Phillip "Is this 'innovation' or more 'alienation' from Big Cable" Dampier

While Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski pals around with his cable industry friends at this week’s Cable Show in Boston, observers could not miss the irony of the current FCC chairman nodding in repeated agreement with former FCC chairman Michael Powell, whose bread is now buttered by the industry he used to regulate.

The revolving door remains well-greased at the FCC, with Mr. Powell assuming the role of chief lobbyist for the cable industry’s National Cable and Telecommunications Association (and as convention host) and former commissioner Meredith Attwell-Baker enjoying her new office and high priced position at Comcast Corporation, just months after voting to approve its multi-billion dollar merger with NBC-Universal.

Genachowski’s announcement that he favors “usage-based pricing” as healthy and beneficial for broadband and high-tech industries reflects the view of a man who doesn’t worry about his monthly broadband bill. As long as he works for taxpayers, we’re covering most of those expenses for him.

Former FCC chairman Powell said cable providers want to be able to experiment with pricing broadband by usage. That represents the first step towards monetizing broadband usage, an alarming development for consumers and a welcome one for Wall Street who understands the increased earnings that will bring.

Unfortunately, the unspoken truth is the majority of consumers who endure these “experiments” are unwilling participants. The plan is to transform today’s broadband Internet ecosystem into one checked by usage gauges, rationing, bill shock, and reduced innovation.  The director of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, Blair Levin, recently warned the United States is on the verge of throwing away its leadership in online innovation, distracted trying to cope with a regime of usage limits that will force every developer and content producer to focus primarily on living within the usage allowances providers allow their customers.

“I’d rather be the country that developed fantastic applications that everyone in the world wants to use than the country that only invented data compression technology [to reduce usage],” Levin said.

Genachowski’s performance in Boston displayed a public servant primarily concerned about the business models of the companies he is supposed to oversee.

Genachowski: Abdicating his responsibility to protect the public in favor of the interests of the cable industry.

“Business model innovation is very important,” Genachowski said. “There was a point of view a couple years ago that there was only one permissible pricing model for broadband. I didn’t agree.”

We are still trying to determine what Genachowski is talking about. In fact, providers offer numerous pricing models for broadband service in the United States, almost uniformly around speed-based tiers, which offer customers both a choice in pricing and includes a worry-free usage cap defined by the maximum speed the connection supports.

Broadband providers experimenting with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, speed throttles, and usage-billing only layer an additional profit incentive or cost control measure on top of existing pricing models.  A usage cap limits a customer to a completely arbitrary level of usage a provider determines is sufficient. But such caps can also be used to control over-the-top streaming video by limiting its consumption — an important matter for companies witnessing a decline in cable television customers.  Speed throttles are a punishing reminder to customers who “use too much” they need to ration their usage to avoid being reduced to mind-numbing dial-up speeds until the next billing cycle begins. Usage billing discourages consumers from ever trying new and innovative services that could potentially chew up their allowance and deliver bill shock when overlimit fees appear on the bill.

The industry continues to justify these experiments with wild claims of congestion, which do not prevent companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cox from sponsoring their own online video streaming services which even they admit burn through bandwidth. Others claim customers should pay for what they use, which is exactly what they do today when they write a check to cover their growing monthly bill. Broadband pricing is not falling in the United States, it is rising — even in places where companies claim these pricing schemes are designed to save customers money. The only money saved is that not spent on network improvements companies can now delay by artificially reducing demand.

It’s having your cake and eating it too, and this is one expensive cake.

Comcast is selling broadband service for $40-50 that one research report found only costs them $8 a month to provide. That’s quite a markup, but it never seems to be enough. Now Comcast claims it is ditching its usage cap (it is not), raising usage allowances (by 50GB — four years after introducing a cap the company said it would regularly revisit), and testing a new Internet overlimit usage fee it literally stole from AT&T’s bean counters (a whopping $10 for an anti-granular 50GB).

In my life, all of the trials and experiments I have participated in have been voluntary. But the cable industry (outside of Time Warner Cable, for the moment) has a garlic-to-a-vampire reaction to the concept of “opting out,” and customers are told they will participate and they’ll like it.  Pay for what you use!* (*-at our inflated prices, with a usage limit that was not there yesterday, and an overlimit fee for transgressors that is here today. Does not, under any circumstances, apply to our cable television service.)

No wonder Americans despise cable companies.

Michael Powell, former FCC chairman, is now the host and chief lobbyist for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association's Cable Show in Boston. (Photo courtesy: NCTA)

For some reason, Chairman Genachowski cannot absorb the pocket-picking-potential usage billing offers an industry that is insatiable for enormous profits and faces little competition.

Should consumers be allowed to pay for broadband in different ways?  Sure. Must they be compelled into usage pricing schemes they want no part of? No, but that’s too far into the tall grass for the guy overseeing the FCC and the market players to demand.

Of course, we’ve been here and done this all before.

America’s dinosaur phone companies have been grappling with the mysterious concept of ‘flat-rate envy’ for more than 100 years, and they made billions from delivering it. While the propaganda department at the NCTA conflates broadband usage with water, gas, and electricity, they always avoid comparing broadband with its closest technological relative: the telephone. It gets hard to argue broadband is a precious, limited resource when your local phone company is pelting you with offers for unlimited local and long distance calling plans. Thankfully, a nuclear power plant or “clean coal” isn’t required to generate a high-powered dial tone and telephone call tsunamis are rarely a problem for companies that upgraded networks long ago to keep up with demand. Long distance rates went down and have now become as rare as a rotary dial phone.

In the 20th century, landline telephone companies grappled with how to price their service to consumers.  Businesses paid “tariff” rates which typically amount to 7-10 cents per minute for phone calls. But residential customers, particularly those outside of the largest cities, were offered the opportunity to choose flat-rate local calling service. Customers were also offered measured rate services that either charged a flat rate per call or offered one or two tiers of calling allowances, above which consumers paid for each additional local call.

Consumers given the choice overwhelmingly picked flat-rate service, even in cases where their calling patterns proved they would save money with a measured rate plan.

"All you can eat" pricing is increasingly common with phone service, the closest cousin to broadband.

The concept baffled the economic intelligentsia who wondered why consumers would purposefully pay more for a service than they had to. A series of studies were commissioned to explore the psychology of flat-rate pricing, and the results were consistent: customers wanted the peace of mind a predictable price for service would deliver, and did not want to think twice about using a service out of fear it would increase their monthly bill.

In most cases, flat rate service has delivered a gold mine of profits for companies that offer it. It makes billing simple and delivers consistent financial results. But there occasionally comes a time when the economics of flat-rate service increasingly does not make sense to the company or its shareholders. That typically happens when the costs to provide the service are increasing and the ability to raise flat rates to a new price point is constrained. Neither has been true in any respect for the cable broadband business, where costs to provide the service continue to decline on a per-customer basis and rates have continued to increase for consumers. The other warning sign is when economic projections show an even greater amount of revenue and profits can be earned by measuring and monetizing a service experiencing high growth in usage. Why leave money on the table, Wall Street asks.

That leaves us with companies that used to make plenty of profit charging $50 a month for flat rate broadband, now under pressure to still charge $50, but impose usage limits that reduce costs and set the stage for rapacious profit-taking when customers blow through their usage caps. It also delivers a useful fringe benefit by keeping high bandwidth content companies from entering the marketplace, as consumers fret about their impact on monthly usage allowances. Nothing eats a usage allowance like online video. Limit it and companies can also limit cable-TV cord-cutting.

Fabian Herweg and Konrad Mierendorff at the Department of Economics at the University of Zurich found the economics of flat rate pricing still work well for providers and customers, who clearly prefer unlimited-use pricing:

We developed a model of firm pricing and consumer choice, where consumers are loss averse and uncertain about their own future demand. We showed that loss-averse consumers are biased in favor of flat-rate contracts: a loss-averse consumer may prefer a flat-rate contract to a measured tariff before learning his preferences even though the expected consumption would be cheaper with the measured tariff than with the flat rate. Moreover, the optimal pricing strategy of a monopolistic supplier when consumers are loss averse is analyzed. The optimal two-part tariff is a flat-rate contract if marginal costs are low and if consumers value sufficiently the insurance provided by the flat-rate contract. A flat-rate contract insures a loss-averse consumer against fluctuations in his billing amounts and this insurance is particularly valuable when loss aversion is intense or demand is highly uncertain.

Applied to broadband, Herweg and Mierendorff’s conclusions fit almost perfectly:

1. Consumers often do not understand the measurement units of broadband usage and do not want to learn them (gigabytes, megabytes, etc.)
2. Consumers cannot predict a consistent level of usage demand, leading to disturbing wild fluctuations in billing under usage-based pricing;
3. The peace of mind, or “insurance” factor, gives consumers an expected stable bill for service, which they prefer over unstable usage fees, even if lower than flat rate;
4. Flat rate works in an industry with stable or declining marginal costs. Incremental technology upgrades and falling broadband delivery costs offer the cable industry exceptional profits even at flat-rate prices.

Time Warner Cable (for now) is proposing usage-based pricing as an option, while leaving flat rate broadband a choice on the service menu. But will it last?

Time Warner Cable (so far) is the only cable operator in the country that has announced a usage-based pricing experiment that it claims is completely optional, and will not impact on the broadband rates of current flat rate customers. If this remains the case, the cable operator will have taken the first step to successfully duplicate the pricing model of traditional phone company calling plans, offering price-sensitive light users a measured usage plan and risk-averse customers a flat-rate plan. The unfortunate pressure and temptation to eliminate the flat rate pricing plan remains, however. Company CEO Glenn Britt routinely talks of favoring usage-based pricing and Wall Street continues to pressure the company to exclusively adopt those metered plans to increase profits.

Other cable operators compel customers to adopt both speed and usage-based plans, which often require a customer to either ration usage to avoid an overlimit fee or compel an expensive service upgrade for a more generous allowance.  The result is customers are stuck with plans they do not want that deliver little or no savings and often cost much more.

Why wouldn’t a company sell you a plan you want? Either because they cannot afford to or because they can make a lot more selling you something else. Guess which is true here?

Broadband threatens to not be an American success story if current industry plans to further monetize usage come to fruition. The United States is already falling behind in global broadband rankings. In fact, the countries that lived under congestion and capacity-induced usage limits in the last decade are rapidly moving to discard them altogether, even as providers in this country seek to adopt them. That is an ominous sign that destroys this country’s lead role in online innovation. How will consumers react to tele-medicine, education, and entertainment services of the future that will eat away at your usage allowance?

Even worse, with no evidence of a broadband capacity problem in the United States, Mr. Genachowski’s apparent ignorance of the anti-competitive duopoly’s influence on pricing power is frankly disturbing. Why innovate prices down in a market where most Americans have just one or two choices for service? Economic theory tells us that in the absence of regulatory oversight or additional competition, prices have nowhere to go but up.

To believe otherwise is to consider your local cable operator the guardian angel of your wallet, and just about every American with a cable bill knows that is about as real as the tooth fairy.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Our Concerns About Time Warner Cable’s New Usage-Based Billing
2. Internet Overcharging: “The Best Thing That Ever Happened to the Cable Industry”
3. Wall Street: We Expect Time Warner’s Usage Based Billing to Become the Rule, Not the Exception
4. Shaw Sneakiness: Company Lowers Usage Limits, Hopes Nobody Noticed
5. Consumer Groups Question FCC Chairman’s Endorsement of Internet Overcharging Schemes

They're not so great at broadband mapping, but they are excellent at connecting the political dots to get their contract renewed.

The telecommunications industry-dominated Connected Nation, a group created to spur industry-friendly broadband expansion, is at the center of a scandal that cost taxpayers nearly $4 million to produce a broadband availability map critics contend is error-ridden and incomplete.

The non-profit Kentucky company, which historically has close ties to some of the nation’s largest phone companies, has learned how to play political games to win lucrative contracts while producing less-than-useful results, according to a new investigation by the Miami Herald.

When Florida’s Department of Management Services (DMS) decided Connected Nation’s performance in the state was lacking, it decided to let the state’s contract with the group expire and seek other bidders.

That is a remarkable turnaround for an agency that three years earlier took bids from the group’s state chapter — Connect Florida, who estimated the cost of mapping broadband in the state at around $7.1 million.  Another bidder, ISC of Tallahassee was a real bargain, offering to do the project for $2.8 million.  Connected Nation won. So much for awarding contracts to the lowest bidder.

It turned out the judges scoring the two groups were split, until a former BellSouth (AT&T) executive serving as a judge on the panel put his thumb on the scale, awarding an astounding 51 points to Connected Nation, itself shown to have past ties to AT&T.  The other judges scored no more than 15 points in either direction.

Undercut Connected Nation's bid by millions but still lost.

ISC, a homegrown Florida business, was stunned. Managing Partner Edwin Lott told Public Knowledge in 2009:

“Florida’s small businesses are working harder than ever to survive in this challenging economy. ISC, like other small businesses around the country, have had our hopes raised with Congress’s efforts to stimulate the economy with the Reinvestment Act and other initiatives. It originally appeared these initiatives were going to provide regional funding to sustain and promote jobs in the communities served by local and state governments.

“Our raised hopes were dashed as Connected Nation appeared to use its ‘connections’ in Florida to ensure its success in what was supposed to be a competitive procurement.”

DMS officials have apparently learned their lesson (at taxpayer expense), but Connected Nation isn’t going quietly. The non-profit group unleashed a high-powered lobbying campaign directed at the state legislature in Tallahassee to get its contract renewed to continue mapping Florida’s broadband future.

Williams

It worked, but only after the group’s critics at DMS were effectively bypassed. The legislature approved and Florida governor Rick Scott signed legislation that transferred broadband mapping away from the agency altogether, launching a new one — the Department of Economic Opportunity, to handle broadband matters effective July 1.

At least this time, taxpayers will have to pay less. Connected Nation’s latest bid was half of its original price, undercutting other bidders.

Rep. Alan Williams, a Tallahassee Democrat told the Herald price does not matter as much as political connections in the state legislature.

“Is this a favor to Connected Nation and a lobbyist or is this really good government?’’ Williams asked. “Is this really being accountable and efficient to the state of Florida the way the governor wants to be?”

Sen. Don Gaetz (R-Niceville) told the newspaper Florida state government is rife with insider influence peddling, and that appears to be the case with Connected Nation’s contract.

The group’s potent lobbying team included Lanny Wiles, the husband of the governor’s campaign manager; Al Cardenas, the former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida and head of the Conservative Political Action Committee; and Slater Bayliss, a one-time aide to former Gov. Jeb Bush.

No related stories.

Verizon encourages customers to pig out on wireless-delivered streaming video.

Despite claims of a looming data usage crisis created by insufficient wireless spectrum, Verizon Wireless is introducing a new app that will encourage customers to find and watch streaming video on their mobile devices.

Viewdini premiers today on the Android platform, and Verizon hopes customers will use it to hunt down their favorite videos from Netflix, Hulu Plus, mSpot, and Comcast Xfinity, all from the Verizon Wireless app.

“We are just seeing a hunger for people wanting to watch video,” Verizon Wireless CEO Dan Mead said in an interview with AllThingsD. “I think this will capture the audience’s imagination.”

If customers use it to stream bandwidth heavy video on a tiered data plan, Verizon will also have the customer’s attention when the bill arrives.

Viewdini, considered one of Verizon’s “key product launches” for the year, does not amount to much on examination. The service does not host videos, it merely indexes them from other videocentric websites. The app will be exclusive to Verizon Wireless, but is not the company’s first foray in the competitive video streaming marketplace.

The Verizon Video app offers streamed video entertainment, but with a twist. Many titles offered by Verizon Video cannot be accessed while on Wi-Fi and require the company’s 3G or 4G network to watch, which counts against your usage allowance.

Mead

There is no indication yet whether Viewdini will have similar restrictions.

While Mead claims the company has several early warning indicators for customers approaching their monthly usage cap, he admits the company hopes to make additional revenue from customers who choose to exceed their allowance and buy additional data.

“We look at it as great flexibility for customers,” Mead called that choice.

While Verizon joins other wireless carriers in calling urgently for additional wireless spectrum, its marketing department does not recognize any wireless data shortage, and continues to introduce new products that encourage their customers to use an increasing amount of data, from which Verizon admits it will earn an increasing percentage of its revenue.

No related stories.

Click here to view the embedded video.

FCC Chariman Julius Genachowski spent the day hobnobbing with cable industry executives at the Boston Cable Show. In an interview with CNBC, Genachowski defended usage-based pricing, claiming it will bring lower prices to light users, spur “innovation” and enable consumer choice. Verizon Wireless customers on the cusp of being thrown off their grandfathered unlimited data plans may have a bone to pick with the FCC chairman about how innovative and enabling such policies have on them. Genachowski also suggests his controversial Net Neutrality policy is working, despite recent attempts by Comcast to exempt its content from the company’s usage cap and the wireless industry toying with toll-free data for preferred partners. Genachowski had little to offer consumers in the interview, instead suggesting his deregulatory stance on “innovation” will eventually benefit them.  (5 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. FCC Chairman Opens Wireless Industry Convention Mouthing AT&T Talking Points
2. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowki on Rate of Innovation in American Broadband: America Dead Last
3. FCC Chairman Calls for Cable Industry to Close Broadband Gap
4. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Roadshow: Now He’ll Headline the Cable Industry’s Big Splash
5. FCC Chairman’s Latest Non-Answer Answer on Internet Overcharging Schemes

Comcast today announced it was incrementally increasing its 250GB usage cap by 50 additional gigabytes per month as part of a new trial, the first allowance increase since the company started the cap in 2008.

But before so-called “heavy users” celebrate, the company is also announcing it will test overlimit fees for customers who exceed the new 300GB cap.

Cathy Avgiris, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Communications and Data Services, Comcast Cable:

We’ve decided to change our approach and replace our static 250 GB usage threshold with more flexible data usage management approaches that benefit consumers and support innovation and that will continue to ensure that all of our customers enjoy the best possible Internet experience over our high-speed data service. In the next few months, therefore, we are going to trial improved data usage management approaches comparable to plans that others in the market are using that will provide customers with more choice and flexibility than our current policy. We’ll be piloting at least two approaches in different markets, and we’ll provide additional details on these trials as they launch. But we can give everyone an overview today.

The first new approach will offer multi-tier usage allowances that incrementally increase usage allotments for each tier of high-speed data service from the current threshold. Thus, we’d start with a 300 GB usage allotment for our Internet Essentials, Economy, and Performance Tiers, and then we would have increasing data allotments for each successive tier of high speed data service (e.g., Blast and Extreme). The very few customers who use more data at each tier can buy additional gigabytes in increments/blocks (e.g., $10 for 50 GB).

The second new approach will increase our data usage thresholds for all tiers to 300 GB per month and also offer additional gigabytes in increments/blocks (e.g., $10 per 50 GB).

In both approaches, we’ll be increasing the initial data usage threshold for our customers from today’s 250 GB per month to at least 300 GB per month.

In markets where we are not trialing a new data usage management approach, we will suspend enforcement of our current usage cap as we transition to a new data usage management approach, although we will continue to contact the very small number of excessive users about their usage.

Tell Comcast to drop the padlock on your broadband connection altogether.

The change comes at the same time Comcast is under fire for allegedly giving preferential, cap-free treatment to its own video content through an Xbox video game console app.

Comcast has followed AT&T’s pricing, testing a new overlimit fee of $10 for each 50GB increment customers exceed their allowance.  While not outrageous on a per gigabyte basis, the minimum charge of $10 is steep, especially considering Comcast pays only pennies per gigabyte to move traffic.

Stop the Cap! urges Comcast customers to use the occasion to demand the company suspend its unnecessary and arbitrary usage cap altogether.

The best approach for consumers is the one Comcast plans for markets not subject to a trial of their latest Internet Overcharging schemes. Namely, leaving the overwhelming majority of Comcast customers alone while informally reaching out to the tiny minority of customers the company feels are consuming data at levels that create significant problems for other customers on their network. With Comcast’s near-universal adoption of DOCSIS 3 technology, those problems are rarer than ever.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Comcast Changes Language Over Xbox-Usage Cap Spat: Same Story, Different Words
2. New Evidence Suggests Comcast Prioritizing Its Own Streamed Content; Usage Cap Must Go
3. Ultimately Overpriced: Videotron’s 120Mbps Service Usage Limited With Overlimit Fees That Don’t Quit
4. Comcast Proves It Doesn’t Need a 250GB Usage Cap; Net Neutrality Violation Alleged
5. Earthlink Imposes 250GB Usage Limit on Their Customers Getting Service from Comcast

What capacity crisis? This is about the money.

Yesterday’s news that Verizon Wireless plans to terminate the grandfathered unlimited data plans of their existing customers, forcing them to choose from a range of potentially more expensive shared data plans, would seem to be part and parcel of the cell phone industry’s need to move away from all-you-can-eat data to preserve what little spectrum they have to handle wireless data growth.

AT&T’s Randall Stephenson is on record stating AT&T has been hiking prices because of the imminent spectrum crisis and its inability to manage it with a buyout of T-Mobile:

“We’re running out of the airwaves that this traffic rides on,” Stephenson said. “There is a shortage of this spectrum. The more competitors you have, the less efficient the allocation of spectrum will be. It’s got to change. I don’t think the market’s going to accommodate the number of competitors there are in the landscape.” Stephenson noted AT&T’s data prices have increased 30% since the deal was killed.

“In a capacity-constrained environment we will manage usage-based data plans, increased pricing and managing the speeds of the highest volume users. These are all logical and necessary steps to manage utilization,” Stephenson said about AT&T’s rationing plans.

Over at Verizon Wireless, the announced end of unlimited data carried no such warnings of imminent wireless spectrum doom.  In fact, chief financial officer Fran Shammo on Wednesday said Verizon was just fine with spectrum and capacity for at least the next two years, if not longer (underlining ours):

“Well, I think prior to the deal that we announced with the cable companies and the acquisition of spectrum, we were saying that we were going to need a spectrum — we were going to need more spectrum by 2015. With the approval of this deal now, with the AWS, we think we are in very good shape here beyond 2015.

“In addition, the way our 3G spectrum is in individual slices, it is going to be very efficient for us to take slices out and re-appropriate that to the 4G technology. So I think that through that spectrum efficiency, also I think that there will be some help from the manufacturers in getting more equipment out there that utilizes spectrum more efficiently, although I don’t think that solves the problem, the industry is going to need more spectrum in the future because of the way that we see the guide path of consumption. But I think right now, we are in pretty good shape for at least the next several years.

[...] “So from a spectrum perspective, I think we are absolutely fine.”

Verizon's banking on more revenue when "unlimited data" is banished for good.

In fact, Verizon Wireless plans to reduce its spending on infrastructure projects designed to expand and enhance its wireless network, starting with its 3G service. Frammo (underlining ours):

“And now what you’re seeing is, if you will, a discontinued investment in 3G. Now we will have to continue to invest in that 3G from a maintenance and reliability perspective because we still have 90 million customers on that, but no more capacity or expansion of the 3G network. Our effort is going into 4G now and what I would say to you is look at Verizon on a total capital basis and I would say flat to slightly down. If you look at the components, what you will see is wireless decreased $850 million in the first quarter and that was because of the 3G buildout last year and not this year. But I think on a year-over-year basis, you could look to flat to down and that trend should continue.”

So what are Verizon’s primary goals in the near future? Increasing revenue. Frammo (underlining ours):

“So obviously, our goal is to increase cash flow. We came out of the first quarter with a $1.7 billion increase in our cash flow year-over-year, managing that CapEx. Our dividend policy is extremely important to us.“

Verizon Wireless handed out this statement this morning regarding the imminent demise of unlimited data:

“As we have stated publicly, Verizon Wireless has been re-evaluating its data pricing structure for some time, Customers have told us that they want to share data, similar to how they share minutes today. We are working on plans to provide customers with that option later this year.

“We will share specific details of the plans and any related policy changes well in advance of their introduction, so customers will have time to evaluate their choices and make the best decisions for their wireless service. It is our goal and commitment to continue to provide customers with the same high value service they have come to expect from Verizon Wireless.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

WWLP in Springfield, Mass. explains to viewers the end of “unlimited data” from Verizon Wireless is near.  (1 minute)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Verizon Wireless Customers: 48 Hours Left to Secure Unlimited Data/Unlimited 4G Tethering Plans
2. Verizon Preparing to Kill Grandfathered Unlimited Data Plans, Hike Rates for FiOS
3. Updated: Stop the Cap! Helps Verizon Wireless Customers Sign Up for Unlimited Data Through Loophole
4. Bulldozing Wireless Net Neutrality: Carriers Want “Toll-Free” Data for Their Partners
5. HissyFitWatch: AT&T CEO Mad At Himself for Ever Allowing “Unlimited” Use Plans

Rogers Communications has following up its “Next is Now” corporate video from 2010 with a sequel: “Next is Now… More Than Ever,” which highlights how Canadians are increasingly relying on mobile communications for news, entertainment, social life, work, and education.

While Rogers wanted the video to promote how the company would be a part of that telecommunications transformation, many of their customers can’t help but reflect on the fact the revolution is well-tempered with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps.

Stop the Cap! reader Alex is among them, noting the video says nothing about the company’s restrictive usage limits on home broadband and the even harsher caps on its mobile services.

Rogers, like most telecommunications companies, repeatedly tells investors there is real money to be made attaching meters to monetize megabytes.  Charging for broadband usage is a growth industry, and with the company’s own projections for data growth, they are well-positioned to be in the money for years.

With broadband dependency being as pervasive, if not more so, in Canada as in the United States, the barely regulated services on offer in both countries often come at a steep (and increasing) price — all for something even Rogers hints is becoming a utility — one as important as electricity, gas, and clean water.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Rogers Communications’ “Next is Now… More Than Ever” has broader implications than the company realizes. (3 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Rogers’ Usage Limbo Dance Continues: Company Slightly Raises Cap It Slashed Last Year
2. Netflix to Launch Unlimited Streaming for Canadians Stuck With Limited Broadband
3. Rogers Abandoning Portable Internet Service: Internet Overcharging 3G in Rural Canada’s Future
4. Updated: Rogers’ Believe It Or Not: We Will “Abolish” Usage Caps If They “Affect Users”
5. What Spectrum Crunch? Rogers Caps Your Data Usage But Plans Unlimited LTE Video-on-Demand

Growing questions are being raised about whether Comcast is violating FCC and Department of Justice policies that prohibit the cable company from prioritizing its own content traffic over that of its competitors.

Comcast’s Xfinity Xbox app offers Comcast customers access to Xfinity online video content without eating into their monthly 250GB Internet usage allowance. Netflix has called that exemption unfair, because its content does count against Comcast’s usage cap. New evidence now suggests Comcast may also be prioritizing the delivery of its Xfinity content over other broadband traffic, a true Net Neutrality violation if proven true.

Bryan Berg, founder and chief technology officer at MixMedia, believes he has found proof the cable company is giving its own video content preferential treatment, in this somewhat-technical finding published on his blog:

What I’ve concluded is that Comcast is using separate DOCSIS service flows to prioritize the traffic to the Xfinity Xbox app. This separation allows them to exempt that traffic from both bandwidth cap accounting and download speed limits. It’s still plain-old HTTP delivering MP4-encoded video files, just like the other streaming services use, but additional priority is granted to the Xfinity traffic at the DOCSIS level. I still believe that DSCP values I observed in the packet headers of Xfinity traffic is the method by which Comcast signals that traffic is to be prioritized, both in their backbone and regional networks and their DOCSIS network.

Berg also contends Comcast’s earlier explanation that its Xfinity content should be exempt from its usage cap because it travels over the company’s private Internet network is also flawed:

In addition, contrary to what has been widely speculated, the Xfinity traffic is not delivered via separate, dedicated downstream channel(s)—it uses the same downstream channels as regular Internet traffic.

Berg

Broadband traffic management is of growing interest to Internet Service Providers, who contend it can be used to manage Internet traffic more efficiently and improve speed and time-sensitive online applications like streamed video, online phone calls, and similar services. But manufacturers of traffic management equipment also market the technology to ISPs who want to favor certain kinds of content while de-prioritizing or even throttling the speed of non-preferred content. The technology can also differentiate traffic that counts against a monthly usage cap, and traffic that does not.

Quality of Service (QoS) technology can be used to improve the customer’s online experience or help a provider launch Internet Overcharging and speed throttling schemes that can heavily discriminate against “undesirable” online traffic.

Berg further found that when he saturated his 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection, traffic from providers like Netflix suffered due to the bandwidth constraints.  Because he flooded his connection, Netflix buffered additional content (slowing his stream start time) and reduced the bitrate of the video (which can dramatically reduce the picture quality at slower speeds). But when he launched Xfinity video streaming, that traffic was unaffected by his saturated connection. In fact, he discovered Xfinity traffic was exempted from his normal download speed limit, allowing his connection to exceed 25Mbps.

While that works great for Xfinity fans who do not want their videos degraded when other household members are online, it is inherently unfair to competitors like Netflix who are forced to reduce the quality of your video stream to compensate for lower available bandwidth.

According to the consent decree which governs the merger of the cable operator with NBC-Universal, prioritizing traffic in this way is a no-no when the company also engages in Internet Overcharging schemes, namely its arbitrary usage cap:

“If Comcast offers consumers Internet Access Service under a package that includes caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing, it shall not measure, count, or otherwise treat Defendants’ affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic. Comcast shall not prioritize Defendants’ Video Programming or other content over other Persons’ Video Programming or other content.”

This graph shows Berg's artificially saturated 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection. The traffic in red represents Xfinity Xbox traffic, which is given such high priority, it allows Berg to exceed his usual download speed limit.

Comcast sent GigaOm a statement that denies the company is doing any such thing:

“It’s really important that we make crystal clear that we are not prioritizing our transmission of Xfinity TV content to the Xbox (as some have speculated). While DSCP markings can be used to assign traffic different priority levels, that is not their only application – and that is not what they are being used for here. It’s also important to point out that our Xfinity TV content being delivered to the Xbox is the same video subscription that customers already paid for and is delivered to their home over our traditional cable network – the difference is that we are now delivering it using IP technology to the Xbox 360, in a similar manner as other IP-based cable service providers. But this is still our traditional cable television service, which is governed by something known as Title VI of the Communications Act, and we provide the service in compliance with applicable FCC rules.”

Our View

Comcast, as usual, is talking out of every side of its mouth. In an effort to justify their unjustified usage cap, they have pretzel-twisted a novel way out of this Net Neutrality debate by paving their own digital highway on a Comcast private drive.

Comcast argues their 250GB usage cap controls last-mile congestion to provide an excellent user experience. That excuse completely evaporates in the context of its new toll-free video traffic. In fact, their earlier argument that its regionally-distributed streaming traffic should not count because it does not travel over the “public Internet” at Comcast’s expense does not even make sense.

Berg provides an example:

A FaceTime call from my house to my neighbor’s—which never leaves even the San Francisco metro area Comcast network, given that both of us are Comcast customers—goes over the “public Internet.”

Yet Comcast’s Xbox streams, which pass from Seattle to Sacramento to San Francisco through all of the same network elements that handle my video call (and then some!) are exempt from the bandwidth cap?

You can’t have it both ways, guys.

DOCSIS 3 technology has vastly expanded the last mile pipe into subscriber homes. If Comcast can launch their own private pipe for unlimited IPTV traffic that travels down the same wires their Internet service does, they can comfortably handle any additional capacity needs to support their “constrained” broadband service without the need to limit their customers’ use.

Usage caps remain an end run around Net Neutrality. Consumers given the opportunity to view content under a usage cap on the “public Internet” or using the “toll-free” traffic lane Comcast created for content from their “preferred partners” will make the obvious choice to protect their usage allowance. Comcast is certainly aware of this, and it is a clever way to discriminate through social engineering. It’s also less obvious. You don’t have to de-prioritize or block traffic from your competition to have an impact, you just have to limit it. Customers who repeatedly exceed their usage allowance face suspension of Comcast broadband service for up to one year. That’s a strong incentive to follow their rules.

Netflix is fighting to force Xfinity traffic to fall under the same arbitrary usage cap regime Netflix endures — a truly shortsighted goal. The real issue here is whether Comcast should be capping any of its Internet service.

Comcast has given us the answer, launching the very bandwidth-intense video streaming it used to decry was contributing to an Internet traffic tsunami.

It’s time for Comcast to drop its usage cap.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Netflix’s Reed Hastings Discovers Comcast’s Usage Cap: The End Run Around Net Neutrality
2. Comcast Changes Language Over Xbox-Usage Cap Spat: Same Story, Different Words
3. Comcast Proves It Doesn’t Need a 250GB Usage Cap; Net Neutrality Violation Alleged
4. Netflix to Broadband Industry: Please Don’t Kill Us With Usage Caps
5. Internet Overcharging Gravy Train: Average Home Wi-Fi Use to Exceed 440GB By 2015

Happy Days Are Always Here for Top Telecom Execs

Our friends at Fierce Cable put together a list of the top-paid telecommunications executives, and they’re in the money. Your money. While your rates keep going up, their take-home pay often is, too.

Remarkably, actual performance as executives (or lack, thereof) often had no relationship to their ultimate pay package, with a handful of exceptions:

Cable & Satellite

Brian L. Roberts, Comcast — $26.9 million: The Roberts family has dominated Comcast since the 1980s, so it is no surprise their pay packages are as colossal as the company itself.

Michael J. Lovett, Charter Communications — $20.54 million: He resigned in Feb. 2012 but got a great golden parachute: nearly double the compensation he earned the year before. Charter is one of America’s least-distinguished cable companies, usually scoring just above “pond scum” in popularity with customers. But you can take that trash talk when you walk $20 million to the bank.

Glenn A. Britt, Time Warner Cable — $16.43 million: His pay went down slightly (well, by a million dollars but with that kind of money, does it really matter?) in 2011. Britt has been around at some iteration of Time since 1972… when Nixon was still president, so he worked his way to the top. But some of his best accomplishments are irritating his customers with talk of overcharging them for Internet access.

James L. Dolan, Cablevision — $11.45 million: The Dolan family and Cablevision go together like cookies and milk, but Wall Street can’t help but bet when the family will finally cash out of cable and sell the company to Time Warner or Comcast. With $11 million in salary, stock awards, and bonuses, what’s the hurry?

Joseph Clayton, Dish Network — $9.84 million: Clayton is a Dish freshman, only coming on board 11 months ago. His salary was a paltry $467,000 in 2011. Thank goodness for the $9 mil in stock and bonus pay!

Michael D. White, DirecTV — $5.94 million: Ouch… a pay cut. White made $32.93 million the year before. Now he’ll have to clip coupons from the Sunday newspaper like the rest of us.

Rodger L. Johnson, Knology — $3.13 million: Not bad for running a company almost nobody has heard of and will soon no longer exist.  WideOpenWest bought them out last month.

The Wireline Companies & Their Friends

Stephenson: Blew a $39 billion dollar merger deal with T-Mobile, but walks away with $22 million in pay anyway.

Lowell McAdam, Verizon — $23.1 million: McAdam’s promotion paid handsomely. As former chief operating officer, he only walked home with a little more than $7 million last year. Now he’s earning every penny conjuring up ways he can do away with your cell phone subsidy -and- keep Verizon Wireless’ rates as high as ever.

Randall Stephenson, AT&T — $22.01 million: If you blew a multi-billion dollar merger deal at your company, do you think the only punishment you’d receive is a $5 million pay cut? Stephenson is the cat that fell out of the wireless merger window, and landed on his feet unharmed. Unfortunately the same isn’t true for his customers.

Dan Hesse, Sprint — $11.88 million: His pay is down about $2 million from 2010, and he recently announced he was going to take another pay cut for the team. If anyone deserves hazard pay, Hesse is the man. Wall Street hates him for not following his competitors gouging customers with higher prices and more restrictive service plans and policies. The big money crowd in New York’s financial district already has his going away party well-planned.

Jeff Gardner, Windstream — $9.78 million: His pay is up around $2 million. Windstream can afford it, acquiring companies later stripped clean of employees. PAETEC workers will learn this lesson soon enough. At Windstream, all the money rises to the top… management that is.

George A. Cope, Bell Canada — $9.6 million: His salary more than doubled over 2010 and why not. Bell is the first telecommunications company in North America to be audacious enough to demand an entire country be stripped of flat rate Internet service. That move managed to organize 500,000 Canadians that normally are resigned to the fact the revolving door at the Canadian Radio-tv and Telecommunications Commission has locked them out for years. Thanks Bell!

Glen F. Post III, CenturyLink — $8.55 million: Post saw his pay slashed from $14.5 million the year before, but merger deals like Qwest (with the corresponding huge bonus for pulling it off) only come once or twice in a career.

Hesse: Wall Street's least-wanted.

Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier — $6.72 million: No, we don’t understand it either. Her pay is down from $8.58 million, but considering Frontier’s current stock price and bottom-rated service, wouldn’t half of this money be better spent on improving broadband in states like West Virginia?

John F. Cassidy, Cincinnati Bell — $6.06 million: Cassidy earned more than two million more the year before. Cincinnati Bell is an aberration in an industry that is convinced the only good thing telecom companies can do is merge with each other to get bigger and bigger.

Paul H. Sunu, FairPoint — $4.25 million: The company that couldn’t find one customer’s business on a service call despite being literally right next door to FairPoint itself, is clawing its way back from bankruptcy and Sunu’s pay package reflects that. He only earned $775,000 the year earlier.

Ian Paul Livingston, BT — $3.8 million: British Telecom’s chief got a modest salary hike in 2011, and the U.K. phone company has done modestly better recognizing better broadband in the key to its future. BT is the AT&T of the United Kingdom, but British salaries are downright frugal compared to the high flyers on this side of the Atlantic.

David A. Wittwer, TDS Telecom — $2.29 million: You can’t complain about a cool $2 million in salary for a company with only around 1.1 million customers.

Ben Verwaayen, Alcatel-Lucent — $2.25 million: His salary dropped slightly from 2010. Alcatel-Lucent could do considerably better if they can win the public policy debate that fiber optic broadband is the wave of the future. Alcatel-Lucent is a major player.

No related stories.

Your contract with Sprint ends in June, but why wait, beckons the cell phone company, when you can upgrade your phone today (with a new two-year service agreement).

Two years earlier, providers wheeled and dealed upgrade-reluctant customers, particularly those considering their first smartphone, thanks to the bill shock that results when customers see a $30 mandatory data plan added to their monthly bill.  Sprint went one step further, handing 4G-capable customers Clearwire WiMAX — a technology even Russian cell phone companies can’t wait to abandon — and added a $10 premium data surcharge for the privilege.

In Sprint’s favor: their willingness to deal discounts on phone upgrades and their truly unlimited data plans. But while Sprint continues to bank on unlimited data, the bill on cheap phone upgrades may now be coming due.

The American wireless industry is increasingly taking a page from the airlines, adopting irritating fees and surcharges while curtailing the perks and rewards that used to come with customer loyalty and family plans that routinely run into the hundreds of dollars.

Equipment Upgrade Fees

Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile all have a nasty surprise in store for customers who have not upgraded their smartphones in the last year or so: the equipment upgrade fee.  Sprint and AT&T both charge $36 per phone, Verizon Wireless now charges $30, T-Mobile $18.

Verizon customers are especially peeved because that wireless company used to reward loyal customers with a $50 credit off any new phone at contract renewal time. Today, instead of getting “New Every Two” discounts, Big Red will charge you $30 for every new phone when you renew your contract.

Verizon’s excuse is that the new fee will be used to offer customer “wireless workshops” and “online educational tools,” according to Verizon spokeswoman Brenda Rayney. The company also claims the fees will cover more sophisticated consultations with “company experts” that are trained to provide advice and guidance on today’s sophisticated smartphones. In other words, these fees are supposed to compensate Verizon’s store and kiosk employees.

For people like my cousin, upgrading to a new Sprint phone at contract renewal time is an exercise in frustration. In addition to the $149-199 subsidized equipment price, Sprint now tacks on a $36 upgrade fee (per phone).  What miffs him is that Sprint is treating new customers better than existing ones, willing to waive one-time activation fees (coincidentally the same $36) for new customers, but steadfastly refusing to credit equipment upgrade fees for existing loyal customers.

Sprint will tell you they are not alone charging upgrade fees, and they would be right. All four major national carriers now charge the fees, effectively a penalty when customers decide to upgrade their phones.

Many also find it nearly impossible to get companies like Verizon Wireless to waive the fees, even when some of their best customers ask.

“Verizon Wireless was willing to throw away my 12 year account, earning them more than $500 a month in revenue, over the upgrade fee issue,” reports Stan Dershau. “Our contract expired this month and it was time for new phones, and Verizon absolutely insisted that we pay $150 in upgrade fees for new equipment on our account, even after the $600 they’ll collect from the smartphones we intended to buy.”

Dershau found absolutely nobody willing to relent on Verizon’s upgrade fees. Even supervisors told him the company has a no-waiver policy that is strictly enforced, and they could do little more than offer a token service credit even if Dershau threatened to take his business somewhere else.

“I haven’t decided what to do yet, but I canceled my upgrade plans for now,” he reports.

Dershau was always able to get Verizon to waive earlier fees because of the monthly business he brings them, but those days are over.

“It’s a whole different attitude with them now,” Dershau says. “They just want money.”

AT&T's fine print.

Ben Popken recently wrote about his efforts to avoid Verizon’s $30 upgrade fee, with mixed results.

Verizon’s suggested solution is to sell your old phones back to the company through their trade-in program, using the money to offset the equipment upgrade fee. But unless you own an iPhone, Verizon’s trade-in offers are strictly low-ball, often under $30 on non-Apple phones. That leaves you with a slightly lower upgrade fee and the loss of your old phone, which Verizon may recycle or resell refurbished to someone else.

Popken explains he found one convoluted way around Verizon’s fees:

First, start a new line of service with the new phone you want. Then, port your old phone number to a 3rd party service, like Google Voice (here’s a guide from Lifehacker on doing so). Lastly, cancel the line with the old phone and port the old phone number back onto the new phone, thus keeping the new phone, the old number, and dodging the fee. But there’s a catch. It only works if you wait three months to port the number back. If you do it before then, Verizon’s system treats it like you’re continuing the same service, and they hit you with the $30 upgrade fee. Curses.

Popken forgets, however, that Google itself charges a $20 fee to port cell phone numbers to Google Voice, eliminating 2/3rds of your potential savings.

In fact, outside of purchasing a phone at the full, unsubsidized price from a third party, Verizon’s $30 fee will be visiting your phone bill sooner or later, if you decide to upgrade.

The Phone Subsidy: Slaying North America’s Sacred Cow Wireless Business Model

Consumers who crave the newest smartphones should thank their lucky stars they live in Canada or the United States, where the wireless industry heavily discounts the upfront cost of the phone when customers sign a service contract. But phone companies like AT&T and Verizon are not giving you a gift. In return for fronting a discount of as much as $400, companies set their monthly rates higher to recoup that subsidy over the life of your two-year contract.

That worked fine when cell phone companies only paid a few hundred dollars for basic phones. But today’s most popular smartphones can cost companies $400 each, and that upfront revenue hit has annoyed Wall Street for years. Even worse, while providers hand you a discounted phone, they’ve already paid the asking price to companies like Apple and Samsung, who book that revenue immediately and never have to worry about a customer skipping out on their contract.

Wall Street has been putting pressure on companies to do something about the expensive phone subsidies, and companies are responding. The equipment upgrade fee, increased activation fees, and rising monthly service charges are all a part of a greater plan to discourage customers from upgrading their phones and increase profits.

Wall Street analysts love every part of it, especially if companies can do away with equipment subsidies -and- maintain today’s pricing:

“Optimism has increased that we are witnessing the leading edge of a more disciplined, and more profitable, future,” Craig Moffett, a telecom analyst at Bernstein Research, wrote in a recent research note. The question now, he wrote, is how much carriers can increase their profits thanks to “increased discipline and pricing power.”

The answer could be quite a lot. A marketplace experiment in Spain is being closely watched by wireless phone companies worldwide and could be coming to Canada and the United States before your next two-year contract is up for renewal.

In March, Telefónica SA, Spain’s largest cell phone company, stopped subsidizing smartphones for new customers. Vodafone, which co-owns Verizon Wireless, quickly followed.

As a result, Spanish customers looking for an iPhone will now pay $800 to purchase the phone at full price, or they can sign up for an “installment plan” that will add $45 a month to their cell phone bill for the next 18 months. Both companies say the new policy won’t apply to existing customers, in an effort to discourage them from switching companies.

Telefónica anticipates the changes will slash as least 25% off of their spending. Instead of fronting subsidies to attract new customers, the phone company will increase subsidies for existing customers who agree to stay. Unfortunately for Telefónica, early results are not promising. More than 500,000 customers left the same month the new policy was announced.

A handful of smaller Spanish players see the move by both major companies as a competitive opportunity to win over new customers. Orange, for example, has not stopped offering subsidies and as a result Telefónica has lost potential new customers who signed with Orange instead. The “churn rate” of customers coming and going remains a concern for company executives. But so far, Telefónica considers getting rid of phone subsidies more important than the customers they have forfeit over the new policy.

“We are pretty firm on our strategy of trying to change the paradigm of the sector, [...] devoting the bulk of our efforts to our existing customers and, therefore, trying to move away from incentivizing churn of our customers either from us or from the others,” said company CEO Cesareo Alierta Izuel. “We are very firm on this new handset strategy. We need to fight to see if the trend is going to the right direction. And again, we think it is.”

The Wall Street Journal reports Telefónica’s bold plan has caught the attention of Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, who sees it as a potential profit booster, and McAdam expects Verizon may cautiously follow the Spanish company’s lead.

“We’ll probably offer some things like that, and then we’ll see what the adoption is like,” McAdam said. “You can’t push this on customers before customers are ready for it.”

For now, some customers are not even ready for equipment upgrade fees. My cousin’s upgrade plans remain on hold for now, as are those of the Dershau family.

“I am not going to be browbeaten into paying these unjustified fees,” Dershau said. “Where does it stop?”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Ben Popken talks about trying to avoid Verizon’s $30 equipment upgrade fee.  (3 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. AT&T: Pay Us $36 If You Really Want to Upgrade That Smartphone
2. Wireless Innovation: Verizon Conjures Up $30 Upgrade Fee for New Equipment
3. Verizon Wireless Uses Tricky Math to Prove Paying More Saves You More
4. Verizon Wireless Extends “Smartphones Talk Free” Offer: $9.99 Off New Smartphone Lines
5. Verizon Wireless Eliminating “New Every Two” Program; Other Upgrade Discounts Being Phased Out