Hultquist

Hank Hultquist, AT&T’s federal regulatory vice president, is taking questions on broadband Internet policy in an upcoming Washington Post piece.

Here is your chance to question AT&T about broadband issues ranging from Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and rationing experiments, Net Neutrality, U-verse and DSL broadband expansion, and AT&T’s involvement in the public policy arena.

AT&T is currently seeking major changes to the $8 billion Universal Service Fund that helps subsidize phone service for rural Americans.  AT&T wants to see that fund expanded to subsidize broadband improvements, which will directly benefit AT&T as it is among the top recipients of USF funds.  With 16 million current broadband customers and a service area that extends into the often-rural midwest and southern parts of the country, AT&T could receive a windfall in federal funds to pay for broadband service it doesn’t provide many areas today.

But what kind of broadband service will AT&T offer?  The company recently concluded a trial limiting use of its AT&T DSL service to customers in Beaumont, Tex., and Reno, Nev.  AT&T claims it is currently analyzing the results of that trial, and could bring usage limits on all of its customers.  Feel free to pose your own questions in the comments section of the Washington Post article (reg required) or sending an e-mail to Cecilia Kang (kangc@washpost.com) no later than Friday morning.

Scott Cleland, who runs the dollar-a-holler, broadband-industry funded astroturf group Net Competition already has his question in:

Shouldn’t those broadband Internet users (consumers or big businesses), who use the most bandwidth and benefit the most from faster more ubiquitous broadband, contribute relatively more to the Universal Service fund than those consumers and businesses that use much less bandwidth? Isn’t that the basic fairness principle that has long undergirded the current Universal Service fund, which is based on long distance usage/minutes?

Scott Cleland
Chairman, NetCompetition.org an eforum supported by broadband interests

Do you want to pay the higher broadband bills that Cleland advocates?

Kang promises to include as many of your questions as possible and post the Q&A early next week.

Share/Save

Tim Conway's "Old Man" character from the Carol Burnett Show would be right at home using the Internet in these areas.

Nick Saint at the Business Insider has been sifting through some of the raw data released last week by the Federal Communications Commission regarding broadband service in the United States.  He’s managed to identify the 10 worst counties in America for broadband service based on statistics from 2008.  But two of those probably should have never been on the list.  More on that later.

Harrison County, Mississippi — A single pond in Harrison County is the only known habitat of the critically endangered dusky gopher frog.  It doesn’t have broadband, and neither do most of the residents of this beleaguered part of southern Mississippi.  The cities of Gulfport and Biloxi are in Harrison County, an area torn up by hurricanes from Camille to Katrina.  Now, the beaches are coated in BP oil.  Harrison County can’t get a break. Cable One and AT&T are the primary providers.  Cable One’s dreadful service only reaches well-populated areas and AT&T has taken its sweet time expanding DSL service in the area.

Imperial County, California — The nation’s lettuce basket, Imperial County communities live on a very low fiber-optic diet.  While the soil is rich for crops, the people who plant and harvest them are not.  El Centro, the biggest city, has some broadband available, but with the city having the nation’s highest unemployment rate (27.3 percent), many can’t afford it.  Once in farm country, cable doesn’t offer service and DSL is hard to come by.

Corson County, South Dakota — Representative of the pervasive problem of broadband unavailability on Native American lands, a large part of Corson County includes the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.  Saint notes the FCC found just 12.5 percent of Native Americans subscribe to broadband service, compared to 56 percent of the rest of us.

Ector County, Texas — Odessa’s hometown America-charm was put on display for all to see on NBC’s Friday Night Lights, which celebrated small town high school football.  The reality is less exciting.  Like Harrison County, Ector residents are stuck with Cable One, which loves Internet Overcharging schemes and spied on its Alabama broadband customers.  Good ole AT&T grudgingly provided DSL, if you could get it, until mid-2009 when U-verse finally started to show up.  Now large parts of the county outside of Odessa can’t get that either.

San Juan, Puerto Rico — Usually considered an afterthought by American telecommunications companies, Puerto Rico has long suffered with low quality service.  Caribbean Net News: “Puerto Rico’s broadband penetration rate is unacceptable, with less than 40% of households subscribing to broadband services”, said Carlo Marazzi, President of Critical Hub Networks. “While there are many factors at play, broadband in Puerto Rico is simply too expensive and too slow, when compared to the rest of the nation.  Broadband Internet service in Puerto Rico is 60% more expensive and 78% slower than the United States national median. In a report published this year by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) which ranked broadband speeds in the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico was ranked in last place (52nd place).

Jasper County, Missouri — Saint noted 18 percent of Jasper County lives below the poverty line, which is not exactly attractive to broadband investment.  Jasper County’s broadband needs are barely met by a cable provider, AT&T, and for some, an electric utility operating a Wireless ISP, providing service where cable and DSL don’t go.  For Jasper County residents, the challenge can be cost as much as access.

Appomattox County, Virginia — Every student known Appomattox was the last stand of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee during the Civil War.  Today, residents there are worked to their last nerve because they can’t easily obtain high speed Internet.  There is no DSL service from the phone company and only limited cable service.  But at least the county is trying.  Let’s let John Spencer, assistant county administrator, tell you in his own words what Appomattox County is doing to deliver broadband for its 14,000 residents:

Bristol Bay Borough, Alaska — The epitome of rural America, large swaths of Alaska are dependent on subsidies paid from the Universal Service Fund for basic telephone service.  Outside of large cities, cable television is a theory.  Telephone company DSL service and wireless are the predominate broadband technologies in rural, expansive Alaska.  For many areas, both are awful.  Bristol Bay Borough is known as the “Red Salmon Capital of the World,” if only because there are far more salmon than there are fishermen to catch them.  Internet access for many of the area’s 953 residents means a trip to the Martin Monsen Library, which offers free Wi-Fi for limited access. If you want Internet at home, it will cost you plenty:

Share/Save

The days may be numbered for Sunflower Broadband

A Kansas cable system notorious for Internet Overcharging is nearing a deal to be acquired by a cable overbuilder that does not usage cap broadband customers.

Sunflower Broadband, an independent cable system providing cable, phone, and broadband service to 30,000 Lawrence residents, is expected to be acquired by Georgia-based cable overbuilder Knology, which has been on a buying spree of late.  The asking price – $127 million dollars, according to a report in the cable trade journal Multichannel News.

Sunflower has been overcharging their broadband customers for years with schemes like usage caps and a flat rate service plan that delivers speed throttled broadband service to customers.  Sunflower has remained a hot topic for Stop the Cap! because we hear so many complaints from their long-suffering customers.  In fact, no independent cable operator has generated more reader complaints than Sunflower Broadband, almost all targeting the company’s unjustified usage caps.

Broadband Reports reminds us Sunflower was among the first to implement the idea of low caps and high overages ($2 for each additional gigabyte).  Customers also routinely complain about Sunflower’s stingy upstream speeds, maxed out at just 1Mbps for their $60 Gold tier.

None of the details about Sunflower Broadband’s impending sale can be found in the local newspaper — the Lawrence Journal-World or the local “Channel 6″ news operation.  That’s ironic, considering the same parent company that owns Sunflower Broadband, The World Company, also happens to own the newspaper and Channel 6.  It took a cable trade publication based hundreds of miles away to break the story — not exactly a shining moment for journalism in Lawrence, especially considering an LJWorld reporter need not break a sweat to chase the story.

Part of the reason for the sale may have been AT&T bringing U-verse competition to Lawrence.  U-verse does not have customer unfriendly usage limits.  With AT&T ready to usher away many of Sunflower’s customers, management may have decided now was a good time to sell.

The good news for Lawrence residents is that none of Knology’s cable systems engage in Internet Overcharging schemes, so Sunflower’s usage caps may be gone after the sale.

Still, some Lawrence residents are concerned about the implications of a Knology takeover.  The Lawrence Broadband Observer is among them:

I browsed Knology’s corporate web site and was actually pretty unimpressed. To put it mildly, Knology is well behind Sunflower both geographically and technically. Knology offers service in rural areas much smaller then Lawrence, like Storm Lake, Iowa and Dothan, Alabama. They also offer service in a few towns that are equal or larger then Lawrence like Charleston, South Carolina.

Technically, Knology is well behind Sunflower in what they offer customers in other cities. Top internet speeds (albeit cap-free) are only in the 8-10 megabit range, five times slower then Sunflower’s new DOCSIS 3 offerings. On the television side, while it varies from city to city, Knology generally offers only 30 or so HD channels, which is less then half of what Sunflower offers. Knology offers a rudimentary DVR, but nothing like Sunflower’s multi-room options.

Perhaps Knology is interested in buying Sunflower to learn how to offer more advanced services, knowledge they can take to their other markets. I don’t know, but it seems like this is a case of a large buggy-whip manufacturer buying out a smaller company that makes automobiles.

Most of Knology’s network of systems have been acquired from other companies and providers.  Technically, they are a cable “overbuilder” because they do overlap other providers in some areas, such as Knoxville, Tenn., where they compete with Comcast.  In many communities, they are most common in rental parks and apartments.

Knology’s customers in other cities have usually suffered some transitional glitches (Knology uses a more “advanced e-mail system” they eventually forced their PrairieWave customers to join), but overall they have usually increased broadband speeds in their markets and add lots of new HD channels.  Knology is aggressively deploying DOCSIS 3, something Sunflower already has, so few changes should be expected there.  They do not have a history of downgrading customers.

Clues about the impact of a Knology buy can be found in communities like Rapid City, S.D., who saw their cable system switched from Black Hills FiberCom to PrairieWave to Knology.  Rapid City residents first saw changes to the cable system’s technology and billing.  That was followed by the introduction of new services and packages, and then finally the name change to Knology.

With the anticipated sale, existing Sunflower customers (and ex-customers) might want to impress on the new owner that Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and throttled speeds are unacceptable, and you want an immediate end to both.

Remember too it could be worse — Mediacom could have been the buyer.

Share/Save

A snake in the grass... defective water meters can result in customers paying hundreds of dollars for water they never used.

“Paying for what you use” is an idea some broadband providers want to adopt to re-price broadband service in an effort to capture additional revenue and profits from “high usage” customers.  But when the provider reads the meter without any independent oversight, customers can be billed for any amount of usage — accurate or not — and have little recourse to prove their case if overbilled.

At least water customers in Charlotte, N.C., are getting an independent audit of their water meters after Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities began sending some customers bills in the hundreds of dollars for a single month’s usage.

Broadband providers who bill consumers based on their usage answer to no one.  Completely deregulated, providers need not submit to independent verification of their measurement tools.

“There is no Bureau of Weights and Measures verifying broadband usage meters anywhere in North America that I’m aware of,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Mitch.  In fact, in several countries the telecommunications industry is specifically excluded from oversight by such accountability agencies.

In Australia, large businesses are often the first to discover overbilling because of their accounting practices which track usage over time.  Australian telecommunications companies are exempt from monitoring by weights and measurement oversight.  Canadians have complained about metered charge accuracy for several years now, especially when usage doesn’t appear on web-based “usage gauges” for days.  Nobody verifies those meters, either.

In late June, the Charlotte Observer reported a sampling audit of 9,000 out of 250,000 water meters found a significant error rate of at least 1.4 percent.  While that’s a small percentage, the numbers add up — more than 3,000 area customers would be billed erroneously at that error rate, some for hundreds of dollars more than they actually owe.

The audit is continuing, but early findings show that the utility has a significant problem in how it bills customers.

The audit so far has found 78 residential accounts where there was a mismatch of more than 1 CCF (100 cubic feet) of water usage. The mismatch was between the mechanical water meter, which is considered reliable, and the more error-prone electronic transmitters that send water usage data to the utility.

Some of the mismatches suggested that the customer was billed too much, while others showed the customer was billed too little.

“Some (of the accounts) were for only a few dollars, said Barry Gullet, CMU director. “Some were several hundred dollars.”

CMU calls the results thus far “not unexpected and within industry norms.”  But when customers called to complain about suddenly higher bills, CMU feigned ignorance, telling several customers the meters were accurate — perhaps they had a leak or washed their cars too many times.  One customer reporting a bill four times higher than average was told to hire a plumber at his expense to repair the problem.  It later turned out to be an erroneous meter.  Now that customer is also out the cost of the plumber visit.  CMU inflamed matters further in early June when it blamed the news media for “hyping” a non-existent problem, despite a finding from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Advisory Committee showing an electronic equipment failure rate three times the national average.

That CMU is being held accountable by an independent audit was an important part of the process that eventually led them to admit there may be a problem with meter accuracy, say city officials.

“It is a breath of fresh air to have some acknowledgment that there is a problem and a sense about what to do about how to move forward with it,” Mayor Anthony Foxx told WCNC-TV.

CMU’s final report will be out in September.  By then a third party auditor will have looked at 9,000 meters.

The question for broadband consumers is whether you trust your cable or phone company to read your usage and bill you fairly if they know nobody is watching them do it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WCNC-TV in Charlotte ran three reports on the water meter controversy, starting in December 2009 when some enormous water bills arrived as unwelcome Christmas gifts from the local water provider.  (6 minutes)

Share/Save

AT&T’s idea of “unlimited service” has its limits.  Five gigabytes to be exact, as some customers are now learning.

Weeks after promising AT&T customers enrolled in unlimited smartphone data plans that they could keep them, AT&T is now calling some subscribers of an earlier unlimited plan, telling them they need to limit their use of the “unlimited service.”

AT&T’s Data Connect Unlimited plan was discontinued by AT&T back in 2008, but the company promised current customers they could keep their unlimited plan.  But now, the company has started calling customers when they exceed 5GB of usage during a month.

The Washington Post reports AT&T has been sending mixed messages to customers, and is cracking down on those customers exceeding the company’s arbitrary limits.

“We’ve had a small group of customers on a DataConnect 5GB plan who were not being charged for overage when they went beyond that limit,” she wrote. “We’re now working to bring their accounts in line with the policy for the other DataConnect 5GB plan subscribers.”

Clark added that users who had signed up for AT&T’s earlier Data Connect Unlimited plans (which it stopped selling in 2008) could keep using them, but if they made “certain changes to their account” — for instance, transferring it to a new line — they would have to sign up for a new $60 plan with a 5-gigabyte usage cap.

That comes as news to several AT&T customers who have been in touch with the Post, who were switched, without permission, to limited service plans when they made minor changes to their account or were told AT&T was going to end unlimited service for all AT&T customers.

Rob Pegoraro, who writes the Fast Forward column for the Post, notes AT&T’s customer-care staff seems a little confused about these matters. He advises users with old, unlimited-data plans should be prepared for lengthy calls to customer service — and keep careful records of their interactions with the company.

Share/Save

Rogers Cable: Setting the Bar Lower Than Ever

Just a day after Netflix announced they are coming to Canada, Rogers Cable has responded by announcing it is lowering the usage allowances of its customers.  Stop the Cap! reader Munly writes to inform us Rogers Lite service plan, intended for occasional users, has dropped its 25GB usage allowance to 15GB per month, making it suitable for even less usage.

New customers on Rogers’ popular Extreme plan will find their usage limit cut from 95GB to just 80GB per month.  But if you accept the cut in your allowance, Rogers will increase the speed on that tier from 10Mbps to 15Mbps, allowing customers to blow through that usage limit that much quicker.

Existing customers may be grandfathered in, at least temporarily, but Rogers is notorious for eventually terminating grandfathered plans and moving customers to higher-priced alternatives.

All this from a company that claims it offers its customers “abundant usage.”

Rogers buries in the fine print the fact customers can stay with their current higher allowance if they forego the speed increase.

AND AN EVER INCREASING BILL

With the new lowered usage allowances, Rogers offers tips for customers to reduce their usage, including our favorites:

Use medium quality photos when sending them through e-mail. Your family’s cherished memories don’t deserve high resolution, even if you want to send them to a digital photo lab for printing.  Maybe you could get the kids together and have them draw copies of those vacation pictures with crayons.  At least they won’t be online using up your Rogers Internet ration.

Be aware of how others in your home use your Internet connection.  If you are not spying on your family’s online usage, it’s your own fault if we send you an enormous bill.  In the time it took you to read these tips, your kids could have downloaded over 20 e-mails, looked at more than three web pages, or watched almost a minute of online video.  Don’t make us bill you for that.

Turn off Peer-to-peer programs when you’re not downloading. Better yet, since we know you are using them to steal the content we’d like to sell or rent you, stop using them altogether… or else.

Try the tools. No, we’re not talking about us, silly.  If you are doing more than reading your e-mail or browsing web pages, look out because we’re coming for your wallet.  You can try and outwit our overcharging ways by using our usage notifications service, which will flash messages to you that we’re about to cash in on your over-usage.  Hey, don’t say we didn’t warn you!  Remember, if you use Rogers Internet to download files, stream video or music or play online games, we own you.

Does this mean I should use the Internet less to avoid paying more? Is Sarah Palin American?  You betcha.  We want to get the most out of our customers who use their Internet service too much, which is why we expose them to up to $5.00 per gigabyte if they exceed our ever-dwindling usage allowances.  Our goal is for you to feel free to use the Internet as you always have, just so long as you recognize it’s not free and that you’ll need to pay us for every web page your read, more if you dare to watch cable programming online you should be watching on our cable TV service.  The only surprise you’ll have about your bill is that we haven’t found a way to charge you even more… yet.

What About Netflix? Seriously? You weren’t really thinking of using that service on Rogers were you?  A word to the wise — we can cut your allowance down even further.  Go outside.  Read a book.  Rent a movie from Rogers Plus or enjoy some great Rogers Cable TV.

Rogers Cable’s Internet Packages

A Before And After Comparison

Rogers Old Pricing and Usage Allowances

Rogers All-New Pricing and Usage Allowances, Effective July 21, 2010

Share/Save

Verizon hopes to herd its smartphone owners onto limited use data plans

Engadget is speculating Verizon Wireless is planning to end its unlimited data plan for smartphone customers July 29th.  In a brief story published last night, the site claimed it had heard rumors of the impending demise of unlimited at the nation’s largest cell phone company:

We’re hearing that Big Red intends to move to some sort of tiered bucket strategy on July 29. We don’t have details on whether the pricing will be identical to AT&T’s ($25 for 2GB, $15 for 200MB), but we imagine it’ll be within shouting distance if not. Of course, Verizon has been sending this message for a long time — even before AT&T was — so it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that this is going down. You might say that Droid Does Caps, eh?

Verizon and AT&T have followed each others’ relentless price increases, tricks and traps for the last few years — forcing customers to accept mandatory service “add-ons” when buying the latest phones, paying higher costs to terminate contracts early, and driving customers onto higher priced service plans bundling services and features many customers do not want.

It therefore comes as no surprise Verizon would follow AT&T’s lead on severely restricting customers’ data use, even though Verizon does not suffer from the level of congestion AT&T has.

We expect Verizon will announce data pricing identical to that offered by AT&T.

However, existing customers can be grandfathered into today’s unlimited plans, so if you think you’ll need unlimited data on Verizon’s network, you have until the end of the month to sign up for a plan should Engadget’s report turn out to be true.

Share/Save

Netflix is coming to Canada.  Sort of.

Canadians will be able to sign up for Netflix’s on-demand video streaming service beginning this fall, but will Canadians be interested in using the unlimited service on their usage-limited broadband accounts?

Netflix is not planning on bringing its rental-by-mail service to Canada, instead relying exclusively on streaming its library on-demand over the Internet. Netflix currently licenses streaming rights for over 17,000 titles in its 100,000 plus library.  How many of those titles with be licensed for Canadian subscribers is not yet known, nor is an exact price for the service.  Netflix will launch for English-speaking Canadians at the outset, with French to come later.  This is the first time Netflix is making its service available outside of the United States.

But many Canadians are questioning the value of Netflix in their heavily-usage-limited country.  Most Canadian ISPs have either chosen or been forced to limit subscribers’ broadband usage.  Even ISPs that want to offer unlimited service find flat rate wholesale pricing nearly impossible to get because of Bell’s stranglehold on the market.  Cable providers like Rogers have implemented their own usage limits to boost revenue and keep costs down.

For Canadians living under an average usage cap of 40-60 gigabytes per month, adding streaming video will only eat their allowance that much faster.

“Netflix and the Canadian press covering this story have ignored the reality of bit-capped Canada,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Jeffrey from Calgary.  “I would be paying $75 a month for a broadband account and be limited in how I could use the service.  The CRTC (Canada’s equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission) has been in the providers’ pockets for years and this is why high bandwidth services bypass Canada or risk failure if offered here.”

Rogers, one of Canada's biggest cable companies, also happens to own one of the largest chains of video rental stores: Rogers Plus

Jeffrey believes Canada’s largest broadband providers, including Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Telus, and Vidéotron will never allow Netflix.ca to gain the kind of foothold it has in the United States.

“These companies all own or control Canada’s cable, IPTV, and satellite TV services, all of which are threatened by an American company like Netflix,” Jeffrey notes. “They’ve already got universal usage limits on their accounts, but these guys will also run to the CRTC and Canadian government to throw up roadblocks over everything from copyright and licensing issues to Canadian content rules and the initially ignored Québécois.”

Jeffrey believes more than anything else, Internet Overcharging schemes will serve their role in keeping would-be competitors under control.

“In Canada, we already had the debate about who gets to use our pipes for free,” he says. “Thanks to the CRTC, only the providers get to use them for free.  Everyone else pays a usage tax to them which fattens their bottom lines while stunting the growth of Canadian broadband.”

In Quebec, it’s much the same story.  Asperger notes Zip.ca, a Canadian rent-by-mail service, can get him 20 new DVD releases a month for around $25.  If he signed up for Netflix, anything beyond five DVD’s a month would put him over his limit forcing him to “pay and pay, and then pay some more.”  With Canadian ISP’s increasing their penalty rates for exceeding usage allowances, the overlimit fee could easily exceed the cost of just sticking with Zip.ca’s by-mail service.

Or, for many Quebecers, the next best alternative is Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, which offers an enormous collection of DVD’s that can be checked out for free.

Canadian press accounts of Netflix’s imminent entry into Canada have largely ignored the limits Canadian Internet providers impose on their subscribers, something readily noted by readers who comment on those stories.  Canadian consumers are well aware of their usage limits, and they avoid services that could expose them to even higher broadband bills.

Those who use their Internet service heavily, unaware of overlimit fees up to $5 per gigabyte, will be educated by bill shock when their next bill arrives in the mail.  After that, no more Netflix.ca for them.

Still, Netflix.ca will probably deliver a challenge to the already-stressed Canadian video rental market where Blockbuster and Rogers Plus duke it out for a dwindling number of renters.  Price cuts have not stopped the erosion of interest in DVD rentals, and Blockbuster is mired in more than $900 million in debt, trying to avoid bankruptcy.

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission's support of industry-promoted Internet Overcharging schemes may limit Netflix's success in Canada.

If Netflix’s streaming library, mostly of titles two or more years old, is deemed sufficient by many Canadians, it could also cause a wave of cancellations of premium movie channels and other cable services.

The Ottawa Citizen reports some analysts believe Netflix.ca will cause an earthquake in the Canadian entertainment marketplace.

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst based in London, Ont., believes Canadians can expect a major entertainment industry shakeup this fall.

Levy says Netflix will sound the death knell for movie-rental services such as Blockbuster and Rogers Video and will force a pricing war among traditional cable and satellite TV providers who will be forced to scramble to keep customers.

“Netflix is not some Johnny-Come-Lately to the market. Even though they are new to Canada, they have been so successful in the U.S. that only a Canadian living underneath a rock wouldn’t be aware of their brand,” Levy said. “It’s the most seismic change to the content distribution system landscape that we have seen. It forces the incumbents to change their business model.”

Levy said the arrival of Netflix will allow casual TV watchers to cut their satellite and cable TV bills in favour of Netflix’s all-you-can-eat monthly offering. He said the $9 U.S. a month charged by the company was carefully thought out and he expects to see a similar price on the service later this year.

Click here to view the embedded video.

CBC News discussed the introduction of Netflix Canada and how it will work with Netflix vice president Steve Swasey.  (5 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

CTV News and its Business News Network ran four reports on the impact usage caps might have on the service, what kinds of titles will be available, and what it means for Canada’s entertainment businesses.  (12 minutes)

Share/Save

Greed is still good at Time Warner Cable

Time Warner Cable has tried every excuse in the book to justify their continued interest in Internet Overcharging schemes directed at residential Road Runner customers.  Over a year after Stop the Cap! and its readers helped bury an experiment in overpriced broadband, the notion of doubling or tripling Internet pricing for consumers is still alive and well at the nation’s second largest cable company.

Nate Anderson of Ars Technica explored the thinking of Time Warner Cable’s executives a year later and discovered their desires for overcharging remain as strong as ever, but the excuses they give for wanting to do so have changed.

TWC’s revenues from Internet access have soared in the last few years, surging from $2.7 billion in 2006 to $4.5 billion in 2009. Customer numbers have grown, too, from 7.6 million in 2007 to 8.9 million in 2009.

But this growth doesn’t translate into higher bandwidth costs for the company; in fact, bandwidth costs have dropped. TWC spent $164 million on data contracts in 2007, but only $132 million in 2009.

What about investing in its infrastructure? That’s down too as a percentage of revenue. TWC does spend billions each year building and improving its network ($3.2 billion in 2009), but the raw number alone is meaningless; what matters is relative investment, and it has declined even as subscribers increased and revenues surged. “Total CapEx [capital expenses] as a percentage of revenues for the year [2009] was 18.1 percent versus 20.5 percent in 2008,” said the company a few months ago.

In fact, CapEx has declined for the industry as a whole. As the National Broadband Plan noted, the big ISPs invested $48 billion in their networks in 2008 and $40 billion in 2009. (About half of this money can be chalked up to broadband; the rest of the improvements were done to aid cable or phone service.)

To recap: subscribers up, revenues up, bandwidth costs down, infrastructure costs down. This might seem like a textbook case of “viability”; what were execs like Britt and Hobbs talking about last year when data caps were held up as a necessary safeguard against doom?

Before moving to Time Warner’s Excuse-O-Matic, let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the fact this company has stalled more on Internet upgrades than virtually every other major cable operator.  Even bankrupt Charter Communications has been aggressively pursuing investment in the win-win DOCSIS 3 technology that allows cable operators to sell faster tiers of service -and- reduce congestion in heavy web-surfing neighborhoods.  By effectively “bonding” several cable channels devoted to its broadband service together, the pipeline into even the most hip college neighborhoods can sustain a full-scale assault by Hulu fans streaming high bandwidth video.  Comcast realized this more than two years ago and rolled out its super-fast 50Mbps tier to a dozen cities well over a year ago.  In contrast, Time Warner Cable managed to bring forth its “wideband” offering in just a handful of communities — New York City being the largest, last year.

Internet providers always try to awe an audience with claims about the billions of dollars they invest in improved technology, while forgetting to mention they earn tens of billions in profit on those investments.  The shock and awe of stacks of money piled high on a table is tempered when you see the warehouse holding the rest of the cash standing behind it.

Broadband is becoming the single biggest revenue source for cable operators, passing digital phone and well on the way to passing cable television service.  It’s the cash cow that can be milked forever, especially with the limited number of choices most Americans have to obtain the service.

Back to Nate’s story:

Several months ago, while on a business trip to Manhattan, I entered a nondescript building near the Flatiron building and rode the elevator to the top. Inside was one of TWC’s main New York operations centers, hosting an astonishing array of cable and Internet gear. But the real showpiece was the monitoring room, a darkened room with control hardware, computers, and a wall of TVs showing every cable channel currently running out over TWC’s network.

It looked brand new and obscenely expensive. Engineers slipped in and out in silence. A huge pile of boxes on the floor held a new set of replacement TVs. When I make my career shift from ink-stained wretch to Evil Genius, this is exactly the sort of room I will build in order to plot my world domination.

“It’s not a cheap endeavor to run a network like we do,” said TWC’s tweeting VP of Public Relations, Alex Dudley, when I had spoken to him the week before. Here was an obvious reminder of what he meant.

Time Warner Cable’s version of a command and control center, wall after wall fitted for television sets — the Time Warner Cable Sports Bar — impresses only until you realize the company could have paid for it out of the petty cash box.  It’s obvious nobody was watching those televisions last spring as wide-scale protests erupted in four of the cities Time Warner Cable chose for their experimental pricing project.  If they had, they would have apologized to their customers and buried the idea then and there.

At this point, Mr. Anderson began the useless attempt to debate Mr. Dudley, whose job is to sell the agenda of Time Warner Cable (and obfuscate when necessary).  Why has Time Warner Cable’s senior management held onto its dreams of Internet Overcharging like a pit bill, refusing to let go, Anderson asked.  Because of labor costs, Dudley replied.

As Internet use increases, TWC techs, engineers, and executives need to make adjustments such as DOCSIS upgrades at the cable company headend or “node splits” that divide a shared cable loop in two when bandwidth use hits certain metrics. Paying all of these people costs money, and those costs increase as the network is more heavily used.

Last April, when Time Warner Cable was relying on its tweeters like TWCAlex to spin a tale about how their Internet Overcharging schemes would benefit customers and help pay for DOCSIS 3 upgrades (which ended up bypassing cities like Rochester, N.Y., and went to New York City instead — where no such pricing scheme was tested), Alex’s bosses were just completing a layoff of some 1,250 Time Warner Cable employees.  As Internet use was increasing, Time Warner Cable was decreasing the number of its employees from coast to coast.

If Alex is telling the truth, Time Warner Cable needs an employment fund from 8.9 million customers.  Considering many Time Warner Cable cities raised the price on Road Runner service by $5 a month this year, that’s $240 million dollars a year to get the pot started and I’m only counting four million of those subscribers.  If Time Warner Cable hired back those 1,250 former employees, they could each get $192,000 a year from that kitty.  Implement Internet Overcharging schemes that could triple consumers’ rates for an equivalent level of service and they could earn as much as CEO Glenn Britt and then some.

I’m also uncertain how often Time Warner Cable executives are shimmying up phone poles or clearing out wasp nests inside those green cabinets positioned all over town while performing service upgrades and node splits.  It’s far more likely they are spending their time dreaming up new excuses to raise cable rates.

Please deposit 25 cents for the next megabyte of usage

This latest excuse, while certainly novel, is just another bit of nonsense.

Time Warner Cable actually spent more money last year dealing with HD channel rollouts and upgrading their cable systems to support Switched Digital Video to accommodate them.  The company did not exactly slap limits on how often cable viewers can leave their sets on, nor pitted their average TV viewers against viewing piggies who watched too much.  Maybe the coin slot on top of the cable box can be tried in 2011.

In fact, as broadband equipment continues to become more reliable and scaled to manage growing demand, it’s becoming easier than ever to keep broadband lines humming at the cable company.  That leaves Time Warner in the envious position of enjoying increasing profits on service that increases in price while decreasing in cost.  In fact the only thing growing at a faster pace than the company’s broadband profits is the level of incredulity informed consumers have towards cable companies with long lists of excuses to justify rape and pillage pricing.

No matter what Time Warner Cable executives want you to believe, the FCC noted in its broadband plan that international bandwidth has grown 66 percent each of the last five years, all while the costs have dropped by 22 percent per year to handle that traffic.

Consumers do not want these Internet Overcharging schemes.  Time Warner Cable should do itself a favor and drop them, once and for all, just as they have done for their Road Runner Mobile service.  If 3G/4G wireless broadband from Time Warner comes without usage caps, why in the world should cable broadband be any different?

Share/Save

"Without limits" is ironic from Time Warner Cable, whose CEO still believes in Internet Overcharging schemes, even if customers don't.

Time Warner Cable has stopped promoting three different service plans for its Road Runner Mobile wireless broadband service.  The company’s new promotional literature and website now promotes just one mobile plan  — National Elite, with three different prices depending on what kind of business you do with the cable company.  It also does away with Internet Overcharging schemes, promoting an “unlimited data allowance” regardless of whether you access the service over 3G or 4G networks.  That’s ironic, because Time Warner Cable’s CEO Glenn Britt is still a big believer in consumption billing schemes and usage limits.  Should Time Warner Cable ever return with new overcharging schemes, we’ll be sure to remind them about the implications of providing unlimited wireless service while trying to restrict the much larger wired pipeline Road Runner’s cable-based network provides.

As we reported last year, when Time Warner Cable introduced Road Runner Mobile last winter in North Carolina, the company offered three different service plans for customers considering signing up:

• National Elite: Unlimited access to Clear WiMax and Sprint’s 3G EVDO Rev. A network for $79.95 per month to customers who also take the Road Runner Standard or Turbo cable modem service. Time Warner promises further discounts if customers subscribe to the cable provider’s double or triple-play cable service bundle which includes cable internet access and digital phone service.
• Mobile Elite: Unlimited access to mobile WiMax for $49.95 per month and pricing also applies when bundled with the Standard or Turbo cable modem service with an additional bundle discount available.
• Mobile 4G Choice: Caps mobile WiMax use at 2 gigabytes per month and will sell for $39.95 per month if customers add at least one other Time Warner cable service.

Now, as the company introduces the service in upstate New York, customers are getting promotions online and off for only one plan – National Elite.

Pricing appears to be standardized in most regions of the country, depending on what kinds of services you already receive from Time Warner Cable:

• Current Road Runner subscribers will pay $54.99 per month for National Elite;
• Current Time Warner Cable subscribers and those without cable or broadband service will pay up to $69.99 per month.

(Several cities in Texas can obtain special pricing promotions reducing the cost to $49.99 per month for 12 months.  Ask about special promotional pricing if you intend to sign up.)

Customers can select a plan that includes a two year service agreement with a $175 early termination fee (reduced by $7.50 for each month you remain a customer) and receive a substantial discount on a wireless modem and get the $35 activation charge waived.  Non-contract customers will have to buy their equipment at full price and pay the activation fee.  4G network speeds are up to 6 Mbps for downloads, and up to 1 Mbps for uploads. 3G network speeds are up to 1400 Kbps for downloads, and up to 500 Kbps for uploads, according to the Time Warner Cable website.

Plans directly available from Clear, which actually provides the Road Runner Mobile service are different:

• Clear On-the-Go provides 4G-only service for $40 a month.  No 3G service.
• Clear On-the-Go 3G Upgrade includes unlimited 4G service and up to 5GB of 3G usage for $55 a month.
• Get Two: Home + On-the-Go includes service for one home computer and one portable computer, with no 6Mbps download speed cap, for $55 a month (add $15 for 3G service)
• Get Two: On-the-Go includes service for two portable computers, with no download speed cap, for $65 a month (add $15 for 3G service for one computer, $30 for two)

A $35 activation fee applies to non-contract customers.  If you agree to a two-year contract, you can lease your equipment from Clear starting at around $5 per month and have the activation fee waived.

Now the fine print.

Although Clear markets its 4G service as “unlimited,” the fine print suggests they can make life difficult for customers they consider “disrupting or degrading” the service for others (underlining ours):

Excessive Utilization of Network Resources. Wireless networks have capacity limits and all customers can suffer from degraded or denied service when one or a small group of users consumes disproportionate amounts of a wireless network’s resources. Clearwire, therefore, will monitor both overall network performance and individual resource consumption to determine if any user is consuming a disproportionate amount of available resources and creating the potential to disrupt or degrade the Clearwire network or network usage by others. This process of monitoring both overall network performance and individual resource consumption is consistent with the description of the nature of the Service previously described in this AUP. Clearwire reserves the right to engage in reasonable network management to protect the overall network, including analyzing traffic patterns and preventing the distribution of viruses or other malicious code.

During periods of congestion, Clearwire uses various techniques such as reducing the data rate of individual bandwidth intensive users whose use is negatively impacting other users. This temporarily limits the amount of bandwidth available to the bandwidth intensive users until the congestion has diminished, at which point Clearwire will endeavor to lift any limits it may have imposed on bandwidth intensive users during the period of congestion. Clearwire may also consider historical usage patterns when temporarily reducing the data rate of bandwidth intensive users during periods of congestion. When feasible, upon observation of an excessive use pattern, Clearwire will attempt to contact you by telephone at the telephone number you gave to us or otherwise to alert you to your excessive use of bandwidth and to help you determine the cause. Clearwire representatives also are available to explain this AUP and to help you avoid excessive use incidents. If you are unavailable or do not respond to Clearwire’s attempt to contact you regarding excessive use, or if excessive use is ongoing or recurring and repeatedly having negative effects on other subscribers of the Service, Clearwire reserves the right to immediately restrict, suspend or terminate your Service without further notice in order to protect the network and minimize congestion caused by the excessive use. While the determination of what constitutes excessive use depends on the specific state of the network at any given time, excessive use is determined by resource consumption relative to that of a typical individual user of the Service and not by the use of any particular application.

Unlimited Use Plans.If you subscribe to a service plan that does not impose limits on the amount of data you may download or upload during a month, you should be aware that such “unlimited” plans are nevertheless subject to the provisions of this AUP. What this means is that all of the provisions described in this AUP, including those that describe how Clearwire may perform reasonable network management such as reducing the data rate of bandwidth intensive users during periods of congestion, will apply to your use of the Service. The term “unlimited” means that we will not place a limit on how much data you upload or download during a month or other particular period, however, it does not mean that we will not take steps to reduce your data rate during periods of congestion or take other actions described in this AUP when your usage is negatively impacting other subscribers to our Service.

Share/Save

Craig E. Moffett joined Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. as the Senior Analyst for U.S. Cable and Satellite Broadcasting in 2002.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst with Sanford Bernstein, is sounding the warning bells that if AT&T and Verizon assign usage caps to their forthcoming LTE wireless broadband services, they will never provide suitable competition for American consumers.

The implications of Internet Overcharging schemes in wireless broadband go well beyond the two companies’ broadband offerings.  Investors expect either AT&T or Verizon to attempt a buyout of DirecTV in the coming months, hoping to pair the satellite service with broadband packages delivered by DSL, fiber, or wireless broadband.  Because many DirecTV subscribers are located in rural areas where even DSL service is often not available, wireless broadband networks would be the most likely means of reaching customers, but not with onerous usage caps.

“If LTE networks are going to be usage-capped, then the last pretense that LTE networks can be positioned as a substitute for terrestrial broadband would seem to be gone,” Bernstein told his clients. “And if LTE can’t be offered as a replacement for wired broadband, then the notion of an out-of-region bundle of DirecTV and LTE is no more.”

Unlike earlier broadband technologies, WiMax, LTE, and other 4G broadband platforms can deliver far more data to subscribers at reduced costs.  With the increased efficiencies offered by the faster networks, carriers can provide customers with considerably more wireless broadband service, unlike heavily capped 3G networks, most of which are limited to 2-5GB of monthly usage before the penalty rates or speed throttles kick in.  While completely unlimited service is unlikely until capacity increases, there is plenty of room to allow customers to access 4G networks without thinking twice about everything they do on them.

Sprint is betting its comeback on its virtually-unlimited Clear WiMax 4G service, now becoming available in an increasing number of cities across the country.  Marketed as a replacement for wired broadband, Sprint is hoping customers will flock back to the carrier, especially if AT&T and Verizon’s 4G LTE offerings are capped.

But AT&T and Verizon have both made noises about usage capping their LTE offerings, if only to increase revenue.  These profit raising Internet Overcharging schemes come despite efforts by the Obama Administration to dramatically increase wireless spectrum available for wireless broadband services.  Dave Burstein from DSL Prime says Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski is betting the farm on wireless broadband being the best chance for increased broadband competition.

“The heart of the U.S. broadband plan is to release more spectrum – enough for 10-20 networks like Verizon’s LTE now building – and pray that will be enough competition in five to seven years to check price increases,” Burstein writes.

Making wireless an important substitute for DSL requires raising bandwidth caps from today’s typical 5-10 gigabytes to several times as high as LTE makes the cost reasonable. If Verizon follows AT&T with an abusively low cap of 2-5 gigabytes and Sprint etc. don’t clobber them, the whole broadband plan falls apart because that’s not enough for competition in the future.

I doubt Julius understands this, because he would be doing everything in his power to avoid low caps. It’s just one more strike against “affordable” broadband, like the recent Comcast and Verizon price increases. People need to laugh out loud when Genachowski says “affordable” while tolerating continuous price increases.

Dave Burstein, DSL Prime

While wireless broadband can deliver access to many Americans who have never had broadband service before, it’s not well-positioned to compete for customers seeking to use the next generation of high bandwidth Internet applications.

None of the current wireless services are suitable for high quality video streaming of HD TV shows and movies, a crucial application for many broadband users. Burstein also notes large uploads are painfully slow on Clear’s WiMax network because of limited upstream speeds, but he expects improvements in time, assuming carriers expand with demand.  If not, as more users pile on the next generation wireless networks, their suitability for high bandwidth services becomes even more questionable.

“How much wireless could compete with landlines, especially as all cable connections are moving to 50 meg, was a crucial question for the broadband plan,” Burstein writes. “The consensus of several good engineers is that 4G competes fine with DSL if not many people expect video or other high-bandwidth apps. Wireless certainly can’t keep up if many people want to watch their TV over the net, so it’s only a partial substitute.”

As for AT&T and Verizon, Moffett suspects both may have to take a pass on DirecTV, consumed with fighting against broadband reclassification and Net Neutrality policies in Washington.  Taking on a second battle to run another dog and pony circus to gain regulatory approval for a buyout of DirecTV may be more than they’re willing to deal with at the moment.

Share/Save

Rural Alltel wireless broadband customers are getting the axe as the company’s new owners have started pulling the plug on customers caught roaming too much with their service.

Not all of Alltel customers have become Verizon Wireless customers after Verizon bought Alltel in 2008.  In areas where Verizon Wireless already provided service, FCC rules required Alltel to sell its assets to other cell phone companies like AT&T or several regional providers.  One such company, Allied Wireless, bought the rights to use the Alltel name for its service.  But it’s not the same Alltel customers in southern Illinois remember.

Scott Sneddon, who lives near Benton, discovered that for himself when trying to log in using his Alltel Aircard.  When the service wouldn’t work, he called Alltel to learn they had unilaterally canceled his wireless broadband service because he was roaming off Alltel’s original network too often.  For the Sneddon family, that meant the Internet itself would no longer be available to them as they have no access to DSL or cable broadband service.  Sneddon received no warning and no second chance.

Sneddon is concerned because Alltel’s unlimited service plan did not carry the typical 5GB monthly usage allowance other providers enforce.  Despite having a two year contract, Alltel was able to pull the rug out from under his service because the company wanted to cut its roaming costs.  Although the Sneddon initially faced a $400 early cancellation penalty to switch providers, the media attention Alltel received made them relent — Alltel customers in similar positions who find themselves out in the wireless broadband cold will not have to pay a penalty to cancel all of their Alltel services.  Additionally, the company has promised to refund one month of service and refund all wireless broadband equipment charges incurred by dropped customers.

For rural America, incumbent wireless providers disconnecting service for customers they don’t want to serve is just another broken broadband promise.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WSIL-TV in Harrisburg, Ill., shares the stories of two Illinois families left without Internet service when Alltel suddenly canceled their service “for roaming too much.”  (4 minutes)

Share/Save

Earthlink, which depends on phone and cable companies to deliver its broadband service, has imposed a monthly usage limit of 250 gigabytes on its customers obtaining service from Comcast.

Customers began receiving postcards in May notifying them about the change in service terms which took effect July 1st.  Earthlink blamed the usage limits solely on Comcast, noting they were dependent on other companies to provide the infrastructure necessary to reach customers:

Comcast and other cable providers provide portions of the network that EarthLink High Speed Cable service uses to deliver broadband Internet access. EarthLink provides the other portions of the network and services like Webmail and the myEarthLink Start Page®.  EarthLink works with its business partners, like Comcast, to manage the network infrastructure.  [...]Because Comcast is EarthLink’s business partner in providing the EarthLink Powered by Comcast Service, EarthLink is working closely with Comcast in implementing this Usage Cap.

Internet providers routinely sell the benefits of their broadband accounts to better accomplish data-heavy activities like online video using their service, even though in some cases all of that "heavy use" is being used as an excuse to implement usage limits on customers.

In reality, Earthlink offers little more than a handful of its own services to customers.  Most of its network connectivity, billing, and other services are handled by the providing cable or phone company.  Customer support with many technical issues is handled by Earthlink’s own off-shore technical support staff.

Still, Earthlink had offered an alternative to those threatened with Internet Overcharging schemes by Time Warner Cable and Comcast because the company had not adopted those usage limits until Comcast insisted they follow suit.  Presumably with this precedent in place, any other Overcharging schemes imposed by these providers would also impact their respective Earthlink customers.

For those violating the usage limits, enforcement won’t come from Earthlink.  Instead, the provider warns, Comcast will be the entity that comes down on your head.

For now, Earthlink customers will have to call the company (888-327-8454) to determine how much data they’ve used during the month as the Comcast data usage meter is apparently only for Comcast customers.

Share/Save

The classic one-two punch of Internet Overcharging is to limit your broadband usage -and- throttle speeds downwards.  AT&T wireless customers in several major cities across the United States are experiencing that for themselves over the long holiday weekend, reporting upload speeds have been throttled down to 100kbps or less (one-tenth of the speed most customers enjoyed as late as last week).

Speedtest.net has shown AT&T network throttling in many parts of Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Fairfax, Houston, Kansas City, Las Vegas, New York, Orlando, Phoenix, St. Paul,  Salt Lake City, and Washington, D.C.

The speeds are so noticeably slow, it has become a national story as irate customers find their wireless broadband service first usage capped at just 2GB per month, and now upload speed throttled to the point of unusability.  AT&T promised a statement explaining the issue, but one has not yet been forthcoming.  Some speculated the throttles were designed to reduce congestion on AT&T’s network over the holiday, while others suspect a technical fault.

Reducing your wireless speed reduces the impact on AT&T’s backhaul network, which in turn reduces congestion and the number of dropped wireless calls.

The introduction of speed throttles for “heavy users” is a favorite in countries where overcharging schemes predominate.  Most permit a preset amount of traffic to pass at normal speeds, but once customers exceed an arbitrary allowance, a temporary speed throttle gets applied to dramatically reduce speeds and discourage further use.  Some limit customers to a selected amount of traffic per day, others per month.  Once the window expires, the throttle is automatically removed.

While there is no indication AT&T is applying such a throttle at this point, the company has strongly opposed efforts to ban such schemes.  AT&T has a history of antagonizing its wireless customers with poor network performance, and has been judged the least favorite provider by Consumer Reports.

Share/Save

[The article was updated at 10:30am to include promotional and coverage information not available when the article was published late last night]

Clearwire today announced the launch of its 4G mobile broadband service for businesses and consumers in Rochester and Syracuse, New York.  Designed to deliver the Internet at speeds four times faster than 3G, CLEAR is priced comparably to many wireless broadband plans, but has no usage caps.

Pricing from their website offers customers stay-at-home and mobile service plans (or both).  Customers choosing month-to-month service have to buy the equipment up front, starting at $70 and pay a $35 activation fee.  Those who commit to a two-year service contract can lease the equipment for $4-6 a month and skip start-up fees.  Packages start at $40 a month for 6/1Mbps service.  At $55 a month, they take the speed limit off, providing occasional bursts of wireless speed up to 10Mbps.  Another $15 on top of that buys you nationwide 3G roaming.  Sales tax is not included.  Customers get a 14 day trial period to evaluate the service and can cancel within that window with no obligation, although our Jay Ovittore reports they’ll drag you through the cancellation process.

At $40 for unlimited use, CLEAR’s 4G service beats Cricket, which charges the same price for 3G speeds, but limits consumption to 5GB per month before they start throttling your speed to dial-up.  Other mobile broadband services typically charge up to $60 for 5GB of usage at 3G speeds.  Ironically, while 4G service from Clearwire is unlimited, the slower 3G speed service is not — there is a usage limit of 5GB per month on the 3G network, and then overlimit fees of five cents per megabyte kick in.

A statement from the company released early this morning talks up the fact CLEAR does not burden their 4G customers with Internet Overcharging schemes like other wireless broadband providers.

“Our residents now have a fast Internet connection that’s as mobile as they are,” said Jerry Brown, regional general manager for CLEAR. “And we’re thrilled to offer affordable rate plans with no limits on the amount of data customers use. No caps on usage, no penalties – our customers just use the Web as much as they want wherever they go – it’s that simple.”

Clearwire's coverage area in Rochester & Syracuse

In Rochester, CLEAR covers approximately 560 square miles and more than 600,000 people with service extending as far north as Lake Ontario, as far south as Canandaigua and Geneva (Ontario County), as far west as Spencerport, and as far east as Webster.

In Syracuse, CLEAR covers nearly 230 square miles and more than 265,000 people with service extending as far north as Brewerton, as far south as Nedrow, Auburn, and Cortland; as far west as Village Green, and as far east as Fayetteville and Manlius.

However, the company’s 4G coverage area is spotty in many areas in both cities.  Verifying coverage from their website is essential before considering CLEAR.  Anecdotal reports from some of our readers and others suggest 4G service from Clearwire is not nearly as robust as 3G service from some other providers, and dead zones and slow speeds have caused some to cancel service.  Here’s an example of their coverage in my part of the town of Brighton, just southeast of Rochester:

Clearwire's coverage of the 12 Corners/Elmwood Avenue area of Brighton, N.Y.

Some minor gaps in coverage are apparent near Commonwealth Drive, and if you were getting gas at the 12 Corners Mobil station or visiting Citizens Bank behind it, you’d be out of luck, but otherwise coverage looks fairly good to the west of Interstate 590.  However, a very strange gap pops up between Valley Road and South Grosvenor Road, also impacting a few apartment buildings at Elmwood Court Apartments, 3100 Elmwood Avenue.  That’s odd because although that part of Elmwood slopes slightly downwards, it’s still much higher than the homes on Valley Road or the apartments further back in the complex.  A major service gap opens up on Elmwood at Clovercrest Drive and extends into the very tony neighborhoods around Ambassador Drive and Clover Street.  But the country club set will do fine browsing away on the golf course at the Rochester Country Club further east.

In short, service can vary dramatically street by street, block by block, from nothing at all to full speed ahead.  Be sure to check your area before you commit to keeping the service, much less sign a two year contract for it.

For the rest of Rochester, if you live in the city or an inner-ring suburb, coverage is generally available.  Those further out in towns like Henrietta, North Chili, southern Pittsford, Honeoye Falls, Avon, Scottsville, Churchville, Brockport, Penfield and Perinton face significant gaps or no coverage at all.  Things improve dramatically in Ontario County in towns like Farmington and Victor and the cities of Canandaigua and Geneva.

For the greater Syracuse area, coverage pops up in Auburn and then disappears eastward until reaching Camillus.  Generally, coverage in Syracuse is not nearly as dense as in Rochester, with large gaps opening between suburbs and the city itself.  Mattydale is solidly covered, for instance, while Minoa isn’t.

Now that CLEAR has launched 4G service in Rochester and Syracuse, Road Runner Mobile, which is simply CLEAR rebranded as a Time Warner Cable service (they partly own Clearwire) will also soon be on the way.  Pricing in other Time Warner Cable cities wasn’t much different than from Clearwire direct, and some cable plans really push service contracts, which you really do not want on a service this new.  Do not commit to one unless you are satisfied with the service where you plan on using it.

Clearwire’s 4G Network in 2010

CLEAR 4G service is currently available in 44 markets across the United States, including: Syracuse and Rochester, N.Y.; Atlanta and Milledgeville, Ga.; Baltimore, Md.; Boise, Idaho; Chicago, Ill.; Las Vegas, Nev.; St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo.; Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Reading, Lancaster and York, Pa.; Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro, NC; Honolulu and Maui, Hawaii; Seattle, Tri-Cities, Yakima and Bellingham, Wash.; Salem, Portland and Eugene, Ore.; Merced and Visalia; Calif.; Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Abilene, Amarillo, Corpus Christi, Killeen/Temple, Lubbock, Midland/Odessa, Waco and Wichita Falls, Texas; central Washington, D.C.; Richmond, Va.; and Salt Lake City, Utah.

In the summer of 2010, CLEAR 4G will launch in Tampa, Orlando and Daytona, Fla.; Nashville, Tenn.; Modesto and Stockton, Calif.; Wilmington, Del.; and Grand Rapids, Mich. By the end of 2010, CLEAR 4G will also be available in major metropolitan areas such as New York City, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Boston, Denver, Minneapolis, Miami, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

You can read a company-provided tutorial about the service below the jump.

(The following information comes direct from Clearwire)

A CLEAR Difference

The CLEAR experience is similar to Wi-Fi but without the short-range limitations. CLEAR uses WiMAX, a wireless 4G technology that differs from Wi-Fi because it provides service areas measured in miles, not feet. CLEAR also offers average mobile download speeds of 3 to 6 mbps with bursts over 10 mbps.* Outside the CLEAR 4G service area, dual-mode 4G/3G modems keep users continually connected by leveraging Sprint’s 3G data network.

With CLEAR, people stay better connected and more productive. For example:

• A travelling business executive no longer needs to seek out Wi-Fi hotspots or be constrained by the speeds and limitations of 3G modem cards;
• A college student can now have affordable Internet service whether at home, on campus or on-the-go;
• A commuter can now work on large files or stream their favorite shows while riding the bus or train;
• A busy parent can now keep kids occupied studying or playing games in the back of the family minivan.

Unlike service plans from traditional wireless carriers which cap data usage, CLEAR offers unlimited 4G usage plans that do not require long-term service contracts. In most markets unlimited 4G coverage from CLEAR starts at $30 for the home while unlimited mobile plans start as low as $40. Bundled services such as Home and On-The-Go and Home and Voice plans start at $55 per month.

Simply Plug-In and Go

Clearwire offers several ways to connect to CLEAR 4G service – via a modem, mobile device, or a 4G-embedded laptop or netbook.

CLEAR 4G Mobile Hotspots: The CLEAR Spot 4G is a personal mobile hotspot allowing users to easily and securely share unlimited super fast Internet access anywhere CLEAR has coverage simultaneously with up to eight Wi-Fi-enabled devices including laptops, smartphones, and portable gaming devices. The CLEAR Spot 4G+ allows power users and road warriors to stay connected across the U.S. by automatically switching from 4G and connecting to Sprint’s 3G nationwide network outside the 4G coverage area. The CLEAR Spot 4G+ enables users to securely share the connection with up to five Wi-Fi-enabled devices at the same time. The CLEAR Spot 4G costs $99.99 or can be leased for $4.99 a month. The CLEAR Spot 4G+ costs $224.99 or can be leased for $5.99 per month. The CLEAR Spot products can be preordered at www.clear.com/spot and will available nationwide at CLEAR stores and authorized dealers later this month.

CLEAR 4G+ Mobile USB: Mobile users simply plug-in the compact CLEAR 4G+ Mobile USB into their laptop to get online. This dual-mode 4G/3G modem gives users access to the 4G network in the CLEAR coverage area and to 3G coverage nationwide. The CLEAR 4G+ Mobile USB costs $114.99 or can be leased monthly for $5.99.

Home Modems: For residential service, CLEAR offers customers a wireless high-speed modem, about the size of a small book. Customers simply plug the modem into a power outlet anywhere in their home or office and connect the modem to their PC or wireless router. This enables consumers and businesses to install high-speed Internet service without the need to schedule an appointment, drill holes in their walls, or otherwise disrupt their day. The CLEAR Home Modem can be purchased for $84.99 or leased for $4.99 monthly.

Embedded 4G WiMAX Laptops: CLEAR customers can also select from one of 32 different 4G-ready laptops and netbooks with Intel® CoreTM or AtomTM processors and the embedded Intel® wireless module Advanced-N + WiMAX from leading manufacturers including Dell, Lenovo, Samsung, and Toshiba. A detailed list of 4G-ready laptops and netbooks is available at www.clear.com. 4G-ready laptops can also be purchased at Best Buy stores nationwide.

CLEAR 4G products and services are available for purchase by going online at www.clear.com/new-york, calling 1-877-499-6681, or visiting a CLEAR retail store or other authorized CLEAR dealer. CLEAR service is also available from other outlets including Best Buy and Radio Shack.

Share/Save

Hulu has announced a new premium service that will deliver entire seasons of network TV shows at 720p high definition resolution for $9.99 per month (plus applicable taxes).

The concept of Hulu Plus has been around for months now, as Hulu’s owners (Disney, NBC Universal, News Corp and Providence Equity Partners) contemplate the increasing cost of delivering video to millions of Americans during an advertising industry crisis.  Advertising revenue no longer covers the costs, so Hulu hopes paying subscribers will.

The free version of Hulu isn’t going anywhere — in fact the service has just signed agreements with CBS and Viacom to bring shows that formerly were seen on Joost over to Hulu.  Time Warner (the entertainment company, not the cable operator) is also bringing some of its shows to Hulu.

But free viewers will continue to find access to the latest shows limited, typically to the last four to five episodes.  If you want to catch up on an entire season, you’ll need to pony up ten bucks.

The prospect of watching nearly every network show from ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC over your home computer, television or other devices including the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and Blu-Ray players from Samsung, Sony, and Vizio would give you more than 3,000 viewing options to choose from.  But before getting too excited, there are some downsides to Hulu Plus:

1. You’re still going to watch commercials. Just like basic cable, you are going to pay to watch commercials on Hulu Plus.  That will be a deal-breaker for many who believe if you pay a monthly fee for it, you shouldn’t have to watch advertising.  Netflix offers online viewing as part of its $9.99 monthly service and there is no advertising.
2. You still have to wait to watch shows. There is no live streaming of network shows.  You’ll have to wait until the next day like everyone else on Hulu to catch the latest episode.
3. Don’t you dare watch on your smartphone. With Internet Overcharging schemes in place at AT&T and presumably on the way at Verizon, nothing eats your allowance faster than online video.  Paying $10 a month for Hulu Plus will be dirt cheap compared to the overlimit fees you’ll pay if you exceed your usage allowance.

The cable industry still thinks it could have a better product in the end.  TV Everywhere’s variations from Comcast and other cable operators are provided free of charge to existing cable subscribers (although the advertising load may end up being greater).  Many cable network shows are better received than some of the swill served up by the networks, and cable could be free to provide season passes right from the outset.

An introduction to Hulu Plus. (2 minutes)

Share/Save

A California attorney has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against AT&T for fraud and misrepresentation over claims the company baited consumers to purchase Apple iPads with unlimited access and then subjected them to Internet Overcharging schemes after AT&T ended its unlimited data plan.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP claims AT&T knew it was going to break its promise to thousands of customers who were told they could switch between unlimited and limited data plans as their needs changed.  On June 7th, AT&T ended its unlimited data plan but grandfathered existing contract customers, permitting them to retain the plan indefinitely.  But if a customer changed to a limited usage plan or discontinued service, they lose the chance to get the unlimited plan back.

Apple and AT&T announced this policy change with less than one week’s notice to their customers and only about a month after Apple and AT&T began selling 3G-enabled iPads.  Apple and AT&T had promised consumers flexibility with their data plans, allowing them the ability switch back and forth between the limited data plan, the unlimited data plan, and no data plan.

No more.

“The availability of an unlimited data plan was a key reason why consumers paid the extra $130 charge to access the 3-G network, and their ability to switch in and out of the unlimited data plan was also an important consideration in the decision to purchase an iPad,” stated Lieff Cabraser attorney Michael W. Sobol. “The complaint alleges that Apple and AT&T should have known at the time they were promoting the availability of unlimited data plans, they were not going to keep that promise.”

“I originally purchased a standard iPad. Three weeks later, I returned it to the Apple store, paying an additional $130 plus sales tax to upgrade to an iPad with 3G capability. I thought the iPad 3G was worth the additional money because, with the unlimited data plan, I could work outside my office or home and access all the data I needed for a fixed, monthly price,” commented plaintiff Adam Weisblatt of Fulton, New York. “But I also knew that for several months each year, with my schedule, a lesser expensive, limited data plan was sufficient. I would have never purchased a 3G-capable iPad if I knew Apple and AT&T were planning on suddenly taking away from me the freedom to opt in and out of an unlimited data plan at my choice.”

The proposed class plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class consisting of all individuals and entities within the United States who purchased or ordered an Apple iPad 3G on or before June 6, 2010.

Consumers wishing to join the suit can contact the law firm for additional details.  There are no details on exactly what the attorneys will be seeking from AT&T.

Class action lawsuits have often delivered far more in benefits and compensation to the law firm that filed the lawsuit, with consumers usually left with discount coupons or less than $10 in compensation.  In this case, demanding AT&T deliver on its marketing promises or permitting customers to return their iPads for full refunds would seem appropriate.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Marcus for the news tip.

Share/Save

Shapiro

Yesterday, Stop the Cap! reviewed a report from Robert J. Shapiro and Kevin Hassett suggesting “heavy users” should pay 80 percent of the costs to upgrade and expand broadband service to help lower prices for Internet access among America’s poor.  But what might have read to some as a scholarly assessment of challenges confronting American broadband is, in reality, propaganda produced by Sonecon, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm hired by AT&T to sell their corporate agenda to the American public, interest groups, and Congress.

Beltway Economics – Buying Credentialed “Experts” to Back Discredited Policies

The dirty little secret of Washington power politics is that money buys attention, access, and all too often votes.  What began as a cottage industry to help facilitate communications between private business and political Washington has grown into a monstrosity that now largely controls the agenda, giving the upper hand to those who can outspend their rivals.  Since all too often those rivals are consumers who don’t bring money to play the game, they don’t even get a seat at the table.

Few people start a career thinking they’ll ultimately wind up prostituting their good name and resume to the highest bidder.  For many inside the beltway, what may have begun as a well-intentioned career in public service too often ends working for one of countless “public strategy firms” that help special interests get their way. Their impact on the debate is pervasive, especially when Congressional allies are on board: using suggested witnesses at Congressional hearings that lock out true consumer groups, reading lobbyist-provided talking points during floor debates, quoting from industry-sponsored reports sold as “independent research,” and gratefully accepting any accompanying campaign contribution checks along the way.

Most D.C. lobbying firms rely on recognized names who maintain a high profile in Washington power circles even years after leaving the public sector.  When selling an agenda, it helps if the person doing the sales pitch already knows the person being sold.  That’s why so many ex-Congressmen, deciding they’ve gotten used to living in Washington and want to stay, find new careers and a much bigger paycheck working as lobbyists.  But elected office isn’t a requirement.  Even those appointed to positions in the public sector can turn those lean government pay years into an income bonanza once that administration leaves office.

Robert J. Shapiro has come a long way from his early days in progressive politics found him in positions at several liberally-minded groups like the Progressive Policy Institute and the Progressive Foundation.  He advised several Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.  Bill Clinton appointed Shapiro the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs during his second term in office.

Unfortunately, although that title looks great on a business card and future resume, the pay is downright lousy.  Besides, his temp job would end with the Clinton Administration’s departure.

Shapiro combined his credentials with years of networking into Sonecon, LLC — a D.C. lobbying firm that pays dividends from its grateful clients, including AT&T.  Sonecon describes itself as “an economic advisory firm that provides in-depth analyses and unique insights into changing economic conditions in the United States and around the world and the impact of government policies on those conditions….”

Sonecon Knows Its Place

But just a little digging reveals Sonecon is really just another cog in the wheel of corporate campaign strategy and messaging.  Among the services promised to its clients (underlined emphasis ours):

• [Sonecon] works extensively with a network of affiliated firms (read that other lobbyists, astroturf groups, and think tanks) to help design and execute message campaigns;
• Sonecon plays an influential role in shaping public policy debates. We identify economic risks and opportunities created by recently proposed or enacted laws and regulations. By outlining the risks and opportunities associated with these changes, Sonecon enables business and government decision makers to react in a timely and appropriate way.  One recent example: Our reports on proposed new FCC regulations effecting broadband providers focused on broadband access issues for lower income households.
• As part of our services, Sonecon principals and advisers take part in strategic public relations campaigns designed to promote the firm’s work in the media, Congress and Executive Branch.  Well-informed, credentialed, and highly credible spokespersons, our team members are available for special appearances as well as ongoing communication campaigns.

Sonecon’s involvement in this particular ongoing communications campaign was made considerably easier by CNET’s sloppy editorial policy which effectively handed free media to AT&T without adequate disclosure of Shapiro’s agenda.  A simple Google search would have given CNET ample evidence that Shapiro and his firm were performing work on behalf of its clients — the telecommunications industry, especially AT&T.  This is not CNET’s first lapse.  On June 3rd, they provided column space for Robert Hahn to bash the FCC for involving itself in data plan pricing.  Only they never disclosed the fact Hahn is associated with the Technology Policy Institute (TPI), a phone and cable industry-backed think tank.  Even Comcast managed to disclose that association in their company blog.

In March, Shapiro appeared on an industry-backed panel to oppose broadband reform (from left, Robert Crandall-Brookings Institution, Walter McCormick-USTelecom, Lee Rainie-Pew Internet and America Life Project, Robert Shapiro-Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, and Joseph Waz, Comcast)

The unfortunate part of this story is that Sonecon and Shapiro have also infested the current debate over the National Broadband Plan.  This past March, Shapiro joined forces with the aforementioned TPI and its benefactors AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and the cable lobbying group NCTA to appear at a half-day “event” at the National Press Club to whine about broadband reform’s impact on industry investment and broadband expansion.  To underscore the economic investment threat, the sponsors were only willing to provide a continental breakfast for participants.  Leave us deregulated or else American broadband will resemble this stale pastry and ersatz “orange juice”-flavored beverage.

Such events happen easily in Washington with a swipe of a corporate credit card.  If consumers still had money, they could hire firms like Sonecon to represent their interests in these beltway policy debates.  But then hard-hit Americans don’t even have credit cards to spare these days, thanks to earlier lobbying efforts that allowed banks to use the economy as their personal casino.  Shapiro played his part in this too, writing a January 2008 report, “American Jobs and the Impact of Private Equity Transactions” that advocated for big Wall Street private equity leveraged buyouts, playing down the typical wholesale job losses that followed:

The data strongly suggest that private equity operations have solid, positive effects on U.S. employment, a finding consistent with the general role that private equity transactions play in the American economy. Private equity funds identify inefficient companies or subsidiaries, leverage those companies’ assets to borrow much of the financing to purchase them outright or to purchase a controlling interest, reorganize their operations and management, and run the enterprises as privately-owned entities.

Friends Until the End… Of the Contract

True to word, Shapiro did work extensively with a network of affiliated firms.  Many of the sources in his report are other groups also working for the industry or dependent on it.

The challenge here is that industry and government experts now expect that broadband bandwidth demand will continue to rise rapidly with the fast-expanding use of video and audio applications, and that consequently broadband providers face an extended period of significantly higher investments to accommodate this growing bandwidth demand.

[...]Another estimate cited by David McClure, the head of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, and John Ernhardt, Senior Manager of Policy Communications for Cisco Systems, projects that the long-term investments required to keep up with rising bandwidth demand could cost providers an additional $300 billion over 20 years, on top of their trend level investments.

Recently, the FCC broadband task force suggested that the additional investment requirements, including wiring every household with fiber, may well reach $350 billion.

The U.S. Internet Industry Association is a trade association for service providers like AT&T and Verizon.  A Verizon executive serves on its board.  Its mission includes working “to enhance your existing legislative and regulatory resources, giving your company a stronger voice over a wider range of issues — and at a reduced cost.”

Cisco Systems, principal advocate of the theory of the Internet traffic tsunami, makes its living selling equipment to manage the “exaflood” to the same industry that it pals around with in public policy debates.

Kevin Hassett co-authored the Sonecon report

And where does Shapiro’s estimated price tag of $350 billion come from?  His proclaimed source, the FCC broadband task force, is only half the story.  In fact, this cost estimate came from service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations/lobbyists, among others¹.  That part didn’t make it into Shapiro’s report  — maybe he ran out of room.

Therein lies the basic problem with sock puppet research.  The credibility of any industry-funded study is questionable before the first copy even gets published.  Common sense dictates that a firm’s longevity is directly tied to its performance for clients.  Producing research that questions the strategy a company hires you to push is a one-way ticket to bankruptcy.  It doesn’t matter what credentials one brings to the table, money always speaks louder, especially in Washington.

Shapiro’s co-author, Kevin Hassett, is a political polar opposite, having served as an economic adviser to John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign and Director of Economic Studies at the very-business-friendly American Enterprise Institute.  The potential friction between the two was eased by the ultimate incentive: big piles of bipartisan telecom cash.

In the end, Sonecon has done its client’s bidding — fixing facts to subjectively argue that unlimited, flat-rate broadband has to go. Their evidence is as flimsy as can be — assumptions that overcharging some people for Internet service will guarantee upgrades and cheaper pricing for others.

If you believe that, you’ll also believe Shapiro and Hassett wrote this report for free.

¹Federal Communications Commission. FCC Task Force on the National Broadband Plan Presentation to the FCC: September Commission Meeting (Slide 45)

Share/Save

More dollar-a-holler advocacy for AT&T in the pages of CNET. AT&T brings the money, lobbyists ride their former credentials to deliver exactly the "facts" AT&T wants to read.

CNET last week shamefully handed over column space to a barely-disclosed AT&T lobbyist trotting out the latest unfounded, anti-consumer nonsense: tiered data plans help bring broadband to the poor.

It’s all part of AT&T’s Re-education campaign to sucker convince Americans that paying more for less service is a good thing:

New analysis shows that as Internet providers ramp up their investments to accommodate the surge in bandwidth demand, the old, one-price-for-everybody model would slow our progress toward universal adoption, especially by lower-income Americans.

The first reaction of many Internet users to this news may well be disbelief. How can it be that a pricing approach that has worked so well for so many years can suddenly become obsolete and even counterproductive? The answer is that technological advances have changed what many of us do online, which, in turn, has changed the economics.

A techno-ecosystem once dominated by e-mail and text now is increasingly characterized by high-definition video that claims up to 1,000 times as much network capacity and bandwidth as simple text. The way we currently pay for the infrastructure required to keep the network humming also will have to change.

The only humming we hear is AT&T’s dollar bill-counting machines.

When at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.  Robert J. Shapiro and his co-author Kevin Hassett’s latest work, “A New Analysis of Broadband Adoption Rates By Minority Households,” is simply a rehash — spoiled leftover bologna — of their last bought-and-paid-for-study we analyzed last fall.  Both reports are tailor-made to appeal to the minority-interest groups that are part of AT&T’s Rainbow Coalition of Cash — groups that engage in dollar-a-holler advocacy of AT&T’s agenda while quietly depositing their substantial contribution checks.

The report assumes quite a lot:

• That broadband service adoption rates in minority communities are too low because heavy users are artificially keeping broadband prices too high;
• That without tiered data plans, AT&T can never afford to expand broadband service;
• That unlimited broadband tiers can never co-exist with tiered plans — it’s one-size-fits-all under today’s bad pricing model;
• That a grand exaflood is coming to swamp broadband users of all kinds, and without tiered pricing to finance upgrades, we could all drown.

For the second time, Shapiro and Hassett try to stick the bill for upgrades on so-called “heavy users,” who they suggest should pay 80 percent of the upgrade costs through higher priced broadband service.  They also want content producers to cough up — the “they can’t use my pipes for free”-argument AT&T loves.

How will customers react to paying huge surcharges on their broadband bills?  According to the report’s authors, heavy users won’t mind because they are “price-insensitive.”

Ask Time Warner Cable customers in New York, Texas, and North Carolina if they minded the prospect of paying $150 a month for broadband service they used to pay $50 a month to receive.  How about Frontier’s customers in Mound, Minnesota asked to pony up $250 a month for up to 3Mbps DSL service because they exceeded Frontier’s 5GB monthly usage allowance?

The report has several other glaring fact-gaps:

• Tiered service plans are already available industry-wide, based on broadband speed, not usage.  Low income customers can obtain cheaper broadband today, if companies decide to advertise it;
• The wounds from high broadband pricing are industry self-inflicted.  They charge $40 or more for a service their financial reports suggest costs less than $10 a month to provide;
• Providers can achieve universal broadband first by extending existing networks to rural America, upgrading them to fiber as the economy of scale from urban and suburban upgrades forces prices down;
• The authors strenuously avoid reviewing providers’ financial reports which show enormous profits even as costs continue their rapid decline;
• Many of the footnotes used to back their arguments turn out to quote self-interested parties like service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations.

None of this is surprising or new in bought-and-paid-for-reports commissioned by companies to cheerlead their corporate agenda.  The last thing AT&T wants to read is a recitation of facts that disprove their arguments.

In essence, Shapiro and Hassett are arguing (with a straight face) that if providers are allowed to charge some consumers dramatically higher prices for broadband service, it will somehow convince them to upgrade their networks -and- trickle down lower prices for economically-challenged consumers.

Maybe if we let BP drill more oil wells in the Gulf, the extra profits they earn will somehow lead to better safety records for drilling and lower gas prices.  After all, with those record-busting profits earned over the past three years, the safety record for the industry is better than ever and gas is sold at fire sale prices, benefiting economically disadvantaged Americans, right?

If you or I argued this theory, we’d be drug tested.  For corporate lobbyists, it’s just another day at the office.

Here’s just how silly this really is:  You just discovered your hard drive is nearly full.  You’ve gone shopping for an upgrade, planning to spend around $100 for a new drive.  Just a few years ago, you spent around that much for a 120GB model.  Today, that same $99 would today buy you a 1.5 terabyte drive, unless you bought it from AT&T.  They want $1,500.

Newegg's price: $99.95 -- AT&T's price: $1,500

You: “Why is this drive so expensive?”

AT&T: “Over 90 percent of our customers never need a drive bigger than 120 gigabytes.  Developing a 1.5 terabyte drive costs plenty, and we feel that because you are a heavy user, you should bear the brunt of the development and manufacturing costs of all hard drives.”

You: “Sure, but this same 1.5TB drive is available in Korea for $99 dollars.  You want $1,500.  Why is there such a price difference and when does your price come down?”

AT&T: “Poor people in Korea and America can’t afford even a 60 gigabyte drive.  We are trying to make smaller drives more affordable  so in turn you should pay a higher price.  This isn’t about when AT&T will lower our price, it’s about when you will see our grand charitable vision and lower your selfish expectation of a lower price.”

You: “Wow, a corporation with socially-conscious pricing to benefit the poor?  So you are telling me that when I spend $1,500 on this hard drive, it is going to subsidize the cost of their 60 gigabyte drive, right?”

AT&T: “No, not exactly.  See, if we didn’t charge you $1,500, we’d have to raise the price on their 60 gigabyte drive and that’s not fair because they don’t need to store as much as you do.”

You: “But wait, your ‘subsidized’ 60GB drive costs three times more than what Koreans spend for a drive at least three times larger.”

AT&T: “That’s because the standard of living is different there.  Besides, why do you want to make the poor pay for your hard drive?”

You: “You aren’t making any sense.”

AT&T: “But we are about to make a whole lot of dollars!”

Dumping unlimited usage pricing only sets the profit expectations-bar higher for the broadband industry on Wall Street, regardless of what the true costs are to provide the service.  Wall Street never argues that excess profits should be spent on network upgrades and price subsidies to the poor — they want those profits paid to shareholders instead.

When the telecom industry is paying for your study, real facts never matter.  If you want them to do future business with your lobbying firm, the only acceptable conclusion is the one AT&T wants you to reach.

Tomorrow: Down the Sonecon rabbit hole

Share/Save

Mark Lowenstein was a vice president of strategy at Verizon Wireless, where helped set pricing for the carrier.

The key to turning America into a haven for Internet Overcharging schemes is Re-educating customers to accept that unlimited ‘isn’t fair,’ especially in wireless mobile broadband.

Mark Lowenstein, an industry analyst and commentator, has given his prescription to Internet providers just itching to slap usage limits and overlimit fees on consumers enjoying unlimited broadband service:  you have to Re-educate consumers to accept Internet Overcharging schemes as a “positive” rather than a “punitive” development.

Fierce Wireless, where Lowenstein’s ideas were published, left out the fact he was also a senior executive at Verizon Wireless.

Despite the billions in profits earned from today’s broadband marketplace, some in the industry want to banish “unlimited” from subscribers’ lexicons.  Sure it’s true that many companies’ investments in broadband expansion and upgrades have actually declined in the last few years, right along with the costs to provide the service.  But in a world where revenues in other parts of the business are drying up, someone has to make up the difference — you.

For AT&T, the decision was easy.  If you want the raging-popular iPhone, you’re going to need a two-year service contract and a data plan limited to 2 GB of usage per month.  Exceed that at your financial peril (or use a Wi-Fi hotspot and stay off our 3G network).  Don’t like it?  Too bad for you.  Where else will you find a subsidized iPhone?

Now that AT&T has thrown down the smartphone cap gauntlet, Lowenstein is ready to offer carriers advice on how to make their abusive pricing schemes go down better with consumers.  He wants everyone to take a crash course in computer science. Grandparents everywhere will come to understand the meaning of megabyte and get into the habit of contemplating how many of those will be eaten from usage allowances everytime they use their phones.

A key part of the transition to usage-based pricing is going to be educating users and the app development community about what a “megabyte” is, as well as developing more advanced tools and the right early warning systems to ensure wireless operators don’t end up testifying before Congress for Bill Shock, Part 2. U.S. consumers are accustomed to flat-rate pricing in all other aspects of their connected life: landline phone, wireless voice (increasingly), cable, broadband and so on.

Lowenstein considers AT&T Usage Estimator to be “nifty,” missing the irony of his own declaration that AT&T’s nasty cap means “moderate usage of anything multimedia gets you to 2 GB pretty fast.”  AT&T, he notes, also helpfully notifies customers they are about to bust through AT&T’s subjective definition of an appropriate usage allowance.

He concedes there are some “gray areas” — mere minutiae in AT&T’s greater scheme for fatter profits:

• New generation multitasking smartphones can run apps and other bandwidth-consuming features in the background, sometimes simultaneously, leading to exponential increases in data usage;
• The model of the “constant connection” means apps in the background exchanging data over the mobile network 24/7 could consume plenty of data, or perhaps not.  Few know for sure;
• Consumers are forced to pay for spam, advertising, unwanted file transfers and attachments, and other data not specifically requested;
• Family plan users now need to track something else on AT&T’s website — how much data their kids are using.  Remember the wars over cell phone voice calling plan overages and text messaging?  Wait.

In Lowenstein’s world-view, this all represents opportunity.

Among his suggestions:

1. Add special ratings to apps that are highly consumptive of content.
2. Provide notification before certain content downloads or heavy usage apps.
3. Provide a view into other family plan users.
4. Provide the option for sponsored content and value exchange.

That last one may prove to be the most controversial at all.  It assumes the Kindle model — where the content producer builds in the price of network consumption.  That would make AT&T’s day — forcing content producers to cough up money to deliver content over the same network AT&T already charges customers to access.  Who would turn down being paid twice for the same thing?  Lowenstein’s model allows for advertisers to defray part of the costs:

An advertiser or sponsor could pick up some of the network cost. Or the content publisher could bundle the price of data into the app. Users are comfortable with the “choice” model in the TV world: view it for free on broadcast or Hulu, with commercials; pay a monthly fee for the DVR service and skip the ads; or pay a premium to view that content on-demand, commercial-free.

That suggestion benefits AT&T enormously, but does nothing for content producers who can’t even sustain themselves with advertising.  Lowenstein suggests they should now seek out advertisers to remunerate AT&T?  The implications of wireless carriers deciding who gets the usage-cap-exempt content deal and who doesn’t opens a whole new Pandora’s Box.  It effectively allows a handful of companies to pick the winners and losers in the mobile broadband marketplace.  After all, if AT&T offered free videos on its own video portal but didn’t exempt other websites with the same video content, guess where users will choose to watch.

Lowenstein believes taking these kinds of steps will somehow insulate the wireless industry from charges it’s barely competitive, restricts too much, and charges even more.  Yet usage limits like AT&T’s, coming even as carriers enrich themselves with gotcha add-on plans and extra fees will speak far louder than AT&T providing customers a guide on how to be abused by the wireless carrier just a little less.

I also think how usage-based pricing is handled in wireless will be closely watched in the wired broadband world. Consumers have become accustomed to flat-rate pricing for unlimited data from their broadband provider. But with the exponential growth of video consumption, and the notion of more TV and movie programming being downloaded from or streamed via the Internet, usage-based pricing for certain types of content or highly consumptive customers might be coming to a broadband neighborhood near you.

The “unlimited” ride might be coming to an end, but there’s an opportunity to implement it in a positive, rather than a punitive, manner.

In spite of Lowenstein’s love of telecom industry talking points (hardly a surprise considering he works for that industry), his notions that consumers will accept increasing broadband bills even as the level of service provided is reduced makes him not only wrong, but hopelessly out of touch.

Share/Save

AT&T's Activity Chart ignores the realities of today's higher-definition streaming videos, which will really eat into your allowance.

AT&T claims that 98 percent of its customers will save money under its new lower-priced usage-limited data plans, but an analyst predicts those savings will vanish for half of AT&T’s customers by 2013, exposing them to steep overlimit penalties.

Independent analyst Chetan Sharma crunched the numbers:

The average customer will consume more than 2 gigabytes of data a month within three years, up from 150 megabytes in 2009. Though AT&T could change its rates in the future, the cost of such data use at current rates is $35 a month. That would make it more costly than the $30 AT&T previously charged for unlimited data use.

“The devices are getting much, much better so the opportunities to multitask are more attractive,” said Sharma, who has written five books on mobile technologies and consulted for companies such as Motorola Inc. and Qualcomm Inc.

It’s not only heavy data users who may be affected, Sharma said. By year’s end, the average AT&T customer will have doubled their data consumption from 2009 to 320 megabytes, according to his estimates. Only 35 percent of AT&T’s smartphone customers use 200 megabytes of data or more, the company said.

Sharma’s forecast that half of AT&T’s smartphone customers will use more than 2 gigabytes of data is “not unreasonable,” said Christopher King, a Stifel Nicolaus & Co. analyst in Baltimore, though he said it’s difficult to predict such trends because they depend on the introduction of new phones, applications and wireless technologies.

AT&T’s new Internet Overcharging scheme has built-in profits as customers increasingly bump into the subjective limits the company imposes on its wireless customers.  Many customers have complained the 200 megabyte plan is too small to accommodate anyone but the most casual data user, while others find 2 GB too small to make video viewing more than an occasional treat.  Customers who exceed either limit face higher bills:

• Customers exceeding 200 MB in a monthly billing cycle face a $15 overlimit penalty, which nets them another 200 megabytes of service;
• Users who exceed the 2-gigabyte level will be forced to pay an additional $10 per month for an additional 1 gigabyte of service.

Even King believes AT&T’s limits are too low.

“There’s no way that AT&T is going to maintain their tiered pricing as they do today,” he said. “They’ll have to raise the caps on data usage.”

Share/Save

Verizon Wireless is contemplating the end of flat rate, unlimited data plans as it introduces fourth generation data networks this year.

“We will probably need to change the design of our pricing where it will not be totally unlimited, flat rate,” John Killian, chief financial officer of Verizon Communications Inc., the wireless unit’s parent, said in an interview at Bloomberg’s headquarters in New York.

Verizon expects “explosions in data traffic” as the company introduces customers to its 4G network, potentially ten times faster than older mobile broadband technology.  Verizon Wireless, already capturing enormous sums of revenue from consumers forced into mandatory, expensive data plans when they upgrade to smartphones, will soon discover some serious limits on those plans.

The irony is, Verizon’s 4G upgrade will bring wireless broadband speeds to consumers they realistically cannot use for much more than web browsing, e-mail, and low-bandwidth apps.  Video downloads will burn through data limits imposed at the level AT&T introduced for its customers earlier this month.

Killian

Wall Street wants consumers re-educated to believe broadband can never be unlimited and must be treated as a precious, limited resource.

“The more bandwidth that you make available, the faster it will be consumed,” said Craig Moffett, analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in New York. “From Verizon’s perspective, the last thing you want is for another generation of consumers to be conditioned to the idea that data is always going to be uncapped.”

Moffett’s clients hope that is true because usage limits will control costs and make customers think twice about using their data features on their phones.  Reduced demand equals increased revenue, just what Wall Street ordered.

Verizon Wireless has already set the stage for that increased revenue with mandatory add-on plans that boost customer bills, especially for those buying smartphones.  Although just 17 percent of Americans own smartphones today, Verizon predicts 70-80 percent of customers will upgrade to smartphones in the next few years.  That guarantees an “upgraded” bill as well.

Estimates about current average data usage from smartphone customers ranges from 200-600 megabytes per month, but that was before the arrival of video-friendly 4G network technology and the newest generation of phones optimized for video, which can easily consume ten times as much.

Verizon recognizes the “video threat,” and press reports suggest the limits will only be imposed on the 4G network.  Current generation 3G networks make viewing video tedious, a natural barrier for customers planning to “use too much.”

Verizon’s widely anticipated limits, almost certainly to be equivalent to AT&T’s with respect to allowances and pricing, may dampen enthusiasm for the iPhone on Verizon’s network.  Any existing AT&T customer is grandfathered into unlimited data plans for their smartphones.  If those customers leave AT&T, they will be forced to take a usage-capped data plan from Verizon with no looking back.  AT&T won’t provide unlimited plans for customers returning to their fold.

Share/Save

Telstra is Australia's largest telecommunications company. (Photo: Telstra)

It’s not as if the Australian government didn’t warn private broadband providers, notably Telstra.  For the past several years, Australians have endured expensive, slow, heavily usage-limited broadband service that has put the country well behind many other Commonwealth nations.  Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy finally warned the nation’s largest telecommunications provider if it didn’t move forward on upgrades and improved service, the government would be forced to step in to protect the national interest.

Instead of improving service, Telstra spent years stonewalling the government and the Australian public, while banking high profits for broadband service.  That’s a familiar story for North Americans, stuck with companies like Bell, Rogers, AT&T, Comcast and Verizon — all of whom seek ultimate control over what kind of service you receive, what you pay for it, and what websites you can and, perhaps down the road, cannot visit without paying a surcharge.

Australia is closing the chapter on this story with a happier outcome for its 22 million citizens.  Perhaps the United States and Canada could learn a thing or two from the folks down under.

Bringing U.S. Oligopoly-Style Management to Australian Broadband: The Sol Trujillo Years — 2005 to 2009

Telstra, a former government monopoly comparable to the American Bell System, was privatized in the late 1990s.  Telstra looked to the United States for a chief executive that had experience navigating that transition.  They found Sol Trujillo working his way up the management ladder at AT&T, finally culminating in chairmanship of former Baby Bell Qwest Communications.  Would Trujillo like to take on the challenge of managing Australia’s largest phone company? Trujillo signed on with as Telstra’s CEO in 2005 promising to modernize the business and to bring American-style innovation to the South Pacific.

Instead, Trujillo established an American-style rapacious oligopoly.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Channel Nine in Australia reported on Telstra’s sudden interest in union-busting after Sol Trujillo arrived in 2005.  (1 minute)

Sol Trujillo

In his first year at the company, Trujillo started an all-out war to get rid of Telstra’s organized labor, slashing 10,000 jobs to “save the company money” all while boosting his own salary.  What started as $3 million in compensation in 2005 would rise to more than $11 million dollars just four years later, even as the value of Telstra declined by more than $25 billion on his watch.

Trujillo alienated his employees and officials in the Australian government.  Then-Prime Minister John Howard attacked Trujillo’s salary boost as abusive.

“I’m not complaining about the salary I get but I do think the average Australian, who gets paid a lot less than I do … regards that sort of salary as being absolutely unreasonable,” Mr Howard said on Southern Cross radio. “And it doesn’t help the capitalist system, which I believe in very passionately, that some people appear to abuse it.”

Trujillo’s salary was 38 times greater than the highest official in Australia’s government.

The average Australian retiree gets by on $219AUS a week.

Trujillo had to make due with more than $211,000 a week.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Channel Nine ran this report on the controversy over Sol Trujillo’s compensation package.  That old meme about having to pay high salaries to attract quality talent would have been more convincing had Trujillo’s policies not caused a $25 billion reduction in Telstra’s value.   (2 minutes)

Customers weren’t exactly endeared to spending more of their money on Telstra products and services.  Telstra had already embarked on cost controls for network upgrades, leveraged its monopoly power in many parts of the country with high rates for usage-restricted service, and bungled a critical application to participate in Australia’s National Broadband Network.

Australia’s National Broadband Plan, a roadmap for broadband improvements, set pre-conditions to involve small and medium-sized businesses in network construction.  Trujillo balked, demanding that Telstra — and only Telstra — should have the right to determine what kind of network should be built in the country.  More importantly, unless they exclusively ran it, the company would do everything in its power to block or destroy it.

Internet Overcharging schemes limit enjoyment of broadband usage across Australia. Telstra provides a usage meter estimator that includes all of the useless measurements for e-mail, images, and web browsing. But throw in some movie watching and the gas gauge really starts to spike.

The Sydney Morning Herald business reporter Ian Verrender was stunned:

Telstra has employed a three-step strategy to muscle out any competition.

It can be neatly condensed into three words: Bluster, Belligerence and Obfuscation.  We [just] saw it again in spades.

Telstra has been excluded from one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects announced by a Federal Government in decades: the construction of a national broadband network.

Could it really be that Telstra’s board and management were so incompetent that they could not get past stage one in a tender process of this magnitude?

After all, there were only four main criteria that had to be met. The first was the proposal had to be lodged in English. The second and third had equally low hurdles. Metric measurements – not the old inches, feet and miles – were required and the bid had to be signed. Nothing too difficult there.

But the fourth criterion appeared to stump Telstra. It didn’t include any plan for the inclusion of small business. And so the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, was obliged to exclude Telstra, an announcement that shook 12 per cent from the value of the country’s biggest telecommunications company.

This was no accident on Telstra’s part. It knew it was lodging a non-conforming proposal. Why, you ask?

The answer is simple. Telstra does not want a national broadband network, particularly one that involves anyone else. That includes taxpayers.

And if one has to be built, Telstra will do everything in its power to delay or kill the process. Yesterday marked stage one in a protracted war, ultimately designed to defeat one of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s key election promises.

Trujillo claimed yesterday that Telstra had been unfairly excluded from the process on a technicality. That’s just rubbish.

In recent months, the company, its chairman, Don McGauchie, and Trujillo repeatedly threatened to walk away from the tender process, and lodged the proposal only a few hours before the deadline.

Trujillo’s rhetoric yesterday was laced with the usual mixture of bravado and threats. He compared Australia to North Korea or Cuba. He declared only Telstra was capable of building the type of network required by the Government.

But two lines stand out. First this: “Customers make the choice of who they do business with; regulators and governments and others do not.” And then: “We reserve our rights regarding future action.”

The message is clear. Telstra will launch legal action at every opportunity – and even when there aren’t opportunities.

That time-honored American practice of simply suing your way through any legislative or regulatory roadblocks threatened to come to Australia.

The exclusion of Telstra from such a revolutionary broadband project didn’t sit well with the board or shareholders, and directly led to Trujillo’s ouster in 2009.  By then, he had alienated customers, the government, and just about everyone else.  Perhaps the government would allow a second look at a Telstra broadband application if it was submitted by someone other than Sol Trujillo?  It couldn’t hurt to find out.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Channel Nine covers the ousting of Sol Trujillo, wondering what sort of golden parachute he’d receive on the way out the door.  (3 minutes)

Just weeks after leaving, Trujillo decided to settle scores with Australia, telling reporters that he thought the country was backwards and racist.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Payback time.  Trujillo threw a hissyfit in a BBC interview calling Australia’s lack of laissez-faire regulatory policies backwards, and treatment towards him racist.  (Channel Nine – 1 minute)

The Post-Trujillo Era: More Arrogance and Ruthlessness, But a Communications Minister Outmaneuvers the Telecom Giant — 2009 to Present Day

Telstra spent the summer of 2009 attempting to heal the Trujillo-caused wounds with conciliatory statements in the Australian media.  Telstra’s new chief executive, David Thodey, admitted the company’s customer service record needed improvement.  He distanced himself from some of the more caustic comments from the former CEO, and claimed the company was on-track to be a major participant in improving Australia’s broadband experience.

Conroy

But as the months progressed, Australia’s Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy ultimately concluded he was getting the lip service treatment that Telstra had delivered Australians for years.  Conroy, already suspicious of the company’s control-minded tendencies, quietly began bending the ear of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.  Conroy had watched Telstra’s steadfast refusal to work constructively towards a National Broadband Network (NBN).  By last summer, the company was making proposals for underwhelming broadband expansion.  Fiber optic broadband was unnecessary and expensive, they said.  Besides, the service Telstra was providing was already good enough.

Australians didn’t agree.  Part of the platform that brought the Rudd government to power was the promise of better broadband service in Australia.  Waiting for Telstra to provide it was a futile exercise.

Conroy told Rudd the government should not be setting its broadband policy agenda based on what worked most conveniently for private providers.  If they won’t move, then let’s get them out of the way, Conroy suggested.  Rudd, working for the interests of the Australian people — not just a handful of telecom companies seeking riches with substandard service at monopoly prices, agreed.

After reviewing the proposals submitted to design and construct 21st century broadband service for Australia, Rudd dismissed them all, calling them inadequate.  The government, he announced, would go it alone and build the network itself — delivering a fiber to the home network for 90 percent of Australians on an open network available to any provider that wanted to rent access at wholesale rates.

More importantly, Conroy was not going to allow Telstra to continually block progress on the NBN.  Conroy was not some supine minister willing to compromise away the goal of super-fast affordable broadband.  His critics called him Machiavellian, slashing and burning anything that stood in his way.  But Conroy was steadfast — corporations would never be allowed to dictate broadband terms to the government.  He warned Telstra to cooperate or face the consequences.

Telstra continued to stall and stonewall, and last September, the Rudd government delivered what it promised — a forced break-up of Telstra.  The company was given a choice — either sell back its copper wire landline network to the government or divest itself of satellite TV service Foxtel and lose access to any additional wireless mobile frequencies for Telstra’s cellular service.

The equivalent in the United States would be to declare fiber to the home to be in the national interest, and if AT&T and Verizon didn’t deliver it to nearly every home in their service areas, the government would move in and do it themselves, taking back ownership of the AT&T and Verizon’s infrastructure along the way.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Network Ten covered the announced break up of Telstra by the federal government.  (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Channel Nine ran several reports on the announced breakup of Telstra, including an interview with the opposition.  (6 minutes)

Australia Declares Broadband a Utility Service that Private Providers Cannot Control

Monday marked a day in history for Telstra, agreeing to sell back its copper wire landline business (for which it will receive $11 billion in compensation).  In return, Telstra is assured wholesale access to the new fiber broadband network, and can market products and services on it.  It cannot, however, serve as a gatekeeper to keep competitors out nor maintain virtual monopoly service, especially for less suburban and rural customers.

Some telecom analysts believe the deal is actually good news for Telstra, if they’d see beyond their control tendencies.  After all, they say, Telstra gets to rid itself of a legacy copper-wire landline network that is expensive to maintain and serves a dwindling number of consumers, many who have switched to wireless.  They also get to develop and market new high bandwidth applications on a network they are no longer responsible for financing.

It’s a win for the government as well who gets a single, national fiber network built in the public interest, which makes it far easier to recoup the billions in costs to build it.  They’ll even likely make a profit suitable to defray the costs of subsidizing wireless broadband service for Australia’s rural residents, to be served with at least 12Mbps connections.  No cost-recovery fees on customer bills, no usage limitations that restrict innovation, and broadband that serves everyone, not just a handful of corporations that seek to monetize every aspect of it.

Conroy wouldn’t think much of America’s National Broadband Plan, which relies near-exclusively on private providers voluntarily doing the right thing. Conroy stopped putting blind faith in Australia’s large telecommunications companies.  The Obama Administration hasn’t.

We’ve seen millions spent lobbying to permit a handful of providers to control broadband service on their terms.  Few will provide fiber to the home service and many are content leaving rural Americans with dial-up service.  With dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes to manipulate usage to maximize profits even higher, things could get much worse.  What’s right for AT&T isn’t right for us.

For Australia, who has lived under such monopolistic broadband regimes for over a decade, a National Broadband Network without arbitrary usage limits and available to all — rural and urban — is the promised land.  It will leapfrog Australia well ahead of the United States and Canada, with far faster speeds and better prices, all because a government stood up to a corporate provider that preferred to overpay its executives instead of getting the job done right.

Australia had a reality check — broadband is a utility service necessary for every citizen who wants it.  Just as electrification and universal phone service became ubiquitous in the last century, broadband will also join those services in the years ahead as commonplace in nearly every home.

If only the strength and conviction that is fueling Australia’s broadband future could also be found in the United States, where too often what is urgently needed today gets frittered away into “maybe we can have it someday” compromises with big telecom and their lobbyists.  That isn’t good enough.

ABC National Radio interviewed telecom analysts about the implications of today’s deal with Telstra to retire Australia’s copper wire phone network (June 21, 2010) (4 minutes, 17 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Share/Save

Australia’s current Labor government has refused to compromise on its goal of delivering super-fast broadband service to nearly every Australian, declaring they will get the job done no matter what it takes.

“This government is determined to build a national broadband network and will not let anything get in its way,” declared Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Rudd was responding to critics from opposition political parties and some private providers who had been trying to throw up roadblocks to stop the government effort, which many private providers felt ceded too much control to the government.

Rudd’s plans to construct the network were bolstered with the release of a new study showing the construction and operating costs to be lower than previously thought.

Stephen Conroy

Lindsay Tanner, Australia’s Finance Minister, told colleagues, “The government would get its investment back and also, over the course of the investment, earn a modest return.”

Stephen Conroy, Communications Minister, promised wholesale pricing for the unlimited fiber-based service would range between $17.50-26.30US per month.  Retail pricing for entry-level ADSL broadband service from Telstra currently runs $35US per month, with a 2 GB monthly usage allowance.

Conroy previously threatened Telstra that if it didn’t want to help build the national network at a reasonable price, the government would do it themselves.

Tony Smith, opposition Shadow Communications Minister called Rudd’s insistence on a national fiber network reckless, irresponsible, and risky.

But for Australian consumers long subjected to expensive monthly prices for heavily usage limited service, 100Mbps service — or even slower, unlimited service — represents a major improvement.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Ten Network in Australia ran this report on the current Australian government’s unwillingness to compromise away its goal for a national fiber network.  (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Channel Nine reports on the release of the broadband study showing Australia would save money building their own national broadband network instead of letting Telstra build it.  (1 minute)

Share/Save

Australia is set to leapfrog over the United States and Canada, declaring its intent to deliver fiber broadband service to the vast majority of its citizens within eight years.  The country embarked on a National Broadband Plan more than a year before the United States, declaring the current state of usage-limited, slow, expensive, and incomplete broadband coverage to be unacceptable.

Australia discarded an earlier plan to work with private providers to build the network when government officials faced opposition from private providers who did not want to lose control of the broadband market.  In a surprising decision last September, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced the government would commence construction of a fiber to the home network itself, excluding private providers from participation.

NBN Company, a government-owned entity, will construct the $43 billion network over eight years, delivering 100Mbps speeds on a fiber network.  The infrastructure will be designed for an easy upgrade to 1 Gigabit service as bandwidth demand intensifies.

A separate deal concluded today with Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications company, will retire the nation’s copper wire landline network and cable systems, to be replaced by NBN fiber.

Up to 37,000 jobs will be created to build the network across the country, supplemented with wireless broadband for Australia’s most rural areas.

But some are complaining the network is too extravagant and expensive, adding their displeasure with the Rudd government’s strong-arming of Telstra to give up its network.

Opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said taxpayers would be on the hook for the project.

“It’ll come with a multi-billion dollar taxpayer debt that will have to be paid off over decades,” Robb said, adding if elected, the opposition promises to scrap the plan.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd originally introduced his nationwide fiber network proposal in April 2009.  Channel Nine provides this roundup of the original announcement, media reaction, and a few insults from the opposition.  Just a day after the plan was introduced, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy warned Telstra to “back off,” referring to the company’s immediate lobbying effort to block the proposal.  (11 minutes)

Share/Save