Wireless Industry: We’re running out of spectrum!
Wireless Industry: We’ve got plenty to room for unlimited ESPN!

America is on the verge of a wireless traffic data jam so bad, it could bring America to its knees.

Or not.

Stop the Cap! notices with some interest that while wireless carriers continue to sound the alarm about a spectrum crisis so serious it necessitates further compressing the UHF television dial and forces other spectrum users to become closer neighbors, the same giant phone companies warning of impending doom are negotiating with online video producers to offer customers “toll-free,” all-you-cat-eat streaming video of major sports events that won’t count against your usage allowance.

ESPN is in talks with at least one major carrier (AT&T or Verizon Wireless) to subsidize some of the costs of its streamed video content so that customers can watch as much as they want without running into a provider’s usage limit. Both Verizon and AT&T have signaled their interest in allowing content producers to pay for subscribers’ data usage. In fact, they don’t seem to care who pays for the enormous bandwidth consumed by streaming video, so long as someone does.

At a recent investment bank conference Verizon Wireless chief executive Dan Mead explained the next chapter in monetizing data usage will allow the company to rake in more revenue from third parties instead of customers already struggling with high wireless bills.

“We are actively exploring those opportunities and looking at every way to bring value to our customers,” said Mead.

Content producers are increasingly frustrated with the stingy caps on offer at AT&T and Verizon Wireless because customers stop accessing that content once they near their monthly usage limit. One large provider admitted to ESPN that “significant numbers” of customers are already reaching their cap before the end of their billing cycle, after which their online usage plummets to limit the sting of overlimit charges.

Offering “toll-free” data could dramatically increase the use of high bandwidth applications and increase profits at wireless providers based on new fees they could collect from content producers. Customers would still be subject to usage limits for all non-preferred content, a clear violation of Net Neutrality principles.

The buffet is open.

But in case you forgot, wireless carriers won exemption from Net Neutrality, arguing their networks lack the capacity to sustain a Net Neutral Internet experience. These same companies claim without more frequencies to handle the massive, potentially unsustainable amount of wireless traffic, the wireless data apocalypse could be at hand in just a few years. It was also the most-cited reason AT&T and Verizon discontinued their unlimited use data plans.

But unlimiting ESPN video? No problem.

In January 2010, Verizon Wireless was singing a very different tune to the FCC about the need to control and manage high bandwidth applications like the “toll-free” streaming video service ESPN proposes (underlining ours):

Wireless broadband services face technological and operational constraints arising from the need to manage spectrum sharing by a dynamically varying number of mobile users at any time. Thus, unlike, for example, cable broadband networks, where a known and relatively fixed number of subscribers share capacity in a given area, the capacity demand at any given cell site is much more variable as the number and mix of subscribers constantly change in sometimes highly unpredictable ways.

Are wireless carriers now part of the problem?

For example, as a subscriber using a high-bandwidth application such as streaming video moves from range of one cell site to another, the network must immediately provide the needed capacity for that subscriber, while not disrupting other subscribers using that same cell site. Of course, the problem is magnified many times over as multiple subscribers can be moving in and out of range of a cell site at any given moment. Moreover, the available bandwidth can fluctuate due to variations in radio frequency signal strength and quality, which can be affected by changing factors such as weather, traffic, speed, and the nearby presence of interfering devices (e.g., wireless microphones).

These problems compound those resulting from limited spectrum. As the Commission has repeatedly recognized in proclaiming an upcoming spectrum crisis, “as wireless is increasingly used as a platform for broadband communications services, the demand for spectrum bandwidth will likely continue to increase significantly, and spectrum availability may become critical to ensuring further innovation.”

A wireless carrier cannot readily increase capacity once it has exhausted its spectrum capacity. Thus, wireless broadband providers are left to acquire additional spectrum (to the extent available) or take measures that use their existing spectrum as efficiently as possible, which they do through a combination of investing in additional cell sites and network management practices that optimize network usage and address congestion so as to provide consumers with the quality of service they expect.

Regulators need to ask why wireless companies are telling the FCC there is a bandwidth crisis of epic proportions that requires the Commission to exempt them from important Net Neutrality principles while telling investment banks, shareholders and content producers the more traffic the merrier, as long as someone pays. Customers also might ask why their unlimited use data plans were discontinued while carriers seek deals to allow unlimited viewing with their preferred content partners.

What is the real motivation? The Wall Street Journal suggests one:

“Creating a second revenue stream for mobile broadband is the holy grail for wireless operators but collecting fees from content companies would probably make the FCC take a close look into the policy implications,” said Paul Gallant, managing director at Guggenheim Securities. An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

The Wall Street Journal takes a closer look at a plan to manage an end run around Net Neutrality by allowing preferred content partners to offer streaming video services exempt from your usage cap. (4 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. What Spectrum Crisis: Verizon Wireless Tries to Monetize Video Usage With New App
2. Bulldozing Wireless Net Neutrality: Carriers Want “Toll-Free” Data for Their Partners
3. Proof Verizon’s Banishment of ‘Unlimited Data’ is a Money Grab, Not a Capacity Concern
4. AT&T’s Internet Overcharging Merry-go-Round — Billing App Makers for Your ‘Overusage’
5. AT&T’s ‘Data Tsunami’: Upselling Customers for Higher Profits During Spectrum ‘Crisis’

The German Internet is functionally broken.

Deutsche Telekom, the largest telecommunications company in Germany, has announced it will introduce a brazen Internet Overcharging scheme for customers signing up for its broadband DSL service, including a throttle that reduces speeds to just 384kbps after as little as 75GB of monthly broadband usage.

For now, only new Telekom Deutschland customers signing up after May 1 will be affected by the usage limits. Customers will be offered the option of upgrading their Call & Surf package to get a larger usage allowance, although many parts of Germany are still reliant on DSL and its variants that cannot deliver the advertised speeds that go with the larger allowances:

• Up to 16Mbps: 75GB per month
• Up to 50Mbps: 200GB per month
• Up to 100Mbps: 300GB per month
• Up to 200Mbps: 400GB per month

“We want to offer customers the best network in the future and we will continue to invest billions to make that happen,” said Michael Hagspihl, marketing director of Telekom Deutschland. “However we cannot continue to sustain higher usage demand while lowering our prices. Customers with very high data volumes will have to pay more in the future.”

Company officials argue German broadband usage demands are accelerating at an ever-increasing rate, putting strain on the company’s network resources.

But critics question if usage demands are the root of the problem, why is DT exempting itself and its “preferred partners” from the data cap, including certain services that offer very high bandwidth video?

The Net Neutrality activist group Netzpolitik.org says DT is “massively violating Net Neutrality while the federal government looks away dreaming that the free market will solve the problem somehow.”

The group points out DT has admitted the speed throttle only applies to content providers who have not partnered up with the German telecom giant.

DT is exempting all of its own in-house content providers, the private television service Entertain, and telephone services (when provided by DT). For everyone else: the speed throttle gets closer the more customers use services like Apple iTunes or Amazon’s Lovefilm service. But DT says those companies can also get special treatment for the right price.

DT’s preferred partner cooperating agreements let “high quality content producers” pay for a managed services contract that guarantees exemption from the speed throttle and prioritization of their traffic on DT’s network, even if it means slowing down non-preferred partner content.

A parody future offer from DT.

“You cannot thumb your nose at Net Neutrality principles any better if you tried,” said Rene Pedersen, an Internet activist in Köln. “DT will have their emasculated two-tier Internet and all of Germany will have to suffer the consequences. Their own arguments do not even make sense. If there is a capacity crisis, how can they exempt some video providers that now consume the most network resources?”

“Until a few years ago, providers – just like the post – were just deliverers of packages,” said Netzpolitik’s Andre Masters. “This principle is called Net Neutrality – the equal treatment of data packets on the Internet, regardless of sender, recipient, or content. Now providers want to have a direct influence on the content sent, because they want to earn more money.”

Technology publisher Heise Online says the new usage restricting tariff has “triggered a veritable sh**storm” among net users who consider a 75GB usage limit untenable, particularly for families with multiple Internet users.

Heise is also critical of claims DT has made in the press that suggests German Internet users must either accept the usage caps or understand the company will have to spend at least €80 billion ($108 billion) to build a national fiber network to manage growing traffic.

In contrast, Goldman Sachs last year estimated the cost of wiring every home in the United States with Google Fiber would cost $140 billion, a number now considered inflated. Verizon FiOS managed to get costs down for its own fiber network to a level that suggests Google would only need around $90 billion — $10 billion more than DT claims it needs.

“DT is being disingenuous when they suggest it will cost €80 billion to solve their capacity problem. For that amount every household in Germany would get their own fiber cable with 200Mbps speeds or more,” Heise writes in their editorial. “To avoid slowing users down with a speed throttle, only a small fraction of this amount is needed to extend the Internet backbone and peering agreements between providers. For years network traffic has grown exponentially and DT has kept up with demand. So why does DT suddenly need to reshuffle the cards now?”

DT has also received criticism for how it has depicted its heavy users — mostly as content thieves and software pirates using file swapping networks to steal copyrighted works. But instead of dealing with copyright violations, DT wants a sweeping usage cap system that punishes every customer that wants to use their broadband connection.

“Customers are not insatiable Gierschlünde who want everything for free,” writes Heise. “They already pay a lot of money to Telekom: 12.5 million DSL customers roughly translates into around a half billion euros in sales per month.”

Back to the future.

The German news magazine Spiegel writes DT’s usage limits strangle the Internet for millions of Germans, especially for competing video providers:

When throttled, customers will need more than 23 hours to watch a DVD-quality movie. At Blu-ray resolution, it will take about two weeks to watch just one film.

[...] The implications of the end of Net Neutrality in Germany represents a form of economic censorship, and German politicians are standing by to watch it happen.

The federal government sees the Internet as a political bargaining chip and not as the social, cultural and economic tool it represents. The government acts in the interests of certain lobbyists, not Germany’s digital future. This allows German telecommunications companies to focus on their economic self-interests without government policies that demand investment in digital infrastructure.

A number of German Internet users are expected to switch to a cable provider, where available, to escape DT’s impending speed caps.

According to the Frankfurter Rundschau, many German cable companies also reserve the right to limit speeds for customers. But in practice, most don’t impose limits until traffic exceeds 60GB daily, and the speed cap is lifted the next day. A cable industry official says its cap currently impacts about 0.1 percent of customers, almost all who use peer-to-peer file swapping networks. Exempt from measurements that bring customers closer to a speed cap: web browsing, video streaming, and video-on-demand.

For now, Germany’s cable operators facing the same traffic growth DT speaks about find no need to impose further limits, stating their networks are handling the traffic with network upgrades as a normal course of business.

“It calls out DT’s claims as fraudulent, because cable Internet users visit the same websites and do the same things DT’s customers do and there only seems to be an ‘urgent’ problem in need of a speed throttle solution on BT’s network,” says Pedersen. “What needs to be throttled are the financial expectations of DT management and shareholders. The Internet is not their personal vault waiting to be plundered.”

What if Net Neutrality did not exist?  [Subtitled] (1 minute)

Other stories of interest:

1. All You Can Eat: New Zealand ISP Reintroduces Unlimited Usage Internet Service
2. CNN Mistakes Internet Overcharging for Net Neutrality
3. AT&T’s New Speed Throttle Being Used as Talking Point for Merger With T-Mobile
4. New Evidence Suggests Comcast Prioritizing Its Own Streamed Content; Usage Cap Must Go
5. Netflix Finally Wakes Up to Net Neutrality, Internet Overcharging Threat

This looks good enough for us, says the American Cable Association

A lobbying group for small cable operators says the nation’s current broadband availability maps are flawed, but good enough for the FCC to rely on to veto funding for rural broadband projects that might compete with some of their members.

The American Cable Association submitted its comments to the FCC as part of discussions about the next phase of broadband subsidy funding from the Connect America Fund.

Most current broadband maps rely heavily on unverified data voluntarily submitted by existing broadband providers or by third-party groups that are funded or controlled by some of the nation’s largest phone companies. Both have a vested interest painting an optimistic map of solid broadband coverage as a tool in the ongoing public policy fight pitting broadband advocates clamoring for better access and speed against the cable and phone companies that offer the service.

ACA members are concerned that the government might subsidize new broadband start-ups that could eventually compete against existing cable companies. The group calls such “overbuilders” redundant and wasteful.

“The FCC should protect the public by ensuring that broadband deployment subsidies do not result in significant government-supported overbuilding, which would cause real harm to cable operators that have invested only private capital,” ACA President and CEO Matthew M. Polka said. “It would also mean that locations across the country that need support will not receive broadband because the program would not have additional funding.”

Don’t Surprise Us With Doubling the Minimum Speed Requirement When We Thought 3Mbps Service Was Good Enough

ACA member cable operators assumed they would be safe from the government-funded overbuilders if they provided at least 3Mbps broadband, but now the FCC is exploring doubling the minimum speed to 6Mbps, which threatens a number of smaller cable operators that have avoided upgrades to increase speeds.

Polka

“This is a huge burden on a smaller operator.  These operators assumed when they filed data through the State Broadband Initiatives (SBIs) in June, 2012, providing service with speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps service was enough to protect them,” Polka said.

The ACA also wants the agency to initially reject applicants for broadband funding if current broadband map data shows another provider operating in the area, even if that provider’s volunteered service coverage maps are exaggerated.

“The Commission should presume the National Broadband Map (“NBM”) is accurate and rely upon it in identifying eligible areas for Phase II support, even though it is a work in progress and contains inaccuracies. The reasons for this conclusion are many.

First, the NBM is the most accurate and most granular representation of national broadband deployment that currently exists. Second, the federal government has already made a significant investment in the NBM, is seeking to further perfect its data, and clearly intends for it to be a key tool upon which to base its policies.

The group also warned that if the FCC does not rely on its inaccurate map, providers might be hesitant to voluntarily supply more coverage data in the future.

Prove That We Don’t Already Provide Service If Your Broadband Operation Wants Funding

The ACA’s comments also urge the FCC to require would-be new broadband providers to have the burden of proof that a cable operator does not already offer service in an area before they can qualify for Connect America funding. How? By calling the cable company pretending to be a new customer and seeing if they can schedule an installation at each particular home a provider plans to serve.

“In the normal course of business to attract customers, small cable operators post their service areas and broadband service offerings,” writes the ACA. “All a [new entrant] needs to do is survey the operator’s website and advertisements and, if necessary, call customer service. In contrast, it would be a much greater hardship for small cable operators, who lack regulatory staff and have already made the effort to be designated on the [map], to bear the initial burden and start from the beginning to submit documents to ensure they are on the map.”

In short, the ACA wants the FCC to assume their cable operator members cover an area until proven otherwise.

“It would be far less burdensome for the [new entrant] to challenge [allegedly inaccurate coverage map data] first, in which instance only those operators who are challenged would need to reaffirm their presence,” writes the ACA.

Because We Are Cable Operators Running the “Robust DOCSIS Platform,” It Means We Already Provide Great Service

The ACA also called on the FCC to give cable operators a free pass from demonstrating they can meet the Commission’s quality of service standards regarding latency and the responsiveness of the customer’s broadband connection.

“For cable operators, the Commission should presume that because they employ the robust DOCSIS platform they meet the latency requirement,” the ACA wrote.

Committing to study and oversee the quality of cable broadband is also a really bad idea according to the cable lobbying group.

“Further exploration of a cable system’s latency performance without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary would be unproductive for the Commission in carrying out its public interest mandate and for cable operators,” the ACA argued.

Don’t Tell Us What We Can Charge and What Usage Limits We Can Impose; That Should Be Reserved for Wall Street and Our Investors

The ACA is also concerned that the FCC might consider the price consumers pay for rural broadband and what usage limits rural cable operators impose when deciding whether it is time to help fund the launch of a competing provider.

Captive rural customers can pay the same or higher prices for much slower broadband service than urban Americans pay, but the ACA advocates the FCC look the other way and avoid making any such comparisons:

“[...] There are many reasons for the Commission to refrain from establishing (even minimal) comparable rates and terms of service for the provision of broadband service by cable operators to be deemed as “serving” an area.

First, the Commission should recognize that cable operators as a rule build their networks and provide broadband service with no government support, only using private capital and based on a business case enabling them to receive a market return on that investment.

Any effort by the government to impose price or usage allowances – that is regulate the service – has great potential to lower that return and slow rural broadband deployment. With universal service funding limited, this would lessen the ability for the Commission to achieve its objective of bringing broadband to unserved areas.

Further, it would be almost impossible to establish a reasonably comparable rate and terms of service because, at least for cable operators, these change so often and are usually offered in bundles with other services. Most cable customers subscribe to either or both a package of services and some sort of promotional offering. Further, bundles are far from homogeneous and operators change frequently. All of this makes it virtually impossible to have valid urban-rural comparisons.

[...] Finally, if it were to establish a comparable rate and terms of service for broadband, the Commission would be acting in an area where it clearly lacks authority.

ACA past chairman Ben Hooks, CEO of Buford Media and operator of cable systems under the Alliance Communications brand, appeared on MSNBC to rail against federal cable broadband regulations and oversight requirements. Hooks operates several small cable systems in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama that are throwbacks to a much earlier era of cable. Many offer just a few dozen channels and deliver no broadband or cable phone service.

Hooks is upset because the federal government wants to help fund new start-up broadband providers in his backyard. He thinks this is unfair, because his cable operations, run with largely refurbished, cast-off cable equipment discarded years ago by larger cable operators, is funded with private capital and may have to compete with new providers partly funded by the Connect America Fund. In the middle of the dispute are rural Americans who cannot get broadband from Alliance Communications and would be prevented from getting it from anyone else if Hooks has his way.  (6 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. Kyle McSlarrow’s Wonderful World of Broadband – The Broadband Glass is 95 Percent Full, Cable Lobby Says
2. Cable Lobby Pays for Research Report That Miraculously Agrees With Them on Rural Broadband Reforms
3. Chief Cable Lobby Group Explores Dropping “Cable” from Its Name
4. Broadband Maptastrophe; FCC Ignores Its Own 4/1Mbps Standard, Relies On Faulty Map Data
5. Telecom Company-Influenced Broadband Availability Map Hurts Mississippi Broadband Expansion

Data caps protect incumbent big studio and network content creators at the expense of independent producers and others challenging conventional entertainment business models.

That was the conclusion of several writers and producers at a communications policy forum hosted by Public Knowledge, a consumer group fighting for an open Internet.

A representative from the Writers Guild of America West noted that cord-cutting paid cable TV service has become real and measurable because consumers have a robust online viewing alternative for the first time. John Vezina, the Guild’s political director, noted how Americans watch television is transitioning towards on-demand viewing.

New types of short-form programming and commissioned series for online content providers like Netflix are also changing the video entertainment model.

Welch: It is about the money.

But a digital roadblock erected by some of the nation’s largest broadband providers is interfering with that viewing shift: the data cap.

Data caps place artificial limits on how much a customer can use their Internet connection without either being shut off or finding overlimit fees attached to their monthly bill. Critics contend usage caps and consumption billing discourage online viewing — one of the most bandwidth intensive applications on the Internet. With broadband providers like Time Warner Cable, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast also in the business of selling television packages, cord-cutting can directly impact providers’ bottom lines.

Providers have traditionally claimed that usage limits are about preserving network resources and fairness to other customers. But Time Warner Cable admits they exist as a money-making scheme.

Rachel Welch, vice president of federal legislative affairs at Time Warner Cable, says the cable company is not worried about limiting data consumption. It considers monetizing that consumption more important.

“We want our customers to buy as much of the product as possible,” Welch told PC World. “The goal of companies is to make money.”

Time Warner now offers customers a choice of unlimited service or a $5 discount if customers keep their monthly usage under 5GB, but some worry that is only a prelude to introducing expanded usage limits on a larger number of customers in the future.

For many consumers already hard-pressed by high broadband bills, worrying about exceeding a data allowance and paying even more may keep viewers from watching too much content online.

For that reason, Vezina called data caps “anti-innovation.”

“It hurts consumers [and] it hurts creators who want to get as much out to the public in as many ways” as possible, he said.

Public Knowledge has become increasingly critical of data caps in the last two years. The organization has questioned how ISP’s decide what constitutes a ‘fair’ usage limit and criticized inaccurate usage meters that could potentially trigger penalties and overlimit fees.

Another ISP Limbo Dance. How low can they go?

Telus, western Canada’s largest phone company, has announced it is slashing usage allowances as much as half and raising prices up to $8 a month on broadband packages, eight months after last summer’s $3 rate hike.

A sample:

• Internet 6 was $37, now $45. Usage cap reduced to 100GB, was 150GB.
• Internet 15 was $42, now $50. Usage cap reduced to 150GB, was 250GB.
• Internet 25 was $52 now $60. Usage cap reduced to 250GB, was 500GB.
• Internet 50 was $75 now $80.

A Telus spokesperson explained the reasons for the rate increases and allowance slashing:

It is only fair for customers to pay for the amount of bandwidth they use and be on a plan that realistically reflects their usage patterns; otherwise, moderate users end up subsidizing heavy users. Even with the change TELUS has some of the most generous usage caps in comparison to many other ISP’s. Most customers use only a fraction of the allotted threshold. Usage limits are put into place so that the small percentage of high usage customers to not impact the internet experience for other users on the network. We currently do not charge for over usage, but the thresholds allow us to ensure that customers are on an appropriate plan for them.

The rate increase is in response to rising costs in providing and maintaining the network. Since 2000, TELUS has invested more than $30 billion in infrastructure across Canada to provide our customers with some of the best communications technology anywhere in the world. These increases affect all clients, from TELUS employees to brand new sign-ups. All the pricing has been adjusted to the higher rate. In terms of price and quality TELUS Internet is very competitive versus our competitors. In most cases, TELUS services will still be less expensive than similar offerings from our competitors.

Most existing clients have already had the benefit of a promotion on sign-up. As with all promotions, including the current new client promotions, they run for a limited time and the discounts they offer expire. We do have loyalty programs in place for existing loyal clients and we do offer existing clients the new promotions in cases where they may not have received anything when they signed up.

Customers are outraged about the changes, particularly because Telus has been raising prices twice a year since 2011. The new rate plans are now comparable to Telus’ largest competitor, Shaw Cable.

Telus has not traditionally enforced usage cap violations on their network, nor have they imposed overlimit fees. But a customer service representative said “Telus can suspend allowance violators for 30 days for repeated violations.”

In North America, virtually every major ISP has watched bandwidth costs decline as connectivity continues to get cheaper. But that does not stop some providers from raising prices and slashing usage limits on a service most Canadians find they cannot live without.

Other stories of interest:

1. Telus Raises Usage Allowances and Speeds; Anti-Usage Billing Movement Scores Victory
2. Canada’s Usage Based Billing Raises Prices for Consumer Broadband to New Highs
3. Western Canada’s Internet Overcharging Two-Step: Shaw and Telus Plan to Gouge You
4. Comcast Raising Prices… Again, But Their Usage Cap Remains Firmly In Place; 3.5 Percent Increase For Many
5. Silver and Gold: Wringing Customers Dry With Bell Holiday Rate Hikes & Higher Penalties

A new report critical of broadband providers’ implementation of usage-based billing and data caps finds providers are not using them to handle traffic congestion, instead implementing them to monetize broadband usage and protect pay television from online video competition.

The New America Foundation and the Open Technology Institute today released its report, “Capping the Nation’s Broadband Future?,” which takes a hard look at the increasingly common practice of limiting subscribers’ broadband usage.

The paper finds that provider arguments for limiting broadband traffic don’t make sense, but do earn more dollars from customers forced to upgrade their service to win a larger monthly usage allowance.

“Although traffic on U.S. broadband networks is increasing at a steady rate, the costs to provide broadband service are also declining, including the cost of Internet connectivity or IP transit as well as equipment and other operational costs,” the reports argues. “The result is that broadband is an incredibly profitable business, particularly for cable ISPs. Tiered pricing and data caps have also become a cash cow for the two largest mobile providers, Verizon and AT&T, who already were making impressive margins on their mobile data service before abandoning unlimited plans.”

The study finds providers are attempting to invent a climate of broadband scarcity, particularly on the nation’s wired networks, to defend the introduction of various forms of Internet Overcharging, including data caps, usage-based billing, and overlimit fees.

The New America Foundation is calling on policymakers to take a more active role in defending online innovation and controlling provider zeal to cap the nation’s broadband future.

The False Argument of Network Congestion

Providers’ tall tales.

The most common defense for usage caps providers put forward is that they curb “excessive use” and impact almost none of their customers. The report points out many of the providers implementing usage caps have left them largely unchanged, despite ongoing usage growth patterns. In 2008, the report notes Comcast measured the average monthly usage of each broadband customer at around 2.5GB. Just four years later that number has quadrupled to 8-10GB. While many customers rely on Comcast’s broadband service for basic e-mail and web browsing, the cable operator has begun to entice customers into utilizing its online video platform, which in certain cases can dramatically eat into a customer’s monthly usage allowance, which remained unchanged until earlier this year.

Many broadband providers are less generous than Comcast, some imposing caps as low as 5GB of usage per month.

“Data caps encourage a climate of scarcity in an increasingly data-driven world,” the report concludes. “Broadband appears to be one of few industries that seek to discourage their customers from consuming more of their product. Thus, even as the economic and engineering rationale for data caps on wireline broadband does not hold up given the declining costs of providing service and rapid technological advancement, the proliferation of data caps is increasing. The trend is driven in large part by a woefully uncompetitive market that allows the nation’s largest providers to generate enormous profits as well as protect legacy business models from new services and innovators.”

The argument that increased usage puts an undeniable burden on providers is untenable when one examines the financial reports of providers.

The study found, for example, Time Warner Cable’s latest 10-K report shows that connectivity costs as a percentage of revenue have decreased by half, from an already modest 1.20% in 2008 to a little over 0.60% in 2011.

In 2012, the company is again exploring ways to introduce usage caps on at least some of its customers, in return for a modest discount.

Upgrade? Spend Less and Charge Customers More Instead!

The report notes cable companies like Time Warner Cable and Comcast, whose networks were originally built for television services and have now been repurposed for broadband as well, are enjoying lucrative profits on
networks that have long been paid off. In fact, Time Warner Cable recently disclosed it earns more than 95 percent in gross margins on its broadband service, with additional rate increases for consumers likely in the near future. The company recently began charging its customers a modem rental fee as well.

Shammo

At these margins, the report concludes selling broadband service to “data hogs” who consume hundreds of gigabytes of traffic per month are still profitable for providers.

As financial reports disclose capital spending on network upgrades continue to fall, operators are instead content imposing usage limits on customers to control traffic growth and further monetize an already enormously-profitable business.

The nation’s largest phone companies also come in for criticism. The report quotes from Stop the Cap!’s coverage of Verizon’s chief financial officer openly admitting it is investing most of its available capital in the highly profitable wireless sector.

“It is clear that in shifting a greater percent of their overall capital expenditures to their wireless segments, Verizon and AT&T are more interested in expanding their dominance in the wireless industry than they are in upgrading DSL or expanding fiber connectivity to provide aggressive competition for residential broadband service,” the report found.

Verizon’s chief financial officer recently made the following statement at an investor relations event:

“The fact of the matter is wireline capital — and I won’t give the number but it’s pretty substantial — is being spent on the wireline side of the house to support wireless growth,” [Verizon CFO Fran Shammo] said. “So the IP backbone, the data transmission, fiber to the cell, that is all on the wireline books but it‖s all being built for the wireless company.”

Wall Street Educates Providers on How to Lead the Way With Data Caps

Although the majority of subscribers loathe usage restrictions on their already-expensive broadband accounts, a vocal group on Wall Street strongly favors them, and routinely browbeats providers on the issue.

Helping educate cable companies how usage caps can protect against cord cutting and further monetize broadband.

The report’s authors discovered some Wall Street banks even invest time and money developing presentations advocating usage caps and consumption billing to protect video revenue. A 2011 Credit Suisse presentation outlined ways usage-based billing can protect cable operators’ video revenues:

“…over the longer term, consumption based billing could reduce the attractiveness of over the top video options (e.g., Netflix and Hulu), as the economic attractiveness of such over the top options could be partially offset by a [broadband] bill that is higher, due to [broadband] overage charges that would be driven by large amounts of data being streamed via a customer’s [broadband] connection.”

Yet most cable operators vehemently deny usage caps and consumption billing are designed to decrease usage or protect video revenue. Credit Suisse and other Wall Street banks and analysts say otherwise, and express little concern over network congestion.

The report finds compelling evidence that data caps have effectively stopped new competitors and online innovation already, noting a Sony executive stated that the company was putting the development of its own online video service on hold, citing Comcast’s monthly usage cap.

The Wireless Cap Shell Game: Caps Protect Scarce Airwaves While Companies Promote More Usage, For a Price

The report also found suggestions of a forthcoming wireless traffic tsunami are greatly exaggerated. AT&T and Verizon Wireless have issued repeated alarmist rhetoric claiming that wireless data’s exponential growth is threatening to overwhelm available network capacity.

But both carriers recently changed pricing models to encourage consumers to bring more devices to their networks, along with suggestions customers upgrade to higher allowance plans to handle the additional traffic generated by those devices. In fact, both AT&T and Verizon Wireless see profitable futures in forthcoming “machine to machine” wireless traffic that will allow cars, appliances and medical devices to communicate over their respective mobile networks. AT&T’s security and home automation system also relies on its own wireless network, offering customers remote access to their homes, chewing up wireless bandwidth as they go.

Despite suggestions from both providers their new wireless data plans would save customers money, it has brought overall increases in the average revenue earned from each subscriber instead.

Other stories of interest:

1. Justice Department Launches Antitrust Investigation Into Data Caps
2. Internet Overcharging Gravy Train: Average Home Wi-Fi Use to Exceed 440GB By 2015
3. Bright House Says No to Internet Overcharging: No Caps – Not Even Under Consideration
4. Netflix: “Cost of Providing 1GB of Data is Less Than One Cent, and Falling”
5. What Spectrum Crunch? Rogers Caps Your Data Usage But Plans Unlimited LTE Video-on-Demand

Apple’s iPhone 5 Wi-Fi bug is showing up on several wireless networks.

Wireless companies with usage caps are in the money — your money — if you happen to own Apple’s iPhone 5. A serious bug afflicting the phone’s ability to connect and hold a Wi-Fi connection when using certain wireless security protocols is chewing up customers’ data allowances and exposing them to overlimit fees, even when they think the phone is connected to a free use Wi-Fi network.

So far, Verizon Wireless has confirmed the problem is impacting their customers, but our readers report problems with AT&T and Sprint iPhones as well.

“Under certain circumstances, iPhone 5 may use Verizon cellular data while the phone is connected to a Wi-Fi network,” said Torod Neptune, a spokesman for Verizon. “Apple has a fix that is being delivered to Verizon customers right on their iPhone 5. Verizon Wireless customers will not be charged for any unwarranted cellular data usage.”

Stop the Cap! reader John Pozniewicz thinks that is nice of Verizon, and wonders when AT&T will start dealing with the nearly $100 in overage fees he has already run up on similarly afflicted iPhone 5 smartphones he bought just last week.

“As best as I can tell, the problem seems to relate to the type of Wi-Fi security protocol your router has enabled,” Pozniewicz reports. “Many in the Apple community forums and I both agree the most likely culprit is AES encryption.”

Sprint customer Halle Thompson also wrote Stop the Cap! yesterday reporting her Sprint iPhone 5 was unable to hold its Wi-Fi connection either, forcing her to deal with Sprint’s slow 3G network, even when at home.

“Thank goodness Sprint doesn’t have a usage limit and overage fees or they would own my house by now, because I use my phone for everything,” Thompson says.

Thompson switched off her router’s wireless security and the problem disappeared, but now her Internet connection is open to everyone in her apartment complex. Pozniewicz spent the weekend experimenting with wireless security protocols and quickly found AES caused his Wi-Fi connection to become unstable.

If your readers are having the same problems I am, here is a workaround that will keep your router reasonably secure and accessible until the pointy heads at Apple figure out this disaster:

Recommended Security Settings:

• WPA only (least secure)
• WPA2 only
• WPA or WPA2 with TKIP

Not recommended:

• AUTO – AES
• WPA or WPA2 with AES enabled
• WPA or WPA2 with both TKIP and AES enabled

Verizon Wireless has told customers it will credit back any overage fees incurred as a result of the bug, but only if they ask. Customers should also demand Verizon reset their allowance or at least note their account regarding the problem. Customers should request credit for overlimit fees for both September and October, because early reports indicate the software update designed to fix this problem has not worked in all cases.

Pozniewicz is having much less success with AT&T which so far has refused all comment on the debacle and has been unwilling to issue any service credits for overages. Pozniewicz is upset, noting he has only had his iPhone 5 for a week and it has already cost him and his company an extra $100.

“I am extremely careful about only using Wi-Fi for anything that will consume a lot of data, but my only clue there was a problem was when I noticed how slowly my so-called ‘Wi-Fi’ connection was performing at home and work and that is when I discovered it was not actually using Wi-Fi at all,” Pozniewicz says. “What is insidious about this is that the Wi-Fi connection is still showing on the phone display, even when I am actually using AT&T’s network.”

Thompson reports her phone does seem to initially connect to Wi-Fi, but then loses the connection seconds or minutes later, eventually switching to Sprint’s 3G or 4G cellular networks. Sprint’s unlimited data plan makes the issue just an inconvenience. For Pozniewicz’s company, which has a contract for a dozen iPhones 5′s with AT&T, the overlimit fees are really adding up. His employees are also quickly burning through their own monthly data allowances.

“AT&T is a pack of vampires and they don’t care about anything other than my money, even after talking to two supervisors, one of which implied I was either lying about the problem or an idiot,” he said.

Here is how iPhone 5 customers can check their data usage: Select Settings, then General, then Usage, then Cellular Usage to see what your phone reports you have used thus far. If the numbers seem wildly out of whack, contact your wireless carrier and let them know you may be afflicted with the iPhone 5 bug and have them note your account for future credit for any subsequent overlimit fees.

Verizon customers should have already received a software update in an effort to correct the problem. You can verify this by following these steps:

1. Select Settings, then General, then About.
2. Wait for the message “Carrier Settings Updated,” then touch OK.
3. Allow the update (if any) to install.
4. If your phone does not automatically restart after the update is complete, turn the phone off and then on again to complete the update.

iPhone 5′s Wi-Fi problems documented by YouTube user “MNeuenswander,” who found changing the security protocol on his router seemed to resolve the problem.  (2 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. Verizon Wireless Welcomes iPhone to Its Network Next Month; Stays Silent on Data Pricing
2. AT&T’s Apple iPhone 5 Customers Can Keep “Unlimited Data” Plans
3. Media Frenzy: The Second Coming… of the iPhone, Headed to Verizon Wireless With Unlimited Data
4. Updated: iPhone Announcement Day: The Buzz Declines With Your Usage Cap
5. Sprint’s iPhone? Company Rumored to Introduce Iconic Phone in October

Shaw Cable, Canada’s dominant broadband provider in the west, has admitted it has stopped enforcing usage caps as the company upgrades its Internet Overcharging scheme.

Jim MacDonald, a Stop the Cap! reader, long-standing Shaw customer and member of the company’s “Shaw Friends” program noticed on a recent bill he qualified for “additional Internet usage” by belonging to the company’s loyalty club.

“I used Shaw’s concierge chat to learn more about what this means and found I would qualify for an additional 25GB allowance as a Shaw Friend, but the representative didn’t seem to think it was an important distinction,” MacDonald writes.

Apparently that is true, considering a Shaw representative admits the company has stopped monitoring customers’ Internet use:

MacDonald: I am wondering how I can get the extra 25GB added to my account as a Shaw Friend. The usage meter does not seem to reflect anything about it.

Shaw: We plan to apply that extra usage in the near future. I’m not exactly certain of the date but it should be soon. But no worries, we are not even monitoring the data right now. Once upgrades are complete and when we do monitor, you will have the extra space on your account and visible on the ‘view usage’ screen.

Other stories of interest:

1. “Trust Us”: Cogeco’s Usage “Gas Gauge” Great For Measuring Profits, Not So Good for Measuring Actual Usage
2. Shaw Introduces 100 Mbps “Nitro” Broadband in Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton for $149/Month (With 400GB Allowance)
3. Shaw Sneakiness: Company Lowers Usage Limits, Hopes Nobody Noticed
4. Shaw Increases Broadband Speeds You Can’t Use For Long Because of Data Caps
5. “Holy Crap,” Shaw Customer Exclaims, Their Broadband Service Could Cost You Hundreds a Month

Unfortunately, your usage allowance does not reach Xfinity.

Comcast has introduced more generous usage allowances for some of their premium broadband customers who pay for lightning fast speeds and do not appreciate a one-size-fits-all usage cap.

Broadband Reports has reliable information the rollout of more generous caps, starting in Tucson on Oct. 1, will eventually make their way to other Comcast cities. The newly available caps vary according to the broadband tier chosen by customers:

• Economy: 300 GB
• Economy Plus: 300 GB
• Internet Essentials: 300 GB
• Performance Starter: 300 GB
• Performance: 300 GB
• Blast: 350 GB
• Extreme 50: 450 GB
• Extreme 105: 600 GB

Well, that answers that.

Karl Bode says he is unsure what the cap will be (or if there is one) on Comcast’s newest 305Mbps speed tier, not yet available in Tucson. Comcast’s usage caps only apply to residential service. Customers who refuse to tolerate limits have often switched to one of Comcast’s business broadband tiers, which come uncapped.

Customers who exceed their allowance will pay a price AT&T seems to have successfully introduced as the de facto overlimit fee for American broadband consumers: $10 for each 50GB increment over the limit.

Customers will receive an in-browser notice when they reach their limit. Comcast has a ‘three strikes and you’re out $10‘-policy — giving customers three free “courtesy passes” if they happen to exceed their allowance and do not want to pay an overlimit fee. After that, the fee will be automatically billed.

While some Time Warner Cable customers are drooling at Comcast’s regularly increasing speeds (TWC’s top speed is currently 50/5Mbps), a significant number say not having a usage cap is worth the trade-off.

“Comcast can keep their higher speeds you can’t really use with their usage caps,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Will Pryzinski. “I’m more than happy with 50Mbps from Time Warner so long as the usage limit ripoff stays far away.”

Other stories of interest:

1. Comcast Informally Marketing Unlimited 12/2 Business Class Service to AT&T Residential Customers
2. Comcast’s No-Longer-Confidential Forthcoming Broadband Service/Price Changes
3. Comcast Brings Back Its Usage Cap… Now With Overlimit Fees for Your Inconvenience
4. AT&T’s U-verse a Flop in Chattanooga — Only 821 Signed Up; EPB Wins Comcast Customers
5. Netflix’s Reed Hastings Discovers Comcast’s Usage Cap: The End Run Around Net Neutrality