Bigpond is Telstra's broadband service

Telstra, Australia’s dominant telecommunications company, is openly concerned about the prospect of Australians finally shedding themselves from Internet Overcharging schemes like low usage caps and throttled speed.  But instead of doing away with these profit-boosting schemes themselves, they’ve decided to argue that consumers don’t need the country’s newest 1TB usage allowance plans, calling them publicity gimmicks.

Of course, Telstra doesn’t offer a 1TB plan.

Heath Gibson tries to explain away Telstra’s Internet Overcharging in a company blog post:

A terabyte is a lot of data. One provider claimed it’s enough to download about 200 DVD quality movies and still have quota left over.  Whilst my inner geek is salivating at the possibilities, the analyst in me is questioning just how many people currently need, or could even use, a terabyte of data each and every month.

Gibson

Gibson believes the average Australian is better off plans like Telstra’s 50GB DSL service, running $49.30US per month on a two-year contract.  When all the charges and fees are totaled, Australians will pay Mr. Gibson’s company $2,364.50US for two years of service that slows to 64kbps once your monthly 50GB allotment is used up.

“Terabyte plans will have appeal to a special niche and demand for these plans will no doubt grow over time,” Gibson wrote. “But for now my advice to most people would be to look past the attention grabbing headline, check how big a plan you really need and keep in mind all the other things that go in to making a great ISP.”

Australians have already made that decision and they have been voting with their feet to other providers.  On the same day Gibson was dismissing the competition, Telstra CEO David Thodey was responding to it, recognizing the company has lost significant market share because of high prices and poor customer service.

He told The Advertiser improvements were underway.

“The focus on customer service is something that is innate within Telstra, but our delivery leaves a lot to be desired,” he said.

So is their pricing.  Gibson’s views defending rationed Internet service are similar to the arguments broadband providers in the States use to defend their failure to keep up in the global broadband speed race.  Only instead of dismissing the need for unlimited service, American providers try and convince customers they don’t need the faster speeds they don’t deliver.

Verizon hopes to herd its smartphone owners onto limited use data plans on its new LTE high speed network

Verizon this week unveiled a list of 38 major cities where the company’s much-faster LTE wireless broadband service will launch by year’s end.  Dubbed by some as the “list of cities with NFL franchises,” Verizon’s choices delighted some, but puzzled others.

But before the celebrations get out of hand, incoming Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam warned customers need to prepare themselves, and their wallets, for major price changes.

Specifically, the company intends to treat its new 4G network, with top speeds of 5-12Mbps downstream and 2-5Mbps upstream, as a premium product with a premium price.  It comes complete with a classic Internet Overcharging scheme.

“We think there’s a place for unlimited plans,” McAdam announced, “but we think that over time, because we have finite resources, our customers are going to have to shift to a pay-as-you-use model. I would say that clearly over time we will be migrating to a bucket-of-megabytes” price schedule.

Verizon’s finite resources are more infinite than those of its customers, however.

Much like its partner-in-pricing – AT&T, Verizon is preparing to ditch its unlimited data plan for smartphone customers.  Despite the fact its new LTE network will offer a more efficient network experience for both Verizon and its customers, the nation’s largest wireless carrier wants limits on how much data customers can exchange over their new network, with overlimit fees for those who use too much.

Exact pricing has yet to be announced.

Amidst the flurry of excitement over McAdam’s appearance at the San Francisco wireless industry conference, yet more rumors of the forthcoming arrival of a Verizon iPhone also made headlines.  Apple is reportedly releasing a CDMA version of its popular phone soon, and despite the fact there are other CDMA networks in the world, reporters presumed it must be intended for the American market.

After the press conference, the list of cities to get Verizon’s new LTE network became a hot topic for debate.  In western New York, only Rochester made the cut.  For residents in Buffalo, who would like to remind Verizon they have an NFL team, the slight did not go unnoticed.  It made news on the city’s most watched nightly local newscast.

But those of us in Rochester remind our friends in the Queen City they have Verizon FiOS while we are stuck in a broadband backwater with Frontier Communications.  (Besides, the Buffalo Bills training camp is in Rochester.)  The broadband gap between the two cities could have made Rochester a ripe target for Verizon, assuming customers can afford the price of the service plan.

Folks in Austin noted they are not on Verizon’s list either, despite the Texas city’s high-tech-embracing reputation.  Houston, the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, and San Antonio did make the list.  But fear not Austin, you will be able to use LTE at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.

For existing Verizon customers in the chosen places, the imminent arrival of 4G may stall customers from upgrading phones until new LTE-capable models arrive in time for the holidays.  But the Data Grinch That Stole Flat Rate Wireless may still be confounded by the number of customers who let their contracts expire and stick with their existing phones, refusing to expose themselves to mandatory, overpriced data plans.

Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Initial Major Metropolitan Area Deployment

Akron, Ohio
Athens, Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia
Baltimore, Maryland
Boston, Massachusetts
Charlotte, North Carolina
Chicago, Illinois
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, Dallas, Texas
Denver, Colorado
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Houston, Texas
Jacksonville, Florida
Las Vegas, Nevada
Los Angeles, California
Miami, Florida
Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota
Nashville, Tennessee
New Orleans, Louisiana
New York, New York
Oakland, California
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Orlando, Florida
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phoenix, Arizona
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Rochester, New York
San Antonio, Texas
San Diego, California
San Francisco, California
San Jose, California
Seattle/Tacoma, Washington
St. Louis, Missouri
Tampa, Florida
Washington, D.C.
West Lafayette, Indiana
West Palm Beach, Florida

Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Initial Commercial Airport Deployment (Airport Name, City, State)

Austin-Bergstrom International, Austin, Texas
Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshal, Glen Burnie, Maryland
Bob Hope, Burbank, California
Boeing Field/King County International, Seattle, Washington
Charlotte/Douglas International, Charlotte, North Carolina
Chicago Midway International, Chicago, Illinois
Chicago O’Hare International, Chicago, Illinois
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International, Covington, Kentucky
Cleveland-Hopkins International, Cleveland, Ohio
Dallas Love Field, Dallas, Texas
Dallas/Fort Worth International, Fort Worth, Texas
Denver International, Denver, Colorado
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, Houston, Texas
Greater Rochester International, Rochester, New York
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, Atlanta, Georgia
Honolulu International, Honolulu, Hawaii
Jacksonville International, Jacksonville, Florida
John F. Kennedy International, New York, New York
John Wayne Airport-Orange County, Santa Ana, California
Kansas City International, Kansas City, Missouri
La Guardia, New York, New York
Lambert-St. Louis International, St. Louis, Missouri
Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Bedford, Massachusetts
Long Beach/Daugherty Field, Long Beach, California
Los Angeles International, Los Angeles, California
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International, Metairie, Louisiana
McCarran International, Las Vegas, Nevada
Memphis International, Memphis, Tennessee
Metropolitan Oakland International, Oakland, California
Miami International, Miami, Florida
Minneapolis-St. Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Nashville International, Nashville, Tennessee
New Castle, Wilmington, Delaware
Newark Liberty International, Newark, New Jersey
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International, San Jose, California
North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada
Orlando International, Orlando, Florida
Orlando Sanford International, Sanford, Florida
Palm Beach International, West Palm Beach, Florida
Philadelphia International, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phoenix Sky Harbor International, Phoenix, Arizona
Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, Mesa, Arizona
Pittsburgh International, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Port Columbus International, Columbus, Ohio
Portland International, Portland, Oregon
Rickenbacker International, Columbus, Ohio
Ronald Reagan Washington National, Arlington, Virginia
Sacramento International, Sacramento, California
Salt Lake City International, Salt Lake City, Utah
San Antonio International, San Antonio, Texas
San Diego International, San Diego, California
San Francisco International, San Francisco, California
Seattle-Tacoma International, Seattle, Washington
St. Augustine, Saint Augustine, Florida
St. Petersburg-Clearwater International, Clearwater, Florida
Tampa International, Tampa, Florida
Teterboro, Teterboro, New Jersey
Trenton Mercer, Trenton, New Jersey
Washington Dulles International, Dulles International Airport, Washington, D.C.
Will Rogers World, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
William P. Hobby, Houston, Texas

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Wireless LTE Announced 10-7-10.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless’ announced LTE network was a common topic on local newscasts in several cities. We include WIVB-TV in Buffalo, noting that city didn’t make the cut, WCVB-TV in Boston which spent plenty of time on the resurgence of the rumored Verizon iPhone, WLFI-TV in West Lafayette, Indiana which discussed the network’s implications for Purdue University students, and a promotional video from Verizon itself interviewing visitors to a Boston pizzeria gushing over the speed of Verizon’s newest technology. (5 minutes)

Stop the Cap! reader Kevin dropped us a note again this evening to let us know Clear users are still being throttled even without running peer-to-peer software, and that those throttled experiences run into days, not the 15-minute increments a company official claimed yesterday.  Perhaps Clear’s definition of “minutes” differs from the acceptable norm.  Regardless of the reason, it’s an unpleasant experience at best to pay a generous fee every month for service that effectively tops out at 250kbps (that’s 0.250Mbps) when the punishment throttle is active.

But even more ironic, Clear’s annoyance with a purported flood of customers running peer-to-peer applications on their network could have been tempered had the company avoided advertising the service in 2009 on the very notorious Pirate Bay:

Ahoy mateys: Clear's 2009 advertisement on The Pirate Bay, as captured by one of our readers. (click to enlarge)

Although we enjoy the irony ourselves, it is fair to mention Clear probably didn’t intentionally target the world’s largest torrent tracker website, but was instead mass advertising on a range of websites targeting users thought to be “early adopters.”  But every advertising network we’re aware of allows advertisers to opt-out of specific websites, and Clear hadn’t bothered when our reader captured this image.

That makes Clear’s apparent battle with peer to peer traffic partly one of their own making.

Clear made itself unclear about its speed throttle.

Clear, the 4G wireless broadband service backed by Sprint, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable is under fire for selling customers an unlimited use/”no speed limit” service plan that is heavily throttled to as low as 250kbps once customers are deemed “heavy users” by the provider.

Stop the Cap! reader Kevin in Rochester dropped us a note to share his frustration at Clear’s bait and switch marketing that promises one thing and delivers another.

It’s becoming common knowledge – but not common enough – that Clear is throttling their in-home broadband subscribers. For $30 a month, Clear delivers “unlimited 3Mbps” download speed, but after 8-10GB of usage in a month, they cut your speed to 250kbps as a punishment.

Scores of customers share Kevin’s problems, with complaints pouring in on broadband forums and on Clear’s customer support website (which crashed earlier today).  It is not known whether these usage limitations are also imposed on Comcast and Time Warner Cable’s branded 4G wireless services, which are also delivered by Clear’s network.

Remarkably, Clear’s website has marketed its broadband service as free from classic Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles/network management:

Clear's own marketing promises unlimited usage with no speed reductions, unlike those "other" providers, which now also includes Clear itself. (Courtesy: Michael46)

Despite the marketing, Clear’s Rob Lenderman today admitted the company implemented a speed throttle system on Wednesday, Sept. 29 and placed the blame for doing so on peer-to-peer torrent traffic:

Last Wednesday we deployed a new automated algorithm that tries to even the playing field for all users. Essentially we tried to take users that were downloading large amounts of data over a week’s period of time and limit their top speeds during periods of high tower utilization. This system is based on a tower’s current utilization, GB’s downloaded in the past 7 days and current download speeds in the past 15 minutes. it recalculates your max D/L speed every 15 minutes based on these factors. All in there are 48 buckets of max D/L speeds based on these factors.

The expected results of these changes was that a small percentage of users would be slowed down for short periods of time but only during high utilization times on the tower.

Theoretically the very slow speeds would only last for 15 minutes and then readjust based on tower usage and the last 15 minutes of slower speeds.

The reality is that a very small percentage of users are being set at very low D/L speeds for hours at a time.

We are gathering more data as I write this and we are looking at adjustments to the policy so that the connection becomes more usable. Expect further details this week.

One thing I want to stress is that this algorithm does not apply to towers that have a low utilization which is a large percentage of the towers. Since high utilization is usually at night most users that are seeing slower speeds at night would see increases at other times of the day. We realize this is not ideal but using the system for large downloads outside normal usage hours(evening) will allow you to get higher speeds. This rule applies even if you are not being slowed. Fewer users = Higher speeds.

Expect more details in the next few days as we drill into the details and let you know what changes we will be making to make the experience better.

In the short term you can increase the speeds of your experience by reducing the number of GB sized downloads that take place. Our data shows that running a torrent is one of the reasons that people start to experience slower speeds.

[…]I use the word limit when talking about D/L speeds. Not in terms of amount of data you can download. I can assure you this is being handled at a very high level in the organization as some of the experiences some of you are having is not in the spirit of the program. As for using a P2P you will improve speeds if you run them at off peak hours. As tower utilization drops during those hours the algorithm will release more bandwidth and the apps will pick up speed. In addition fewer users will also yield an increase since the algorithm does not affect low utilization tower at all. So you get a double benefit from using off peak hours for large downloads.

We are looking at how to set the speed limits to ensure things like web browsing and youtube are useful even though large downloads may be limited in terms of speed during peak hours.

We are meeting every day to go over new data and determine a longer term solution instead of just throwing new solutions out there without putting some thought into them.

We apologize for this but we need to get it right and not just change for the sake of change.

RobL

Of course, customers promised repeatedly they would receive lightning-fast, unlimited wireless broadband from the company were unimpressed with the company’s argument that artificially slowing their speeds after as little as 20 minutes viewing Hulu or Netflix to 250kbps for several days qualified as ensuring the subscriber experience.  Many customers report Clear’s throttling is hardly limited only to peer to peer torrent traffic.  Online video streaming, in particular, routinely triggers the speed throttle for customers, something Lenderman admitted might be an issue:

We are looking at the impact of the new policy as we speak and will be reevaluating it shortly to determine what changes might need to be made.

The algorithm we use is complicated and is not intended to shut down users that use the service in a normal manner. It was intended to slow down usage from users that have bit torrents, etc running all day long.

For some of the customers that have complained we have researched it in detail and they were not being slowed by the algorithm. We have to make sure that everything is running properly as it makes no sense for us to limit users so much that the service becomes unusable.

We should have more info on what we plan to change in the next few days as we evaluate the data.

Clear becomes just the latest provider poster child for Net Neutrality in the United States.  While there may be reasonable capacity issues at stake on wireless networks not designed to accommodate 24/7 peer to peer traffic, throttling online video is another matter entirely — it’s one of the services Clear has promoted as possible using their higher speed network.  Artificially slowing a network the company sells as not being hampered by such traffic control measures is a classic case of false advertising.

One vocal Clear customer created this avatar

Customers have noticed and have attacked the company for dishonest business practices, bait and switch marketing, and violating their own internal policies.

Stop the Cap! has not seen any reports of company officials attempting to enforce early termination fees for those exiting contracts early.  Kevin noted his service was turned off as he was on the phone with a representative to process the disconnect request.  The representative also demanded Kevin return his modem.

Most who are dropping service are resuming service with their old providers, mostly cable broadband and telephone company DSL providers.  If online forum posts and Twitter tweets are to be believed, the company is losing hundreds of customers per day over their Internet Overcharging scheme.

Most likely, Clear has turned to vendors like Sandvine for “usage management” equipment that can automatically slow service for those who actually utilize the service they pay to receive.

“It is no longer about the broadband-connected home but about the broadband-connected individual,” said Tom Donnelly, EVP marketing and sales, Sandvine. “Service providers worldwide are looking for tools that enable their subscribers to stay within their service plans regardless of when, where or how they connect to the network.”

Sandvine’s products detect network conditions that trigger policies within the network to help service providers control subscribers’ Internet experience.  The latest version integrates with 3G and 4G networks to throttle speeds based on time of use or volume of data transferred.  A provider sets the parameters and the “network management” solution does the rest, automatically.

Stop the Cap! intends to monitor this situation carefully over the coming days to learn what the company intends to do with its network management scheme.  If they continue to use it, we will do our part and file a formal complaint against Clear with New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for false advertising and misleading business practices.

It is only a matter of time before a law firm begins a class action against the company for similar reasons.  Stop the Cap! encourages Clear customers to use the company’s forum to vocally demand an end to all Internet Overcharging schemes or else you will take your business elsewhere.  You should also demand full credit for the days you experience artificially slowed speeds, and please let us know if you are asked to pay any early termination fee for exiting a Clear term contract.

Cox Communications has rolled out a usage meter for its broadband customers, starting with its Gulf Coast market in northwest Florida, but launching elsewhere very soon according to Cox officials.

Broadband Reports readers first noticed the usage meter popping up on Cox’s website under “My Connection” — an account control panel.

The new usage meter accompanies usage limits Cox has had on its broadband tiers for more than a year — limits that have rarely been enforced.

Cox has traditionally left their broadband customers alone unless consumption creates a technical problem or begins to impact other customers.  The usage allowances range from 30-400GB, depending on the speed tier, and they are buried on Cox’s website.

Most Cox customers appear unconcerned about the new usage meter, so long as Cox continues its “soft cap” program that only targets users that create issues for others on its network.  But if the company begins to impose overlimit fees, or begins hard-enforcement of its caps, some customers are prepared to leave.

“AT&T or Knology are just a phone call away in many Cox cities,” writes our reader Kevin.  “If Cox starts a full scale overcharging scheme with customers, we’ll just switch.”

Cox is the nation’s fifth largest pay television provider with just over 5,000,000 customers.