Here today, gone tomorrow.

Cablevision West, formerly known as Bresnan Communications, has been up for sale for weeks, and at least three major cable operators have submitted bids to acquire its 300,000 customers in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.

Cablevision bought Bresnan Communications in 2010 for $1.37 billion. The cable operator invested millions updating the cable properties in the mountain west, but ultimately decided the more rural cable systems were too far away from its hometown systems in densely populated suburban New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

Selling Cablevision West would improve Cablevision’s balance sheet and allow the company to concentrate on its highly competitive home territory in the northeast, where Verizon FiOS frequently competes.

Among the three vying for Cablevision West, Charter Communications seems to be the best positioned to win. Charter already operates cable systems in the central and western United States, mostly in smaller cities and rural areas. Former Cablevision CEO Thomas Rutledge was in charge when Cablevision bought Bresnan Communications, and in his new role as CEO of Charter, he told CNBC he still admires those western systems.

Suddenlink has attained deeper pockets after its acquisition earlier this year by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, European private equity firm BC Partners and the cable operator’s current management. With money to spend, Suddenlink Communications could find itself the highest bidder. Suddenlink currently serves over 1.4 million residential and commercial customers, primarily in Texas, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Time Warner Cable, the second-largest U.S. cable provider, is also among the stingiest of the three bidders. CEO Glenn Britt has consistently told investors the company will not engage in bidding wars or overpay for acquisition opportunities. The company has passed on several earlier opportunities for cable systems up for sale, although it did successfully acquire Insight Communications earlier this year.

The winner will likely be announced as early as January and then customers will have to prepare, once again, for another owner to take control.

Other stories of interest:

1. Charter Cable Sniffing Around Optimum West; Could Acquire Western Systems from Cablevision
2. Cablevision: An Attractive Takeover Target for Time Warner Cable, Says Barron’s
3. Cablevision, New Owner of Bresnan Cable, Promises Broadband Upgrades in Montana and Wyoming
4. Suddenlink Executives Join Canada’s Pension Plan to Buy Out the Company
5. Bresnan’s Montana Customers Now Part of Cablevision’s Optimum West

Suddenlink is throwing a hissyfit over Frontier’s aggressive advertising.

Now come on, you are both pretty… slow that is.

Suddenlink Communications is crawling mad that Frontier Communications has been hammering the cable company over their broadband speeds, which PC Magazine this week proclaimed were nothing to write home about. The cable operator successfully challenged some of Frontier’s ads with the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

The group recommended Frontier cease making claims that its DSL service offers “dedicated” lines to the Internet in contrast to Suddenlink, which forces customers to share their connection with the whole neighborhood.

Frontier claims Suddenlink’s network can bog down during peak hours, while Frontier makes sure customers consistently get the speeds they pay for.

Many of the ads targeted customers in West Virginia, who regularly tell Stop the Cap! neither provider competing there offers particularly good service.

“Is Frontier kidding?,” says Shane Foster, a former Frontier customer in West Virginia. “I was supposed to be getting up to 6Mbps service and I was lucky to get 1.5Mbps at 2 am.”

Foster says he believes Frontier oversold its DSL network in his area, with speeds slowing even further during the evening and weekends when everyone got online. While Frontier may not require customers to share a line from their home to the company’s central office, congestion can occur within Frontier’s local exchange or on the connection Frontier maintains with Internet backbone providers.

“The technician sent to my house even privately admitted it,” Foster tells Stop the Cap!

Foster switched to Suddenlink, but he is not exactly a happy customer there either.

“Their usage caps suck, the service is slow, and their measurement tool is always broken,” Foster shares. “West Virginia doesn’t just get the bottom of the barrel, it gets the dirt underneath it.”

Frontier Communications says it has been making improvements in West Virginia and other states where it provides DSL broadband. Some areas can now subscribe to 25Mbps service because of network upgrades. Foster says he would dump Suddenlink and go back to Frontier, if they can deliver speeds the rest of the country gets.

“Sorry, but 1.5Mbps is not broadband and with their prices, tricky fees and contracts it is robbery,” says Foster. “They need to clean up their act and I’ll come back. I hate usage caps with a passion.”

Frontier says it will appeal the NAD’s decision. But Frontier might do better advertising its broadband service as usage cap free — something customers consistently value over those running Internet Overcharging schemes.

Other stories of interest:

1. Frontier’s Wilderotter Claims W.V. Among Top-5 Broadband States; Facts Say Otherwise
2. Updated: Frontier’s Free DSL Speed Downgrades; West Virginians Wonder Where the Better Broadband Is
3. West Virginia Upset With Current State of Broadband; Companies Losing Business Over Lack of Service
4. Update: Suddenlink Usage Cap Numbers Arrive, Company Declines to Comment
5. Suddenlink To Boost Internet Speeds In Lubbock and Midland Texas – New 36/2 Mbps Tier Also On The Way

Phillip “The Company Paid by Suddenlink to Issue a Third Party Guarantee Makes All the Difference” Dampier

When Stop the Cap! and Broadband Reports reader Simon contacted us about Suddenlink’s fact-free usage measurement tool that managed to rack up nearly 23GB of usage for one West Virginia customer on the same day his service was out for most of the evening, he probably did not think one customer catching the cable company’s fingers in the usage cookie jar would make much difference.

But it did.

Suddenlink spokesman Pete Abel, initially responding to complaints about the usage tool’s accuracy, told Light Reading last week its meter was “consistently accurate, as was demonstrated in the tests we ran before we launched this program.”

Four days later, the company effectively disavowed that, put the meter’s built-in overlimit fee scheme on hold and plans to hire a third party company to “validate the accuracy of its system,” after finding it was faulty after all.

Suddenlink won’t say what is causing the inaccuracies, but blamed “unusual” circumstances for the problem. The company is now refunding customers billed overlimit fees of $10 per 50GB and waiving future charges until its system is reviewed and validated by “a trusted third party.”

Stop the Cap! believes that does not come close to satisfying the company’s responsibility to its customers for accurate billing.

Suddenlink has never demonstrated it actually needs an Internet Overcharging scheme with usage limits and overlimit fees. The company proves that when it claims only a “relatively small number of customers” were ever billed overlimit fees. With no demonstrable usage problem, the company’s need to implement its Project Imagine “Allowance Plan” is sorely lacking.

Easy as counting anyway we like.

Additionally, the accuracy of providers’ usage measurement tools has proven highly suspect, and not just with Suddenlink. All of the companies caught with inaccurate meters always strongly defend them, until overwhelming evidence suggests they should not. Even super-sized companies like Bell Canada (BCE) and AT&T have enforced usage limits with meters the companies later had to disavow. Suddenlink is only the latest.

The scale in your grocery store is checked and certified. So is the corner gas pump, your electric meter, water meter, and gas meter. Why should broadband usage be any different?

Consumers are right to suspect Suddenlink’s usage meter. No official regulatory body verifies the accuracy of usage measurement tools and whatever company Suddenlink chooses to “verify” its meter has a built in conflict of interest — it works for a company that depends on a certain result in its favor. Suddenlink clearly has no business in the usage measurement business when it insists on the accuracy of a meter it disavows just a few days later.

With only murky details available to consumers about what caused the problem and why Suddenlink did not see it until a customer managed to catch them in the act, there is little confidence the company will actually solve a problem it never realized it had. There is also nothing to assure us — “third party guarantee” or not — it cannot happen all over again.

Suddenlink customers need to reach out and tell Suddenlink its “Allowance Plan” is completely unacceptable. Tell the cable company you don’t want to worry about their unverifiable and proven-inaccurate metering program. Ask them why you should remain a customer when they spend time and money on a scheme that the company itself admits is not really needed — targeting just a small number of “heavy users.”

Suddenlink’s customer service team does not think much of customers who use their broadband service a lot, as this recent “Who’s On First” exchange illustrates:

Lisa (Suddenlink): “Well, you show heavy OVERUSAGE of the Internet, you drew 14GB of data yesterday.”

Customer: “Okay, let’s back up, explain to me how I drew 12GB of data when my power was off and I wasn’t home on June 30.”

Lisa: “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  ”If you have sooo much faith in your meter, explain to me how I drew 12GBs of data on June 30, while I didn’t have power, and wasn’t home.”

Lisa:  ”I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  ”I’m asking, how did I draw 12GB of data without power to my house?”

If Suddenlink has a problem with a handful of users creating problems for other subscribers on its broadband network, it has always reserved the right to contact those customers directly and work out the problem one on one. That is a far better solution than inconveniencing all of their customers with endless rounds of “usage roulette,” where the big winner could find themselves with Bill Shock from overlimit fees, whether they actually deserve them or not.

CNBC interviewed Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent in August 2010 on how his company intends to deal with “invasive online video,” threatening to erode cable-TV profits. Kent proved Suddenlink doesn’t really need any extra money from overlimit fees — the days of big spending on capacity are over, but the money is nice to have anyway.  (8 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. Suddenlink’s Magical Mystery Meter: Records 12GB of Usage Even During Power Outage
2. Suddenlink’s Thumb on the Scale That Measures Your Usage
3. Cox Rolls Out Usage Meter for Limited Usage, But Currently Has Few Plans to Enforce It
4. Suddenlink Introducing Usage Caps/Internet Overcharging Nationwide: $10/50GB Overlimit Fee
5. Update: Suddenlink Usage Cap Numbers Arrive, Company Declines to Comment

Suddenlink’s decision to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme that couples usage caps with overlimit fees can be a real revenue-booster for the cable company, especially if a usage measurement tool decides to nip at your allowance with phantom usage that can eventually expose you to overlimit fees.

Simon, a Suddenlink customer in northern Texas contacted Stop the Cap! with news he managed to catch Suddenlink in the act of ginning up his broadband usage, measuring around 23GB of broadband usage in just one day:

Here is what Suddenlink’s usage measurement tool reports Simon has used during the month of August. Not the 23GB measurement recorded for Aug. 18.

“Suddenlink believes I used ~23GB and my router confirms I only used 2.22GB (a difference of 936%),” Simon writes. “It’s insane.”

Even more unusual is Suddenlink’s measurement tool recorded that usage on a day when a thunderstorm knocked out his cable broadband service for nearly six hours during peak usage times. It is not the first time Suddenlink’s meter has gone haywire.

Consumers are at the whim of broadband provider-supplied measurement tools, which are unregulated and unmonitored by federal, state, or local authorities. What those tools measure is what customers will be billed for, with no verification or proof of accuracy required.

Companies utilizing these measurement tools require customers to accept the provided measurements as the final word on the matter.

“I think it’s a repugnant money grab that needs to be regulated by the state or federal government,” Simon shares.

Unregulated metered billing is a dream come true for providers who can bill customers whatever they want.

Here is what Simon’s router measured on that same date – 2.22GB, almost a 1,000% difference… in Suddenlink’s favor.

Other stories of interest:

1. Suddenlink Introducing Usage Caps/Internet Overcharging Nationwide: $10/50GB Overlimit Fee
2. Update: Suddenlink Usage Cap Numbers Arrive, Company Declines to Comment
3. One Year After Imposing 250GB Cap, Comcast Customers Still In The Dark About Their Usage
4. “Trust Us”: Cogeco’s Usage “Gas Gauge” Great For Measuring Profits, Not So Good for Measuring Actual Usage
5. Suddenlink’s Magical Mystery Meter: Records 12GB of Usage Even During Power Outage

Suddenly Bought

Well-compensated management at Suddenlink are teaming up with private equity firm BC Partners and the Canada Pension Plan’s CPP Investment Board to buy out Suddenlink Communications in a deal for the $6.6 billion company.

The transaction will leave Suddenlink’s founder and current CEO Jerry Kent in charge and part-owner of the company. Some other members of top management are also participating in the buyout deal.

Suddenlink is currently owned by investment bank Goldman Sachs through its private equity arm, Quadrangle Group LLC and Oaktree Capital Management LP.

The buyers will assume $4 billion of Suddenlink’s outstanding debt and BC Partners and CPP Investment Board are taking on $500 million of additional debt to fund the purchase.

Kent

Kent says the deal is designed to infuse additional capital into Suddenlink’s operations, which primarily serve smaller communities in Texas, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, and Arkansas. Suddenlink launched in 2003 with the acquisition of discarded cable systems originally owned by Cox and Charter Communications. Today the company serves 1.4 million residential customers, making it the seventh largest cable operator in the country.

With Kent remaining in charge, few changes are expected. In 2011, Suddenlink adopted an Internet Overcharging scheme including usage caps and overlimit fees that it is gradually rolling out to all of its customers.

Investors see revenue growth opportunities from Suddenlink, particularly as it further monetizes broadband.

“This represents a unique opportunity to acquire a leading cable operator that has consistently generated industry-leading results,” said André Bourbonnais, who heads private investments for CPPIB.

Kent had been reportedly shopping the cable system around to private-equity firms over the past several months, on the condition he got to remain in charge and early investors could cash out.

Other stories of interest:

1. Suddenlink Cable CEO: ‘People Don’t Realize the Days of Cable Company Upgrades are Basically Over’
2. Suddenlink Introducing Usage Caps/Internet Overcharging Nationwide: $10/50GB Overlimit Fee
3. Update: Suddenlink Usage Cap Numbers Arrive, Company Declines to Comment
4. Suddenlink’s Magical Mystery Meter: Records 12GB of Usage Even During Power Outage
5. Mississippi Windjammer Cable System Suddenly Suddenlink… After Being Adelphia and Time Warner Cable

Easy as counting in the dark.

Suddenlink customers in West Virginia who have been dealing with the aftereffects of a damaging derecho for a week found a nasty little surprise from their cable company when the lights cut back on — gigabytes of usage recorded on the company’s suspect “usage meter,” despite the fact customers were without power for up to a week.

Broadband Reports readers have begun to check back in after extended downtime to report Suddenlink is racking up usage whether customers are using their broadband connection or not:

• “Tylr” reports he was without power for two days but Suddenlink’s usage meter kept the party going, recording 12GB of phantom usage during the two days the customer was without service;
• “Jdmm72″ found exactly the same thing, shocked to discover he racked up 10.8GB of usage on a day when he and his fellow neighbors in Nitro, W.V., were completely in the dark.

Suddenlink’s usage meter is not verified by any third-party or government agency to ensure its reliability and the company is under no obligation to change this policy. But customers are expected to cover any overlimit fees Suddenlink imposes for “exceeding your allowance.”

Does the company need the extra money? Not really, according to Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent, who earlier admitted the days of expensive system upgrades were over and it was now time to rake in profits:

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Other stories of interest:

1. Cox Rolls Out Usage Meter for Limited Usage, But Currently Has Few Plans to Enforce It
2. Comcast’s Usage Meter Rolled Out to Most Customers Nationwide
3. Update: Suddenlink Usage Cap Numbers Arrive, Company Declines to Comment
4. Cogeco: Prove Our Usage Meter is Wrong When It Says You Used 36GB Yesterday
5. Suddenlink Introducing Usage Caps/Internet Overcharging Nationwide: $10/50GB Overlimit Fee

KJRH’s newsroom has been spending a lot of time this spring dealing with viewers ripped off by their telecommunications providers.  When Tulsa residents can’t get satisfaction from the local cable or satellite company, they often call Channel 2′s Problem Solvers for help.

DirecTV’s Phantom Gift Cards: The Promised Rebate That You Qualify For, Until You Don’t

Satellite TV companies are increasingly aggressive pitching discounts and rebates to win customers away from traditional cable TV or the phone company’s new IPTV service.  In addition to cheap teaser rates, many providers also sweeten the deal with high value rebate cards for customers signing multi-year service contracts.

Local resident Michael was attracted to DirecTV’s $200 Visa card rebate offer and signed up for satellite service.  Weeks later, with no rebate card in hand, he called the company to find out why, only to be told he did not qualify.  When Michael tried to cancel service because the company didn’t deliver what it promised, the customer service representative informed him he would owe $480 in early cancellation penalties.

DirecTV's fine print: Emphasis ours.

DirecTV initially stonewalled KJRH when they called on Michael’s behalf, eventually claiming he was told he did not qualify for a rebate a week after signing up for service.  But when KJRH asked to hear a recording of the call DirecTV routinely makes when customers sign up for service, they changed their tune.

“The next day, we were told Michael had been given the wrong information about the promotion and he could cancel without that $480 penalty,” the Problem Solvers’ team reports.

Michael says it is important to get everything in writing — including the names of representatives you speak with — because that can make all the difference when a company tries to squeeze out of its own promotional promises.  He’s now an ex-DirecTV customer for free, and decided to watch his favorite shows over local broadcast TV.

KJRH got called by Michael when DirecTV reneged on a $200 rebate offer that locked him into a contract that could cost him $480 to escape.  (2 minutes)

Suddenlink: Suddenly Owe $400 in April for Service You Canceled In January

Tulsa resident Lucille got the shock of her life this month when she opened a bill from Suddenlink charging her $400 for cable service she canceled in early January.

The past due bill came without warning and Lucille says she never received any phone call, bill, or letter notifying her charges were still accumulating on her account.

When she called Suddenlink, they told her that service was never discontinued, and she owed the money.

Lucille may have been born at night, but not last night.

Angered by Suddenlink’s intransigence, she called KJRH for help.  The station went to the top — calling Suddenlink’s corporate headquarters.

In short order, a company representative researching the dispute found Lucille’s cancellation request, as well as the customer service representative who never processed it.

That representative will be attending Customer Service 101 re-training classes, and a company executive called Lucille directly to apologize.

Not only that, a local Tulsa Suddenlink worker arrived with a $100 refund check — the credit balance owed her for service she paid one month ahead to receive.

While both Lucille and Michael benefited from the threat of both companies being portrayed in a bad light on the evening news, an unknown, uncounted number of customers may not win similar satisfaction.

Many customers simply give up pursuing unpaid rebate promotions (or forget about them altogether), and DirecTV’s nearly $500 early termination fee is a strong incentive to grudgingly stay with the satellite provider until your contract runs out.  Lucille, 88 years old, was not going to be intimidated by Suddenlink’s insistence she owed the money (or the implications of being called a past due deadbeat — an especially scandalous notion for older Americans).

Both consumers did something else: they wrote down names, times, and dates of their communications with the companies.  That can go a long way to winning satisfaction. So can filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau, which can usually prompt a contact from a higher-level customer service representative more willing to give a complaining customer the benefit of the doubt.

KJRH got a call from Lucille about an unexpected $400 Suddenlink cable bill for April… for service she canceled in January.  (2 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. AT&T Creates Nightmare for Tulsa Business After Their Broadband Was Shut Off By Mistake
2. Sprint Drops Data Service Add-On for Tulsa Customer, Then Charges Him Early Termination Fee
3. Time Warner Launches Free Slingbox Rebate Offer: NYC Customers Only
4. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on Keeping Broadband Open and Competitive
5. Suddenlink: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – Digital Conversion, Usage Meters, & More

Won 1.1 million new customers in 2011

Comcast and Time Warner Cable collectively picked up more than 1.5 million new customers in 2011, with most of the growth coming from dissatisfied DSL subscribers seeking better broadband speeds.

Leichtman Research Group, Inc. (LRG) found the eighteen largest cable and telephone providers in the US — representing about 93% of the market — acquired 3 million net additional high-speed Internet subscribers in 2011. Annual net broadband additions in 2011 were 88% of the total in 2010.

The top broadband providers now account for 78.6 million subscribers — with cable companies having over 44.3 million broadband subscribers, and telephone companies having over 34.3 million subscribers.

Stalled growth

Despite AT&T’s position as the second largest Internet Service Provider in the country, the company only picked up 117,000 new customers in 2011.  In contrast, Time Warner Cable, with 6 million fewer customers, added almost a half-million new broadband subscriptions last year.

Frontier Communications, which made broadband a primary target for expansion, has not seen considerable growth either.  The company only added just short of 38,000 new broadband customers last year, almost all getting DSL, often at speeds of 1-3Mbps.

Other key findings include:

• The top cable companies netted 75% of the broadband additions in 2011;
• The top cable companies added 2.3 million broadband subscribers in 2011 — 98% of the total net additions for the top cable companies in 2010;
• The top telephone providers added 750,000 broadband subs in 2011 — 68% of the total net additions for the top telephone companies in 2010;
• In the fourth quarter of 2011, cable and telephone providers added 765,000 broadband subscribers — with cable companies accounting for 82% of the broadband additions in the quarter.

Now serving 10.3 million

“Despite a high level of broadband penetration in the US, the top broadband providers added 88% as many subscribers in 2011 as in 2010,” said Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for Leichtman Research Group, Inc. “At the end of 2011, the top broadband providers in the US cumulatively had over 78.6 million subscribers, an increase of nearly 25 million over the past five years.”

Americans are increasingly treating broadband as an essential “utility” service, as fundamental as electricity or clean water.

The majority of consumers who lack the service either consider it irrelevant in their lives (a factor that increases with the age of the surveyed respondent), cannot obtain service from their provider because of their location, or cannot afford the service.

Sources: The Companies and Leichtman Research Group, Inc.
* LRG estimate
** Includes LRG estimates for Bright House Networks, and RCN
^ Totals prior to Time Warner Cable’s acquisition of Insight completed on 2/29/2012
^^ LRG estimate does not include wireless subscribers
Company subscriber counts may not represent solely residential households
Totals reflect pro forma results from system sales and acquisitions
Top cable and telephone companies represent approximately 93% of all subscribers

Other stories of interest:

1. Comcast On Track to Earn $8.8 Billion A Year from 17.55 Million Broadband Subscribers
2. ‘Measuring Broadband America’ Report Released Today: How Your Provider Measured Up
3. Time Warner Cable Nation’s Third Largest Internet Service Provider – 62 Percent of Its Customers Take Broadband
4. It Begins: Wall Street Analyst Calls for Comcast & Time Warner Cable to Merge
5. Wall Street Smells Money – JP Morgan Bullish On Cable: Time Warner Cable & Comcast Ready To Earn More From Broadband

Internet Overcharging schemes bring even more profits to a cable industry that already enjoys a 95% gross margin on broadband service.

At least one major national cable company plans to implement a usage-based billing system in the coming year, predicts Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett.  Bloomberg News quotes Moffett in a piece that thinly references Time Warner Cable as that operator, whose CEO strongly believes in further monetizing broadband usage.

Moffett is among the chief cheerleaders hoping to see operators charge customers additional fees for their use of the Internet.

“In the end, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the cable industry,” Moffett said.

For customers, DISH Satellite chairman Charlie Ergen predicts it will lead to at least a $20 monthly surcharge for broadband users who watch online video, which could bring already sky-high broadband pricing to an unprecedented $70-80 a month, the same amount most cable operators now charge for standard digital cable-TV service.

The cable industry’s interest in being in the cable television business has waned recently as subscribers increasingly turn away from expensive cable packages.  Now companies that used to consider broadband a mildly-profitable add-0n increasingly see Internet access as the new mainstay (and profit center) of their business.

Time Warner Cable, for example, wasn’t even sure its entry in the broadband business in the late 90s would ever amount to much.  Fast forward a dozen years, and it is an entirely different story:

“We’re basically a broadband provider,” Peter Stern, chief strategy officer for New York-based Time Warner Cable, said Nov. 17 at the Future of Television conference in New York. “As a convenience for our customers, we package and distribute television and provide service around that.”

Bloomberg reports the cable industry profit margin on broadband is nearly 95 percent, a testament to the lack of competitive pressure on Internet pricing.  The industry is going where the money is to make up for increasing challenges to their video business, which currently “only” brings them a 60 percent profit margin.

Suddenlink, already enjoying a 12 percent increase in broadband revenue in the last quarter alone, is implementing its own Internet Overcharging scheme, charging $10 for every 50GB a customer exceeds their arbitrary usage allowance.  That, despite the fact CEO Jerry Kent admits Suddenlink’s broadband margins are double those earned from the cable company’s video business.

Complicit in the parade to Internet Overcharging is Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, who publicly supported usage-based pricing in public statements made last December.  Cable operators were fearful Genachowski might lump the pricing scheme in with the Net Neutrality debate.  Providers have since used Genachowski’s loophole in an end run around Net Neutrality.  If providers cannot keep high volume video traffic from competitors like Netflix off their networks, they can simply make using those services untenable on the consumer side by increasing broadband pricing, already far more expensive than in other parts of the world.

That is a lesson already learned in Canada, where phone and cable companies routinely limit usage and slap overlimit fees on consumers who cross the usage allowance line.  Canada’s broadband ranking has been deteriorating ever since.

Moffett - The chief cheerleader for Internet Overcharging

Bloomberg says such a pricing regime would discourage investment in online video products that currently are held responsible for some cable cord-cutting:

“It’s the reason why Apple or Google would inevitably be reticent about committing a significant amount of capital to an online video model,” Moffett told Bloomberg. “You can’t simply assume just because you can buy the content more cheaply, you can offer a product that’s cheaper to the end user.”

The only way around this might be video providers like Google getting into the broadband business themselves, something Google is experimenting with in Kansas City.  Google’s “Think Big With a Gig” project is partly designed to prove gigabit broadband delivered over a fiber network is practical and doesn’t have to be unaffordable for consumers.  It will also finally bring competitive pressure on a comfortable broadband duopoly, at least for residents in one city.

So far, video providers who depend on an Internet distribution model are not putting much money in the fight against usage-billing.  Instead, companies like Netflix are releasing occasional press releases that decry the practice.

“[Usage billing] is not in the consumer’s best interest as consumers deserve unfettered access to a robust Internet at reasonable rates,” Steve Swasey, a Netflix spokesman, said previously.

It is clear consumers despise usage pricing.  In every survey conducted, a majority of respondents oppose limits on their broadband usage, especially at today’s prices.  But that may not be enough to get companies like Time Warner Cable to back off.  The company has reportedly been quietly testing usage meters since last summer.  CEO Glenn Britt, with a considerable drumbeat of support from Wall Street analysts like Mr. Bernstein, has never shelved the concept of usage pricing, seeing it more lucrative than hard usage caps.  The company retreated from a 2009 plan to charge up to $150 a month for flat rate access after consumers rebelled over planned trials in Texas, North Carolina, and New York.

But without a solid message of opposition from consumers, and an about-face from an FCC chairman that should know better, they’ll be back looking for more money soon enough.

[Thanks to regular Stop the Cap! reader Ron for sharing the news.]

Other stories of interest:

1. Cable Stock Booster Predicts AT&T Provides ‘Safe Passage’ for Cable Internet Overcharging Schemes
2. Wall Street Journal Nonsense: Canada Just Ahead of U.S. in Introducing Internet Overcharging
3. HP – “Smart Shoppers” Prefer Internet Overcharging Schemes: Metering Is Good for You!
4. CNN Mistakes Internet Overcharging for Net Neutrality
5. Bipolar Cable Industry Loves<->Hates Netflix; Britt Says It’s About Giving Customers What They Want

Allen Wan from Chicago dropped Stop the Cap! a postcard by good old snail mail about today’s broadband cap ‘n tier regime in place at some of America’s largest Internet Service Providers to make an important point: with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and usage-based billing, America’s best broadband value may actually come from the United States Postal Service.

Allen breaks it down for us:

Allen’s chart points out that for large file transfers like movies, TV shows, and major software updates, consumers actually get more value on a per-GB basis burning those shows and software to a traditional or dual-layer (DL) DVD, and dropping them in the mailbox.

While prices for service may vary, so do Internet Overcharging schemes.  If a customer reaches their monthly limit one time too many, they will be relying on the post office to move files back and forth because companies like Comcast and Cox will terminate their service.  Other providers, like AT&T and Suddenlink, are content to simply send the customer a bill with overlimit charges on it.

With a marketplace duopoly, ineffective government oversight, and ever-increasing prices, the U.S. Post Office may still be in the running after all, thanks to Back to the Future-pricing from your ISP.

Other stories of interest:

1. Telstra: You Don’t Need Virtually Unlimited Broadband When You Can Have Our Overpriced Service
2. Comcast Internet Service Promotions: Experiences With the Retention Department
3. Breaking News: AT&T Ending Unlimited Broadband Service for DSL/U-verse Customers May 2nd
4. Earthlink Imposes 250GB Usage Limit on Their Customers Getting Service from Comcast
5. Cox’s 3 Steps to Fatter Profits With Internet Overcharging: Upgrade or Your Services Will Be Blocked