Summer in western New York has been usage capped.

As alleged summer continues here in endlessly rainy and dreary western New York, and our basement suffers from the trickling of water ingress from the never-ending rains, I’ve had plenty of indoor time as of late, pondering various issues and strategies.

I wanted to bring everyone some updates on where we have been, where we are, and where we are going (in part to take care of some questions which I receive regularly from readers):

ISP Subscriber Agreement Change Notification Tracker

In private beta at the moment, this system is nearly ready for its first testing phase.  We’ll be running a special website that will track any changes to ISP Subscriber Agreements, terms of service, or Acceptable Use Policies, and automatically notify those who wish to subscribe to the updates.  We’ll also be calling out major changes right here on Stop the Cap! This has proven necessary because ISPs are not always consistent about informing their customers about changes to these agreements, and many others do not timestamp the date of changes.  We will, along with a representation of what exactly has changed.  When the test goes public, we’ll have a form up to allow readers to inform us about any ISP’s you would like us to track.

Rep. Massa’s Bill: The Special Interests Want Revenge!

As we suspected, Rep. Eric Massa has been targeted for takedown come the next election in 2010.  In fact, his opponents are going to make his district a hot target, with a ton of special interest money and outsider cash flooding in to force him out of office.  We cannot allow this to happen.  If he has our back, we have to have his, and we’ll be calling on everyone to help do what it takes to keep Congressman Massa right where he is — doing the business of the people, not the special interest telecommunications lobbies.  I will be putting up a contribution link this week for his re-election campaign and putting some of my money where my mouth is, and I hope anyone concerned with the Internet Overcharging issue will do the same.  We need to get started early and stick with him all of the way.

Naughty Phone Companies Need Their Own Special Site

I’ve heard from just about everyone on the issue of FairPoint, and our 13-part series on the nightmare that never seems to end for people in New England who are stuck with this god awful phone company.  Even regulators are dropping e-mail my way, some in other states facing the prospect of Verizon pulling out of their communities as well.  Everyone wants to know what happened, what’s being done to really fix it, and how they can prevent this from ever happening again.

Because this issue starts to diverge away from the mission of Stop the Cap!, a new pro-consumer website is forthcoming that will be the home for news and information about telephone companies behaving badly on pricing, service, and viability.  We’ll still bring all of the news that relates to Internet/broadband issues here, but some of the other deeper issues will work better on a different site.  Stay tuned for more details.

Not every phone company is evil, and some do a fine job for their customers.  But the days of rubber-stamped business deals that leave consumers out in the cold need to come to an end.

My Personal Ramblings

You will also find an eclectic mix of stories, opinion, and rantings about the telecommunications industry, the media, politics, and life in the Flower City on my personal blog.  It’s become more active as a place where I can cover stories and issues that won’t fit anywhere else, and allows people to figure out where I’m coming from on an entire range of issues.  It will look familiar to readers here, as it has the same basic look.

Tweets, Twitter & The Social Networking Thing

Stop the Cap! Official Twitter Channel

Phillip Dampier’s Personal Twitter Channel

Facebook

Helping to spur additional competition, AT&T announced the availability of its U-verse service in parts of Corpus Christi, Texas and the communities of Springfield, Champaign, Danville and Decatur, all in central Illinois.

“Today’s launch of AT&T U-Verse reflects our commitment to make the investments necessary to bring consumers across central Illinois a new era of true video competition,” AT&T Illinois president Paul La Schiazza said in a statement.

In Illinois, dissatisfied Comcast customers were tearing up one of the local newspaper’s message boards.  Here’s a sampling:

• Now maybe Comcast will get better service and lower their OUTRAGEOUS prices.
• Comcast: Can you hear the sound of competition and angry customers? Can’t wait to get a cable carrier that actually plays all of the available Cardinals’ games.
• Will they have it in Chatham? I will be ready to sign up to get rid of Comcast! What parts of Springfield will get U-Verse, and what parts will be left out in Comcast’s cold?
• I can’t wait to get rid of Commiecast.

Troy Wolverton had a problem.  He wanted to send 170 pictures to Kodak to arrange to have them printed in time for Father’s Day.  It turned out to be a true labor of love, as he waited hours to send the 800 megabytes of imagery to Kodak’s online processor.

Troy Wolverton writes tech news for the Mercury News in California

As more than three hours passed, Wolverton began to ponder why the upload seemed some poky.  He subscribes to Earthlink, which supplied him with a 3Mbps connection.  Assuming that speed was available for both uploading and downloading, it would have taken less than an hour to get the job done.  But as virtually every customer of an Internet service provider finds, your download speed is many times faster than your upload speed.  In this case, Wolverton was suffering with a 384kbps upload speed to get those photos to Kodak.

In fact, while download speeds have been increasing at a steady clip, many have discovered upload speeds have barely budged, if at all, since broadband service became available in their area, often more than a decade ago.  Rochester, New York is one such example.  Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service was introduced officially in 1998 with a download speed of around 5Mbps, but the upload was just 384kbps.  Today, standard Road Runner service provides 10Mbps for downloads, but the upload speed has remain unchanged, despite more than a decade having passed.

Networks were originally designed to provide more speed for downloading, and less for uploading, based on the presumption subscribers would take more than they “gave” to the Internet.  That remains essentially true today, but subscribers are increasingly relying on their upload connection to send pictures, movie clips, and other larger files to their friends, family, or work.

But broadband companies seem oblivious to this trend. If you look at the plans offered by the Bay Area’s two main providers, Comcast and AT&T, it’s all but impossible to find one in which the upload speed comes anywhere close to the download speed. To get an upload speed that’s faster than a slow download rate, you have to subscribe to one of the pricier plans, like Comcast’s Extreme 50, which gives you a 10 megabit per second upload connect — at a cost of $100 a month.

Comcast and AT&T officials say they are watching consumer Internet usage trends. They note that as their companies have ramped up download speeds, they’ve tended to increase upload speeds as well and will continue to do so. The download and upload speeds they offer are simply a response to market demand, they say, claiming that the vast majority of their customers still download far more data than they upload.

“We’re designing our products based on how we see consumers using them,” John Britton, an AT&T spokesman, told me.

Wolverton thinks the lack of competition also has a lot to do with it.

In terms of Internet access providers, the Bay Area essentially has a duopoly. There are numerous small players such as EarthLink, but Comcast and AT&T dominate — and duopolies tend to not have a good read on real market demand. People often buy one of their products because they don’t have any other choices — not because they meet their needs.

In other words, if the market were more competitive, a company might be able to build a successful business by catering to people who want faster upload speeds.

Just because consumers use their connections to download more data than they upload isn’t proof that they don’t want to upload more. The slow speeds could well discourage folks from doing more uploading. And they may well find a use for faster upload speeds — if they had them.

I’d love to be able to back up the videos, songs and documents on my computer to a server on the Internet. But with my slow upload connection, that’s not really an option because it would take days of uninterrupted uploading to back up any significant portion of my hard drive.

AT&T Rate Increases Coming

AT&T is jacking up phone rates for residents of Alabama, one year after state officials deregulated the Alabama telephone service marketplace based on the premise that competition would bring about lower rates for consumers, not higher.

Darrell Baker, director of the Alabama Public Service Commission’s telecommunications division, said telephone companies heavily promoted the price deregulation plan by claiming competition would keep rates down.  An industry-friendly deregulation bill was passed in 2005 over PSC objections, and another bill the Alabama Legislature passed this spring expanded deregulation further.

Alabama residents will now pay for that free-market construct in a state with limited local line competition.

AT&T spokesman Hood Harris said customers with Basic Service, a single-line home phone, will see their bill rise 3 percent, from $16.95 per month to $17.45.  Approximately 15 percent of AT&T’s Alabama customers have basic service.

Customers with AT&T’s deluxe plan, the Residence Complete Choice Package, will see an increase of 9.5 percent, from $21 per month to $23.

Harris blamed the increases on inflationary costs.

Baker was unimpressed with the rate increase announcement.  “It doesn’t sound like the competitive market is having much impact,” he said.  Baker expects other telephone companies in the state to quickly follow suit.

AT&T increased rates in 2008 by 4.1%.

No Myth: AT&T Huge Wireless Data Bills

In between the wall-to-wall coverage of the passing of Michael Jackson last week, Stop the Cap! reader Lou discovered Twitter was all-a-tweet about yet another person who got stuck with an enormous mobile data bill from AT&T Mobility.  This time it was Mythbusters’ Adam Savage, who spent five days in Montreal and discovered the most expensive part of the trip was the $11,000 bill from AT&T.

The story here isn’t really about AT&T’s math, or the remarkably expensive Canadian data roaming rate of $0.015 per kilobyte, it’s the fact AT&T will let your bill run into the ionosphere before alerting you, or giving you the option to automatically shut yourself off before you go over a plan limit.

Savage’s tweet to his 50,000 followers all but guaranteed a rapid response (and credit) from AT&T for the $11,000 in fees charged to his account (and they turned his phone back on.)  Unfortunately, company policies remain unchanged, leaving those who encounter similar kinds of overlimit fees who don’t have tens of thousands of followers on Twitter, stuck paying those bills or begging for credit.

AT&T should automatically notify any customer entering into a roaming area with a text message explaining the rates and fees charged when inside that roaming area.  Customers should have the right to choose a setting for their account that best meets their needs:

1. No roaming access/No overlimit fees: This would suspend service on your phone automatically until you contacted AT&T to remove it at your request;
2. No Overcharges: This would turn your service off when your plan limit is reached, requiring the customer to opt-in to any overlimit fees;
3. Free and Open: The current standard — roaming and overlimit rates apply automatically.

AT&T claims it will send a text message and/or contact customers who substantially exceed their normal usage, but there has been scant evidence that policy is applied uniformly.  Customers should have the right to make their own choices about their wireless usage, and the responsibility to select an option that best protects them from the heart attack in the mail, a/k/a the bill.