the new rented modem will not provide any faster service unless you subscriber to a triple digit, high-end service tier,” Frieden adds.

Comcast’s official position is that DOCSIS 2.0 modems will work just fine with all Comcast Internet plans at speeds below 50Mbps. But they infer if you are not using a DOCSIS 3.0 modem (preferably theirs), “you won’t experience the blistering fast speeds now available.” That implies all Comcast customers with DOCSIS 2.0 modems will get less robust performance across the board, but in fact Comcast’s statement refers to the limitation DOCSIS 2.0 customers have upgrading to speeds they may never need.

After Comcast’s telemarketing machine has you convinced you need to upgrade to their perpetually profitable rented modem, they will also ask why not upgrade your router as well? Comcast suggests customers upgrade to at least a 802.11n model because older 802.11g routers only support up to 20Mbps.

“If you lease your modem, router, or gateway device from us, we’ll upgrade it at no extra charge,” Comcast claims, inferring the upgrade will come free. Except it isn’t. It just won’t cost you more than the $10 a month you are probably already paying.

Stop the Cap! readers regularly tell us Comcast often cuts corners and simply bills customers modem rental fees even for customer-owned equipment. Our reader Amanda is the latest victim and she is about fed up:

I took a look at my bill and for no reason Comcast suddenly started charging me $10 a month for a voice/data modem rental that I don’t have. Beware and check your bill thoroughly. Comcast sneaks charges on for services you don’t have. Absolutely hate this company. On top of the bogus $10 they raised all the rates so my bill went from $186 a month to $219 a month. I would never recommend Comcast to anyone. Horribly deceptive company. Oh and then there is the junk equipment that Comcast uses. I have had three X1 boxes replaced in a year. I’m thinking about going with U-Verse for TV and staying with Comcast for Internet.

Comcast’s “new and improved” customer service becomes especially hostile when customers like Amanda catch the company cheating, forcing her and others into lengthy investigations and appeals to get the bogus fees removed and earlier charges refunded:

So I talked with Comcast today and got nowhere. They basically don’t want my business after 18 years and are giving me a hard time about refunding me the charge for the modem. They said it will take at least 14 days for them to look into the issue with the modem being mine and not being leased from Comcast. I told them I want to cancel and they transferred me to a recording telling me how to send in my equipment via UPS. 18 years and they will not budge on changing my pricing without signing a two year contract! So after 40 minutes on the phone with them I am extremely mad and frustrated. Now I have to waste my time filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau and the attorney general. And even more time switching my services to another provider. It seems that Comcast has changed its tactics and now instead of trying to retain their customers they are saying go ahead and leave. And can only imagine the nightmare of returning all the equipment.

return fee

If you can’t prove your cable modem doesn’t belong to Comcast, they may conveniently bill you an unreturned equipment charge of $70, like one customer experienced in 2014.

Public Service Commission Criticized Over Its Review of Telecom Service in New York

dpsConsumer groups and New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman are expressing concern over the performance of the New York Public Service Commission in its year-long review of telecommunications services in New York.

As Stop the Cap! shared in our own letter to the PSC, we share concerns about how the PSC is managing comments from the public and accepting testimony for a review that many find opaque.

The Connect New York Coalition has exchanged its own frank letters with the Commission for several months expressing concern about how the PSC is conducting its review. A letter dated July 6 summarized a year of difficulties dealing with state regulators:

We filed a Petition a year ago. It contained complaints and requests for action by the Commission. It was ignored for several months.

We requested a meeting with the Chair. The meeting was constructive. Several promises were made including the imminent production of a “roadmap” for a study, a promise that it would be concluded by the April 1, 2015 date committed to in a side letter, a promise of “robust dialogue”, and a promise that the concerns raised in the Petition would be included in Commission actions.

We mean no disrespect when we express astonishment at the June 26 letter. It is as though the Petition, the letters, the meetings and the promises have not languished in Commission inaction for a full year. It is as though we have received a “road map” and had participated in a “robust dialogue”. It is as though the Commission in its documents and “questions” has addressed the issues and complaints contained in the Petition. It is as though the Commission produced the Study it promised in the side letter. None of these things has happened.

[…] A constructive relationship, based on civility and mutual respect, is not advanced by assertions that the Petition has been acted on as it should and as was promised. All of this is secondary to the sad realities that are faced by millions of New Yorkers whose telecommunications systems are neither socially nor economically adequate. The system, for many, operates in violation of the laws of the state.

Schneiderman

Schneiderman

“Issues of misallocation of monies, inadequate basic service requirements, disinvestment in the copper systems, failure to build out promised telecommunications systems, failure to adequately measure the deterioration of service to millions of New Yorkers and others have been ignored by the Commission in spite of promises to take them seriously,” complained the Coalition in another letter dated June 25.

Late yesterday Attorney General Schneiderman added his views, nearly identical to our own and that of the Coalition:

“While the Staff Assessment of Telecommunications Services you issued on June 23 is a step toward fulfilling the legal requirement that the PSC undertake a comprehensive examination and study of the telecommunications industry in New York, it left many questions unanswered, questions unlikely to be answered through the public statement hearing process, as that process is non-adversarial,” Schneiderman wrote. “Therefore, to fully understand the impact of deregulation on consumers and businesses, I urge you to initiate a formal proceeding in accordance with Article 1, Section 5 of the Public Service Law and 16 NYCRR Part 3. Such a proceeding, in front of an administrative judge, provides for evidence-gathering, allows for cross-examination and counter-evidence, and concludes with a final order or decision by the PSC.”

The Attorney General wants answers to a series of questions many New Yorkers have asked for several years:

  1. competitionWhether there is adequate competition for broadband service throughout the various regions of New York State, and whether there are any areas that are still essentially cable monopolies;
  2. Whether telecommunications companies are making honest representations about infrastructure build-out;
  3. Whether consumers are satisfied with the various voice service options available to New York consumers; and
  4. Whether Verizon is adequately upgrading or repairing its copper wire infrastructure, which is especially critical for New Yorkers who rely solely on landline service (in the absence of other voice options).

In our view, the answers are:

  1. No, Yes
  2. No
  3. It depends on where you live in the state, which incumbent phone company you have, if you have cable as an option, and if you have adequate cell coverage.
  4. Evidently not, based on the long record of service complaints from consumers.

Late yesterday, the PSC indicated it was responsive to the complaints, issuing a notice extending the review process and comment window:

In recognition of these requests, this is to advise that the deadline to file comments is hereby extended 60 days until October 23, 2015 in order to facilitate meaningful input, accommodate various schedules, and promote the fair, orderly and efficient conduct of this proceeding. Following the submission CASE 14-C-0370 -2- of comments, Staff will consider the need for further process, which could include further Public Statement Hearings, Technical Conferences or other steps as deemed necessary. Notices would be issued regarding any such events.

Stop the Cap!’s Open Letter to N.Y. Public Service Commission: No Rush to Judgment

letterhead

August 19, 2015

Hon. Kathleen H. Burgess
Secretary, Public Service Commission
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223-1350

Case Number: 14-C-0370

Dear Ms. Burgess,

After years of allowing the telecommunications industry in New York to operate with little or no oversight, the need for an extensive and comprehensive review of the impact of New York’s regulatory policies has never been greater.

Let us remind the Commission of the status quo:

  • As Verizon winds down its FiOS initiative, other states are getting cutting-edge services like Google Fiber, AT&T U-verse with GigaPower, CenturyLink Prism, and other gigabit-speed broadband service competition. In contrast, the largest telecommunications companies in New York have stalled offering better service to New Yorkers.
  • Time Warner Cable has left all of upstate New York with no better than 50/5Mbps broadband – a top speed that has not risen in at least five years.
  • Frontier Communications has announced fiber upgrades in service areas it is acquiring while its largest New York service area – Rochester, languishes with copper-based ADSL service that often delivers no better than 3-6Mbps, well below the FCC’s minimum 25Mbps definition of broadband.
  • Verizon Communications, the state’s largest telephone company, is accused of reneging on its FiOS commitments in New York City and has left upstate New York cities with nothing better than DSL service, giving Time Warner Cable a monopoly on 25+Mbps broadband in most areas. It has also talked openly of selling off its rural landline network or scrapping it altogether, potentially forcing customers to an inferior wireless landline replacement it calls Voice Link.

As the Commission is also well aware, there are a number of recent high-profile issues relating to telecommunications matters that have a direct impact on consumers and businesses in this state – some that are currently before the Commission for review. Largest among them is another acquisition involving Time Warner Cable, this time from Charter Communications. That single issue alone will impact the majority of broadband consumers in New York because Time Warner Cable is the state’s dominant Internet Service Provider for high speed Internet services, especially upstate.

These issues are of monumental importance to the comprehensive examination and study of the telecommunications industry in New York promised by Chairwoman Audrey Zibelman. The Charter-Time Warner Cable merger alone has the potential of affecting millions of New York residents for years to come.

Although this study was first announced to Speaker Sheldon Silver, the Honorable Jeffrey Klein, and the Honorable Dean Skelos in a letter on March 28, 2014, followed up by a notification that Chairwoman Zibelman intended to commence the study within 45 days of her letter of May 13, 2014, the first public notice seeking comments from stakeholders and consumers was issued more than a year later on June 23, 2015 (less than two months ago), with comments due by August 24, 2015.

With respect, providing a 60-day comment window in the middle of summer along with a handful of public hearings scattered across the state with as little as three weeks’ advance notice is wholly inadequate for a broad study of this importance. The Commission’s ambitious schedule to contemplate the state of telecommunications across all of New York State will likely be shorter than the review of the 2014-2015 Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger transaction which started May 15, 2014 and ended April 30, 2015.

We have heard from New York residents upset about how the Commission is handling its review. One complained to us the Commission had more than a year to prepare for its study while giving New York residents short notice to attend poorly advertised public hearings in a distant city, and two months at most to share their feelings with the Commission in writing. One woman described having to find a hearing that was, at best, 60 miles away and located at a city hall unfamiliar to those not local to the area, where suitable parking was inconvenient and difficult as she attempted a lengthy walk to the hearing location at the age of 69.

Several of our members also complained there are more suitable public-friendly venues beyond paid parking downtown city administration buildings or deserted campuses in the middle of summer break. Many asked why the Commission does not seem to have a social media presence or sponsor live video streaming of hearings where residents can participate by phone or online and avoid inconvenient travel to a distant city. Perhaps the Commission could be enlightened to see how New York’s telecommunications companies actually perform during such a hearing.

While we think it is very useful for the Commission to have direct input from the public, we are uncertain about how the Commission intends to manage those comments. We were disappointed to find no public outline of what the Commission intended to include in its evaluation of a topic as broad as “the state of telecommunications in New York.”

Too often, providers downplay service complaints from consumers as “anecdotal evidence” or “isolated incidents.” But if the Commission sought specific input on a topic such as the availability of FiOS in Manhattan, consumers can provide useful input on the exact location(s) where service was requested but not provided.

If the Commission received information from an incumbent provider claiming it was providing broadband service to low income residents, consumers could share on-point experiences as to whether those claims were true, true with conditions the Commission might not be aware of (paperwork requirements, onerous terms, etc.) or false.

If the Commission sought input on rural broadband, providers might point to a broadband availability map that suggests there is robust competition and customer choice. But the Commission could learn from residents asked to share their direct experiences that the map was inaccurate or outdated, including providers that only service commercial customers, or those that cannot provide service that qualifies as “broadband” by the Federal Communications Commission.

A full and open investigation is essential to finding the truth about telecommunications in New York. The Commission needs to understand whether problems are unique to one customer in one part of the state or common among a million people statewide. We urge the Commission to rethink its current approach.

New Yorkers deserve public fact-finding hearings inviting input on the specific issues the Commission is exploring. New Yorkers need longer comment windows, more notice of public hearings, and a generous extension of the current deadline(s) to allow comments to be received for at least 60 additional days.

Most critically, we need hearings bringing the public and stakeholders together to offer sometimes-adversarial testimony to build a factual, evidence-based record on which the Commission can credibly defend its oversight of the telecommunications services that are a critical part of every New Yorker’s life.

The Commission’s policies going forward may have a profound effect on making sure an elderly couple in the Adirondacks can keep a functioning landline, if affordable Internet will be available to an economically-distressed single working mother in the Bronx, or if upstate New York can compete in the new digital economy with gigabit fiber broadband to support small businesses like those run by former employees of downsized companies like Eastman Kodak and Xerox in Rochester.

Yours very truly,

Phillip M. Dampier
Director

Comcast VP: Our 300GB Usage Caps are a “Business Policy,” Not an Engineering Necessity

What makes 300GB so special? It happens to represent the monthly usage allowance Comcast customers in several southern and western service areas receive after more than two years of “Data Usage Plan Trials.”

One of most asked questions posed to Comcast is why one of the nation’s largest and most profitable Internet Service Providers needs to impose usage caps at all, especially as the company has repeatedly raised broadband speeds for customers.

It took a parody Twitter account known as “Cable Cares” to get a cogent answer from Comcast’s vice president of Internet services, Jason Livingood: he doesn’t know.

caps

Livingood admitted Comcast’s “data usage plans” a/k/a “usage caps” are a “business policy” far removed from his work as a Comcast engineer helping to keep Comcast’s broadband service up and running efficiently.

comcastStop the Cap! never doubted it for a moment.

Internet Service Providers have often claimed usage caps are a matter of “fairness” — first to control congestion on their broadband networks and later as a way to pay for needed upgrades. But neither has proved true.

Starting in 2008, Comcast imposed a 250GB usage cap on its broadband service and issued warnings to customers that rampaged past it, threatening to cut their service off if they did not curtail usage. Those contacted were told their heavy use could impact broadband service for other customers who used it much less.

Internet providers told the Government Accountability Office another story entirely, admitting congestion is not a problem for cable operators or phone companies at all.

“Some wireless ISPs told us they use usage based pricing to manage congestion,” the GAO reported in June 2014. But “wireline ISPs said that congestion is not currently a problem.”

As upgrades have exponentially increased network capacity, the story told to defend usage caps changed dramatically. The new claim is that usage-based pricing and caps can “generate more revenue for ISPs to fund network capacity upgrades as data use grows,” the GAO reported.

Except as the New York Times reported last year, the United States is hardly a broadband speed leader and the quality of service “has nothing to do with technology. Instead, it is an economic policy problem — the lack of competition in the broadband industry.”

Usage caps for one and all.

Usage caps for one and all.

For now, Comcast isn’t commenting at all about the reasons for its usage cap trials. But a few years ago, Comcast VP David Cohen believed caps would be rolled out across Comcast’s entire nationwide service area anyway. 

Comcast executives have repeatedly told investors customers had accepted the usage cap trials and few have exceeded their usage allowances. But judging from Comcast’s customer support forums, the issue of usage caps and measurement rises near the top of complaints.

Comcast’s unregulated usage meter is a frequent target. What it registers is what Comcast uses to bill its customers.

“I have the ability to track my inbound and outbound data usage at my router.  Nothing in my house can talk to the Internet (the cable modem) without going through the router,” one customer wrote on Comcast’s support forum. “The traffic meter on the router is significantly less than the Xfinity Usage Meter.  As of right now, my router says my inbound/outbound usage since 7/1/2015 is 67.34GB, but the Xfinity Usage Meter says I am at 114GB.”

comcast-data-meter-513x650 (1)“At Comcast, the meter is right and the customer is wrong,” complains another customer.

“I am sick of calling customer service and being told that the Xfinity usage meter is right, but that there is absolutely no data that can be given to me to support that answer.  This is beyond ridiculous and I am beyond frustrated.  I have no options for recourse and am just supposed to accept that I am flying blind.

Flying blind can be costly. One Comcast customer opened his broadband bill to discover $260 in charges conveniently automatically removed from his checking account after Comcast claimed he used almost 2TB of usage in a month.

“My wife and I browse emails, browse the Internet with Facebook and sometimes watch Youtube,” the customer wrote. “We don’t even have Netflix or any other streaming service here at the house.”

The customer complains Comcast refuses to refund or document the 2TB of usage. As long as Comcast “verifies” a customer’s modem handled that traffic, the customer is billed without recourse.

But customers do have some recourse: complaining to the Federal Communications Commission or the Better Business Bureau.

“I have seen other posts from customers with similar issues,” a Comcast customer noted. “It seems that they get help once they threaten to go to the FCC or the BBB.”

The FCC’s online complaint form often results in substantial billing credits and charge reversals for shocking cable bills. The FCC is gradually turning its attention to the issue of usage caps, perhaps proportionate to the number of consumer complaints about the issue.

The Better Business Bureau helps put customers in touch with executive level customer service agents empowered well beyond the usual offshore customer service center employees. It appears they did exactly that 35,281 times in the last three years — 14,052 in the last year alone. Most of those complaints were evidently resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.

AT&T Social Engineers Its Data Plans to Push You Towards a Family Mobile Share Plan

att changesAT&T is obviously a supporter of bringing its wireless customers closer together… in family plans, that is.

The wireless carrier has adjusted its wireless data plans once again, this time in response to recent changes at Verizon and to better compete against T-Mobile — the carriers AT&T’s plans now most closely resemble.

Pricing wireless data has become a marketing art. Push people into too-small data plans and they will get stung with bill shock. Give them ample data at a high price and customers feel justified trying to use every last bit of it to get their money’s worth. So what is AT&T up to?

Light User/Budget Customers Squeezed

att_logoIf you keep your phone turned off except during special occasions, road trips, and landline service outages, AT&T has a plan for you. Actually, Verizon thought up most of these plans first — AT&T is now matching them as a consequence of the “competitive” market.

AT&T’s $20 a month entry-level data plan offers a paltry 300MB of data, an amount so low it is likely to be consumed quickly just updating apps, reading web pages, and checking email. Although intended for light users, it is likely to expose customers to a nasty overlimit fee identical to the cost of the 300MB plan itself ($20 per 300MB). With embedded video advertising, bloated web pages, and growing-size apps that require regular upgrades, this kind of allowance is no longer tenable.

AT&T’s old 1GB and 3GB plans are also gone. Heads you may lose, tails AT&T usually wins. Customers on 1GB plans will now be herded into a 2GB plan that delivers twice the amount of data, for $5 more per month ($60 a year). That is a good value as far as wireless pricing is concerned, but only if you need twice the data. Customers with 3GB plans lose one-third of their allowance but get a $10 price break… unless they go over their limit and expose themselves to AT&T’s dastardly $15/GB overlimit fee. Then the savings evaporate.

The 2GB usage plan seems designed to keep you worried. Will you come perilously close to the overlimit fee again this month after watching those videos on the train? What about the 15 app updates that chewed through 300MB last week? With the average 4G iPhone customer in the United States using 1.8GB of mobile data each month during the summer of 2014, 2GB+ average usage is likely this year. Avoiding the overlimit fee will involve a costly leap into a more generous 5GB plan at a higher cost.

The New Normal: The 5GB Individual Plan/15GB Family Plan

family share

It won’t be hard for AT&T to sell most customers on either a 5GB data plan if they have an individual account or a 15GB shared data plan for families.

The 5GB plan is $20 less than the 6GB plan it replaces. It’s presumably AT&T’s idea of a “sweet spot” for customers with a single line choosing between a $30 2GB plan that might not include enough data or a much more expensive 15GB plan — the next step up AT&T’s data plan range.

A close look at AT&T’s price chart shows the plan options and prices are designed to encourage individual line customers to migrate into a family plan. Here’s how AT&T does it:

Two AT&T customers with individual plans now pay $75 each for unlimited talk and text and 5GB of data. That adds up to $150 a month. But watch what happens when those customers take their vows as AT&T family plan customers. First, they each get a $10 break on the Plan Access charge ($15/mo each instead of $25). Second, there is more justification to spend $100 on a data plan that offers a more generous 15GB of data. Let’s look at the math:

Monthly Plans (now) Monthly Plans (old) Data (now) Data (old) Plan Access charge
$20 $20 300MB 300MB $25
$30 $25/$40 2GB 1GB/3GB $25
$50 $70 5GB 6GB $25
$100 $100 15GB 10GB $15
$140 $150 20GB 20GB $15

Individual Plan (2 Lines)

2 x $25 Plan Access charge
2 x $50 5GB data plan

$150/month

Family Plan with 2 Lines

2 x $15 Plan Access charge
1 x $100 15GB data plan

$130/month — a $20 savings

Family plan customers pay $20 less and get an extra 5GB of mobile data. Customers choosing a data plan of 15GB or more also receive free unlimited calling and texting in Canada and Mexico.

Customers can be forgiven if they fall into the value trap – saving yourself into poverty. While AT&T’s recent price changes offer significant savings for certain customers, it is instructive to remember not so long ago AT&T charged $30 a month for unlimited mobile data, making the prospect of spending $100 for 15GB sanity-questionable. But that was then and this is now.

AT&T expects it will increase the amount of money it collects from each customer with the advent of these new plans, with the hope customers won’t remember back to the days where data usage was not monetized like a commodity.

Ookla Dumps Net Index in Favor of Misleading, Often Inaccurate “Speedtest Award”

When New is Not Improved

When New is Not Improved

It is disappointing to see a company priding itself on independently measuring America’s broadband performance throw accuracy to the wind and start handing out misleading awards for America’s top broadband providers that their own speed tests often disprove.

Municipal and independently owned Internet providers have relied on Ookla to prove to the world they can offer superior broadband service over what is on offer from the local cable and phone company. Net Index was a useful, independent resource to track broadband speeds and trends based on millions of consumer-run Internet speed and health tests. A provider claiming “up to 10Mbps” service could quickly and easily be verified as a truth-teller or teller of tall tales. As of today, that is no longer as easy to verify:

Ookla Net Index has been discontinued

Ookla is devoted to providing world-class products and services. Sometimes that means saying goodbye to old sites, like Net Index, and hello to new ones…

ookla

Those “new and improved” products include:

  • SPEEDTEST AWARDS: Provides insights to consumers on where to find the Fastest ISPs & Mobile Networks worldwide, based on data from millions of Speedtests taken in the first half of 2015;
  • SPEEDTEST INTELLIGENCE: Designed for enterprises, governments and analysts to understand worldwide internet performance, based on the millions of Speedtests run each day.

While there is nothing objectionable about handing out awards for good performance, it turns out only the nation’s biggest telecom companies need apply, because unless you are Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Charter, or Verizon, you are too small to matter.

fastest ispAmong those that do, Comcast’s Xfinity takes first prize:

Comcast XFINITY is the nation’s largest traditional cable operator and largest home ISP. It offers an extremely wide variety of technologies and speeds, peaking at a fiber-based “Extreme 505” tier. That service isn’t widely available, though; you’re more likely to see top speeds of 105Mbps or 150Mbps using traditional DOCSIS 3 cable technology.

Ookla explains away why better performing ISPs are not qualified for one of their awards:

For a given location – either nationwide or a given state or city – we aim to include only ISPs or mobile networks that provide service for a significant number of customers in that geographic area. So, while Google Fiber is the fastest broadband in states like Kansas or Missouri, they are not suitable to be included in the fastest ISPs nationwide because they only serve a very small portion of the United States. To be included in a given geographic area, an ISP or mobile network must meet a minimum threshold based on the number of unique devices testing each day over a six month period.

In other words, accuracy matters a lot less than coverage area. Ookla’s methodology is further invalidated on the local level by their own website.

The prominent first place national award given to Comcast for having the fastest Internet access could mislead you to believe they are the best provider. But Ookla’s own speed tests show that in states like Minnesota, Comcast only comes in third place. Inexplicably, America’s always-lowest rated cable operator — Mediacom, scores first. Charter comes in second. Ookla does not bother to rank municipal-owned broadband providers that outperform all the above.

Not consistently including public, municipal utility, or co-op broadband providers in states like North Carolina and Colorado does an even bigger disservice to anyone depending on Ookla for independent and accurate results. Many of those providers just don’t show up in Ookla’s listings.

In other cases, providers that offer commercial-only broadband make Ookla’s list while even faster providers that sell to consumers don’t. In Rochester, N.Y., Ookla gives first place among local providers to Sutherland Global Services, a provider of business process and technology management services — not a residential ISP. Greenlight Networks delivers gigabit fiber to the home service to select residents in the area and does not appear on Ookla’s list.

Ookla’s own results show the largest companies deliver uneven results across the country, which comes perilously close to invalidating the usefulness of a “national” award. The fact Ookla intentionally leaves out ISPs that can dramatically outperform the competition drives the final nail into the credibility coffin, rendering Ookla’s “new and improved” results meaningless and very misleading. In short, consumers might find using a Ouija board to choose their next ISP about as useful.

It appears the more meaningful data consumers need to make an informed choice has been shifted to Ookla’s premium “Speedtest Intelligence,” designed to provide the granularity stripped away from Net Index. Based on an inquiry form, it seems Ookla is now selling this information to private clients, leaving consumers stuck with Ookla’s overgeneralized “awards” and incomplete regional test results that exclude too many residential providers to be useful and accurate.

The Philippines: Free Market Broadband Paradise or Deregulated Duopolistic Hellhole?

special reportFans of the “hands-off” approach to broadband oversight finally have a country where they can see a deregulated free marketplace in action, where consumers theoretically pick the winners and losers and where demand governs the kinds of services consumers and businesses can get from their providers.

That country is the Philippines, which has taken the libertarian free market approach to Internet access in a dramatic leap away from the authoritarian Marcos era of the 1980s.

The Deregulation “Miracle”

Until 1995, the Philippines Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) maintained a 60-year plus government-sanctioned monopoly on telecommunications services. Its performance was less than compelling. Establishing landline service took up to 10 years on a lengthy waiting list. Getting a phone line was the first problem, making sure it worked consistently was another. Just over 10 years after the United States formally broke up AT&T and the Bell System, the government in Manila approved RA 7925 – the Public Telecommunications Policy Act of 1995, breaking PLDT’s monopoly and establishing a level playing ground for each of 11 regions across the country and its many islands in which private companies could compete with PLDT for customers.

philippinesTo attract investment and competition, the government declared all value-added services like Internet access deregulated and guaranteed the complete privatization of all government telecom facilities no later than 1998. It also initially limited the number of companies that could compete against PLDT in each region to two new entrants. The government felt that would be necessary to attract competitors that knew they would have to quickly invest millions, if not billions, to build telecom infrastructure in the Philippines. It would be hard to make a case for investment in a region where a half-dozen companies all engaged in a price war fighting for customers while stringing new telephone lines and building cell towers.

To prevent cherry-picking only the wealthiest areas of the country, the government declared its desire for a privately funded nationwide telecom network and used the 11 regions, combining urban and rural areas in each, to get it. Competitors were required to support at least 300,000 landlines and 400,000 cellular lines in each region. That assured new networks could not simply be built in urban areas, bypassing smaller communities. After building their networks, companies largely operated on their own in a mostly-free deregulated market, slightly overseen by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) — the Philippines equivalent of the FCC.

The early years of telecom deregulation seemed promising. PLDT, much like AT&T in the United States, kept the lion’s share of customers (67.24%) after deregulation took effect, but new competitors quickly captured one-third of the market. But with lax regulation and oversight, some of the Philippines’ most powerful families, many benefiting under years of the Marcos dictatorship, managed to gain influence in the newly competitive Philippines telecom business. In the United States, telecom competition meant a choice between Sprint, MCI, AT&T or others. In the Philippines, you dealt with one or two of nine powerful family owned conglomerates, each operating with a foreign-owned telecom partner. It would be like choosing between companies owned by the Rockefellers, the Astors, the Carnegies, or the Morgans.

pldtThe NTC remained more “hands-off” than the FCC, avoiding significant involvement in critical interconnection issues — how competing telephone companies handle calls from subscribers of a competing provider. That was last an issue in the United States in the early 1900s, where rare independent competitors to the rapidly consolidating Bell System faced a telecom giant that initially refused to handle calls from customers of other companies. American regulators eventually demanded interconnection policies that guaranteed customers could reach any other telephone customer, regardless of what company handled their service. In the Philippines, the NTC eventually mandated less-demanding access, allowing companies to charge long distance rates to reach customers of other companies. In the 1990s, it was not uncommon to find businesses maintaining at least two telephone lines with different companies to escape long distance expenses and stay accessible to all of their potential customers.

PLDT initially fought the opening of the marketplace but benefited handsomely from it once it took effect. The company got away with setting sky-high interconnection rates to connect calls from other smaller providers to its customers. It also made access to its network a minefield of bureaucracy and often required competitors to sign unfair revenue sharing agreements.

It is Cheaper to Buy Out the Competition Instead of Competing With It

competition-issues-in-philippine-telecommunications-sector-challenges-and-recommendations-3-638

(Image Courtesy: Mary Grace Mirandilla-Santos/LIRNEasia)

The investment community eventually balked at the cost of constructing competing telecommunications networks, especially after the dot.com crash in 2000, and a drumbeat for industry consolidation through mergers and acquisitions quickly grew too loud to ignore. Investors fumed over the amount of money being spent by providers to meet their service obligations in the 11 subdivided regions. Instead of building redundant or competing infrastructure, allowing competitors to merge would cut costs and enhance investor return. The NTC let the marketplace decide, as did the government, and it led to a frenzy of industry consolidation that ran far beyond what the FCC and American Justice Department would ever tolerate.

In 2011, the government backed a colossal merger that brought together the wireless networks of Pilipino Telephone Corporation, PLDT, and Smart under the PLDT brand. The three former competitors became one and controlled 66.3% of the Philippine’s wireless customers. The merger was comparable to allowing Verizon to buy out Sprint.

Additional mergers in response to the super-sized PLDT rapidly reduced the competitiveness of Philippine’s telecommunications marketplace to a duopoly. Just two companies — PLDT, Globe, and their respective house brands — dominate landline, DSL, cable, and wireless telecommunications service in the Philippines. The investment community celebrated the deal’s approval as a lucrative goldmine of future revenue gains from a less competitive market.

Philippine Broadband: Hey, It’s at Least Moderately Better Than Afghanistan

competition-issues-in-philippine-telecommunications-sector-challenges-and-recommendations-8-638

(Image courtesy: Mary Grace Mirandilla-Santos/LIRNEasia)

Broadband performance, under any measure other than financial success, has proved abysmal for Philippine consumers and businesses. The country’s broadband speeds are among the worst in the world, only beating Afghanistan in many speed tests. Look the other wayoversight led to a bribery scandal in 2007 that threatened to bring down the government. Officials exploring the development of a National Broadband Network were accused of soliciting kickbacks from Chinese equipment vendor ZTE, which would have been responsible for supplying equipment for the project. The government canceled the project as the scandal widened and some of the principals left the country or in at least one case were kidnapped.

Eight years later, broadband in the Philippines would be considered a North American nightmare. The free market approach has led to free-flowing profits and a profound lack of marketplace competition, with broadband ripoffs and broken promises rampant across the country.

Although both PLDT and Globe Telecom are spending large sums on infrastructure, much of it benefits their very profitable wireless networks and business customers. Despite the investments, residential customers are stuck with some of the world’s worst broadband speeds and performance.

An independent Quality of Service test revealed the bad news all around:

The findings of the Philippine QoSE tests were expected, but nevertheless still disappointing.

The best performing among the three ISPs delivered only 21% of actual versus advertised speed on average. This same ISP also offered at least 256kbps download speed (generally accepted definition of broadband) only 67% of the whole time it was tested, falling short of the required 80% service reliability.

The Broadband Commission defines the core concepts of broadband as an “always-on service” with high capacity “able to carry lots of data per second.” While there is no official definition of broadband locally, the Philippine Digital Strategy 2011-2016 defines broadband Internet service as 2Mbps download speed.

Finally, like the last nail in the coffin, Philippine ISPs performed the worst in terms of value for money when compared to select providers in South Asia and Southeast Asia. The highest value given by any of the three Philippine ISPs tested was a measly 22kbps per US dollar. This figure is too low when compared to similar mobile broadband ISPs that offer 173kbps per dollar in Jakarta, Indonesia and 445kbps per dollar in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

These results have huge implications on truth in advertising, consumer welfare, and the need for appropriate regulation.

My DSL Service is So Bad I Prefer 3GB Usage-Capped Slow Wireless Instead

senloren

Legarda

Home DSL broadband is so bad that customers have increasingly dropped service in favor of tightly managed wireless service. Companies report DSL customer losses over the past few years, with no end in sight.

The telecom regulator has generally just shrugged its shoulders at the situation, suggesting competition between equally poor providers will somehow resolve the problem. That view is applauded by service providers who claim the Internet is “just a value-added service” not essential to basic living needs. But consumer groups wonder why providers are allowed to make false advertising claims about the speed of their service with no repercussions. A range of position papers appealing to the government to create a meaningful minimum broadband speed have been introduced and some are being pushed by members of the Philippine Senate.

Senator Loren Legarda joined scores of other frustrated customers complaining about unreliable and expensive Internet in the country. In a 2014 hearing Legarda complained she had once again lost her DSL Internet connection in her office and her wireless connection was so slow it was unusable.

“As we speak now, there is no Internet connection in my office,” Legarda said. “I received a message this morning from my staff on my way here because I may be e-mailing, etc. And for someone whose deadline was yesterday, I always want things done fast and I’m sure many of you want that efficiency too to serve our people better.”

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ANC Poor Broadband Internet 5-14.flv

ANC aired this story about Sen. Legarda’s broadband problems and how Philippines’ providers oversell their networks back in 2014. (4:56)

We Oversold Our Networks So Sue Us, Except You Can’t

Providers blame the problem on oversold networks that attempt to manage too many paying customers on an inadequate network. In other words, they blame themselves with little fear any regulator will create problems for them.

Wireless service is no panacea either. Customers in the Philippines face draconian “fair use policies” on so-called “unlimited plans” that leave them throttled after 1GB of usage per day or 3GB of usage per month, whichever happens first. Providers suggest the policy is a benefit, promising them a better user experience. Besides, they suggest, even those that run into the speed throttle can still browse the Internet, albeit at as speed resembling dial-up:

Your internet speed will slow down if you use up 1GB of data for the day, or accumulate 3GB of data usage for the month.

If you hit the 1GB/day threshold, you’ll experience slower speed, but no worries because as we mentioned above, you can still surf! You’ll move up to normal speed at midnight. If you hit the 3GB/month threshold, your speed will move up to normal speed on the next calendar month (not based on bill cycle).

With a stifling usage allowance, shouldn't providers in the Philippines be offering better speeds?

With a stifling usage allowance, shouldn’t providers in the Philippines be offering better speeds?

Say Hello to the “Promo Pack” – Your Net Neutrality Nightmare Come True

Remember the scary ads from Net Neutrality proponents promising a future of Internet add-ons that would charge you to surf theme-based websites without facing network slowdowns or stingy usage caps if Net Neutrality protections were not forthcoming? In the Philippines, the nightmare came true. Mobile providers sell added cost “promo packs” that bundle extra throttle-free usage with theme-based apps. A package with Spotify runs about $6.50US a month and includes 1GB of usage. Anyone can buy a Spotify premium membership in the Philippines for around $4.37US without the add-on. But even worse are app-based promo packs that bundle free-to-download-and-use apps in the U.S. with special designated usage allowances.

Want to use Google Maps on your wireless provider? A “promo pack” including it costs around $2.17 a month and includes 300MB of usage. That money doesn’t go to Google — it stays in the pocket of the provider – Globe Networks. Twitter will set you back $4.37US a month and includes 600MB of usage, which seems odd for a short message service when contrasted with an identically-priced promo pack for Facebook, that needs the extra usage allowance more than Twitter likely would. But then they also get you for Facebook Messenger, which costs an extra $2.17US per month and comes with its own usage allowance — 300MB.

"What If" actually "Is" in the Philippines.

“What If” actually “Is” in the Philippines.

Globe-Telecom3While segmenting out popular mobile apps for special treatment, Philippine mobile providers have also taken Verizon and AT&T’s lead, pushing plans like myLIFESTYLE that bundle unlimited text and phone calls with expensive data plans.

Lifestyle Promo Packs:

Lifestyle Bundle

Price (Philippine Peso)

Consumable MBs/GBs

Description

Spotify

299

1GB

Premium membership to Spotify, with 1GB data
Work

299

1GB

Access to Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Evernote, + 10GB Globe Cloud Storage
Explore Bundle

99

300MB

Access to Agoda, Trip Advisor, Cebu Pacific, PAL
Navigation Bundle

99

300MB

Access to Waze, Grab Taxi, Google Maps, MMDA app, Accuweather
Shopping Bundle

299

1GB

Access to Zalora, Amazon, Ebay, OLX, Ayosdito
Facebook

199

600MB

Access to Facebook
Twitter

199

600MB

Access to Twitter
Viber

99

300MB

Access to Viber
FB Messenger

99

300MB

Access to FB Messenger
Chat Bundle

299

1GB

Access to Viber, Whats App, FB Messenger, Kakao Talk, Line, WeChat
Photo Bundle

299

1GB

Access to Instagram, Photogrid, Photorepost, Instasize

Extra Add-ons:

Basic Price Description
Consumable 100 Stackable Amounts of P100 denomination consumables
Unli Duo 299 Unlimited Calls to Landline/duo
Unli Txt All 299 Unlimited Texts to other networks
Unli iSMS 399 Unlimitend International SMS to one intl. number
Unli IDD 999 Unli IDD calls to one intl. number
DUO International 499 Unlimited calls to US landlines

The Philippines Should Regulate Under the American Example vs. The Philippines Should Not Regulate Under the American Example (It’s Obama’s Fault)

Lincoln_MemorialProviders in the Philippines have learned a lot from America’s telecommunications lobbyists. Their advocacy campaigns revolve around the theme that the United States has the best wireless networks in the world, developed under a largely hands-off regulatory philosophy that the Philippine government should follow.

The government and regulators largely acquiesced to that campaign until this year, when that idea came back to haunt providers. Earlier this year, the Obama Administration and the FCC began taking a more hands-on approach to telecom regulation after recognizing the marketplace is not as competitive as providers suggest. Strong Net Neutrality enforcement, limits on mergers and acquisitions and strong signals marketplace abuses would no longer be tolerated are now being pushed in Washington by the White House and the Federal Communications Commission. Providers in the Philippines no longer advocate following the American model, but it may now be too late.

obamaThe NTC is close to issuing new minimum broadband speed and performance standards and is now listening to Filipino consumers that launched Democracy.net.ph to fight usage caps in the Philippines back in 2011. The NTC may soon require providers advertise average speeds and performance, not “up to” speeds nobody actually receives. Those getting poor service would be entitled to refunds or rebates.

That could be the first step towards a more activist NTC that may have learned the lesson that listening to the broken promises of better service through deregulation has resulted in some of the worst broadband performance the world has to offer. The Philippines took the advocacy arguments of the deregulation crowd and doubled down, not only allowing providers to lie and distort in their advertising, but also permitting massive industry consolidation reducing the choice for most Filipinos to just two providers for almost all telecommunications services. The government looked the other way as corruption turned into a scandal and today it is left with two very powerful conglomerates that deliver third world Internet access while pocketing the generous proceeds.

A Better Way to Better Broadband

A deregulated, free market only works where healthy competition exists. Too few players always leads to reduced innovation, poorer service at higher prices, and a corporate fortress deterring would-be competitors that are unlikely to be able to survive in a fair, competitive fight. For the Philippines (and by extension the United States) to fully benefit from healthy competition, large conglomerates must be broken up and further mergers must be prevented above all else. Until sufficient competition can self-regulate the marketplace, strong oversight is necessary to protect consumers from the abuses that always come from monopolies and duopolies. Charging wireless customers for free apps and suggesting 3GB of usage is equal to unlimited broadband are two places to start cracking down, quickly followed by an investigation into where investment dollars are being spent and for whose benefit. It seems like customers are not reaping any rewards in return for high-priced service.

The Philippine government should also continue exploring a National Broadband Network strategy that puts the country’s broadband needs above the profit motivations of the current duopoly. Governments build roads and bridges, airports and railways. Broadband is another infrastructure project that needs to be developed in the public interest. If private companies want to be a part of that effort, that is wonderful. But they should not be dictating the terms or holding the country back from what may be the biggest scandal of all — broadband that barely performs better than what the Taliban can get these days in Helmand province.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • betty: I live in Miami, and got the email today too!!! I WORK FROM HOME for the State of Florida, and Comcast is my only option - i live 12 feet too far from...
  • net10 #1 :D: Net10 has unlimited data, it's throttled but at least you don't get over charged for over using your data. Last time I had a bill with gci, it was ove...
  • BillXperts.com: The BillXperts.com team will help anyone who needs us to negotiate with Comcast to lower your bill What sounds totally incredible is how openly Comca...
  • Tom: Tom in Rochester NY area here. I had a two year deal for 15 up 1 down internet for $29.99 that ended September '14. They took it up to $34.99 at t...
  • Duffin: I absolutely love how this pretty much blows their common reason for data caps completely out of the water. The reason is often given as "Everyone is ...
  • Darrin Evans: I somehow think that markets with google fiber such as Atlanta will be cap free, but hey it's all about network capacity right Comcast?...
  • Eric: Forgot to include/mention the metropolitan area. South Florida (Ft. Lauderdale/Miami) area....
  • Eric: So... It's official. I got an email from Comcast stating I'm going to be part of a 'trial' and capped at 300GB. I reached out to Sara/Sarah at Comca...
  • tacitus: 1. Whatever term you use, you are still in breach of the terms and conditions of the contract you agreed to when you signed up for their service. It's...
  • Alex: Comcast is beginning to remind me of organized crime. This is exactly extortion. They are basically saying either pay us for "insurance" or we'll take...
  • Rob: Nobody is ok with caps, but it's becoming increasingly frustrating tnat nothing is being done about them. I see site after site, forum after forum dem...
  • Joe V: I want to ask how many of you are OK with these data caps? I'm not. This is extortion....

Your Account: