Share and share alike is a concept unfamiliar to Rogers Communications, at least in the eyes of the independent Internet Service Providers who have wholesale bandwidth agreements with eastern Canada’s largest cable operator that are supposed to guarantee speed parity.

The Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC) last week announced it filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) accusing Rogers of withholding speed increases from independent ISPs.

In 2006, the CRTC made it clear that cable companies must treat its wholesale customers fairly:

The Commission determines that should a cable carrier introduce a speed upgrade to one of its retail internet service offerings with no corresponding price change, it is to issue at the same time, revised [third-party ISP access] tariff pages that match these retail service speed changes with no corresponding price change.

According to CNOC, Rogers wants independent ISPs to pay higher prices for the faster speeds it is providing its own customers for no additional charge.

That leaves providers like TekSavvy at a competitive disadvantage, according to the provider.

Peter Nowak explains Rogers is attempting to hurry independent ISPs to move to “aggregated points of interconnection,” part of the foundation of the CRTC’s earlier decision on usage-based billing. Independent ISPs were given two years to complete the transition and Rogers wants that change to move at faster pace:

Rogers wants indie ISPs to move onto the aggregated method, something it says the CRTC essentially ordered at the conclusion of the big usage-based billing fiasco a year ago. Here’s what a spokesperson told me:

We are not denying TPIAs access to our new speeds provided they have moved to a single point of connection, called an aggregated point of interconnection (POI). As part of the usage based billing rulings in November of last year, TPIAs were given two years to move from a disaggregated POI to an aggregated POI. The sooner this happens, the sooner we can provide those speeds to these third party ISPs.  Rogers will continue to provide access at existing speeds on the old network architecture until November 15, 2013.

The dispute, as usual, boils down to whether or not Rogers’ move can be considered anti-competitive. The small ISPs argue that it is, since Rogers’ own retail customers are getting the benefit of higher speeds without higher prices, yet the indie companies – and their own subscribers by extension – are being expected to pay more.

If it’s uneconomical for the indies to sell the faster speeds, they won’t, in which case the big network owners like Rogers will hold a distinct advantage since internet access is sold largely on speeds. Since they’ll simply perish if they can’t keep pace, the indie ISPs will ultimately have no choice but to accept the higher prices being pushed on them – and that effectively neutralizes the entire point of their existence, which is to provide a competitive check to the big guys.

CNOC has asked the CRTC to make an expedited ruling on the controversy as soon as possible to mitigate competitive damage.

Time Warner’s maze of explanations and excuses still don’t add up.

Instead of waiting for the outcome of a class action case against Time Warner Cable’s new $3.95 monthly modem fee, readers might do better taking their case direct to the company. Longtime Stop the Cap! reader “PreventCAPS” rattled the cages of Time Warner’s social media customer service representatives, which resulted in credits worth six months of modem rental fees.

Our reader tells us he brought pointed questions about the modem fee, complaints about the inconsistent reasons for imposing them, and irritation about the lack of notification.

Some Q&A:

Q. Why is Time Warner Cable now charging a modem fee? Earlier reports that the fee would cover the cost of equipment do not make sense because the company is not automatically supplying customers with new cable modems and already assesses $24-150 penalty fees to “cover costs” of damaged or unreturned cable modems. 

A. Time Warner Cable now says the fee is to cover the costs of increasing broadband speeds. A representative explained that the company wants to make sure everyone can be assured of getting the speeds advertised, and there are still customers with DOCSIS 1x equipment that can only support broadband speeds up to 9Mbps, which already conflicts with the company’s advertised 10Mbps Standard Service speed (soon to be 15Mbps).

Our Take: DOCSIS 1x equipment was recalled from western New York customers years ago. It was first introduced locally in 1998 and is long past its expiry date. It is a safe bet only a very tiny percentage of Time Warner customers still have first generation equipment. The overwhelming majority of current broadband customers have DOCSIS 2 modems, many installed years earlier. Those customers will keep that equipment for years to come unless they choose to upgrade to 30/5Mbps speeds or higher because a DOCSIS 3 modem is required for faster speeds. Our reader pointedly asked if the new modem fee guarantees every customer will receive the newest equipment and increased service. The answer in response was “no.”

These phony explanations and justifications tapdance around the reality this modem fee is being introduced as a revenue enhancer — nothing more, nothing less.

Customers are not buying this!

Q. Why is the list of supported DOCSIS 3.0 modems so thin and limited?

A. The representative speculated the reason Time Warner Cable so heavily favored Motorola equipment came from contractual support agreements and guarantee obligations with that company. But the representative claimed Time Warner Cable “will activate and support any modem model they currently lease to customers.”

Our Take: This claim represents a new development, but one unlikely to prove consistent across the country. Time Warner Cable’s national call centers have employees currently trained to activate and support only those modems on the approved list. However, local technical support and “Tier 3” agents inside of local offices seem to have a more flexible attitude about accepting other equipment. This is a classic case of “your results may vary.”

Q. Why are there modem fees for Internet service but no modem fee if I use the exact same equipment for my Time Warner Cable phone service.

A. The representative claimed it has to do with Federal Communications Commission rules governing phone equipment.

Our Take: We are not certain what rules would apply in this case, but it is possible the company’s lawyers found some “exposure” if Time Warner began charging the fee for phone service equipment. Again, we suspect the fee applies to broadband primarily because it is the service customers are least-likely to cancel over a price hike. Phone service is more tenuous. Increase the price and disconnect requests are likely to rise.

Q. Why are these fees being instituted to “cover costs” when records show capital expenses for Internet service (and cable modem equipment) have dropped for the past three years in a row?

A. The representative claimed that capital costs don’t cover cable modems.

Our Take: That answer is completely inaccurate. Nice try. Stop the Cap! earlier reported that capital expenditures for customer premise equipment dropped for the last three years in a row. For the benefit of readers (and Time Warner Cable), here is the company’s own definition of that equipment¹:

“Such equipment includes digital (including high-definition) set-top boxes, remote controls, high-speed data modems (including wireless), telephone modems and the costs of installing such new equipment.”

 ¹- Time Warner Cable 2011 Annual Report, “TWC’s capital expenditures,” p.60

Verizon Wireless announced Monday it will pay a dividend of $8.5 billion to owners Verizon Communications and Britain’s Vodafone Group PLC, by the end of the year.

Together with an earlier dividend paid in January, an extremely profitable Verizon Wireless will return a combined $18.5 billion to investors in 2012.

Verizon Communications, owner of Verizon landlines and fiber optic network FiOS, owns 55 percent of the wireless operation. Britain-based Vodafone Group owns a 45 percent minority interest. Verizon Wireless, like many U.S. corporations, has used excess cash to pay down or refinance debt at historically low interest rates, reacquire stock, or pay dividends to shareholders in lieu of major infrastructure and hiring expansion.

Verizon Communications needs its share of the wireless dividend to help cover dividend payouts to its own wired shareholders. Verizon Communications has been unable to command the kind of high profit margins its wireless counterpart has succeeded in delivering to investors.

Two class-action lawsuits were filed Tuesday on behalf of Time Warner Cable customers in 29 states to force the company to refund ill-gotten modem rental fees in violation of consumer fraud laws.

“It’s a massive hi-tech consumer fraud accomplished by low-tech methods,” said attorney Steven L. Wittels. “Send customers confusing notice of the fee in a junk mail postcard they’ll throw in the garbage, sock them with a $500 million dollar a year rate hike, then announce on your website that customer satisfaction is your #1 priority. That’s some way to deliver satisfaction.”

The context for the class action suit is that Time Warner Cable began imposing the fee Nov. 1 without giving customers appropriate notification. New York City residents had little more than two weeks notice in the form of a poorly printed postcard. Some residents in western New York and other cities have still not received notification from the cable company, either on bills or in the mail.

The two lawsuits were brought on behalf of Manhattan resident Kathleen McNally and Fort Lee, N.J. resident Natalie Lenett, but the suit asks the court to order refunds for all Time Warner Cable customers charged modem fees across their national service area.

The Consumerist thought the company’s failure to meet the timely notification requirement about the forthcoming modem rental fee might have the cable company dead to rights:

Pricing and Service Changes

Unless otherwise provided by applicable law, Time Warner Cable will notify you 30 days in advance of any price or service change. Notice of these changes may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, as a separate mailing, in the Legal Notice section of the newspaper, on the cable system channel(s) or through other written means.

But on closer examination, that provision only applies to pricing and service changes for Time Warner Cable’s television service, not broadband or home phone service.

In fact, Time Warner Cable’s new Subscriber Agreement has reserved the right to change just about anything it likes, just by updating the terms and conditions on its website:

We May Change our Customer Agreements

(a) We may change our Customer Agreements by amending the on-line version of the relevant document.  Unless you have entered into an Addendum that ensures a fixed price for a period of time (for instance, a Price Lock Guarantee Addendum), we may also change the prices for our services or the manner in which we charge for them.

(b) If you continue to use the Services following any change in our Customer Agreements, prices or other policies, you will have accepted the changes (in other words, made them legally binding).  If you do not agree to the changes, you will need to contact your local TWC office to cancel your Services.

(c) Any changes to our Customer Agreements are intended to be prospective only.  In other words, the amended version of the relevant document only becomes binding on you as of the date that we make the change.

One significant change Time Warner inserted in its Subscriber Agreement (the one printed in tiny print on tissue-thin paper, occasionally mailed with your bill) was deemed so important, it appears highlighted and in bold language:

Time Warner Cable now requires customers to submit disputes individually to binding arbitration, denying the right to bring or participate in any class action case. However, customers can opt-out of this provision simply by notifying the company through an online form. (You will need your Time Warner Cable account number.)

In practice, this would require McNally, Lenett, and millions of other customers to individually submit to a time-consuming arbitration proceeding — all to fight a $3.95 monthly fee. Few would bother. Wittels told The Consumerist the lawsuit still has merits because of other language Time Warner Cable maintains in its agreement which he believes holds the door open to a class action challenge.

Although customers are invited to purchase their own cable modem equipment to avoid the fee, the lawyers involved say the options are limited and expensive.

The United States scores 44th (Canada is 67th) in the global upload speed race. North Americans can take a moment (or two… or three… or four) and ponder the meaningfulness of statistics gathered by Net Index that explains why uploading that home movie to grandma last month seemed to take forever. Because it did.

The average upload speed in the United States is an embarrassing 4.05Mbps (and it stings even worse to realize your cable or phone company provider has probably locked you in even slower at 1-2Mbps for uploading content.) Canadian broadband advocates can’t even be seen in public. The country’s comfortable telco-cable duopoly gives consumers in the north just 2.35Mbps for upstream connectivity.

So who among the league of broadband nations has us beat? Countries that have barely survived civil conflicts bordering on all-out war, others plagued with bouts of starvation, and a handful whose currency can be counted into the thousands and it still wouldn’t be enough to buy you breakfast. But they can upload pictures of the restaurant you are not eating at far faster than you can.