The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission is investigating Canadian ISP practices all week in a series of public hearings.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) opened the first day of hearings on the practice of usage-based billing for Internet usage, advocated by the country’s largest wholesale provider of Internet bandwidth, Bell Canada.

These hearings are a follow-up to earlier ones that ultimately allowed Bell to mandate usage billing not only for its own customers, but for all independent ISPs that purchase bandwidth from the company.  Since the vast majority of independent providers purchase bandwidth from Bell, the CRTC ruling would have mandated the end of “unlimited use” Internet plans across the country.

Nearly a half-million Canadians disagreed with the CRTC ruling and created a political firestorm earlier this year, demanding that the government step in and overturn the CRTC ruling.  Bell temporarily withdrew the usage based billing mandate pending the outcome of hearings expected to run from today until early next week.

Appearing at today’s hearing, executives from Bell continued to defend usage-based pricing and plan pricing that forces consumers to guess at how much Internet usage they will need each month.

In more aggressive questioning than earlier hearings, CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein questioned Internet pricing plans that do not “rollover” or rebate consumers for unused usage, but still penalizes customers for going over their plan limits.

von Finckenstein also questioned Bell’s pricing for independent ISPs, particularly penalty rates ISPs who underestimate their wholesale usage needs would face under Bell’s advocated pricing model.  The chairman seemed suspicious of the fact Bell does not charge its own ISP unit penalty rates, only independent providers.

The hearing will also explore why companies like Bell can deliver “unlimited viewing” on their Fibe TV IPTV service, but cannot deliver unlimited Internet access to end users.

Interested in following the hearings live? Visit the CRTC live stream hearing page.

[Updated 10:20am ET: Bell Canada executives just admitted in this morning’s hearings its Internet Overcharging scheme involving usage pricing many times higher than the actual cost of provisioning the service was driven by “competition” and not by “congestion” issues.  In other words, Canadian consumers are paying very high Internet pricing and overlimit fees because of the pervasive lack of competition, not because companies need the extra money to “upgrade their networks.”]

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.”

Phillip Dampier

This week, the tech community has been buzzing over new entrants in the world of cloud computing.  Apple’s iCloud in particular has sparked enormous media coverage as the company plans to encourage customers to access all of their favorite content over their broadband connection.  Apple is also moving towards online distribution of many of its software products, including the forthcoming OS X Lion operating system, suggesting consumers can pass up traditional physical media like CD-ROMs or DVDs.

Cloud storage theoretically allows you to store your entire music, video and photo collection online for easy access from any device.  Watching the 20-somethings buzz about 100GB+ secure file lockers and the end of traditional file storage as we know it has been amusing, but these people need to get their heads out of the clouds.  Unless they become politically involved in America’s broadband debate, it is not going to happen the way they hope it will.

Tech entrepreneur?  Meet broadband provider reality check: the Internet Overcharging usage cap and “excessive use” pricing scheme.

While Steve Jobs was introducing iCloud, broadband providers and their industry friends have been ruminating over the impact all of this new traffic will have on their broadband networks.  In an homage to former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre’s “you can’t use my pipes for free,” the drumbeat for implementing “control measures” for cloud computing and video traffic has been amplified several times over by certain providers, Wall Street analysts, and their trade press and equipment supplier lackeys.

One alarmed provider pondered the impact of iCloud in terms of their past experience with iTunes, which also spiked traffic when it was first released.  Others balk at the notion of consumers using broadband platforms to move entire libraries of content back and forth, especially on wireless networks.  The only sigh of relief detected?  Apple won’t start iCloud with video content — just music, at least at first.

The enemies list

The biggest targets — the companies that get a lot of pushback from providers for using “their networks” to earn millions for themselves are Google, Netflix, Amazon and Apple.  Each of them are rapidly moving into the online entertainment business, threatening to provoke more cable TV cord-cutting.  Netflix is now responsible for 30 percent of online traffic during primetime hours, a fact that some use as an accusation — as if Netflix should be held to account for its own success. Amazon has opened its own cloud based music storage and is also increasingly getting into online video content streaming.  Apple has a novel approach at handling its forthcoming iCloud music feature which should save hours in uploading, but the company is also moving towards online distribution of a growing proportion of its software, including the huge bug fixes and upgrades that will easily exceed a gigabyte if you own several Apple products.

Google is a frequent Washington target and honestly delivers the only truly effective corporate pushback to anti-consumer broadband pricing some providers have contemplated.  In fact, Google is putting its money where its mouth is building a gigabit network larger providers repeatedly scoff at as unnecessary, too costly, and too complicated.

While millions in venture capital funds new online innovations, only a miniscule amount of money is being spent to counter the lobbying major providers are doing in Washington to redefine the broadband revolution in their terms, complete with usage pricing that bears no relation to cost, arbitrary usage limits, and ongoing lack of true competition.

Online innovation is grand, but allowing providers to strangle it with Internet Overcharging schemes guarantees to end the party real fast.

Individually, none of the new cloud services are likely to blow out usage caps in excess of 100GB, but in combination they certainly could.  Anyone using online file backup, cloud storage of video and large music collections, uses Netflix or other online streaming services, and spends lots of time on the web will easily approach the limits some providers have established.  That doesn’t even include large software updates.  Unless you have an unlimited usage plan on the wireless side, don’t even think about using most of these services with AT&T’s 2GB monthly wireless usage cap.

Glenn Britt: The Internet is a utility which is why we can keep raising the price.

In the handful of countries with ubiquitous Internet Overcharging, little of this will pose a problem — companies won’t launch cloud computing services in markets where usage caps will effectively keep customers from using them.

That is why it is critical for some of America’s largest technology companies to get on board the fight against Internet Overcharging, and demand Washington recognize broadband as a utility service that should be wide open and usage cap free.  The evidence is right in front of you.  Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt recognizes the fact broadband is an essential part of our lives today, which is why he is confident enough to keep raising the price and charging even more in the future.  It’s not about “network congestion,” “building the next generation of broadband,” or “pricing fairness.”  Stop the Cap! started at ground zero for Time Warner Cable’s 2009 version of “pricing fairness” — $150 a month for an unlimited use broadband account that likely cost major providers less than $10 a month to provide.  It’s about pure, naked profiteering, unchecked by free market competition in today’s broadband duopoly.

Unless a company like Google can vastly expand its own broadband rollouts, it is increasingly apparent to me (and many others), we may have to move towards an entirely different model for broadband in the United States — one built on the premise of the Interstate Highway System.  One advanced, publicly-owned fiber network open to all providers on which telecommunications services can travel to homes and businesses from coast to coast.

Nobody says private companies shouldn’t be able to compete, but every day more evidence arrives they will never be inclined to deliver the next generation of service that other countries around the world are starting to take for granted.  They will instead protect their current business models at all costs, even if that means throwing America’s broadband innovation revolution under the bus.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Will iCloud Measure Up 6-7-11.flv[/flv]

CNN takes a look at what makes Apple’s iCloud service different from competitors from Google and Amazon.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Dropbox Cloud Computing 6-8-11.flv[/flv]

CNN talks with the folks at Dropbox about their cloud file storage system.  (3 minutes)

More than halfway into Glenn Britt’s appearance last week at a Wall Street-sponsored investor event, the head of the nation’s second largest cable company candidly admitted years of price hiking is finally driving a growing segment of America’s hard-pressed middle class out of the market:

“There is a segment of our economy that should be of concern.  We have a bifurcating economy where people who are college educated and like everybody in this room are doing okay.  For that segment, pay TV [pricing] is fine.  There is another group of people who are sort of falling out of the middle class.  For some of those people, pay TV is too expensive.”

That’s a remarkable admission from a cable company that has consistently raised prices for its products well in excess of inflation for at least a decade, and judging from the rest of his comments, there is plenty more of the same on the way.

Britt is nearing his 10th anniversary as CEO of what is now Time Warner Cable, formerly a division of AOL/Time-Warner.  In the past decade, the company he oversees has undergone a transformation in its business model. In 2001, digital cable was all the rage, delivering the 500-channel television universe at the cost of rapidly increasing cable bills.  Cable broadband was just coming back from the dot.com crash, with many Americans still mystified by the concept of “www” and whether a web address had a “/” or a “\” in it.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt tells Wall Street investors at the Sanford Bernstein conference the company is using their customers’ addiction to high speed broadband as leverage for rate increases — three in the last three years. Britt’s world view for Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption billing are reinforced in a room where ordinary customers aren’t invited and the Wall Street types in attendance dream about the enormous profits such pricing would bring. June 1, 2011. (6 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Today, broadband is threatening to become the cable industry’s most important product — one that Americans will crawl through broken glass to buy.  In larger cities, the competitive war between DSL and cable broadband has been settled and DSL lost.  That has brought Time Warner a steady stream of customers departing their local phone company and bringing their telecommunications business with them.  Even during the economic downturn, Britt notes, one of the last products people will agree to give up is their broadband Internet access.

“Broadband is becoming more and more central to people’s lives,” Britt said. “It is becoming our primary product. People are telling us that if they were down to their last dollar, they’d drop broadband last.”

Britt openly tells investors Time Warner Cable will take that last dollar, and many more.

“We are able to raise prices,” Britt notes. “As broadband becomes a utility, you can charge more.  So after a dozen years of not raising prices for broadband service, for the last three years we have been raising prices.”

Britt notes the company is also enjoying increased average revenue per customer as many upgrade their broadband service to higher speed tiers which deliver higher revenue to the cable operator.

But as the market for broadband matures, the next level of profits could come from so-called “consumption pricing,” which could make yesterday’s rate increases look like a miniscule price adjustment.  In 2009, Time Warner Cable sought to test new broadband pricing that would have tripled the cost of unlimited broadband from $50 a month to an astonishing $150 a month.  A firestorm of protests for this level of Internet Overcharging temporarily killed the prospect of OPEC-like profits, unsettling some Wall Street investors and analysts, many who refuse to let the dream die.

Among the biggest proponents of this kind of metered pricing is, in fact, Sanford Bernstein — the sponsor of the conference.  So it came as no surprise Britt faced additional browbeating in the hour-long interview to reintroduce these pricing schemes.  After all, Britt is told, AT&T has implemented a usage cap and Cable One has (what the interviewer calls) a “quite interesting” pricing model — delivering the smallest usage caps to customers with the highest speed tiers.  So when will Time Warner follow suit?

Once again, Britt said he’s a true believer in consumption billing and thinks the industry will move in that direction, but refused to give an exact timetable.  “Consumption billing” goes beyond traditional usage caps by establishing a combination of a flat monthly service fee, and additional charges for the amount of data you use.  Time Warner’s original proposal limited consumption to 40GB per month at today’s broadband prices, but added an overlimit fee of $1-2 for each additional gigabyte.

The strangest part of the hour was Britt’s defense of usage pricing with an impromptu discussion with his wife the evening before about the pricing models of public transit in European capitals (they’ve no doubt visited), and metropolitan New York City.

Britt shared that in the finest cities of Old Europe, bus and train travelers paid different rates based on how far they traveled within the city.  In New York, his wife noted, one price gets you access to any point in the city on the subway.  

How fair is that?

Aside from the hilariously unlikely scenario either Britt or his wife have stepped foot on a New York City public bus or subway train in the last decade, his rendition of “consumption billing is fairer”-reasoning fell flat because it argues a false equivalence between the cost to move data and the expenses of a public transit system.  Remember, Time Warner is the cable company that pitches unlimited long distance calling on the one platform that most closely resembles broadband — telephone service.

“People want us to invest more to keep up with the traffic,” Britt argued.  “People who use it should pay less — people who want to spend eight hours a day watching video online is fine with me, but they should pay more than somebody who reads e-mail once a week.”

This is the same Glenn Britt who just minutes earlier confessed the cable company has been raising prices on all of its broadband customers for three years in a row because they can.  Earlier attempts at consumption billing saved nobody a penny.  Light users were given a paltry usage allowance that could be largely consumed by downloads of security patches and software updates, after which a very punitive overlimit fee kicked in.  Besides, Time Warner Cable already sells a “lite” usage plan today that has few takers.  Most consumers want, and are willing to pay for a standard, flat rate broadband account.  That’s the account Britt and his Wall Street cheerleaders want to get rid of come hell or high water.

Britt is asked whether pay television is getting too expensive for the hard-pressed middle class. For many consumers, it is, which is why the company is developing its “welfare” tier called TV Essentials — a sampling of cable networks with plenty of holes in the lineup to remind subscribers what they are missing if they make do with this less expensive package. June 1, 2011. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Throughout the hour long interview, Britt’s read of the hard-pressed common American family comes across as more than a little hollow — more like hopelessly out of touch.  One part Marie “Let Them Eat Cake” Antoinette and one-part “we’ll throw a bone to some and raise prices on the rest,” Britt is content lecturing consumers — discouraging them from crazy ideas like “a-la-carte” cable pricing and reasonably priced broadband.

The Wall Street crowd loved every minute, and the friendly echo chamber atmosphere made Britt feel more than welcome at the conference.  While Time Warner Cable’s CEO spent more than a hour talking to Wall Street, he has no time to actually sit down and talk with his customers — the ones that want nothing to do with his Internet pricing schemes.  Indeed, at one point Sanford Bernstein’s host dismisses customers as “people who want everything for free,” a contention Britt partly agreed with.

Have another piece of cake.

If you are still wealthy enough to buy an iPad and are enjoying Time Warner Cable’s free streaming app, watch out. It may not be free for long. As Britt partially admits, Time Warner Cable is using the online video service as a “Trojan Horse” to get subscribers hooked on their online video, before they attach a price tag to the service. June 1, 2011. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

And what about all of this much-ballyhooed “investment” in tomorrow’s broadband networks?

Britt confesses the cable company is spending less than ever on system upgrades and capital construction projects.  Why?  The company forecasts its demand and growth five years out and budgets accordingly.  The current target is to spend just 15 percent of revenue on such projects, and based on budget planning, there is no urgent need to upgrade Time Warner’s broadband networks to keep up with demand.  In fact, it was all smiles when Britt revealed one of the company’s biggest expenses — the costly set top box — may not be a permanent part of America’s cable future after all.  Britt offered there was a good chance capital spending might even decline further in the future.

Britt suggests the next generation of television sets will deliver the same functionality as today’s set top box at a cost paid by the consumer.  Time Warner’s slow march to all digital cable means the need for wholesale upgrades of cable systems is over for perhaps a generation.  And with an IP-based cable delivery platform, software upgrades and improvements can be made without paying the high asking price charged by today’s handful of set top manufacturers.

In fact, outside of programming costs, Britt doesn’t see any long term challenges to years of good times for investors. Even minor competition from the telephone companies, who generally charge prices very similar to what Time Warner Cable charges, pose no big threat.

His biggest nightmare?  A check on the industry’s near-unfettered power by Washington regulators.  Despite Britt’s claims the cable industry is already well-regulated, in fact it is not.  Since 1996, cable companies can charge whatever they choose for standard cable, phone and Internet service.  Consumption billing, which will almost certainly be seen as gouging by consumers, may trigger an unwelcome intrusion by Congress, especially if the industry continues to cause a drag on America’s broadband ranking, already waning.

For investors, the glory days of huge rate hikes for cable television are likely behind us, Britt warns.  But have no fear: for the generally well-heeled and barely-hanging-on there is plenty of room for more rate increases on broadband — and meters, too.

Once again, Britt unintentionally admits the truth: Time Warner Cable does not have a broadband congestion problem that requires an Internet Overcharging scheme to solve. In fact, he admits the cable company is spending less than ever on network upgrades for residential subscribers, and expects that trend to continue. He’s also avoiding overpaying for merger and acquisition opportunities. June 1, 2011. (6 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

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.

[flv width=”640″ height=”368″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell’s Arguments for UBB 2-2011.flv[/flv]

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)