AT&T's Fairy Tales of Broadband Congestion

Just a few days after Broadband Reports broke the news AT&T was imposing an Internet Overcharging scheme on its broadband customers, evidence continues to arrive illustrating the company’s planned usage limits are more about protecting their U-verse video business than actually controlling “heavy users.”

Dave Burstein, a well-known industry analyst who has tracked the broadband universe for years was so miffed about the nonsense he was reading in the Wall Street Journal, he picked up the phone and called the AT&T spokesperson who claimed the company was overburdened by heavy users:

Mark Siegal, AT&T’s top flack, hung up the phone on me when I said his comment to the Wall Street Journal was apparently a lie. It’s prohibitively unlikely their DSL cap “is to ensure the quality of the customer experience” necessary to solve “congestion in certain points of the network and interfering with other people’s access.” I’m certain that far less than 1% of the time do AT&T DSL customers have any impact from congestion. I’m pretty confident it’s less than 1/10th of 1% and probably less than 1/100th of 1%. My sources that wireline congestion on AT&T is minimal include statements from two CTOs of the company. Cheng, now a veteran in D.C., knew the comment was misleading at best. A mantra in D.C. is “wireline may not have congestion but wireless is different.” It was Sunday and perhaps hard to factcheck, but he’ll easily confirm the problem on Monday.

AT&T has long maintained they have a more robust network and cable is the one with “bandwidth hog” problems. But Comcast’s cap was 60% higher than AT&T and Comcast has said they will raise it. AT&T has gone 13 years without caps on their DSL network because they said they didn’t need them. Traffic growth is actually down slightly (Cisco, Odlyzko) so there’s only one reason to impose caps now: their video service, U-Verse, has become a $5B business. They don’t want people to be able to cut the cord and watch all their video over the net. 150 gigabytes is 40-80 hours of U-Verse quality TV, far less than the average U-Verse user watches.

In fact, AT&T is one of America’s largest Internet Service Providers, and maintains an important role in America’s Internet backbone.  As one of the largest providers, AT&T doesn’t worry about broadband traffic like a small wireless ISP does.  Its broadband pipes from the middle-mile to their nationwide network offers near limitless capacity thanks to fiber optic technology.  In fact, AT&T’s theoretical “bottlenecks” occur in the “last mile” of the network, from the phone company’s central switching offices or its interface between a fiber connection and the plain old copper wires that work their way into your home or business.

But first, a word about costs.

Dave Burstein

We have new evidence from both Burstein and the Internet Overcharging drama unfolding in Canada that providers literally pay pennies per gigabyte of traffic.  In fact, the broadband traffic customers generate represents only 2%-5% of what we pay for broadband in both countries.  Burstein uses some of Craig Moffett’s prolific comments in the media against his own argument for Internet Overcharging.  Moffett, a Wall Street analyst, is not alone when he reports broadband margins are as high as 90%, according to official company filings.  John Hodulik from UBS joins him.

Burstein gives providers’ argued need for increased investment to keep up with demand the benefit of the doubt and is willing to suggest profit margins at a reduced 75%.  In either case, running a large broadband network is a veritable license to print money in North America.  The costs to provide the service keep dropping, and providers keep on raising prices.

Burstein was generous with Comcast when he called their 250GB usage limit imposed in 2008 “fair.”  But as Stop the Cap! has argued, Comcast — like other Internet Overchargers — has not grown the cap over time, even as their costs decline.  In fact, customers are probably lucky the country’s largest cable operator hasn’t reduced it, as providers in Canada have done repeatedly. Burstein calls on Comcast to honor their promise and raise their cap.

Burstein also notes the rest of the world enjoys lower prices, more competition, and often faster service — with providers across the board still enjoying considerable profits.

But why not here?

America’s broadband market is a monopoly or duopoly in virtually every American city.  One cable operator and one telephone company deliver service to the vast majority of American broadband users.  Wireless providers are largely owned by legacy phone companies and strictly limit usage.  Without significant competition, providers can raise prices at will and milk profits to sustain their balance sheets even as other business divisions suffer from a downturned economy or shifting cultural changes.  The “landline” is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and cable television provided by cable and phone companies could face cord cutting from consumers watching their favorite shows over their broadband connections.

Broadband service carries up to a 90 percent profit margin

Burstein tracks the business model:

15 gigabytes/month: The average (mean) user in the U.S., per Cisco’s respected VNI survey and numerous comments from the major companies.

Going Down: Bandwidth usage growth per customer. The rate has been about 30% per year, with the rate slightly falling the last few years. The growth in average usage is actually going down slightly, per Cisco VNI and the MINTS data of Professor Andrew Odlyzko.

Going Down: Capital investment required. In 2009, AT&T cut U-Verse by 1/3rd. In 2010, Verizon cut FiOS by 2/3rds. John Stankey of AT&T has said they will cut U-Verse much further after this year. Fran Shammo of Verizon says “Wireline will continue to come down year over year.” Cablecos have been dropping capex as a % of sales and often in absolute dollars. According to a recent survey by Heavy Reading, 70% of the cable networks have been upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 already. There’s no significant capital spending beyond that at least until mid-decade. The Columbia University CITI report to the broadband plan aggregated analysts forecast and predicted a drop in overall capital spending on broadband, particularly in wireline. The primary capital spending for wired broadband is behind us, with few significant network buildouts in the next five years or longer.

Going Up: Profit Margins. Prices for broadband have generally been going up in the U.S. since 2007 while costs drop. Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and most others have raised their broadband prices and ARPU. They also have (modestly) raised the prices of triple play including broadband, according to Dave Barden of Bank of America. Capex is dropping pretty dramatically while other operating costs are also falling. Customer support costs have gone down as few new customers (who need more support) are added. Modems and other gear continue dropping in price. Costs down, prices up = higher profits. Both Stankey and Shammo pointed to improved margins.

AT&T DSL (left) vs. AT&T U-verse (right): Hunting season on customers of both is now open.

AT&T argues their usage caps are less about the money and more about dealing with network congestion.  But does that play out?

AT&T has a convenient argument to use, which several journalists have come to believe gives the company a track record of being victimized by “heavy users.”  Namely, their network congestion brought about by the flood of iPhone users on AT&T Mobility’s cellular network.  Even if a reporter does not understand the profound differences between a wired and wireless broadband network, they have heard about AT&T’s problems coping with their wireless traffic.

In short, the company underestimated demand from its exclusive deal with Apple for the wildly popular phone, and refused to invest adequately to mitigate overcongested cities.  Instead, it spent millions lobbying for permission to “manage” the traffic with artificially-slowed speeds, usage limits, confiscatory overlimit penalties, and even some equipment to offload wireless users onto home broadband connections (for which AT&T still deducts airtime and data usage from your wireless allowance.)  Robust Wi-Fi also tries to drive customers off of AT&T’s inadequate 3G network.

For home broadband users who will be affected by AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme, let’s break them into two separate categories: DSL customers who face a 150GB cap and U-verse customers who will get a 250GB allowance.

AT&T DSL is a legacy product dependent on traditional copper wire phone lines.  Available in many areas unserved by U-verse, this technology typically provides up to 6Mbps service — often slower, sometimes higher.  The distance between the phone company office and one’s home usually determines what speeds customers receive.  In rural areas, 1-3Mbps is often typical.  In some urban areas, higher speeds are sometimes possible.  DSL is not a “shared” technology like cable broadband.  Each DSL customer has their own line between their home and central office (or remote repeater).  From there, a connection from the central office to AT&T’s backbone is made over a middle mile network.

AT&T U-verse VRADs (a/k/a 'lawn refrigerators') in Houston, Tex. (Courtesy: Swapdisk)

But AT&T’s DSL customers are already constrained by the reduced speeds DSL provides them.  It is unlikely a customer with 3Mbps DSL service is going to present much of a traffic challenge to a multi-billion dollar company unless they purposely under-invest in network upgrades.

Where congestion does exist, it occurs at the central office — usually because the company inadequately provisioned a sufficiently large data pipe to handle the traffic.  Since these circuits are increasingly fiber-based, congestion issues disappear when AT&T uses technology from this century instead of the last.

AT&T argues heavy users are overburdening their DSL lines, but their prescription makes no sense.  The company says, despite the alleged traffic jam, it is more than willing to sell users additional capacity for $10 per 50GB increment.  If AT&T’s aim was to cut congestion, they would be unwilling to sell additional capacity they don’t have to customers who need it.

A usage cap on AT&T’s new U-verse platform makes even less sense and opens a political minefield.

When one pushes away the promotional and marketing glitz AT&T provides when pitching U-verse, you are left looking at just one thing — a high speed broadband connection.  AT&T’s entire platform of television, phone, and broadband all resides on that single, super-speed broadband pipeline.

AT&T has built this super fast pipe with a combination of fiber optic cables and copper phone wires.  It uses fiber, which doesn’t degrade with distance the way copper wire connections do, to reduce the amount of copper phone wiring between your home and AT&T.  With this “fiber to the neighborhood” approach, AT&T can create a robust pipeline which can accommodate multiple television channels, a phone line, and your broadband connection all running concurrently.

AT&T only seeks to limit one part of that connection, however: the broadband service you could theoretically use to bypass AT&T’s television and phone service in favor of another provider.  It’s the same platform — only the services are different.

AT&T claims network congestion is a problem for U-verse as well, which is a controversial claim to make considering AT&T designed U-verse with excess capacity that goes unused to this day.

What does AT&T’s U-verse network look like?

AT&T’s regional offices maintain watch over their U-verse network of TV, Internet, and phone services.  This portion of the network is entirely fiber-based.  From there, fiber extends to individual central offices, part of the company’s middle-mile network.  AT&T’s fiber journey typically ends at large metal cabinets strategically placed in different neighborhoods.  These “Video Ready Access Devices” (VRADs) are probably familiar to you if you live in an AT&T area.  Sometimes derided as “lawn refrigerators,” the huge metal cabinets contain the interface between the fiber optic network and the copper wire telephone lines running to your home.

It’s this “choke point” AT&T tries to claim as a point of congestion.  If enough customers use their connection at the same time, it can “overburden” the network.  But can it, really?

Early adopters of U-verse pestered AT&T engineers about the network as it was constructed and learned a lot about it.

Phil Karn has been a U-verse customer since November 2009 and has become an expert on how his U-verse service works, and importantly how it holds back a considerable amount of available bandwidth.

An AT&T engineer “tried to tell me that the network equipment was like the engine in a sports car. You don’t want to drive it at the red line all the time because that will wear it out. I don’t know if he was told to use that analogy or if he came up with it on his own, but needless to say it’s a pretty silly one. And completely inapplicable,” Karn shares on his website.

He then claimed, rather weakly, that backhaul capacity considerations from the VRAD limit how much can be offered to each individual subscriber. This argument might even have begun to hold water except for the numbers he then provided. The VRADs, he said, are connected by 10 gigabit Ethernet over fiber, and each VRAD serves upwards of 200 homes. Let’s see…10 gigabits over 200 homes is 50 megabits per home. My [U-Verse] link runs at 32.2Mbps.

The whole point is that it doesn’t really matter how fast or slow the backhaul from the VRAD may be. With modern Internet routers and priority [Quality of Service] mechanisms, there is no reason to force capacity to remain idle when a user could be using it. Not unless, of course, you’re trying to maintain the public impression that broadband capacity is really scarce and expensive.

Karn

In fact, because few Internet users fully drive their broadband connections on a continuous basis, it can be argued that continuous video streams delivered to television sets left on in the homes of U-verse customers for hours at a time present a bigger “congestion” problem for AT&T, at least at this point in their network.  But the company has no plans to limit television viewing — only their broadband Internet service.

U-verse is AT&T’s answer to slow speed DSL, and part of how the company intends to stay relevant as landline customers depart.  But the company’s business plan depends on a certain percentage of customers subscribing to their pricey television service.  Should AT&T’s broadband customers decide to stop paying for television service, watching everything online instead, that threatens a $5 billion dollar business.

Burstein predicted this scenario when he discussed it with former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

“In 2005, Kevin Martin discussed with me the issue of what he would do if AT&T favored U-verse. I believe he felt he would have to act, but at that point hoped competition would prevent him from facing that decision. Now AT&T’s multi-million dollar über-lobbyist Jim Cicconi has presumably told them [current FCC Chairman] Julius Genachowski is sufficiently under control he won’t do anything about this.”

In the end, many of AT&T’s arguments simply are incoherent.  If only a small handful of AT&T customers are creating such a dilemma for the company it has to inconvenience every customer with a usage limit, AT&T has a much larger problem to contend with.  Furthermore, the company’s existing acceptable use policy already includes provisions for dealing with users that create problems on their network, all without bothering everyone else.

Jenkins

The Wall Street Journal attempted to attach its own conventional wisdom in an opinion piece about cloud-based streaming that suggests Canada “is just ahead of the U.S. in introducing usage-based pricing [and] has bloggers and politicians accusing Bell Canada of unconscionable ‘profiteering’ from usage caps. The company, they rage, is reaping huge fees for additional units of bandwidth that cost Bell Canada virtually nothing to provide.”

The author, Holman Jenkins, is a regular on the ultra-business friendly editorial page of the Journal, and has been raging against Net Neutrality and for higher Internet pricing for several years now.

Jenkins’ latest argument, just like his earlier ones on this subject, falls apart almost immediately:

This critique, which is common, could not more comprehensively miss the point. Another car on the roadway poses no additional cost on the road builder; it imposes a cost on other road users. Likewise, network operators don’t use overage penalties to collect their marginal costs but to shape user behavior so a shared resource won’t be overtaxed.

Jenkins needs to spend less time supporting his friends at companies like AT&T and Bell and more time exploring road construction costs.  If you are going to try and make an analogy about traffic, at least get your premise straight.

Before debunking his usage-based billing meme, let’s talk about road construction for a moment.  In fact, the kind of traffic volume on a roadway has everything to do with what kind of road is constructed.  In the appropriately named “Idiots’ Guide to Highway Maintenance,” C.J.Summers explores different types of road surfaces for different kinds of traffic.  Light duty roads in rural areas can get results with oil and stone.  Medium duty side streets and avenues are frequently paved with asphalt, and heavy duty interstates routinely use concrete.  Traffic studies are performed routinely to assist engineers in choosing the right material to get the job done.

Digital information doesn’t wear down cables or airwaves.  If broadband traffic occupies 5 or 95 percent of a digital pipeline, it makes no difference to the pipeline.  Jenkins is right when he says Internet Overcharging schemes are all about shaping user behavior, but for the wrong reasons.

Jenkins thinks Netflix and other high bandwidth applications face usage-based pricing to allow providers to keep their broadband pipes from getting overcongested:

Netflix is one of the companies most threatened by usage-based pricing, and it has quickly geared up a lobbying team in Washington. In a recent letter to shareholders, CEO Reed Hastings downplayed the challenge to Netflix’s video-streaming business. In the long run, he’s probably right—the market will settle on flat-rate pricing once the video-intensive user has become the average user.

In the meantime, however, Netflix shareholders had better look out.

In fact, providers are reaping the rewards of their popular broadband services, but almost uniformly are less interested in investing in them to match capacity.  It is as if the AT&Ts of this world assumed broadband users would consume    T H I S    M U C H   and that’s it — time to collect profits.  When upgrade investments don’t even keep up as a percentage of revenue earned over past years, the inevitable result will be a custom-made excuse to impose usage limits and consumption billing to manage the “data tsunami.”

Canadian providers did not slap usage caps on broadband users because Netflix arrived — they lowered them. Telling users they cannot consume the same amount of bandwidth they used a month earlier has nothing to do with managing traffic, it’s about protecting their video businesses by discouraging consumers from even contemplating using the competition.  Jenkins works for a company that understands that perfectly well.  News Corp., has a major interest in Hulu as well as satellite television services in Europe and Oceania.

The rest of Jenkins’ piece is as smug as it is wrong.  In attacking Net Neutrality supporters as “crazies” trying to defend their “hobby horse,” Jenkins claims public interest groups are pouting about usage-based billing, too:

All along, what the net neut crazies have lacked in intellectual consistency they’ve made up in fealty to the business interests of companies that fear their services would become unattractive if users had one eye on a bandwidth meter. That’s why opposition to “Internet censorship” morphed into opposition to anything that might price or allocate broadband capacity rationally. But such a stance is rapidly becoming untenable, whether the beneficiary is Google, with its advertising-based business model, or Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others who hope to capitalize on the entertainment-streaming opportunity.

All are betting heavily on the cloud. All need to start dealing realistically with the question of how the necessary bandwidth will be paid for.

Part of Jenkins’ theory calls back on his usual Google bashing — he perceives the company as a parasite stealing the resources bandwidth providers paid for, while forgetting the success of their businesses ultimately depends on content producers (who indeed pay billions for their own bandwidth) making the service interesting enough for consumers to buy.

But there is nothing rational about Jenkins’ support for Internet Overcharging.  North Americans already pay some of the highest prices in the world for the slowest service.  While providers attempt to lick the last drop of profits out of increasingly outdated networks (hello DSL!), their future strategy is less about expanding those networks and more about constraining the use of them.

Jenkins is ignorant of the fact several of Net Neutrality’s strongest proponents, Public Knowledge being a classic example, have not historically opposed usage-based pricing, much to my personal consternation.  As we’ve argued (and I submit proved), Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging go hand in hand for revenue hungry providers.  If they cannot discriminate, throttle, or block traffic they consider to be costly to their networks, they can simply cap demand on the customer side with usage limits or confiscatory pricing designed to discourage use.  That is precisely what Canadians are fighting against.

It’s all made possible by a broken free market.  Instead of hearty competition, most North Americans endure a duopoly — a phone company and a cable company.  Both, particularly in Canada, have vested interests in video entertainment, television and cable networks, and other entertainment properties.  As long as these interests exist, companies will always resist challenges to their core business models, such as cable TV cord cutting.  It’s as simple as that.

The “realistic” way bandwidth will be paid for escapes Jenkins because his quest for condescension takes precedence over actual facts.  Content producers already pay enormous sums to bandwidth providers like Akamai, Amazon, and other cloud-based distribution centers.  Consumers pay handsomely for their broadband connections, part of which covers the costs of delivering that content to their homes and businesses.  AT&T and other providers don’t deserve to get paid twice for the same content.  Indeed, they should be investing some of their enormous profits in building a new generation of fiber-based broadband pipelines to keep their customers happy.  Because no matter how much data you cram down a glass fiber, the ‘data friction’ will never cause those cables to go down in flames, unlike Jenkins’ lapsed-from-reality arguments.

Shaw Communications held the first in a series of nearly three dozen upcoming “town hall meetings” on the issue of usage-based billing, starting with a gathering in Vancouver last evening.

Readers of Broadband Reports are reflecting on Shaw’s management of the meeting, particularly the lack of adversarial tone they anticipated going in. Several in attendance report company executives strenuously avoided arguments with customers and steered well clear of pro-UBB propaganda, which makes considerable sense when gauging the audience, which was likely almost entirely opposed to Internet Overcharging.

“They said they made a lot of mistakes concerning UBB,” one Broadband Reports reader shared. “It was almost a mea culpa.”

Company officials also admitted their usage caps will expose an increasing number of customer to overlimit fees if they go unadjusted — they respect the fact everyone will be defined as a “heavy user” under today’s usage limits in a few years.

“It was probably a bit of PR damage-control, and in that regard they did a good job,” the reader shared.

Another reader in attendance suspect the company misjudged the resulting backlash over UBB.

“It really felt like Shaw got blindsided by the righteous anger over UBB, and they’re truly surprised at how poorly they’ve judged the zeitgeist of their customers,” a reader wrote.

The cozy business relationship of Canadian telecommunications companies, who have maintained comfortable, barely-competitive markets for years might also be an issue of concern, writes one reader.

“They seem to be scared of the idea the cozy business-as-usual approach they’ve been taking [could go] away with the possibility of foreign ownership rules being relaxed or various other game-changing rulings being made. They sure sounded like they’re interested in making concessions [for] customer satisfaction, if only to stave off increased competition from outside Canada.”

Our Take

Stop the Cap! views such public meetings with some suspicion, if only because we have attended a few like these in the past and seen them used as intelligence-gathering operations for a marketing department charged with implementing the pricing schemes on customers.

While Shaw still seems to be holding onto the notion it can bring back a more palatable UBB scheme at the end of its “listening tour,” you can be certain other Canadian Internet providers are engaged in research and focus group testing with a less engaged audience, trying to find “fairness scenarios” that work in the court of public opinion.

As Shaw opens its next meeting in Calgary (and beyond), the best response people can give in these meetings is a clear, unified, and absolute message:

NO UBB.

NOT NOW.

NOT EVER.

UPGRADE YOUR NETWORKS!

The region of Canada that faces the end of flat rate broadband (namely, everywhere)

As soon as you enter into discussions about what represents a “fair amount” of usage, you have lost the argument.  Debating the numbers is their game, not yours.  Is 100GB enough, 250GB? 500? 1000?

What about tomorrow?

What is “reasonable” mean anyway?

“Reasonable” should not be how much Internet you are able to consume at Shaw’s everyday high prices.

Instead, Shaw’s absolutely massive profits demand that upgrades be maintained to accommodate users of their product. Shaw has plenty on hand to manage growth with upgraded facilities from Vancouver to the prairies and still have plenty of money left over.  Their revenue from broadband is soaring.  The costs to deliver it are dropping.

When you go to these meetings, explain politely, persuasively, and persistently that you are not prepared to accept the return of any UBB system, period. That inconvenient truth may be difficult for them to accept, but tell them you have every confidence a company as innovative as Shaw can find a way to keep customers and shareholders happy, and you’ll work with them to that end if they deliver the flat rate broadband experience that your neighbors to the south get.

If the USA and other countries around the world can manage it, so can Canada.

Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry Science and Technology has taken an in-depth look at Internet Overcharging in an ongoing series of hearings to explore Bell’s petition to charge usage-based billing.  The request, earlier approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), would end flat rate, unlimited usage plans across the country, and mandate Bell’s proscribed usage cap regime on every ISP in Canada.

Remarkably, even Canada’s Conservative Party, which laid the deregulatory framework that allowed Canada’s barely-competitive market to stick it to consumers and small businesses, refuses to defend the overcharging schemes.

So far, the three hearings deliver everything Stop the Cap! has warned about since we began this fight in the summer of 2008:

1. Proof that usage caps, and consumption-based billing have nothing to do with cost recovery or fairness.  They are, at their root, economically engineered to discourage use of the Internet and protect revenue from the provider’s other businesses, especially video.
2. There is no evidence of a data tsunami, exaflood, or whatever other term providers and their financially-connected allies in the equipment business cook up to warn about an explosion of data usage mandating control measures.  Data usage is increasing at a slower rate than the development of new equipment and fiber pipelines to manage it.
3. Nobody ever saves a thing with Internet Overcharging schemes.  While Bell and other providers make up scary stories about “heavy users” picking “innocent” users’ pockets, it’s the providers themselves making all the money.  In fact, bytes of data have no intrinsic value.  The pipelines that deliver data at varying speeds do, which is why providers are well-compensated for use of them.  Levying additional charges for data consumption is nothing more than extra profit — a broadband usage tax.  Providers make plenty selling users increasingly profitable connections based on speed.  They do not need to be paid twice.
4. For all the talk about the need to invest in network expansion, Bell has reduced infrastructure spending on its core broadband networks the last three years’ running.  They are spending more on deploying Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), a service the company swears has nothing to do with the Internet or their broadband service (despite the fact it travels down the exact same pipeline).
5. Caps and usage billing never bring about innovation, except from providers looking for new ways to charge their customers more for less service.

I strongly encourage readers to spend an evening watching and listening to these hearings.  At least download the audio and let Canada’s broadband story penetrate.  You will laugh, cringe, and sometimes want to throw things at your multimedia player.

In the end, the hearings illustrate the points we’ve raised here repeatedly over the past three years, and it only strengthens our resolve to battle these Internet pricing ripoffs wherever they appear.  If you are a Canadian citizen,write your MP and demand an end to “usage-based billing” and make it clear this issue is paramount for your vote at the next election.  Don’t debate the numbers or waste time “compromising” on how much you want to be ripped off.  There is no middle ground for usage-based pricing.  It should be rejected at every turn, everywhere, with no compromises.  After all, aren’t you paying enough for your Internet connection already?

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 54 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 3, 2011

This video is encoded in the Windows Media format which presents some technical challenges.  Full screen or 200% zoom-viewing mode is recommended.

[For Windows users, right click the video and select ‘Zoom->Full Screen’ or ‘Zoom->200%’.]

This hearing was televised and had the most media attention.  Testimony from the CRTC was decidedly defensive, and almost entirely in support of usage-based billing and Bell’s petition.  The Commission found no friends in this hearing.

Appearing from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Konrad W. von Finckenstein, Chairman; Len Katz, Vice-Chairman, Telecommunications; Lynne Fancy, Acting Executive Director, Telecommunications.  (1 hour, 29 minutes)

If you want to take the hearing audio along for a ride, you can download the MP3 version.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 55 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 8, 2011

The second in a series of hearings exploring Usage-based billing included witnesses from independent Internet Service Providers who could face extinction if they are forced to pay higher prices for wholesale broadband access.

Appearing: Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of TekSavvy Solutions Inc., Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus Telecommunications Canada, and Jean-François Mezei, a Montreal-based telecommunications consultant who most recently petitioned the CRTC to repeal its decision. (120 minutes)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 56 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 10, 2011

The third in a series of hearings exploring Usage-based billing included witnesses from Bell Canada, which originally proposed the idea, and additional testimony from independent Internet Service Providers and their trade association, and consumer advocates who oppose the pricing scheme.

Appearing: OpenMedia.ca: Steve Anderson, Founder and National Coordinator. Bell Canada: Jonathan Daniels, Vice-President, Law and Regulatory Affairs; Mirko Bibic, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory and Government Affairs. Shaw Communications Inc.: Jean Brazeau, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs; Ken Stein, Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs. Canadian Association of Internet Providers: Monica Song, Counsel, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. MTS Allstream Inc.: Teresa Griffin-Muir, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs. Union des consommateurs: Anthony Hémond, Lawyer, Analyst, policy and regulations in telecommunications, broadcasting, information highway and privacy. Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.: Bill Sandiford, President; Christian S. Tacit, Barrister and Solicitor, Counsel. (128 minutes)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Bell is pulling out all the stops trying to defend its justification for Internet Overcharging through so-called usage-based billing.  In a published debate between the telecom giant and TekSavvy — a small independent ISP trying to preserve flat rate broadband service in Canada, Bell claims Canadian broadband is the third best in the world, ahead of the United States, all of Europe, and just barely trailing Japan and Korea:

At the same time, Canada has increasingly become a world leader when it comes to broadband. When it comes to actual download speeds, Canada ranks third in the G20, behind only densely populated Korea and Japan. And prices are low — in fact, for higher-speed services, lower than in both the U.S. and Japan.

Michael Geist, a popular columnist fighting against Canadian Internet Overcharging, scoffs at the notion:

I’m not sure where these claims come from – Canada does not appear in the top 10 on Akamai’s latest State of the Internet report for Internet speed and no Canadian city makes Akamai’s top 100 for peak speed. The OECD report ranks Canada well back in terms of speed and price as does the Berkman report.  The NetIndex report ranks Canada 36th in the world for residential speed. Moreover, the shift away from the OECD to the G20 has the effect of excluding many developed countries with faster and cheaper broadband than Canada (while bringing in large, developing world economies that unsurprisingly rank below Canada on these issues). While there is probably a report somewhere that validates the claim, the consensus is that Canada is not a leader.

Bell’s Magic Pony-stories are at best exaggerated and at worst, phoney-baloney from the telco’s government relations department.

Stop the Cap! compared prices across several providers and found no value for money in broadband plans from all of the country’s major phone and cable companies.  Without fail, all were heavily usage limited, most throttled broadband speeds for peer-to-peer applications, engaged in overlimit fees the credit card industry would be proud to charge, and simply were almost always behind their counterparts to the south — in the United States.  In fact, some consumers are importing their broadband from the USA when they can manage it.

“Bell can’t win the argument on the merits, so it is making things up,” writes London, Ontario resident Hugh MacDonald.  “I have had Bell DSL for years now, and there isn’t anything fast or cheap about it.”

MacDonald’s broadband service from Bell tops out at around 4Mbps.

Mirko Bibic, senior vice-president for regulatory and government affairs at Bell claims consumers have to pay more to fund infrastructure expansion, and even challenges our long-standing assertion that telephone network comparisons don’t apply:

Bell provides all our customers with the best possible Internet experience available — the result of heavy and ongoing investment to expand our network capacity both to meet fast-growing demand and to manage the congestion that threatens everyone’s Internet experience.

Internet congestion is a fact and it cannot be wished away. Network providers like Bell must, like hydro utilities, build our networks to handle the heaviest usage times, not just an average of usage over time. At 8:30 in the evening, demand is at its absolute peak. And we have to deliver based on the volume at that time.

Keeping up with growing volume obviously means these network investments are not one-time costs. Between 2006 and 2009, Internet usage more than doubled, and Bell has invested more than $8-billion in the last five years in network growth and enhancement to keep pace. Yet at the same time, the CRTC has found that the average price per gigabyte downloaded has actually declined by 20%.

That’s why the long distance analogy, so often used by those with an interest in confusing the issue, is fundamentally misleading. In the case of long distance, it’s the simple transmission of voice over long-established legacy networks.

But Bibic ignores several important facts and doesn’t disclose others:

What broadband network does not have to make regular investments to expand to meet demand?  Cable and telephone company DSL business models, in place for at least a decade, priced network expansion, infrastructure return on investment, and data transmission into pricing formulas.  While data demands are increasing, the costs to meet those demands are, as Bell openly admits, declining.

What amount of revenue and profit has been earned from selling broadband service to Canadian consumers and the wholesale market and how does that compare to the dollar amount invested?  Bell Canada’s financial report for the third quarter of 2010 shows the company will earn an estimated $3.5 billion in revenue from its broadband Internet division alone.  Bell’s capital spending numbers also include network investments for its fiber to the neighborhood service, Fibe.  Bell’s revenue from selling the video side of that service were on track to deliver an additional $1.5 billion in revenue in 2010.  Not including the enormous wholesale broadband market, Bell will earn at least $5 billion a year from its broadband division.

In fact, Bell’s financial report also openly admits much of its capital spending increases have been spent on deploying its IPTV network Fibe in Ontario and Quebec, not on Internet backbone traffic management.

What are some of Bell’s biggest risks to a happy-clappy shareholder report for investors next quarter?  To quote:

• “Our ability to implement our strategies and plans in order to produce the expected benefits;
• Our ability to continue to implement our cost reduction initiatives and contain capital intensity;
• The potential adverse effects on our Internet and wireless businesses of the significant increase in broadband demand;
• Our ability to discontinue certain traditional services as necessary to improve capital and operating efficiencies;
• Regulatory initiatives or proceedings, litigation and changes in laws or regulations.”

Bibic

As for Bell’s claims about the “long distance analogy,” it’s only slightly ironic that a telecommunications company considers today’s voice networks radically different from data networks.  Analog transmission of voice calls went the way of the telegraph around a decade ago, with the last analog, step-by-step telephone switch in North America in Nantes, Quebec switched off in late 2001.  Today, telephone traffic is digital data, no different than any other kind of data transported across the country.

Bell cannot afford to have comparisons made between the telephone company’s move towards flat rate billing for phone calls and their broadband service moving away from it, because it torpedoes their entire argument.

Bibic then argues UBB is the right way to go because… major providers already charge it:

UBB has been the established framework for Internet services in Canada for years. Bell, for example, offers standard Internet service packages ranging from 25 gigabytes up to 75 gigabytes per month. As well, customers can sign up for 40 GB more for $5 per month, 80 GB for $10 or a whopping 120 GB more for $15. Keep in mind that 120 GB will get you 600 hours of standard definition video streaming or 100 hours of HD video streaming.

Not a bad deal when you consider average usage on our network is 16 GB per month and half of our customer base uses just five GB a month.

Most Canadians don’t see the “good deal” Bell says they will get from dramatically increased broadband prices. In fact, polls reveal the only groups in Canada that support such pricing are Big Telecom executives and the CRTC.

A new Angus Reid/Toronto Star poll illustrates what we’ve found to be true wherever ripoff “usage-based” pricing appears: people despise it, no matter how much Internet they use:

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,024 Canadian adults, three-in-four respondents (76%) disagree with the recent decision from the Canada Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which set the stage to eliminate unlimited use plans.

Bibic can relax as long as the current panel of commissioners at the CRTC, largely drawn from telecommunications companies, remain in place.  They continue to agree with Bell’s point of view and ignore the citizens they are supposed to represent.