North America’s broadband rankings continue to take a beating at the expense of countries deploying fiber optic broadband.  While the United States and Canada cope with aging landline technology and an uncompetitive marketplace that tells consumers they don’t need fiber-fast broadband speed, countries like Bulgaria, Lithuania and Estonia are lighting up 50-100Mbps networks that often charge lower prices than North Americans pay for 1-3Mbps DSL.

Ookla, a global leader in broadband testing and web-based network diagnostic applications, reports that the best performing broadband networks for speed, value, and performance are increasingly in Europe and Asia.  While both the United States and Canada used to be among the world leaders in broadband infrastructure, that is no longer true.

Some examples:

• The United States now scores 31st in average download speed, Canada is 33rd;
• In upload speed, America now ranks 37th, Canada a woeful 69th;
• Ookla’s Household Quality Index, which ranks packet loss and general reliability of home connections found Canada scoring 27th place, the United States 38th;
• At a cost per megabit, neither the US or Canada offers very good value.  The USA ranked 29th ($4.95 per megabit), Canada 33rd ($5.85 per megabit);
• Neither country does a great job delivering the speeds and service promised either.  The USA ranked 25th, Canada 32nd.

Ookla found that while speeds are rising in North America, they are not increasing nearly as fast as in other, higher-ranked countries.  Most of the speed gains in North America come from cable or limited fiber-broadband deployments like Verizon FiOS or community-owned fiber to the home networks.  Wireline ADSL service, which represented a larger proportion of home Internet connections in 2008, continues to lose ground to faster options from cable companies, community-owned broadband, and phone company fiber upgrades.  In eastern Europe, the Baltics, Russia and Ukraine, many of the dramatic boosts in broadband speed and quality come as a result of national fiber network upgrade projects.

While speeds in North America are gradually increasing, both the U.S. and Canada are being outpaced by many countries in Europe and Asia.

While providers in the United States and Canada often dismiss fiber as too costly, Ookla found fiber-based networks delivering some of the world’s best values in broadband.

For example, on a cost-per-megabit basis, Bulgaria’s new fiber networks deliver the world’s cheapest Internet service, at an average of just $0.64 per megabit.  The average broadband speeds in the country are now higher than 21/11Mbps.

Elion headquarters in Tallinn. Elion delivers fiber broadband to homes across Estonia.

Contrast that with average speeds in the United States (12.41/2.97Mbps) and Canada (11.95/1.70Mbps).  Other top scoring countries for cost-per-megabit include:

• Romania $0.97 USD
• Lithuania $1.11 USD
• Ukraine $1.17 USD
• Republic of Moldova $1.41 USD
• Latvia $1.80 USD
• Hungary $2.00 USD
• Slovakia $2.04 USD
• Hong Kong $2.26 USD
• Russia $2.51 USD

In terms of download speed, Estonia’s investment in a national fiber network is now paying dividends, with a dramatic increase in national average broadband speeds to 50/28Mbps.  As new cities join Estonia’s fiber network, speeds take a dramatic upswing.  Contrast average speeds in Saue (101.03Mbps), Viimsi (98.98Mbps), Tallinn (69.80Mbps), and Võru (65.58Mbps) with ADSL-rich Pärnu (12.55Mbps), Paide (12.40Mbps), Rapla (8.93Mbps), and Valga (7.71Mbps).

It is much the same story in other fiber-rich countries, where broadband speeds far exceed the averages in the United States and Canada:

Look what happens to Estonia's broadband speed rankings when it switched on its national fiber broadband network.

• Lithuania 31.65 Mbps
• South Korea 31.44 Mbps
• Latvia 25.42 Mbps
• Sweden 24.62 Mbps
• Romania 24.47 Mbps
• Netherlands 24.36 Mbps
• Singapore 22.94 Mbps
• Bulgaria 21.12 Mbps
• Iceland 20.53 Mbps

Despite all of the bad news, the cable industry’s trade publication Multichannel News tried to find victory in the jaws of defeat, noting things could be worse… if they ran traditional phone companies.

Cable operators delivered the fastest average broadband download speeds in 2011 — with major MSOs easily blasting by rival telco and satellite Internet services — according to data from independent testing firm Ookla.

For the full year, the six fastest residential Internet service providers in the U.S. based on average download speed were Comcast, Charter Communications, Cablevision Systems, Time Warner Cable and Insight Communications.

[...] Comcast and Charter delivered average download speeds of 17.19 Megabits per second, followed by Cablevision at 16.40 Mbps, Cox at 15.76 Mbps, TWC at 14.41 Mbps and Insight at 14.22 Mbps.

Verizon Communications fared better than its telco peers with an average download speed of 12.94 Mbps, thanks to FiOS Internet, its fiber-to-the-home service that provides up to 150 Mbps downstream. And overall, Verizon had the highest upstream speeds with an average of 7.41 Mbps. Still, the company’s legacy DSL services dragged down overall speeds.

Behind DSL were woefully slower speeds from the nation’s wireless ISPs (which include 3G broadband from large companies like Verizon Wireless and AT&T), and perennially last place satellite Internet.

Moffett

Despite repeated claims by providers that consumers don’t need fiber-fast broadband speeds, industry analyst Craig Moffett at Sanford Bernstein tells a different story:

“Technology adoption is creating a feedback loop that increasingly favors cable’s physical infrastructure,” Moffett wrote in a research note last month. “As more people are served by higher-speed connections, more and more applications are evolving to take advantage of them. Customers with lower-speed connections are increasingly being forced to upgrade to higher speed connections… or be left behind.”

The conclusion reached by Multichannel News columnist Todd Spangler:

“The relative broadband speeds of cable vs. telco isn’t merely an academic curiosity: Major providers are increasingly touting Internet performance in their marketing as they fight for consumers’ dollars.”

Unfortunately for the cable industry, although DOCSIS 3 upgrades have afforded dramatic increases in broadband download speeds, upload speeds lag behind.  Fiber to the home networks are best positioned to achieve victory in the global broadband race.  That is important not only because it delivers consumer dollars to the best provider in town, but fuels the further development of the digital, knowledge-based economy North America increasingly seeks to lead.

Canadians will learn at 4PM whether their Internet future will be unlimited or rationed with usage-based-billing (UBB) plans that could potentially charge consumers for every website they visit.

The much-anticipated decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) comes months after last winter’s hearings on how Internet service is priced in Canada.  It pits the largest phone company in the country — Bell — against small independent providers that are fighting to stay in business offering customers unlimited usage plans.

Most independent Internet Service Providers in Canada ironically buy wholesale access directly from Bell.  These upstart competitors like Primus and TekSavvy deliver unlimited DSL service at attractive prices.  In fact, some Bell customers have found them attractive enough to switch providers.  Bell’s wholesale division indirectly competing with its own retail business has proved unsatisfactory to Bell management, who proposed repricing wholesale access to resemble what Bell charges its retail customers.  But more importantly, Bell would demand that their competitors impose usage-based billing themselves, which would make unlimited Internet service in Canada a thing of the past.  The CRTC initially agreed with Bell, which sparked outrage among independent providers and consumers who faced the prospect of paying inflated prices for Internet service with no unlimited usage options in sight.

The backlash brought a half-million Canadians together to demand an end to unfair Internet pricing through a petition from Openmedia.ca.  That in turn attracted the attention of Canadian politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government’s Industry Minister Tony Clement.  Clement told reporters on Feb. 3 if the CRTC didn’t reverse its approval, and fast, the government would probably overrule the commission.

A day later, outgoing CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein said the commission would review its decision, the first in a series of backpedals in response to government pressure.

Even Bell, accustomed to having its way with the CRTC, has backtracked, now offering a compromise proposal that would charge independent ISPs 17.8c per gigabyte.  Many providers consider that excessive, too.

The CBC explains how Internet access is sold by independent providers in Canada.

Since the hearings, several marketplace changes have deflated some of Bell’s arguments that UBB was necessary to control over-eager users congesting their network.  Providers in western Canada — Shaw Cable and Telus, have dramatically boosted their respective usage caps, which call into question just how much of a congestion problem exists on Canada’s Internet networks.  The Canadian Network Operators Consortium, the voice of independent service providers, has offered its own proposal to charge wholesale customers based on peak network traffic.  MTS Allstream, itself a smaller player in Canadian telecom, proposed wholesale service be sold much like retail Internet in the United States — based on the speed/capacity of the service level selected.  If an ISP underpredicted usage, traffic would slow for everyone until the line was upgraded.

What ultimately gets approved by the CRTC may still be subject to government review, especially if the decision proves unpopular with consumers.  In a CBC online poll being conducted this afternoon, consumer sentiment is clear.  More than 91 percent of voters want the option of unlimited Internet access.

Whatever the CRTC decides will be reviewed by new Industry Minister Christian Paradis, who has managed to keep his head down and views to himself since he replaced Clement.  He may be hoping more than most that the CRTC will ultimately placate everyone, just so he doesn’t have to weigh in on the thorny issue.  But the CRTC’s track record representing consumers has been pretty dismal over the last few years, so we will not be surprised if the commission ultimately acquiesces to Bell’s substitute plan unaffectionately dubbed ‘GougeLite’ by Bell critics.

The CBC reports on today’s expected ruling from the CRTC and what it means for Canadian Internet consumers.  (3 minutes)

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has issued new guidelines for consumers with complaints about their Internet Service Providers’ throttling practices that puts the burden of proof on the consumer to demonstrate an ISP is engaged in wrongful behavior before the CRTC will act.

The revised guidelines appear to come in response to complaints from consumers who have been subjected to dramatically reduced speeds when using Rogers Cable Internet service to play online games while also running file sharing software in the background. Rogers’ speed throttling technology appears to be unable to discriminate between game traffic, which is not subject to speed reductions, and file swapping traffic, which is.

The Canadian Gamers Organization filed a formal complaint with the CRTC this summer accusing Rogers of engaging in Network Neutrality violations.

The CRTC gave Rogers until today to fix the errant speed throttle or respond to the agency with an explanation for the delay.  As of this hour, Rogers appears not to have responded.

Last week, the CRTC began a crackdown of its own — against consumers bringing Internet complaints.  The CRTC modified the complaint procedure to instruct consumers to first work with their ISP and application developers to resolve any outstanding issues before filing complaints.  From the updated CRTC Guidelines:

How to make an Internet performance complaint

Before you complain to the CRTC about an Internet traffic management practice, you should first contact your Internet service provider to see if it can resolve the issue.

If your service provider doesn’t address your complaint to your satisfaction, and you believe that your service provider’s traffic management practices are not compliant with the CRTC’s policies, you can complain to the CRTC. Before doing this, make sure that you know your rights.

Rogers chokes the speed of undesireable peer to peer file traffic, but other applications like online gaming are also impacted. Consumers are complaining about the collateral damage.

What to include in your complaint

In your complaint, explain why you think your service provider’s traffic management practice doesn’t meet the requirements set out in their traffic management policy.  It is not necessary to provide technical details about the problem, but the CRTC needs enough information to understand the problem.  Please, clearly describe:

• What part of the traffic management policy you believe the provider has not followed
• When the problem occurred, and whether it is a recurring problem
• Which software program, or application, has been affected
• How the application has been affected
• The steps you’ve taken to try to resolve the issue with your service provider, including your provider’s response to your complaint

Consumer groups are not pleased the CRTC won’t engage directly in independent oversight of ISP speed throttling practices regardless of consumer complaints.

“We are not a consumer-protection agency,” the CRTC’s Denis Carmel was quoted as saying back in July.

“The CRTC must start enforcing its own policies,” says Canadian Gamers Organization co-founder Jason Koblovsky. “The CRTC needs to put a plan forth to ensure that regular audits are done on Internet Providers rather than relying solely on consumer complaints. We are asking the public to tell the CRTC that enough is enough: the Commission needs to take a much more proactive role in ensuring that Internet providers play by the rules. We are ready to act politically and force a solution here if need be.”

Koblovsky expanded his views on the subject in a blog entry:

We find this policy update to be more of an insult to consumers, and puts the responsibility of monitoring ISP’s use of [speed throttles] directly on the back of consumers. This is not acceptable by any means, and none of the policy recommendations we made that were thrown out by the CRTC in our initial complaint were taken into consideration, or for that matter seriously by the CRTC. This is a slap in the face to what we have been fighting for, and that is the CRTC has the responsibility to follow through, monitor and enforce its policies.

[...] Not one ISP has been found by the CRTC to be acting against net neutrality policy since they acted on this in 2009 with several complaints sent to the CRTC by consumers being dismissed due to lack of evidence over years of enforcement failure by the commission. There is no indication here that the CRTC is going to be dealing with a very high evidentiary thresh hold put on the consumer to launch a CRTC investigation in this policy update. All this update does is provide information on CRTC complaints procedures that are already in place, and consumers are already abiding by.

[...] Maybe it’s time we start acting politically on this issue instead, drop the CRTC from the picture to force the CRTC through legislation to listen to consumers, and start putting forth a much better effort on their responsibility to the public to enforce their policies. Or better yet, start billing the CRTC for our efforts on each complaint we become a part of.

Read this excellent analysis of game throttling and how Canadian ISPs master the art of Internet Overcharging.

The voluntary agreement between many of the nation’s largest Internet Service Providers and copyright holders is striking fear into the hearts of small retail businesses who provide free Wi-Fi to their customers.  If those customers download illegal content, who is ultimately going to be held to account?  KJCT-TV in Grand Junction, Colorado investigates whether some local coffee shops may be forced to shut their Wi-Fi off, or make customers sign agreements before they can log in.  (2 minutes)

Cerf

Vint Cerf understands the Internet.  Widely recognized as one of the two “fathers” of what eventually grew into today’s Internet, Cerf has watched a network launched by the United States Department of Defense grow into an economic powerhouse driving a knowledge-based economy.

Today, Cerf works as an Internet evangelist for Google, promoting the company’s innovation in the next generation of the broadband experience.  He brings decades of advice to Internet Service Providers the world over: upgrade your networks.  But more importantly, he told attendees of Juniper Network’s Nextwork conference, upgrade exponentially, not incrementally.

Cerf’s remarks Wednesday targeted the conundrum of coping with increasing video traffic on the Internet.  Cerf pointed to his employer’s construction of a gigabit fiber to the home network in Kansas City as the best antidote to traffic congestion.

Simply put, Cerf believes bandwidth must be increased exponentially and not through incremental upgrades that try and stay one step ahead of demand.  Google intends to prove gigabit fiber broadband is cost-effective and within reach of providers.  A side benefit of building next generation networks is the opportunity for innovating new online applications.  Many of tomorrow’s online innovations are simply impossible on a constrained, incrementally upgraded network that often requires accompanying traffic limiting schemes.

“When you are watching video today, streaming is a very common practice. At gigabit speeds, a video file [can be transferred] faster than you can watch it,” Cerf said. “So rather than [receiving] the bits out in a synchronous way, instead you could download the hour’s worth of video in 15 seconds and watch it at your leisure. It actually puts less stress on the network to have the higher speed of operation,” he said. 

Wu

So far, many providers are considering Netflix and other video traffic a threat to their networks, and are attempting to collect tolls to allow Netflix content to reach subscribers (Comcast), or are considering Internet Overcharging schemes that combine usage caps with overlimit fees to discourage customers from watching too much (AT&T, Time Warner Cable).

At another session held Tuesday, Tim Wu, Columbia University law professor noted efforts by several U.S. providers to do away with all-you-can-use broadband.

Wu said phone companies like AT&T are ideally looking towards replicating the cell phone model on broadband — leaving users to guess how much usage they will rack up over a month, knowing most will be wrong.  As the consumer, he noted, you end up buying too much or you face steep overlimit fees for underestimating usage — either way “you are screwed.”  Wu called consumption-oriented pricing “abusive.”

Wu also said wireless carriers in particular are uneasy with the open, “ownerless” concept of the Internet.  Their instinct is to own, control, and manage networks.  Their only success so far is trying to advocate for fast, premium-priced traffic lanes, and slow “free lanes” for everything else — a key reason why many consumers advocate to preserve the open model of the Internet through enforced Net Neutrality.

Wu called these efforts by phone companies to control traffic “dangerous.”

Among the public interest groups that have historically steered clear of the fight against usage caps and usage based billing is Public Knowledge.

Stop the Cap! took them to task more than a year ago for defending the implementation of these unjustified hidden rate hikes and usage limits.  Since then, we welcome the fact the group has increasingly been trending towards the pro-consumer, anti-cap position, but they still have some road to travel.

Public Knowledge, joined by New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern over AT&T’s implementation of usage caps and asking for an investigation:

[...] Public Knowledge and New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative urge the Bureau to exercise its statutory authority to fully investigate the nature, purpose, impact of those caps upon consumers. The need to fully understand the nature of broadband caps is made all the more urgent by the recent decision by AT&T to break with past industry practice and convert its data cap into a revenue source.

[...] Caps on broadband usage imposed by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can undermine the very goals that the Commission has committed itself to championing. While broadband caps are not inherently problematic, they carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive and monopolistic ways. Unless they are clearly and transparently justified to address legitimate network capacity concerns, caps can work directly against the promise of broadband access.

The groups call out AT&T for its usage cap and overlimit fee model, and ponder whether these are more about revenue enhancement than network management.  The answer to that question has been clear for more than two years now: it’s all about the money.

The two groups are to be commended for raising the issue with the FCC, but they are dead wrong about caps not being inherently problematic.  Usage caps have no place in the North American wired broadband market.  Even in Canada, providers like Bell have failed to make a case justifying their implementation.  What began as an argument about congestion has evolved into one about charging heavy users more to invest in upgrades that are simply not happening on a widespread basis.  The specific argument used is tailored to the audience: complaints about congestion to government officials, denials of congestion issues to shareholders coupled with promotion of usage pricing as a revenue enhancer.

If Bell can’t sell the Canadian government on its arguments for usage caps in a country that has a far lower population density and a much larger rural expanse to wire, AT&T certainly isn’t going to have a case in the United States, and they don’t.

The history of these schemes is clear:

1. Providers historically conflate their wireless broadband platforms with wired broadband when arguing for Internet Overcharging schemes.  When regulators agree to arguments that wireless capacity problems justify usage limits, extending those limits to wired broadband gets carried along for the ride.  Dollar-a-holler groups supporting the industry love to use charts showing wireless data growth, and claim a similar problem afflicts wired broadband, even though the costs to cope with congestion are very different on the two platforms.
2. Providers argue one thing while implementing another.  Most make the claim pricing changes allow them to introduce discounted “light user” plans.  But few save because true “pay only for what you use” usage-based billing is not on offer.  Instead, worry-free flat use plans are taken off the menu, replaced with tiered plans that force subscribers to guess their usage.  If they guess too little, a stiff overlimit fee applies.  If they guess too much, they overpay.  Heads AT&T wins, tails you lose.  That’s a clear warning providers are addressing revenue enhancement, not network enhancement.
3. Claims of network congestion backed up with raw data, average usage per user, and the costs to address it are all labeled proprietary business information and are not available for independent inspection.

There are a few other issues:

In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by AT&T are particularly aggressive. Unlike competitors whose caps appear to be at least nominally linked to congestions during peak-use periods, AT&T seeks to convert caps into a profit center by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap. In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands.

In North America, only a handful of providers use peak-usage pricing for wired broadband.  Cable One, America’s 10th largest cable operator is among the largest, and they serve fewer than one million customers.  Virtually all providers with usage caps count both upstream and downstream data traffic 24 hours a day against a fixed usage allowance.  The largest — Comcast — does not charge an excessive usage fee.  AT&T does.

Furthermore, it remains unclear why AT&T’s recently announced caps are, at best, equal to those imposed by Comcast over two years ago.  The caps for residential DSL customers are a full 100GB lower than those Comcast saw fit to offer in mid-2008. The lower caps for DSL customers is especially worrying because one of the traditional selling points of DSL networks is that their dedicated circuit design helps to mitigate the impacts of heavy users on the rest of the network. Together, these caps suggest either that AT&T’s current network compares poorly to that of a major competitor circa 2008 or that there are non-network management motivations behind their creation.

AT&T has managed to create the first Internet version of the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, combining Comcast's 'tolerated' 250GB cap with AT&T's style of slapping overlimit fees on data plans from their wireless business.

As Stop the Cap! has always argued, usage caps are highly arbitrary.  Providers always believe their usage caps are the best and most fair around, whether it was Frontier’s 5GB usage limit or Comcast’s 250GB limit.

AT&T experimented with usage limits in Reno, Nevada and Beaumont, Texas and found customers loathed them.  Comcast’s customers tolerate the cable company’s 250GB usage cap because it is not strictly enforced — only the top few violators are issued warning letters.  AT&T has established America’s first Internet pricing version of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup: getting Comcast’s tolerated usage cap into AT&T’s wireless-side overlimit fee.  The bitter aftertaste arrives in the mail at the end of the month.

Why establish different usage caps for DSL and U-verse?  Marketing, of course.  This is about money, remember?

AT&T DSL delivers far less average revenue per customer than its triple-play U-verse service.  To give U-verse a higher value proposition, AT&T supplies a more generous usage allowance.  Message: upgrade from DSL for a better broadband experience.

Technically, there is no reason to enforce either usage allowance, as AT&T DSL offers a dedicated connection to the central office or D-SLAM, from where fiber traditionally carries the signal to AT&T’s enormous backbone connection.  U-verse delivers fiber to the neighborhood and a much fatter dedicated pipeline into individual subscriber homes to deliver its phone, Internet, and video services.

A usage cap on U-verse makes as much sense as putting a coin meter on the television or charging for every phone call, something AT&T abandoned with their flat rate local and long distance plans.

Before partly granting AT&T’s premise that usage limits are a prophylactic for congestion and then advocate they be administered with oversight, why not demand proof that such pricing and usage schemes are necessary in the first place.  With independent verification of the raw data, providers like AT&T will find that an insurmountable challenge, especially if they have to open their books.

Canada’s experience with Usage-Based Billing has all of the hallmarks of the kind of consumer ripoff AT&T wants Americans to endure:

• A provider (Bell), whose spokesman argues for these pricing schemes to address congestion and “fairness,” even as that same spokesman admits there is no congestion problem;
• Would-be competitors being priced out of the marketplace because they lack the infrastructure, access, or fair pricing to compete;
• Big bankers and investors who applaud price gouging and are appalled at government checks and balances.

Watch Mirko Bibic try to rationalize why Bell’s Fibe TV (equivalent to AT&T U-verse) needs Internet Overcharging schemes for broadband, but suffers no capacity issues delivering video and phone calls over the exact same line.  Then watch the company try and spin this pricing as an issue of fairness, even as an investor applauds the company: “I love this policy because I am a shareholder.  That’s all I care about.  If you can suck every last cent out of users, I’m happy for you.”  Finally, watch a company buying wholesale access from Bell let the cat out of the bag — broadband usage costs pennies per gigabyte, not the several dollars many providers want to charge.  (11 minutes)

Canadians may soon get a license to steal, if songwriters have their way.

For $10 a month, Internet users will be able to beg, borrow, or openly steal as much music as they want, from anywhere they want, without legal reprisals.

The apparent “cry uncle” tactic against piracy comes from the Songwriters Association of Canada.

Eddie Schwartz, president of the group, says the monthly fee would be automatically tacked onto every Internet access account, raising more than $800 million annually.  Consumers who don’t want to pay the music sharing tax can “opt out,” if they notify the Association and agree not to engage in any online music sharing activity.

“The surest and swiftest way to dramatically reduce infringement is to give consumers an authorized way to music-file share. Once such an authorized system is in place, consumers who refuse to pay a reasonable license fee will clearly be choosing to infringe and can be dealt with accordingly,” reads Schwartz’s proposal.

Proceeds raised from the monthly tax will be diverted to songwriters, but not record companies — a matter the latter has taken notice of, claiming they have not been involved in the discussions.

This is not the first time the group has proposed a “music license fee.”  In 2007, the group tried to amend the Canadian Copyright Act to force service providers themselves to pay a tax on behalf of their file sharing customers.  The effort never made it out of Parliament.

This time, the group is talking directly with several unnamed Internet Service Providers about implementing the fee without seeking advance approval from the government.

Schwartz argues his proposal will monetize file sharing and eliminate enforcement headaches, because the group would only target individual infringers that refuse to pay the monthly license fee.  Schwartz says the majority of Canadians would support it.  He quoted recent studies that claim as many as 80 percent of all file-sharers would consent to a monthly fee if it eliminated their risk of prosecution.

But the government may take a dimmer view.  Many provinces forbid automatically billing consumers for services without their direct consent.  The so-called “negative billing” proposed by Schwartz would require a consumer to specifically opt out of the monthly charges.

Consumers are also likely to question higher charges for Internet service at a time when regulators are still reviewing usage-based billing schemes.  Considering the fees only cover songwriters, more than a few consumers are likely to wonder when Hollywood studios, television networks, software publishers, and record companies will come for their piece of the action — all have suffered to a similar degree from the underground trade of their products.

[Thanks to our reader Alex for sharing this news tip.]

Phillip "Swimming Upstream... slowly" Dampier

I spent the better part of today finding, assembling, and finally uploading the audio and video content covering Canada’s ongoing hearings about Internet Overcharging.  Locating and editing the content took about two hours, writing the piece to accompany it took another hour, and then everything  s   l   o   w   e   d  down from there.

Uploading several hundred megabytes of audio and video, included in today’s articles, was by far the most cumbersome part of the operation.  In all, it took nearly four hours to upload a handful of video and audio files, and that saturated our cable modem to the brink of un-usability.

While most providers concentrate upgrades on boosting download speeds, upload speeds have remained remarkably consistent — and painfully slow, for several years now.

Time Warner Cable, which provides our Internet connection, tops out at just 1Mbps for uploads locally, and it is slower during peak usage times.  Contrast that with 2Mbps in more competitive cities (with 5Mbps now common wherever DOCSIS 3 technology has been deployed).  Still, at least it is better than the 384kbps residents in upstate New York contended with for a decade earlier.

Cable modem technology is built on the premise that you will download far more than you will need to upload, and speeds are provided accordingly.  DSL service from some phone companies has managed to keep up with upload speeds… barely, if only because many cable providers have largely ignored the upstream component.

But as the Internet and social media become a more interactive part of our lives, we increasingly need to give as much as we get, and our Internet Service Providers continue to let us down in too many cases.

The one exception is fiber-to-the-home service, which can deliver synchronous (identical upload and download) speeds to their customers.  Community-owned fiber networks continue to be the kindest to their customers, thinking of speed equality as an advantage, not a marketing option that commands a high price.  Many of these networks are owned and operated by local governments — you know, the people we’re told never do anything right.

Yet in many instances they alone have the prescience to recognize broadband speeds have a direct impact on efficiency — at home and at work.  Many are building networks that leverage as many megabits per second they can get.  Why?  Because they can.  Such a response is scoffed at by many cable and phone companies, most of whom claim you don’t need that kind of speed.

For those of us without access to such state-of-the-art networks, we’ll have to continue setting our sights considerably lower.  Time Warner will finally bring 50/5Mbps service to Rochester early this year.  As far as they’re concerned, we should be glad to have it.  It will cost just shy of $100 per month on a standalone basis.  If we lived in Chattanooga, Tenn., home of EPB, the municipal broadband provider would sell us 50/50Mbps service for nearly $20 a month less — $79.99 per month.

During the third day of hearings on usage-based billing, Mirko Bibic from Bell admitted that usage-based billing “prevents [other ISPs] from differentiating their offers from our own.”

That remarkable admission is exactly what independent Internet Service Providers have been arguing since the issue of wholesale usage-based billing was first proposed by Canada’s largest broadband supplier.

Independent providers have managed to carve out a niche supplying primarily residential DSL customers with flat rate usage plans, made possible because of wholesale access provisions assured under Canada’s telecommunications regulations.  As Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron have systematically imposed usage limits on their residential customers (and occasionally lowered them), consumers seeking better value have found it from smaller ISPs that still offer unlimited access.

As Bell frets over its inability to reap retail revenue from customers departing for other providers, the idea of imposing usage-based billing on wholesale accounts ends that revenue erosion once and for all.  As Bell admits, it forces every provider in Canada to charge the same high prices they do for Internet access.

Canada’s telecom regulator, the CRTC, still cannot define what a “heavy user” is, and neither could Bibic.  But with these pricing schemes, now they don’t have to.  Imposing higher prices with vague promises that the resulting revenue will expand Canada’s broadband networks is eerily familiar to what Time Warner promised residents in several major cities, and then didn’t deliver.

In western New York, the cable company promised a new generation of blazing fast speeds on a world class broadband network, as long as customers agreed to pay up to $150 for unlimited residential service per month.  The old price was $50.  But the cable company provided those upgrades in other cities instead — without usage based pricing.  No wonder residents were furious.  After two weeks of protest, Time Warner threw in the towel.

Two years later, the promised upgrades are finally slated to arrive, long after being made available in most large cities in New York State.

Provider-promised bait and switch broadband upgrades merely represent sucker bets, and no one except the provider wins.

If Bell gets its way, there will be no reason for anyone to do business with an independent service provider.  They’ll be forced to charge increased prices, sometimes even higher than Bell itself.