Home » Consumer News » Recent Articles:

Time Warner Cable Recommits: No Mandatory Usage Caps As Long As Company Remains Independent

timewarner twcTime Warner Cable today recommitted itself to providing unlimited broadband service to any customer that wants it, promising customers they won’t be forced into a tiered usage plan as long as Time Warner Cable remains an independent company.

“We have no intention of abandoning an unlimited product we think that something that customers value and are willing to pay for,” said Time Warner Cable CEO Robert Marcus. “The way we’ve approached usage-based pricing is to offer it as an option for customers who prefer to pay less because they tend to use less. And we’ve made those available at 5 gigabytes per month and 30 gigabytes per month levels.”

Marcus told Wall Street analysts on an afternoon conference call that the average Time Warner Cable customer now generates 35GB of traffic per month, and that a significant percentage of light users might realize some savings choosing a 30GB optional usage plan. But Marcus also admitted that few do.

marcus

Marcus

“I think that’s a testament to the value they place on unlimited,” said Marcus.

Marcus’ decision to stay away from compulsory usage-capped Internet was questioned by Marci Ryvicker from Wells Fargo Securities, LLC., a Wall Street investment firm. Ryvicker tied the growth of online video consumption to the implementation of usage caps as way of protecting video revenue and regaining money lost from lost cable television subscriptions.

“I guess the underlying question is do you think you can monetize the pipe enough through high-speed data pricing to offset video decline,” asked Ryvicker.

“We haven’t really viewed usage-based pricing quite the way you’re postulating,” responded Marcus. “I think there’s a separate question as to whether or not we have the ability to offset video declines with [broadband]. I think it’s fair to say we’re very bullish on the high-speed data business and think we can continue to grow it based on both subscriber volume and incremental ARPU per [broadband] customer.”

Marcus added that Time Warner can continue to boost revenue by raising broadband prices and encouraging customers to upgrade to faster speed tiers at a higher price.

Comcast has a very different philosophy about usage caps — it embraces them. Comcast continues to test mandatory usage caps in several markets, leading to howls of complaints from customers and bill shock. One customer complained their cable bill frightens them every time they receive it, not knowing how much Comcast would charge them for that month of service. The family’s last cable bill, including Internet, exceeded $560, primarily due to Comcast’s overlimit usage fees. Comcast has also received complaints about its usage meter’s accuracy, but the company adamantly bills customers according to the readings of their meter.

“I’ll tell you what really isn’t fair,” wrote one customer. “That is that in ‘test markets’ like mine, Atlanta, we have the 300GB [cap] enforced with the penalty overage charge and we pay the SAME rates as people in other markets that aren’t yet one of the ‘test markets.’

Most analysts expect Comcast will eventually roll out usage caps to all of its customers, including any it acquires from Time Warner Cable. Customers cannot choose an unlimited use option in Comcast’s usage cap test markets.

Commentary: Verizon’s New Tech News Website Censors Out Net Neutrality, Electronic Spying, Credibility

“Verizon’s treatment of the news is a testament to the need for strong Net Neutrality protections.”

Sugarstring's logo is as twisty as its editorial policies.

Sugarstring’s logo is as twisty as its editorial policies.

Verizon Wireless’ launch of Sugarstring, a high-budget tech news website targeting millennial 20-somethings with tech and lifestyle news they can use seemed innocent enough until its editor revealed in a private e-mail Verizon considers reporting on electronic spying and Net Neutrality issues “verboten.

Verizon is deeply embroiled in both issues and evidently has no interest spending money enlightening the masses, so it has told its staff (but not you) both topics are forbidden.

The Daily Dot reported the revelation straight from Cole Stryker, Sugarstring’s editor.

“I’ve been hired to edit SugarString.com,” writes Stryker in a recruiting email to Daily Dot’s Patrick Howell O’Neill. “Downside is there are two verboten topics (spying and net neutrality), but I’ve been given wide berth to cover pretty much all other topics that touch tech in some way.”

Verizon’s cavalier censorship policies say a lot about the company’s interest in controlling the messages that people see and read online. The news site is intended to be a high-profile destination for Verizon Wireless’ mobile customers and will logically get significant exposure from the company bankrolling it.

Verizon might argue that since it pays the bills, it has a right to decide what information should pass through its websites. It is hardly a big stretch for them to argue that if they own the wires over which you receive Internet service, they should have a say in what travels across those as well.

Censorship need not be crude and obvious as it often was on foreign propaganda broadcasts during the Cold War. Today’s “news management” is much more subtle and more insidious.

Take RT (formerly Russia Today), the Moscow-based 24/7 English-language news network. Although dropped by many major cable systems including Time Warner Cable after Russian troops invaded eastern Ukraine, the network is still growing and finding more places on the air around the world.

Radio Moscow during the Cold War represented a more overt form of propaganda. Corporations like Verizon have learned to be more subtle.

Radio Moscow during the Cold War represented a more overt form of propaganda. Corporations like Verizon have learned to be more subtle.

RT is nothing like what shortwave listeners used to endure from English-language Radio Moscow World Service during the Communist years. You couldn’t miss that station. Broadcasting on up to 47 frequencies simultaneously, 24 hours a day, it was easily the most commonly encountered signal on the shortwave dial. Plodding features like, “On the Occasion of the 45th Anniversary of the Stunning Achievements of World Socialism,” or “The Voices of Soviet Public Opinion Demand Peace and Progress for the Non-Aligned World” (Part 36) were everything you might expect and less.

Radio Moscow boldly told listeners in its series, “The History of the Soviet Union, the Socialist Revolution, and Its Aims and Results,” that elections in the USSR were superior to those in other countries because the government took the money out of politics. Only by putting national infrastructure entirely in the hands of the people, along with public ownership of the means of production, can a nation achieve true democracy. They didn’t bother to mention the USSR was a one-party state, which made elections pro-forma, or that the entire Soviet economy was a basket case since the days of Leonid Brezhnev. (10:01) You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Radio Moscow has been replaced by RT Television, which in the post-Soviet era now exists primarily to boost all-things Putin. The propaganda has been sharpened up by employing U.S. reporters and moving to the far more subtle practice of “self-censorship.” A former RT reporter fed up with increasingly strident propaganda over the matter of Russia, Crimea and the Ukraine quit live on the air. In a later interview on CNN, Liz Wahl told Anderson Cooper that RT’s staff was made up mostly of impressionable young people eager to win favor from RT’s management. They quickly learned and accepted that certain points of view or story subjects were either frowned upon or outright verboten. Instead of being sent to a gulag for disobedience, those straying from Putin’s party line were taken off stories, reassigned to menial work, or shunned. Who wants that?

Avoiding certain topics or points of view at the behest of corporate management (or the state) is just as insidious as directly slanting the news to one’s favor. Few real journalists would accept a job (or stay) at a news organization that was compromised by coverage limits or editorial interference that came from conflict with a corporate or political agenda.

That Verizon chooses to ban stories that embarrass Verizon, such as Edward Snowden’s revelations that Verizon voluntarily provided the National Security Agency (NSA) the phone records of all of its customers and is still actively engaged in tracking its customers’ web activities, does not mean it is going to block you from visiting CNN.com tomorrow. That Verizon doesn’t want to fuel the public consciousness of Net Neutrality is understanding considering the company has paid its lawyers plenty to fight the principle in court, openly admitting it favors paid fast lanes for traffic. But Verizon is clearly on a road that, if unchecked, eventually leads to content and traffic manipulation.

Verizon steps far over the line of jounalistic integrity informing editors to avoid both issues while saying nothing to readers and it isn’t the first time Verizon has crossed the line.

censorshipTim Karr from Free Press reminds us Verizon has a very different view about the First Amendment that the rest of us:

In a 2012 legal brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Verizon mangled the intent of the First Amendment to claim that the Constitution gives the phone company the right to control everyone’s online information. In the brief, which was part of the company’s successful bid to overturn the FCC’s Open Internet Order — Verizon argued that the First Amendment gives it the right to serve as the Internet’s editor-in-chief. The company’s attorneys claimed that “broadband providers possess ‘editorial discretion.'” even when they are “transmitting the speech of others.”

Verizon continued in this vein, asserting that “Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others.” And that means that Verizon could privilege its SugarString version of the news over the content of real news sites, because the company believes it should be able to “give differential pricing or priority access” to its own content.

What Verizon cannot “manage,” it wants the right to censor:

When it comes to a question of customer freedom vs. profits, Verizon follows the money every time:

In 2011, Free Press and others caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hotspots on their own. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

All of these examples challenge Verizon’s ongoing assertion it has no incentive to censor, block, or interfere with online content, making Net Neutrality unnecessary. You have just seen another example of why Net Neutrality is urgently needed. Verizon has demonstrated repeatedly it puts its own interests above its customers, so regulators should respond with a clear, unambiguous, and robustly enforced policy of Net Neutrality that protects the interests of you and I.

Federal Trade Commission Suing AT&T Over Unfair Speed Throttles for Unlimited Data Customers

throttleThe Federal Trade Commission today filed a lawsuit against AT&T for its practice of subjecting grandfathered unlimited data customers to speed throttles that dramatically cut speeds up to 90 percent after customers use more than 3GB of data on AT&T’s 3G network or 5GB on its 4G network. Thus far, according to the FTC, AT&T has throttled at least 3.5 million unique customers a total of more than 25 million times.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that the company failed to adequately disclose to its customers on unlimited data plans that, if they reach a certain amount of data use in a given billing cycle, AT&T reduces – or “throttles” – their data speeds to the point that many common mobile phone applications – like web browsing, GPS navigation and watching streaming video –  become difficult or nearly impossible to use.

“AT&T promised its customers ‘unlimited’ data, and in many instances, it has failed to deliver on that promise,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “The issue here is simple: ‘unlimited’ means unlimited.”

FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler publicly complained about Verizon’s plans to start a similar throttling program on its wireless network, questioning the fairness of cutting speeds for certain customers while exempting others. Both Verizon and AT&T have claimed speed throttles are part of a fair usage policy that allows all customers to share its wireless resources. Broadband providers have often painted a picture of a “bandwidth hog” taking a disproportionate share of network resources away from other customers, but there is no evidence heavier users are creating conflicts for other users, especially as wireless carriers encourage customers to use more data.

throttle att

From AT&Ts website

The logic of rationing Internet use for unlimited customers while providing unlimited access to those willing to pay usage-based charges escaped the FTC, which is what brought the suit.

According to the FTC’s complaint, AT&T’s marketing materials emphasized the “unlimited” amount of data that would be available to consumers who signed up for its unlimited plans. The complaint alleges that, even as unlimited plan consumers renewed their contracts, the company still failed to inform them of the throttling program. When customers canceled their contracts after being throttled, AT&T charged those customers early termination fees, which typically amount to hundreds of dollars.

The FTC alleges that AT&T, despite its unequivocal promises of unlimited data, began throttling data speeds in 2011 for its unlimited data plan customers after they used as little as 2 gigabytes of data in a billing period. According to the complaint, the throttling program has been severe, often resulting in speed reductions of 80 to 90 percent for affected users.

According to the FTC’s complaint, consumers in AT&T focus groups strongly objected to the idea of a throttling program and felt “unlimited should mean unlimited.” AT&T documents also showed that the company received thousands of complaints about the slow data speeds under the throttling program. Some consumers quoted the definition of the word “unlimited,” while others called AT&T’s throttling program a “bait and switch.” Many consumers also complained about the effect the throttling program had on their ability to use GPS navigation, watch streaming videos, listen to streaming music and browse the web.

The complaint charges that AT&T violated the FTC Act by changing the terms of customers’ unlimited data plans while those customers were still under contract, and by failing to adequately disclose the nature of the throttling program to consumers who renewed their unlimited data plans.

FTC staff worked closely on this matter with the staff of the Federal Communications Commission.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Comcast Prepares to Launch All-Out Attack on C Spire’s Irritating Competition in Mississippi

comcast crushThe sleepy deep south isn’t often a battleground for an all-out broadband competition war, but Ridgeland, Miss.-based C Spire, a regional cell phone company with fiber broadband aspirations, has gotten too big for its britches and Comcast is preparing to demonstrate its size and resources can run even a home state provider into the ground.

C Spire is building a statewide fiber-to-the-home network, city by city, on its pre-existing fiber backbone which extends to C Spire’s cell towers across the Magnolia State. As the fiber network expands, talk of doing something in a “Mississippi Minute” will be a thing of the past as C Spire prepares to deliver gigabit broadband speeds far in excess of what competitors like Comcast, AT&T and Cable One are prepared to offer.

Communities already on the construction list include: Batesville, Clinton, Corinth, Hattiesburg, Horn Lake, McComb, Quitman, Ridgeland and Starkville.

But C Spire’s network caught the attention of Comcast earlier this month when it announced Jackson, the state capital, was going to get fiber service.

C Spire is following Google Fiber’s model, attempting to get enough residents in a neighborhood to pre-register with a refundable $10 deposit. Online pre-registration for the service began in Jackson last month, and several hundred residents applied even before the fiber network expansion was announced, ready to tell Comcast to take a hike.

Jackson neighborhoods that reach sign-up levels set by C Spire will be the first to get the new generation of fiber services, the company says.

“Gigabit infrastructure can create a new economic reality for the city of Jackson,” Duane O’Neill, president & CEO of the 2,100-member Greater Jackson Chamber Partnership, told the Mississippi Business Journal. “In the handful of U.S. cities where this infrastructure is deployed and widely available, it has generated thousands of jobs, millions of dollars of new investment, boosted home values and improved the overall quality of life.”

c spire fiberC Spire’s plans could cost Comcast a significant number of cable customers across Mississippi, and it isn’t taking that lightly.

Departing from its usual tradition of focusing new technology on large northeastern cities, Comcast will begin saturating Jackson with its Wi-Fi hotspot service, starting with 200 public hotspots slated for launch before the end of this year. The company only had a handful of Wi-Fi hotspots in Jackson before. Jackson will also get significant cable service upgrades, including the introduction of a new “smart home” service, a cloud-based service integrating Comcast’s cable, Internet, and home-security.

Comcast says it has plans to turn Jackson into a “truly connected city,” and if that means competitively disconnecting C Spire from its nascent fiber customer base, all the better.“This is the kind of threat that would frighten competitors,” said industry observer Jeff Kagan. “Comcast can be a heavy-duty competitor when they want to be. So why is Jackson and other Mississippi cities getting this kind of attention from Comcast and C Spire? I think it’s a matter of competition and C Spire’s aggressive move in the state of Mississippi played a role in the Comcast decision to turn up the heat.”

Kagan also expects Comcast will cut prices to undercut C Spire. That would be consistent with Comcast’s customer retention policies that dramatically lower rates for customers threatening to leave. Rate-cutting will benefit consumers, but if Comcast engages in below-cost predatory pricing, those savings will be short-lived.

“It’s starting to look like that old nursery rhyme, Jack and the Beanstalk,” said Kagan. “Watch out Jack, the Giant is waking up.”

If that battle becomes cut-throat, C Spire’s fiber aspirations may end up nothing more than pipe dreams if the company retreats, deciding it cannot survive in a battle with Comcast, the Giant of all cable companies.

YouTube Piles on the Video Ads, Now Ponders Charging Viewers to Get Rid of Them

Phillip Dampier October 28, 2014 Consumer News, Online Video 2 Comments

YouTubeYouTube will earn as much as $6 billion this year from the increasing number of ads that accompany videos on the world’s busiest website. It could earn even more charging consumers a subscription fee to get rid of them.

As online video advertising loads increase, online viewers are growing increasingly intolerant watching 30 second ads just to view a two-minute video. YouTube has at least allowed most of the its ads to be manually skipped by the user after a five second waiting period, but as more and more videos are subjected to the “pre-roll” ad treatment, a growing number of YouTube fans seem prepared to pay a nominal fee never to be bothered with ads again.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki believes there is room for both free, ad-supported videos and a paid subscription, ad-free model and it is contemplating letting YouTube viewers choose between the two.

“We’re early in that process, but if you look at media over time, most of them have both ads and subscription services,” Wojcicki said at the Code/Mobile conference. “YouTube right now is ad-supported, which is great because it has enabled us to scale to a billion users, but there’s going to be a point where people don’t want to see the ads.”

hulu-plusYouTube rival Hulu may have already reached that point. It charges $7.99 a month for Hulu+, its enhanced service, but its online programming still carries a very heavy ad load, now approaching what viewers would see watching their favorite shows over broadcast TV. That advertising has cost Hulu+ a significant number of subscribers unwilling to pay a premium price for online videos littered with commercials.

Hulu showed users an average of 82.3 ads a month, compared with YouTube and other Google-owned sites, which showed an average of 32.3 ads per viewer, according to comScore data from December 2013.

A number of advertising agencies are welcoming a reduction in online advertising. With saturation advertising, viewers have a tendency to tune out the ads or go back to pirating video content. A small number of ads tend to hold viewers’ attention better and most won’t bother trying to skip or ignore a single 15 or 30 second ad.

“After Facebook went public, they had in-stream video and it suffocated the users and they pulled back,” Steve Minichini, chief digital officer at ad agency Assembly, told The Post. “If what we’re hearing is correct — that Hulu is pulling back — I would welcome that.”

Fly the Stupid Skies: American Airlines Grounds Flight Over “Al Quida” Wi-Fi Hotspot

airplane panicAmerican Airlines left passengers stewing for more than three hours on board a flight from LAX to London before finally returning to the gate. The reason? A passenger reported a functioning Wi-Fi hotspot labeled “Al Quida Free Terror Nettwork” and complained to a flight attendant.

Flight 136’s passengers were questioned, the aircraft was torn apart by security and airline cleaning crews, and passengers were eventually handed hotel vouchers to stay overnight after nothing was found and the flight was canceled.

Police admitted no crime was committed and no further action will be taken. It is not illegal to misspell the name of the infamous terror group as your Wi-Fi hotspot, nor is it illegal for a passenger to freak out and report it. But the wisdom of both is open to serious question.

“It must have been somebody on the aircraft,” passenger Elliot del Pra told KABC. “Thank goodness that we did not fly because you just don’t know. It’s very scary to think somebody would actually do that, especially on an international flight.”

But the likelihood of an actual terrorist openly calling attention to his bad grammar and spelling skills and his affiliation with a terror network while surfing the net in first class are slim to none.

“It was a stupid prank and everyone completely overreacted,” a British passenger countered, frustrated after being left on the tarmac for hours only to see his flight home canceled. “It’s clear American Airlines won’t be my next flying choice because common sense eludes them completely.”

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCAL Los Angeles LAX Al Quida WiFi 10-27-14.mp4

Terror on the tarmac? Not quite. KCAL-TV in Los Angeles reports the obvious — someone was pulling a bad prank (and are behind the times) naming their Wi-Fi hotspot after Al Qaeda, long after being eclipsed by ISIS in the headlines. (1:55)

FCC Delays Wireless Spectrum Auction; Hires Investment Banker to Pitch Stations to Sell and Sign-Off

fcc2The Federal Communications Commission announced Friday it will postpone an important spectrum auction until 2016 after broadcasters filed suit against the regulator challenging its proposed format.

The FCC wants your free, over-the-air television dial to be a lot smaller with a deal that will pay broadcasters to sign-off their channels for good to benefit the wireless industry. Remaining stations will be moved to VHF channels 2-13 and UHF channels 14-30. The spectrum covering UHF channels 31-51 would likely then be sold in pieces to major wireless carriers including AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and/or T-Mobile.

To entice broadcasters to voluntarily switch off their transmitters, the FCC has designed a spectrum auction that would provide tens of millions in proceeds to smaller stations and up to $570 million for a UHF station in Los Angeles to get off the air. Technically, stations giving up their channels don’t have to sign-off — they can move to low/lower-powered broadcasting, share channel space with another television station on a digital subchannel, or move to cable television exclusively.

To sell stations on the deal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler hired Greenhill, a Wall Street investment bank, to prepare a presentation sent to every eligible television station in the country, encouraging them to sell their channels for some eye-popping proceeds:

(These numbers refer to full-power stations; in some markets there are also Class A stations, low-power stations that meet certain programming requirements. The estimated value of their spectrum is lower.)

In millions of dollars
MARKET Full-Power Stations
Maximum Median
New York $490 $410
Los Angeles $570 $340
Chicago $130 $120
Philadelphia $400 $230
Dallas-Fort Worth $67 $53
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose $140 $110
Boston $140 $93
Washington, D.C. $140 $130
Atlanta $91 $65
Houston $52 $45
West Palm Beach $100 $93
Providence, R.I. $160 $110
Flint, Mich. $100 $45
Burlington, Vt. $58 $17
Youngstown, Ohio $95 $90
Palm Springs, Calif. $180 $100
Wilkes-Barre-Scranton $150 $140

Source: The FCC

 

getoffThere is so much money to be made buying and selling the public airwaves — at least twice as much as broadcasters originally anticipated– spectrum speculators have also jumped on board, snapping up low power television station construction permits and existing stations with hopes of selling them off the air in return for millions in compensation. Wireless customers are effectively footing the bill for the auction as wireless companies bid for the additional spectrum. Television stations will receive 85% of the proceeds, the FCC will keep 15%.

take the moneyMajor network-affiliated or owned stations in major cities are unlikely to take the deal. But in medium and smaller-sized markets where conglomerates own and operate most television stations, there is a greater chance some will be closed down, moved to a lower channel, or transferred to a digital sub-channel of a co-owned-and-operated station in the same city. The most  likely targets for shutdown will be independent, CW and MyNetworkTV affiliates. In smaller cities, multiple network affiliates owned by one company could be combined, relinquishing one or more channels in return for tens of millions in cash compensation.

In Los Angeles, the stakes are especially high with auction prices estimated at up to $570 million for a high-powered UHF station like KDOC-TV.

“There is some real money to be had,” Bert Ellis, chief executive of Ellis Communications, which owns KDOC-TV, told the Wall Street Journal. “I think every broadcaster should take a very close look at this.”

Estimates show at least 80 significant U.S. cities will likely lose one or more channels, especially when the bid price well exceeds the value of an independent, ethnic or religious station. Many of these will go dark, move to cable or a less desirable lower power VHF channel, or sign an agreement with a remaining station to carry its programming on a sub-channel.

The National Association of Broadcasters filed suit against the FCC’s auction in August. The NAB wants the FCC to guarantee that stations that wish to stay on the air will not have their coverage area reduced or forced to pay to move to a new channel number assigned by the FCC as the regulator “repacks” a much smaller UHF band.

“We’ve said from day one, if stations want to volunteer to go out of business, that’s their prerogative. But for those stations that choose to remain in business, they should be held harmless,” NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said.

The spectrum auction is designed to address the wireless industry’s claim of a spectrum crisis, warning that if more frequencies are not found, wireless users will eventually see their service degraded.

Rogers Snaps Up Another Independent Cable Company; Hamilton-based Source Cable

source-cableRogers Communications will acquire Hamilton, Ont.-area independent Source Cable in a quiet $160-million deal.

The transaction was first noticed in Rogers’ quarterly financial report to shareholders, noting that Source Cable provides cable, broadband, and phone service to only a part of the city of Hamilton. Rogers already provides service next to Source Cable’s service area so a transition to Rogers should pose few issues for eastern Canada’s biggest cable operator. The rest of greater Hamilton will continue to be served by Cogeco and Rogers in their respective service areas.

“We’re really excited about purchasing Source Cable,” said Kevin Spafford, Rogers Communications spokesperson. “We view this acquisition as a growth opportunity because the company is well run; the footprint is adjacent to our existing cable systems; they have really good penetration of cable TV and Internet services, and there is potential for new customers as the unbuilt part of the area develops.”

Subscribers are less enthusiastic.

The cable company has always been responsive to its customers and willing to pioneer new technology before larger providers like Rogers.

Source Cable customers may win some extra ethnic language programming now seen on Rogers, but will likely experience a major downgrade in how they deal with their cable provider. Source customers will eventually be exposed to Rogers’ much lower-rated customer service. Broadband customers are also likely to lose their unlimited Internet service, forced to select from Rogers’ usage-capped plans.

Source Cable was started by former city alderman Jim Campbell in 1974. Campbell died two years ago.

Source Cable's service coverage area is limited to a number of blocks in parts of Hamilton, Ont.

Source Cable’s service coverage area is limited to a number of blocks in parts of Hamilton, Ont.

 

Tesco Grocery Chain Offers 16Mbps Broadband to UK Residents Free for a Year (After Line Rental)

Phillip Dampier October 27, 2014 Broadband Speed, Competition, Consumer News, Tesco (UK) No Comments

tesco broadbandOne of the largest grocery chains in the United Kingdom is giving away free unlimited 16Mbps broadband for a year, including a free wireless router, as long as customers cover the usual monthly line rental fees.

The service is offered without a voice dialing plan, which means customers will pay for any voice minutes they use, except when those calls are to or from Tesco Homephone customers. Internet customers also receive a free year of Tesco Internet Security and UK-based phone support. The optional phone service also includes Caller ID, Caller ID blocking, and Directory Inquiries.

In fact, Tesco’s offer will actually be a money-maker for customers who already have home phone service because Tesco also includes Clubcard points on every bill, which can be redeemed on purchases made at the chain.

After 12 months, the price reverts to Tesco’s current standard offering: 16Mbps for $9.68 a month.

Tesco’s line rental charge, required on all landlines and DSL service costs $24.83 a month.

In comparison, CenturyLink charges $39.95 a month for 10Mbps service for a year before the price increases. But customers will pay considerably more than that, as that price does not include taxes, fees, and surcharges, including a Carrier Universal Service charge, National Access Fee surcharge, a one-time, High-Speed Internet activation fee, and state and local fees that vary by area and certain in-state surcharges. A monthly modem rental fee also applies.

 

Sprint Realizes Not Everyone Wants a $200 Cell Phone Bill: Announces $20, 1GB Family Data Plan

budgetIf your family budget cannot handle a $200 monthly cell phone bill from AT&T or Verizon and you can keep your data usage to around 1GB, Sprint has a deal for you.

On Wednesday, Sprint unveiled a low-end family data plan offering 1GB of data for $20 a month, an improvement over the 600MB data option Sprint used to offer. It’s also a better deal than the 500MB $20 buys you on Verizon’s network or the piddling 300MB AT&T delivers on its budget plan.

“This entry-level sharable data allowance reinforces Sprint’s commitment to offering customers the best value in wireless,” said Marcelo Claure, Sprint CEO. “We’re offering customers a choice – whether they need a small amount of data or are a high-end data user.”

Customers can build their own plan in three steps. First, choose the shared data allowance. For 1GB, it’s $20 per month for up to 10 lines. Second, add data access for phones with unlimited talk and text while on the Sprint network. The data access charge for non-discounted phones is $25 per month per line for 1GB through 16GB. Third, add your tablet devices for $10 per month per line and mobile broadband devices for $20 per month per line. There is no early termination fee and no annual service contract with non-discounted phones.

In addition, when customers switch their number to Sprint, a family with up to 10 lines can get 20GB of shared data and unlimited talk and text for only $100 a month through 2015.

This chart reflects a 2GB shared data plan for two lines that amounts to $75 a month before taxes, fees and surcharges.

This chart reflects a 2GB shared data plan for two lines that amounts to $75 a month before taxes, fees and surcharges.

Since wireless carriers discovered reports of a spectrum crisis were vastly exaggerated, they have fallen all over each other with “double your data” promotions and other allowance boosters. Sprint’s family plans allow customers to divide up an inexpensive data plan across all phones on the account. If you spend most of your time on Wi-Fi or share an account with parents or grandparents not accustomed to using much data, Sprint’s plan may deliver enough data to satisfy.

Sprint has hemorrhaged its high-end customers for several quarters, mostly because its 3G data service is barely usable and its new 4G LTE network has rolled out at the typical speed of a glacier and its performance has not always impressed. Sprint has cut prices and is trying to find a stable niche among budget-conscious postpaid customers unwilling to pay AT&T and Verizon’s asking price but are willing to tolerate reduced coverage in favor of a better price. Sprint and T-Mobile are both competing for these customers. Verizon says it cannot be bothered being seen as a discount carrier, and AT&T is committed to keeping its average revenue per customer numbers growing.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • vzappeal ebook: Attractive portion of content. I simply stumbled upon your blog and in accession capital tto say that I acquiree actually loved accoint your blog po...
  • William: I seem to be in the same situation. These are a few of the points I demand a solution to. Many of my clients have been paying for DSL Max though t...
  • finest food: Wonderful site you have here but I was wondering if you knew of any discussion boards that cover the same topics discussed in this article? I'd real...
  • diet pills work: Very good blog you have here but I was curious about if you knew of any message boards that cover the same topics talked about here? I'd really love ...
  • body boost: Hello, this weekend is good in favor of me, because this point in time i am reading this fantastic educational article here at my house....
  • Michael: I had U300 & 24mpgs (Max Turbo) internet. I called - spoke to a nice lady, who tried to rebundle me with a home line - not interested. I was alrea...
  • Kate: My 2 year contract expired in September and the bill jumped $50.00 for a bundle of voice, internet, and tv. I compared packages with competitors f...
  • AC: I have this distinct feeling that nothing will change since they pretty much never lift a finger and the revolving door bureaucracy will keep milking ...
  • Jim Livermore: I don't watch enough on YouTube to really notice, but the option to pay for an ad-free experience would be nice. I have noticed Hulu+ is lowering the ...
  • Rob: Interesting that big cable's response has absolutely nothing to do with the internet speed C Spire's Fiber to the Home is bringing to Mississippians. ...
  • C: It's about time they do something about this problem. I've been an AT&T customer for 10yrs and this month was the first time I went over the 5gb a...
  • d0764: I would actually be ok with paying $5 a month to get rid of the ads. As long as the only thing that goes are the ads with the subscription. The rest b...

Your Account: