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.

Despite claims from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that it is reviewing its recent decision about usage-based billing on its own accord, the telecommunications regulator has bowed under government pressure to begin an immediate review of the Internet billing practice.

At issue is how Bell prices wholesale access to Internet bandwidth, utilized by most independent Internet Service Providers who resell that access to residential and business customers, often for a flat monthly rate.

The original CRTC decision would allow Bell to charge wholesale prices not based on annual contracts, but rather on the amount of usage consumed by their wholesale clients.  The CRTC ordered Bell to discount its wholesale rates by 15 percent earlier this month, but that amount was too small to stop providers from canceling unlimited use service plans across Canada.

The decision sparked a public outcry.  Hundreds of thousands signed a petition demanding the CRTC rescind its decision.  In fact, so many signed it broke all-time records for a petition drive.

Industry Minister Tony Clement announced last week that if the CRTC didn’t reverse its decision, the government would.  Despite an intransigent appearance before a Commons committee late last week, CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein has been moderating his position this week.

“The great concern expressed by Canadians over this issue is telling of how much the internet has become an integral part of their lives,” the chairman acknowledged in a statement issued yesterday.

The CRTC now says it is open to views from the public about Internet pricing as part of its review.

The commission will seek public comments until April 29 through an online form on:

• How to make sure ordinary consumers served by small ISPs don’t have to “fund the bandwidth used by the heaviest residential internet consumers.”
• How to ensure small ISPs offering “competitive alternatives” to large ISPs can continue to do so.
• Whether small ISPs should be required to buy a minimum amount of bandwidth per retail customer when purchasing network access wholesale from large ISPs, and, if so, what that minimum should be.
• Whether the CRTC should hold an online consultation as part of its review.
• Whether the CRTC should hold an oral public hearing as part of its review.

CBC News reports the CRTC will review its earlier decision that eliminated flat-rate broadband plans in Canada.  (2 minutes)

High gain Wi-Fi antennas like this one allowed one Ontario couple to leave Canada's cable companies behind and sign up for Time Warner service in the United States.

Last week, Stop the Cap! compared prices from two Internet Service Providers — Rogers Communications on the western side of the Niagara River — in Ontario, and Time Warner Cable on the eastern side in Niagara Falls, N.Y.

The price disparity is no secret to one Canadian family who read our piece and let us know they import their broadband service, thanks to long distance Wi-Fi, from the United States.

The couple, Neil and Michelle (we’ve been asked not their reveal their real names) and their three boys have lived along the Niagara River, which divides the United States and Canada, for over a decade.  Jim has been fascinated with low power, long distance communications since his days in amateur radio.

“I’ve always been trying to see what stations I can pick up, especially low power ones,” Neil tells us.

That curiosity came with Neil to his interest in broadband wireless communications.  Living along the river, Neil was fascinated to see Wi-Fi signals make their way across the river from the United States’ side.

“Thanks to a clear shot across the river, and a lot of businesses located adjacent to the Robert Moses Parkway, it’s easy to pickup Wi-Fi signals from businesses on the American side,” says Neil.

Neil discovered many networks wide open for public use and began to consider the implications of “importing” his broadband service from the United States to escape Rogers’ high prices.

“For Canadians, the idea of escaping the country’s communications providers is not that unusual,” Neil says.  “Some already have ‘gray market’ satellite dish accounts with America’s DISH or DirecTV, and some even use American prepaid cell phones, which are much cheaper than our own services and get good local reception across Niagara Falls down to Fort Erie.”

“So I began wondering what would happen if we could install a decent Wi-Fi system high enough on the house to get a good signal from a partner on the other side of the river,” Neil pondered.  “We started by putting a test signal up and driving through some Niagara Falls neighborhoods on the American side and found some good prospects.”

A long-shot advertisement on a well-known “for-sale/trade” website paid off, when an American family responded, intrigued by the experiment.

“The fact we were willing to pay their cable bill as compensation didn’t hurt either,” Neil suggests.  “The chances appeared very good for success, because we can see some of their trees from our roof.”

Niagara Falls, Ontario (left) and Niagara Falls, N.Y. (right), divided by the Niagara River.

Neil guessed right because today, with the help of two raised directional, roof-mounted high-gain Wi-Fi antennas that can literally “see” one another, the Ontario family enjoys its cable-TV and broadband service from Time Warner Cable.

“The signal is rock solid and the only time we get some speed problems is if someone in one of the bed and breakfast places nearby ends up on our channel,” Neil says.  “We can even watch television with the help of a Slingbox we installed on the American side which works perfectly fine on a Wireless N connection.”

Since the rise of Canada’s exchange rate against America’s declining dollar, the savings are dramatic. A comparable cable-TV plan with Rogers runs $80 a month for standard service, equipment fees, and HD service charges.  Add another $50 for broadband service with the modem rental fee and Neil would pay Rogers $130 a month before taxes for the two services.

“And we would be limited to just 60GB of usage per month before the $2/GB overlimit fee started making the bill even higher,” Neil says.

Time Warner Cable currently charges Neil’s adopted family $87 a month for television and broadband on a promotion.

Today, Neil’s conscience (and savings) led him to decide “borrowing” another family’s account wasn’t fair, so now he pays for -two- accounts with Time Warner, one for the New York family, the other belonging to him.

“Time Warner thinks of us as apartment renters and bills a post office box,” Neil says.  “The other family doesn’t care about cable-TV anymore so we’re just paying for their broadband account.”

The neighbors are certainly amused.

“When they come over, they call us ‘the American Embassy in Niagara Falls’ because of all the ads for Time Warner they see across the cable channels we get and because American cable systems ignore virtually all Canadian TV networks.”

Why go through all this?

“Now that we’re paying for two accounts, it’s a matter of principle,” Neil says. “I will not do business with a company that slaps usage limits on broadband, and now I don’t have to.”

In fact, now that the family’s sons are getting close to teen years, their Internet use is growing.

“We almost don’t care about the cable-TV anymore ourselves — we’re watching shows online, on-demand in this household,” Neil says.  “For my kids, they are growing up with the concept of television being always on-demand and it works around their schedule, not the other way around.”

Besides, Americans have access to Hulu, and Canada does not.

“Hulu is very important, and Netflix was even before it was sold in Canada,” Neil says.  “Now we can watch what we want, as much as we want, and pay a fair price for unlimited broadband.”

Neil can’t complain about Time Warner Cable, except for the fact it provides him with a U.S. IP address, which locks him out of a lot of Canadian online video-on-demand services from the CBC and other networks’ websites.

“They do a much better job than Rogers ever did with consistent broadband speeds and fewer outages, and we can live without replays of 18 to Life and Little Mosque on the Prairie,” Neil says. “I’m just glad you folks at Stop the Cap! convinced Time Warner to abandon the kind of pricing that is ruining the hell out of Canada’s broadband.”

Despite claims from Canadian Internet Service Providers that Internet Overcharging schemes like “usage-based billing” are about pricing fairness, paying for what one uses, and keeping prices down, comparing broadband prices across the west and east sides of the Niagara River tell a very different story.

We went shopping for the lowest possible prices for standalone broadband service from two cable companies serving the Niagara Falls area, on both sides of the border.

Here is what we found (prices roughly equivalent in CAD/USD at today’s exchange rate of $1US = $0.99CAD):

Niagara Falls, N.Y. — Time Warner Cable

$34.95/month

Road Runner Standard Service: 10/1Mbps
No Usage Limit
No Overlimit Fee
No Modem Rental Fee
No Contract Commitment

Niagara Falls, Ontario — Rogers Communications

$39.00/month

Rogers Express Service: 10Mbps/512kbps
60GB Monthly Limit with $2/GB Overlimit Fee
$14.95 Installation Fee
One Year Contract Required
(Price above reflects a one-year promotion that includes the monthly Home Gateway Rental ($4.50 value) for one year, $5.50 per month thereafter, effective 3/2011)

The $46.99 price noted above reflects regular Rogers pricing, before the modem rental fee.

Clement

On Monday, the Federal Minister of Industry Tony Clement issued a statement about Internet Overcharging that was so non-committal, media companies are interpreting his comments as “for” and “against” usage-based billing.

Tony Clement’s full statement:

“On Tuesday, January 25, 2011, the CRTC announced its decision to allow wholesale and retail internet service providers to charge customers for exceeding the monthly usage of data transfer permitted with their broadband Internet package. This will mean, for the first time, that many smaller and regional internet service providers will be required to move to a system of usage-based billing for their customers.

I am aware that an appeal has been initiated by a market participant. As Canada’s Industry Minister, it is my job to help encourage an innovative and competitive marketplace, and to ensure Canadian consumers have real choices in the services they purchase. I can assure that, as with any ruling, this decision will be studied carefully to ensure that competition, innovation and consumers were all fairly considered.

The Harper Government is committed to encouraging choice and competition in wireless and internet markets. Increased choice results in more competition, which means lower prices and better quality services for Canadians. We have always been clear on our policies in this regard and will continue on this path.

Our Conservative Government is focused on the economy and creating a positive environment for job creators and business to flourish. Canadians can count on us to do what is in the best interest of consumers.”

AgenceQMI and Videotron are both owned by Quebecor Media

CBC Radio made mention of Clement’s comments and indicated the minister had expressed concerns about the billing scheme, but readers of wire service reports from AgenceQMI are getting an entirely different view — Clement’s approval of the new pricing scheme.

In a French language story headlined, “Minister Clement justifies the end of unlimited Internet packages,” the news agency got just a little creative in interpreting Clement’s statement (roughly translated from the French original):

He also argues that billing based on actual usage would more efficiently manage Internet traffic and bandwidth and provide a better experience for light users, currently impacted by massive data exchanges among the Internet’s heaviest users.

Minister Clement, who supports this decision, said in a statement that it is his duty to encourage a more competitive market.

It’s hardly a coincidence that AgenceQMI‘s creative spin of Clement’s statement just happens to match the position of Videotron, Quebec’s largest cable company.  They are both owned by Quebecor Media.  Videotron engages in Internet Overcharging that left one Montreal student with an $1,800 broadband bill.

Phillip Dampier: The Blizzard of BS from Canadian ISPs is getting salted and plowed by Canadian media and outraged citizens.

A major ongoing Internet Overcharging campaign by Canadian Internet Service Providers to extract more revenue from consumers has sailed under the radar for more than two years now in most of the Canadian press.  Although some newspapers have occasionally covered various telecommunications atrocities related to cell phone pricing, lagging broadband speeds, and an overall lack of competition in the country, specifics about efforts to curtail broadband usage (or monetize its claimed “overuse”) has been a topic mostly discussed on online forums.

No more.

As Stop the Cap! turns more attention to Canadian Internet Overcharging schemes, let this be an object lesson to our American readers about how the game is being played.  What starts in Canada could finish American flat rate broadband as well.

CRTC Ruling Lights the Flame

This week, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) finalized rules that will effectively end unlimited broadband service in the country.  Remarkably, the Commission’s ruling completely ignores the one group such “usage-based billing (UBB)” impacts the most: individual customers.

The game-changing rules, found in the obliquely-named “Telecom Decision CRTC 2011-44,” effectively establish false usage-based pricing on both the wholesale and retail levels.  No provider will actually sell broadband packages that charge only for what a consumer actually uses.  Instead, each provider will set arbitrary usage allowances — usage limits — on their broadband accounts.  Any remaining unused allowance is forfeit at the end of the month, but “overuse,” at the discretion of the provider, will be penalized with overlimit penalty fees running several dollars per gigabyte.

The CRTC acknowledges, and big providers admit, these Internet Overcharging schemes are all about getting consumers to change their online activities.

[Providers] submitted that UBB rates shape end-user behaviour and that different UBB rates would lead to different behaviours by carriers’ and competitors’ end-customers.

Perish the thought.  Without such pricing, Canadian broadband could ultimately offer an alternative to overpriced cable-TV and telephone packages sold by the very providers that advocate limited use plans.  Providers insist on predictable, uniform usage.  The Commission apparently agrees.

The Commission even acknowledges today’s unlimited use plans in Canada almost always recover the actual costs incurred to provide them, and then some:

The Commission also notes that the flat-rate component of the carriers’ retail Internet service rates recovers most, if not all, of the associated retail UBB costs. In the Commission’s view, this situation provides carriers with the flexibility to adjust or waive retail UBB rates on a promotional basis.

With this in mind, why the CRTC felt radical changes were warranted is only a mystery until you realize most of the commissioners were former employees of the various telecommunications companies themselves.

Birds of a feather….

The only audience the CRTC listens to.

All of the falderal about the merits of UBB aside, in the end the CRTC threw a small bone to independent service providers not affiliated with super-sized players like Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron — the Commission ordered they be given a “whopping” 15 percent price break off wholesale rates.

Major carriers were outraged even by this token amount, arguing that providers forced to charge correspondingly higher prices (higher than major carriers charge) could still eke out a place in the market by offering other services or better support.  They didn’t need, or deserve a discount.

But independent competitors warned without discounts approaching 50 percent, many will be gone within five years.  Many providers argued the major companies, some who received taxpayer subsidies to construct national telecommunications networks, would be able to set wholesale prices artificially high to drive them out of business.

Canada’s Media Reacts

The effective end of flat rate service across Canada finally sparked significant national media coverage of the imminent death of Canada’s broadband revolution, soon to be relegated to a nickle-and-dime metered pricing scheme that will give providers the monetary power to control usage, limit innovation, and have their hands into picking marketplace winners and losers.  Don’t like Netflix?  Slash usage allowances.  Want to protect your cable-TV revenue?  Exempt your own online content from the meter as long as you keep your subscription.  Want to drive down Canada’s broadband standing in the world?  Turn the marketplace over to a handful of companies dreaming of revenue opportunities afforded by monetizing broadband usage.

The Globe and Mail – A metered Internet is a regulatory failure: The CRTC has decided to allow Bell and other big telecom companies to change the way Canadians are billed for Internet access. Metering, or usage-based billing (UBB), will mean that service providers can charge per byte in addition to their basic access charges. The move is sure to stifle digital creativity in Canada while the rest of the world looks on and snickers.  [...] So there you have it. Just as the world is ready to feast on what Canadians might cook up in the way of multimedia 3.0, Canada decides to meter the Internet, tilting the table sharply towards old-school TV networks and big corporations that can absorb the higher cost of doing business.

Canadian newspapers have covered the story in the greatest detail, but now — finally — Canada’s television news has discovered the story, which for many media critics mean the story is actually “real.”

“If you don’t see it on television, it didn’t really happen,” writes Jim from Halifax, Nova Scotia.  “A lot of Canadians don’t read newspapers, and the magazines certainly are not covering this story, so it has been an online-only event  until CBC, CTV, and Global put it on their newscasts.”

CBC Television reports on the Internet Overcharging controversy.  (2 minutes)

Some critics say much of Canada’s commercial media is already in the hands of a tightly controlled, vertically integrated empire.  Most of the cable and phone companies have ownership in many major commercial broadcasters, cable networks, and even newspapers and magazines.

30 Rock’s Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy explore the concept of “vertical integration.”  Then see how it relates to Canada’s media.  (3 minutes)

But even a controlled media environment cannot stop outrage over UBB going viral, as ordinary Canadians realize they are about to pay much higher prices for a service they depend on more and more.

Outrage Commences

Charlie Angus (NDP) -- "This pricing is a ripoff."

While these pricing schemes have been around awhile, now that they are getting well-publicized exposure, consumers have realized the implications of counting how many YouTube videos they watch.

Tens of thousands have signed Openmedia.ca’s online petition, others are complaining to the media and writing their members of Parliament, demanding action.

That will only get louder when consumers start receiving bills for double, triple, or even higher for the exact same quality of service they used to pay less to receive.

“There will be a huge wake-up call for many customers,” said Jared Miller, president of Youmano, a provider based in the Town of Mount Royal.

Charlie Angus, the NDP member of Parliament who speaks about digital issues, said he he thinks the entire pricing scheme is a ripoff that will lead to huge increases in customers’ bills.

“What we need to have is clear and transparent rules so it’s being used in a measured capacity, and it’s not just instituting the principle that every time you turn on the Internet, they can ding you for fees like they do with cell-phones,” Angus said. “We’ve seen this before; when we were told that deregulating cable rates would give customers a big benefit. We were paying 60-to 100-per-cent more in no time.”

“Canada is already falling behind other countries in terms of choice, accessibility and pricing for the Internet,” Angus added.

CTV British Columbia explores Canada’s love affair with technology and how its integration has dramatically changed the social lives of many families.  That’s no surprise, considering Canadians are North America’s most enthusiastic net users.  (2 minutes)

Commissioners of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), led by its chair Gamaliel Cordoba (middle, in blue shirt) preside in a public hearing Tuesday on the proposed circular requiring broadband data limit for consumers and minimum broadband speed for service providers. The event, which was held at the NTC main office in Quezon City, was attended by various industry stakeholders, including telcos, bloggers, and consumer advocacy groups. Photo by Melvin Calimag; Courtesy: GMANews.tv

Philippine consumers won a major victory this morning, successfully stripping language permitting Internet usage limits from a broadband reform measure before the country’s telecommunications regulator.

In a newly revised draft, this language written by and for some of the nation’s largest telecom providers was removed after a major consumer push-back:

“WHEREAS, it has been observed that few subscribers/users connect to the internet for unreasonably long period [sic] of time depriving other users from connecting to the internet; NOW, THEREFORE… Service providers may set the maximum volume of data allowed per subscriber/user per day.”

Consumer rights group TXTPower was instrumental in exposing the provider-written language and generating a groundswell of opposition to broadband usage limits.  The group’s leader Tonyo Cruz said Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps deliver all of the benefits to providers while limiting consumer access and increasing bills.

“The adoption of [usage caps] will destroy social media in the Philippines and affect businesses,” Cruz told commissioners at a National Telecommunications Commission public meeting attended by consumers.

Cruz compared broadband in the Philippines with a turtle race.

“Imposing caps would be like putting speed limits on slow-moving turtles,” he said.  “It is one thing for telcos to say that a small percentage of consumers abuse their networks, but is another and more important thing to know whether they actually deliver the promised services and whether they have at the moment or in the future the capacity to deliver them.”

Cruz says his group doesn’t oppose providers dealing individually with consumers who use their accounts to the point of creating problems for other users on the network, but a blanket usage limit punishing every Filipino was unacceptable.

The issue rapidly became a political hot potato when ordinary Filipinos contacted their elected representatives to protest the measure.

Kabataan Partylist representative Mong Palatino put the Commission on notice: “NTC’s draft memo [including usage caps] is clearly anti-consumer and regressive. It tramples on the rights of the consumers to get what they pay for in terms of a reliable Internet service,” Palatino wrote in a widely distributed statement. “By allowing telcos and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to limit Internet speed and connection, NTC seemingly wants the whole nation to regress to an Internet era that is much slower and highly unstable,” Palatino explained.

For Cruz, the entire argument for usage caps and the complaints about consumers using too much Internet service “ring weird.”

“The telcos who complain about over-use are the same companies actively encouraging consumers to use the Internet and become avid Internet users, to watch and upload videos and photos,” Cruz noted.

Cruz and other consumer activists want the Commission to hold additional public hearings, and stream them live over the Internet.

Virgin Media broadband customers in the United Kingdom who spend free time playing the highly addictive World of Warcraft (WoW) suffered some serious withdrawal episodes after game developers released a major software patch (v4.0.1).  Just after installation, customers noticed their game play started slowing to a crawl, resulting in game performance worthy of a Noob popping Xanax.  With online ‘street cred’ at risk on the multiplayer game environment, WoW players rushed to Virgin’s support forums inquiring about the sudden slow lane performance:

Ever since this patch I have experienced very high latency (around 2-4k ms) whilst being in combat in 25-man raids. This latency causes me to disconnect from the game after around 10 seconds of very lagged out combat. Outside of raids I seem to yo-yo up and down. I have been as low as 70ms and as high as 1kms.

I have tried everything I can think of game related. I have ensured all the correct ports are opened via port forwarding on my router.  I have tried running the game in its default state with all add-ons removed. I have done virus scans, disabled my firewall and I am running out of options. No one else in-game seems to have the same problems as I do. Admittedly, a couple of them are Virgin Media customers too and have no problems but I cannot think what else it could be.

Now stuck in the slow lane on Virgin Broadband

Virgin Media customers and staff initially seemed at a loss about what could cause just WoW traffic to become very un-WoW.  Virgin’s terms of service includes a virtual paddle to spank customers who “excessively utilize” their broadband connections, and the patch itself — amounting to at least 7GB with accompanying updates — was worthy enough to put some customers in the time-out corner.  But even as company support officials were asking impacted customers to do the problem-solving sleuthing for them, a growing number of customers suspected the provider’s “intelligent network traffic shaping” technology was the real culprit.

Traffic shaping is a term Americans are just getting acquainted with.  It’s essentially a virtual traffic cop that can identify different types of online traffic and assign different levels of priority for different applications.  The broadband industry claims traffic shaping is a net plus for broadband consumers because it forces traffic gorgers like peer to peer file sharing to the back of the line, making room for more predictable performance of Internet phone calls, video, and other time-critical Internet applications.  Virgin even markets its broadband service as enhancing online game play by giving the highest possible priority to game-related traffic.

But when traffic shaping goes bad, it can create a nightmare for broadband customers who find roadblocks that ruin their online experience.

Virgin initially denied it was responsible for traffic shaping WoW to the point of unusability. Eventually, Virgin admitted it -was- responsible for the game traffic throttles, but passed the blame to WoW’s game developers, Blizzard Entertainment.  At one point Virgin suggested the company might want to recall the latest patch, just to get the game to work again on Virgin’s broadband network.  When that didn’t fly, company officials eventually released a statement taking responsibility, but telling customers it will be weeks before their “traffic management supplier” can create a workaround:

Since the latest World of Warcraft update we have seen that the type of packets used by Blizzard to deliver the on-line gaming has changed significantly.  This means that Virgin Media’s National (ADSL) traffic management system is unable to recognise the packets as gaming traffic and assumes that they are peer to peer traffic.  Due to this the traffic management system does not place the packets within the gaming queue which has the highest priority and lowest latency within the VM network, instead they fall into the peer to peer class which gets a low level of priority within our network and by default a higher level of latency.

We are working to try and rectify this as soon as we can with our traffic management supplier however it will take us a few weeks to upgrade the traffic manage solution so that is can recognise the new traffic class and correctly classify it as gaming.  Unfortunately due to the nature of most traffic management solutions we can not manually move these packets into the gaming queue as the solution can not work out which ones to move.

We appreciate that some customers will have noticed a similar issue with the previous World of Warcraft update.  The reason behind this is because gaming companies are not prepared to share the updates with Virgin Media or traffic management suppliers prior to its release and so the first time we see the new packets is when people start to use the new updates.  We are trying to change this view point of the gaming companies however at present they are un-willing to work with us.

We apologise for the affect that this has on your gaming experience and we will update you when we have a confirmed fix date for this.

By that time, many WoW enthusiasts will have probably fled Virgin for another provider.

Our reader James, who alerted us to this story, notes it takes a special kind of nerve for a broadband provider running speed traps to blame software developers for the problem.

“So, wait — Virgin is blaming the game developers because their code runs on the assumption that all traffic is treated equally and because they don’t verify their updates with the ISP before pushing them out to consumers?” James incredulously asks.

Virgin could always discontinue their faulty un-intelligent network traffic shaping scheme until a solution can be found, but that hasn’t happened.  It could interfere with “preferred content partnerships” — clients who pay to avoid the speed traps and throttles and always get special treatment.

Paying customers?  They can wait two or three weeks.

A Blizzard representative said Virgin’s buck (or is it pound?)-passing was inexcusable because the game producer -has- made efforts to reach out to ISPs in the past:

“In our defense, most of our previous attempts to work with ISPs have been shut down by the ISP management. I’m going to avoid naming actual ISP names for obvious legal reasons. We’re not the ISP’s actual customer so they rarely care what we have to say.”

And that is a perfect real-world example of what happens when Net Neutrality is not the law of the land.  Providers claim their traffic management schemes benefit their customers, but in reality they are only responsive to the “preferred content partners” that pay them to be responsive.

If Americans want to enjoy a similar level of service from their Internet Service Providers, just oppose Net Neutrality, sit back and wait… and wait… and wait.

Heaney

While Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski continues his indecisive dawdling over whether to enforce Net Neutrality in the United States, the United Kingdom’s two largest Internet Service Providers have openly admitted without such protections they would openly discriminate against content providers’ traffic.  In fact, discriminating against providers based on who paid and who didn’t would be a perfectly normal business practice for any ISP, they declared.

Senior executives of both BT and TalkTalk let the truth spill from their lips at a Westminster eForum on Net Neutrality, something companies like Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T surely wish they hadn’t done.

The surprisingly open dialogue was covered in detail by PCPro, and sent on to us by our reader “PreventCAPS”:

Asked specifically if TalkTalk would afford more bandwidth to YouTube than the BBC’s iPlayer if Google was prepared to pay, the company’s executive director of strategy and regulation, Andrew Heaney, argued it would be “perfectly normal business practice to discriminate between them”.

“We would do a deal and look at YouTube and look at the BBC, and decide,” he added.

When asked the same question, BT’s director of group industry policy, Simon Milner, replied: “We absolutely could see a situation when content or app providers may want to pay BT for quality of service above best efforts,” although he added BT had never received such an approach.

TalkTalk’s Heaney declared Net Neutrality a mythical concept, saying they already discriminate against traffic now that they have their foot in the door with “traffic management” policies.

“It’s a myth we have Net Neutrality today – we don’t,” he said. “There are huge levels of discrimination over traffic type. We prioritize voice traffic over our network. We shape peer-to-peer traffic and de-prioritize it during the busy hour.”

If British ISP’s are willing to discriminate against non-paying traffic on its networks, are American ISP’s going to act any differently?

Phillip "It's Haunting Time for AT&T, Verizon and their good friends at Digital Society" Dampier

Imagine if you lived in a country where broadband competition actually delivered real innovation and savings, overseen by a consumer protection agency that made sure providers in a barely competitive marketplace actually delivered on their “highly competitive” rhetoric.

Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) will deliver exactly that, with a check and balance system that makes sure advertiser claims meet reality and that “robust competition” means… robust competition.

One industry-backed front group, Digital Society, doesn’t think that idea is fair to big telecom companies (like those funding its operations), and wants none of that here in the States.

Nick Brown doesn’t object too much to Australia’s plan to deliver fiber-to-the-home connections offering 100/50Mbps service to 93 percent of residents.  He just doesn’t want the Australian government overseeing how private providers use (and how much they can charge to access) the publicly-owned network:

Internet Service Providers in Australia will be forced to compete with each other via the “Competition and Consumer Commission”.  The problem with this is that a supposedly ubiquitous commission deciding what is and what isn’t competition and fair pricing stands a fair chance of not actually playing out in any other fashion than simply being a price fixing commission.

[...]Because the NBN will only act as a wholesaler and treat all ISP retailers equally, ISP’s no longer have the ability to develop their own unique contracts that would reduce costs to consumers.  All backhaul would be priced to all ISP’s at the same rate.  So realistically no company has a significant advantage over the other.  That does potentially create a good deal of choice, but that does not necessarily ensure competition.  This would be akin to going to the grocery store and on the shelf were 5 different brands of soft drink, but every single brand tasted exactly like Coca-Cola.  You would have a lot of choice in that situation, but there would be no real competition between those 5 brands, because taste is the competitive factor.  For the Australian, this means that ISP’s will likely be forced to start bundling services to gain advantages over one another.  Something that is not always considered attractive here stateside.

NBNCo is responsible for the deployment and installation of Australia's fiber to the home network.

Brown’s bitter-tasting public-broadband philosophy is based on the inaccurate notion that incumbent private providers are just itching to deliver state-of-the-art broadband service across Australia.  If the darn federal government didn’t get in the way and steal their thunder with a nationwide fiber network, Aussies would be enjoying world class Internet access over copper phone wires and usage-limited wireless 3G networks right now.  Even worse, the Australian government that will finance the entire operation also has the temerity to set ground rules for private companies reselling access to consumers and businesses!  How dare they oversee a network bought and paid for by Australian taxpayers (he objects to the funding as well.)

Brown must also still be living in Australia if he missed the parade of American providers repricing services to push people into “triple-play bundles” whether they want them or not.  And we don’t even get the fiber to go with it.  For most Australians, they no longer care whether it’s Diet Coke, Pepsi One, Cherry Coke, or even RC Cola for that matter — as long as it arrives on a fiber network built by and for their interests (instead of Telstra’s), it’s far better than what they have now.

In reality, broadband issues hold a front-and-center position in Australian politics, and the Labor Government which supports an aggressive national broadband plan that puts America’s proposed broadband improvements to shame was -the- issue that keeps that government in power today.  Why?  Because Australia is well behind others in providing broadband access at reasonable speeds and prices.  Australian private providers maintain a nice little arrangement delivering sub-standard, near-monopoly service at some of the highest prices around, all usage-limited and speed throttled. Despite years of negotiations with big players like Telstra, the privatized phone company, broadband improvement has moved at a glacial pace (too often by their design).

The development of the National Broadband Network for Australia was driven by private provider intransigence.  Even Brown recognizes the logistics of the proposed fiber network is “very smart and very common sense” for a country like Australia, which he considers a close cousin geographically to the United States.  Brown also admits the use of fiber straight to the home “‘future proofs’ Australian networks and would allow for easier improvement in the future.”

ABC Radio National offered a comprehensive review of the competing plans from Australia’s political parties to address broadband issues as the country drops to 50th place worldwide in broadband excellence.  (9 minutes)

While Australia ponders a fiber future, today’s broadband picture across the country is less idyllic.

The minority of Australians receiving service over cable broadband, available mostly in the largest cities, continue to face usage-limited service and higher prices than American providers.

Most Australians get their service from DSL connections offered by Telstra and third party companies leasing access to Telstra facilities.  Telstra’s network is based almost entirely on aging copper wire that cannot deliver broadband to most rural populations.  Telstra’s long term broadband plan for Australia depends on milking every last cent out of those copper wires while raking in even bigger profits from usage limited and expensive wireless data plans.  Just last month, Telstra was fined $18.5 AUS million dollars for monopolistic behavior by impeding competitive access to its telephone network.  No wonder the country had enough.

Brown labeled the Australian government’s buyout of Telstra’s copper wire network a “negative,” as if they were stuck with a pig in a poke.  That suggests Brown does not understand the actual plan, which relies on reusing existing infrastructure like poles and underground conduit to install fiber at an enormous savings — both in billions of dollars in reduced costs and deployment time.  The alternative would require the government to obtain agreements with Telstra-owned facilities to share access or construct their own facilities from the ground up.  Telstra has no incentive to spend money to upgrade their networks, much less decommission them.  Logistically, the plan cuts through enormous red tape and guarantees Australians no one will be stuck waiting decades for the eventual retirement of copper phone wiring.

Call it Fiber Optic Broadband for Copper Wire Clunkers — the government has not nationalized the phone network — it wants to buy it a fair price, from a willing seller who will be able to use the new network to deliver some of its own services.

The horror show for groups like Digital Society is the thought private companies will actually be forced to deliver the competition and real savings they routinely proclaim in press releases, but never actually deliver to consumers.  The Australian people will own the fiber playground private companies will play on, so why shouldn’t they have the benefit of oversight to make sure the game is played fairly?

Australia’s Competition & Consumer Commission is equivalent to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and a state Attorney General all rolled into one.  The ACCC is an independent statutory authority that works for consumers.  It promotes and enforces real competition and fair trade.

The ACCC’s involvement in broadband regulation includes: stopping false advertising, helping intervene and resolve disputes over access and billing issues, and being an impartial observer about broadband uptake and measuring how competition actually delivers better service and savings for consumers.

What Brown dismisses as “a price fixing commission” is in reality a consumer protection agency with enforcement teeth.  The ACCC has a solid track record.  For instance, the broadband industry in 2009 itself admitted the ACCC stopped a “race to the bottom” in wild advertising claims:

In August last year, we sat down with the CEOs of the major telecommunication providers, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone Hutchison Australia. They acknowledged that there was a problem, exacerbated by a “race to the bottom” by industry participants in their advertising practices. The CEOs showed a ready willingness to resolve the issue on an industry-wide basis.

After analysing complaints, the ACCC identified the 12 most prevalent types of potential misleading conduct made in telecommunications. Some of these included:

• use of terms such as “free”, “unlimited”, “no exceptions”, “no exclusions” or “no catches” when this is not the case;
• headline price offers in the form of “price per minute” for calls made using mobile phones and phone cards when there are other fees/charges which are not clearly disclosed; or
• headline claims relating to price, data allowances, total time allowances, speeds and network coverage, where the claims cannot generally be achieved by consumers.

The three industry leaders have provided a court enforceable undertaking to review and improve advertising practices so that consumers are better informed about the telecommunications products they purchase. They have undertaken that their advertising will not make these claims in circumstances where they are likely to be misleading to consumers.

Further the majors have also agreed that they will take reasonable steps to ensure that this commitment will extend to any other players with whom they have commercial agreements which allow them to control the advertising and promotion of goods or services.

Australians are starting to receive consent forms for free installation of fiber broadband in their homes.

I can see why Digital Society, a group partly funded by telecommunications companies, would object to the ACCC stopping Big Telecom’s ill-gotten Money Party-gains.

ACCC also put a stop to promotions that tricked consumers into signing up for mobile data plans that included “free” netbooks, high value gas gift cards, or cash rebates.  The Commission discovered these “promo plans” weren’t giving away anything at all — they simply added the retail cost of the “free” item to the plans’ charges.

The ACCC received a court enforceable undertaking from Dodo Australia Proprietary Limited for the advertising of some of their mobile plans. Dodo had advertised that consumers would receive either an Asus Eee PC, a fuel card or a cash payment when they signed up to a ‘free offer’ plan.

However, cheaper mobile cap plans that did not include the ‘free’ offers were comparable in value and services. After raising these concerns with Dodo, they promptly ceased publishing the ‘free offer’ advertisement and undertook to ensure the affected customers would receive the goods for free, either by way of cash refund or by reducing the monthly charges for the ‘free offer’ plans.

That mean and nasty ACCC, ruining all of the fun for providers delivering tricks and traps for their customers.  Caveat emptor, right?

But the most ludicrous claim of all comes towards the end of Brown’s piece, when he claims the National Broadband Network will leave Australians with even higher priced, usage-capped access:

Australia traditionally has had low bandwidth caps.  Even just five years ago while most Americans were enjoying unlimited bandwidth with their broadband connections, I was living in Melbourne, Australia and was limited to a 1GB cap per month via my Telstra connection.  The likelihood of seeing 100Mb uncapped connections is highly suspect.  Australians may enjoy these speeds, but they will likely be extremely expensive with low bandwidth caps or limited to high priced premium tiers.

Brown can’t blame the private company that delivered his abysmal Internet service without his “free market knows best” philosophy falling apart.  It wasn’t the Australian government that provided him a 1GB monthly usage allowance — it was Telstra, and five years later the company is still usage-limiting Australian broadband consumers.  The National Broadband Network was designed to tackle that problem once and for all.  Brown apparently doesn’t realize the last argument private providers have used to justify usage caps — insufficient overseas capacity — is being addressed by new super-high-capacity undersea fiber cables stretching across the Pacific.  The issue of “usage cap” abatement is among the top bullet points for constructing the NBN.

Brown would be right when he suggests that Australians may enjoy faster speeds, but with low usage caps and high prices — if Telstra was the only company providing the service.  The new network will provide speeds faster than most Americans enjoy, with enormously expanded capacity.  Providers like Telstra have an incentive not to deliver the unlimited service that fiber network can deliver, as it will reduce their profits.  But since any company can access the network and compete, Telstra’s loss in market power will also erode their pricing power.  When a consumer protection mechanism is added, Telstra won’t just be answering to their shareholders’ demands for greater value.  They’ll also answer to the ACCC and the consumers who will pay for and maintain the network.

That may not add up to mega-profits for Big Telecom, but it certainly makes a whole lot of sense to consumers and small businesses who will finally be able to get 21st century broadband at a reasonable price.

Even worse for Digital Society’s friends — AT&T and Verizon — who fund the group through its connection with Arts+Labs, it might provide a blueprint for how America’s broadband future should be built.

ABC-TV (Australia) debated the merits of competing broadband plans from the incumbent Labor government, which supports a National Broadband Network delivering fiber to the home, versus a cheaper plan from the coalition opposition which promoted a private industry-favored initiative delivering improved broadband only to rural areas.  The Labor government initiative won the day when two rural independent members of Parliament, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor announced they’d support Prime Minister Julia Gillard, giving her the 76 votes required to form a minority Labor government.  Windsor is an enthusiastic supporter of the NBN, telling Sky News “’you do it once, you do it right, you do it with fiber.”  Oakeshott said Labor’s plan to deliver real broadband for the 21st century was a major reason he backed the Labor government.  For the first time ever, fiber optic broadband was the key factor in determining who would govern a country.  (5 minutes)