Shaw Communications today announced they are boosting speeds on one of their popular broadband tiers — Shaw Extreme, from 15/1Mbps to 25/2.5Mbps.  The current price for the Extreme plan remains the same.  So does the monthly usage limit of 100GB.

Customers appreciate the faster speed, but are not impressed Shaw has continued to limit customers to how much service they can use.

“Now I can hit my 100GB usage cap that much faster,” shares Shaw customer Dan Peek, who lives in Calgary.  “Shaw just completed dozens of listening tours, but they are obviously not listening at all.  What good are the faster speeds when you are effectively limited from using your broadband account to full advantage?”

Shaw claims the new broadband speeds are part of an effort to unveil new Internet packaging anticipated for early summer.

“It’s an exciting time at Shaw as we begin to create a world-class Internet product, giving our customers the ultimate experience in connectivity and entertainment,” said Peter Bissonnette, President, Shaw Communications Inc. “The Shaw Extreme speed upgrade is just the first spark of a whole new world of entertainment and offerings to come. We’re building the network of the future and our customers are at the very heart of it.”

Shaw also plans to introduce new equipment options, including a new box that will allow customers to access files stored on personal computers on their television set.  Shaw’s efforts suggest the company recognizes customers are increasingly interested in accessing multimedia content with their broadband connections.  Unfortunately, the company’s usage caps preclude customers from doing more than dabbling.

“It’s a PR effort made for the Canadian government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission,” offers Peek.  “This summer they will be in Ottawa promoting their new broadband speeds as evidence the Canadian ISPs are not the backwater players they’ve always been, all while hoping their usage-based billing schemes will get a pass.”

Peek suggests broadband speed is not Canada’s biggest broadband challenge — the usage caps are.

“If you asked most Canadians if they would prefer 10Mbps service with no cap or 20Mbps service with caps starting at 40GB per month, people will take the slower speed,” Peek says.  “Shaw doesn’t seem to understand that basic message.”

Shaw's usage billing shark is still circling western Canada. The company may have increased speeds, but their 100GB usage cap on the Extreme tier remains.

Shaw’s listening tour across western Canada brought “summaries” from company officials that are being criticized by several Shaw customers who were at the meetings.

“I was at one of the Calgary meetings and the “summary” that showed up after the fact was the work of one of Shaw’s marketing hacks,” says Steve, a Stop the Cap! reader.  “The one thing they left out of the summary is the fact we do not want these caps and that they are not justified by the facts.”

Steve claims Shaw left customer demands for the end of usage caps out of their summaries, even though many customers brought up how much they hated usage-based billing and caps.  But there was plenty of room for customers who asked, “why should low usage customers pay for usage,” something Shaw’s customers in fact don’t do.  Another frequent meme from Shaw — “[customers] rejected the idea of subsidizing high bandwidth consumers.”

“That’s Shaw propaganda designed to fix a pre-determined conclusion around their distorted facts,” Steve says.  “The company presented charts and graphs with their world view and asked customers to comment on them in a focus group-like setting.  If you didn’t know those ‘facts’ were actually company ‘positions,’ you end up debating their numbers on their terms.”

Steve thinks Shaw’s version of “fair” is unique to Canada and would never be accepted in the United States.

“When you have media types parroting Shaw’s claim that practically nobody exceeds their usage limits, it quickly allows the cable company to claim heavy users are abusing the system, necessitating the caps,” Steve says.  “Now that Netflix is here, we’re all going to be heavy users now.”

Marie from Burnaby, B.C. confirmed Shaw’s new Extreme speeds were active as of this evening, noting speed test results of 20Mbps downstream and just over 2Mbps upstream once she reset her cable modem.  But she considers it of little value because of the usage cap.

“This will help our family when we’re all sharing the connection after school and at night, but since the 100GB cap remains unchanged, those faster speeds invite more usage, which will also eventually bring a higher bill,” she writes.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse has declared war on the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, suggesting it would result in a nationwide cell phone duopoly that will stifle innovation and eliminate competition.

“If AT&T is allowed to swallow T-Mobile, competition will be stifled, growth will be stifled and wireless innovation will be jeopardized,” Hesse told attendees at the Commonwealth Club of California Friday.

Sprint’s announced opposition to the proposed merger came during a speech that was supposed to be about the company’s environmental initiatives, but Hesse opened his remarks warning of the dire implications should the nation’s second largest wireless carrier absorb the fourth — T-Mobile.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse delivers remarks at the Commonwealth Club of California – Friday, April 15, 2011. This edited clip covers Hesse’s remarks regarding the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. (12 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Sprint has signaled it is willing to spend lobbying dollars to fight the merger in Washington, where it faces a review by the Justice Department and the FCC.  The declaration of war by Sprint did not go over well at AT&T, where the company’s top lobbyist Jim Cicconi trotted out Hesse’s prior statements to use against him in a company blog post:

As recently as last October, Mr. Hesse said the wireless industry is ‘hyper competitive‘.  The month prior, his CFO talked about how ‘tough‘ retail competition is in the wireless market, citing at least six major competitors.  In February of last year, Mr. Hesse said, “M&A is absolutely a way to get the growth in the industry, if a particular transaction makes sense for anybody.”  He went on to say, “I think consolidation will be healthy for the industry, some consolidation. It is, needless to say, very competitive.”  And in January of last year at a Citi Global Conference, Mr. Hesse said, “Well, there is no question that we have an extremely competitive wireless industry in this country and that the pricing is getting much more aggressive.”

Given that Sprint is a major competitor to AT&T in the hyper competitive wireless market Mr. Hesse describes, no one should be surprised that they would oppose this merger.  But it is self-serving for them to argue that the highly competitive wireless market they cited only months ago is now threatened by the very type of transaction they seemed prepared to defend previously.

Sprint was reportedly interested in pursuing a merger with T-Mobile before AT&T sealed their own deal with the German telecommunications company.

Hesse

Cicconi’s remarks about a “hyper-competitive” marketplace conflict with marketplace reality:

• A combined AT&T/T-Mobile enterprise would control 42 percent of the American wireless marketplace;
• Verizon Wireless would control 32 percent;
• Sprint would maintain third place with a distant 17 percent;
• Every other carrier combined (Cricket, MetroPCS, Alltel, and other regional players) would have just 9 percent.

In fact, after Sprint, other carriers AT&T routinely cites as “serious competition” individually have just three percent or less of the American market.

Hesse told his audience that besides concerns about innovation and price, also-ran carriers other than AT&T and Verizon are likely going to get stuck with less advanced handsets and face little or no access to latest generation iPhone and Android smartphones, often made available exclusively to larger carriers.

“Whoever the supplier is, you can say, ‘Hey, I’ll take all of your production,'” Hesse said. “They could restrict our access to some of the cool devices.”

Hesse predicts his company will ultimately not be the only one opposing the merger.  But smaller carriers have had little to say since the merger was announced.

Commercial providers and their pals in the legislature will go to any length — even lie — to protect their cozy duopoly, charging high rates for poor quality service.

That fact of life has been proven once again in the state of Tennessee, where an effort to expand EPB Fiber — a community owned fiber network — to nearby communities outside of Chattanooga, was killed thanks to a lobbying blitzkrieg by Big Telecom interests.

The “Broadband Infrastructure for Regional Economic Development Act of 2011,” supported by chief sponsor House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, (R-Chattanooga), is dead after telecom industry lobbyists unleashed a full court press to stop the legislation from passing into Tennessee law.

The bill would have permitted EPB and five other municipal electric services that have or are developing broadband infrastructure to expand service up to 30 miles outside of their service area, where appropriate, to meet the needs of businesses or consumers.

With the legislation, EPB could bring its 1 gigabit fiber broadband service to Bradley County, home to a future Amazon.com distribution center.  Amazon already operates a huge warehouse in Hamilton County, where it was able to obtain EPB’s super-fast broadband service.  According to Harold DePriest, EPB President and CEO, Chattanooga’s fiber network is helping sell the city as a high-tech mecca for business, where broadband connectivity is never a problem.

DePriest says EPB’s network has been a proven job-creator, and Amazon.com’s ongoing expansion in the region is just one example.

Chattanooga residents and businesses now have the fastest broadband service in the southern United States, at prices often far less than what the competition charges.  Expanding EPB’s success to other parts of Tennessee represents a major threat to the likes of Comcast and AT&T, the state’s dominant telecom companies.

EPB provides municipal power, broadband, television, and telephone service for residents in Chattanooga, Tennessee

Lobbyists fought the bill off with some whopper tall tales about the “horrors” of community broadband.

Some Republican lawmakers friendly to Comcast and AT&T’s point of view have bent their philosophical positions on government and regulation into logic pretzels.  One has even called for EPB to be regulated by Tennessee’s Regulatory Authority, a body many state Republicans feel is about as helpful as a tax increase.

Despite that, there was Rep. Curry Todd (R-Collierville) at a recent hearing telling fellow lawmakers EPB and other community providers should be regulated by the TRA to protect ratepayers from the “loss of tremendous amounts of money coming out of taxpayers’ pockets.”

Does Todd think Comcast and AT&T should also be regulated?  Of course not.  Nobody should protect consumers from AT&T’s and Comcast’s relentless rate hikes.  Todd cannot even get his facts straight.

After 19 months, EPB has 25,500 customers — far ahead of its projections, and is well ahead of its financial plan, according to DePriest.  So much for being a “financial failure.”

Rep. Curry Todd has trouble with the facts, but has no problem counting campaign contributions amounting to more than $12,000 from Comcast, AT&T, the state cable lobby and other telecom companies

On cue, the same cable industry that tried to sue EPB Fiber out of existence is now comparing the Chattanooga fiber network to Memphis Networx, a disastrous effort by that city to build a public-private wholesale fiber optic network only business and institutions could directly access.  It’s hard to earn critical revenue from consumers when you run a wholesale network.  Even harder when you build it just before the dot.com crash.

EPB sells its service directly to business and consumers, so it gets to keep the revenue it earns, paying back bondholders and delivering earning power.

Stop the Cap! reader John Lenoir notes some of the local tea party groups are also being encouraged to oppose EPB’s efforts to expand.

“Just as Americans for (Corporate) Prosperity is lying about North Carolina’s community broadband, these corporate front groups are also engaged in demagoguery over EPB in Tennessee,” Lenoir says.  “In addition to the usual claims EPB represents ‘socialism,’ the locals are also being told EPB wants to use their fiber network to run smart meters, which some of these people suspect are spying on them or will tell people when they can and can’t use their electric appliances.”

Lenoir in unimpressed with the telecom industry arguments.

“AT&T’s opposition is downright laughable, considering this company raised its rates on U-verse and will slap usage limits on every broadband customer in a few weeks,” Lenoir adds.  “We thank God EPB is here because it means we can tell AT&T to stick their usage limits and Comcast can take their overpriced (and usage limited) broadband somewhere else.”

Lenoir thinks EPB should embarrass both AT&T and Comcast, but since neither company feels any shame in his view, it’s more about business reality.

“Why do business with AT&T or Comcast and their gouging ways when you can sign up for something far better and support the local community,” Lenoir asks.

AT&T spokesman Chris Walker complains that the phone company is somehow faced with an unlevel playing field in Tennessee, despite the legislature’s repeated acquiescence to nearly every AT&T-sponsored deregulatory initiative brought before it.  The company wants a “level playing-field” statute like the very-provider-friendly (it should be — it was written by them) one currently before the North Carolina state Senate.

Comcast questions whether anyone needs 1 gigabit service, but the cable company’s Chattanooga vice president and general manager Jim Weigert told the Times Free Press it could deliver 1 gigabit service… to business customers… assuming any asked.

DePriest questions that, noting Comcast tops out its broadband service at 105Mbps, and only for downstream speeds.  Comcast upload speeds top out at 5Mbps.  EPB can deliver the same upstream and downstream speeds to customers and do it today.

Time Warner Cable is blaming an increase in pole attachment fees in upstate New York for increasing the cost of doing business, despite the fact those increases will not apply to the cable company.

National Grid, which also does business as Niagara-Mohawk, is raising rates for third-party companies to attach new lines to the poles the electric utility owns.  The power company says it is the first rate increase since 2007, and covers the cost of engineering, safety reviews, and ongoing infrastructure costs.

The Albany Times-Union quotes Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Lara Pritchard’s reflexive complaints about the rate increases.

“Inevitably, any price increase to poles will impact our costs to bring service,” Time Warner spokesman Lara Pritchard said Monday. “At this time, we have no plans to adjust fees. We periodically assess all of our associated costs to do business, as any company would, and this would factor into that assessment.”

If so, it should be by a factor of zero because the pole attachment fee increases apply only to companies seeking to place new lines on utility poles, not those maintaining or replacing existing cables.

The New York Public Service Commission approved the utility’s request for a change in their “Make Ready” rates, which cover costs associated with new projects. Existing companies, including Time Warner Cable will continue to pay a locked-in rate of $11.13 per pole, which represents no change.

Verizon acknowledged as much, noting the company’s existing fiber and copper wire lines are exempt from the rate hike.

But not every company is being held harmless from the rate increases.

Major projects to extend fiber broadband service to rural Franklin and St. Lawrence counties in upstate New York could be at risk because Niagara Mohawk, the dominant power provider in the region, is raising the rates to place fiber on some 22,000 poles required for the network.

Slic Network Solutions, the Development Authority of the North Country and Ion HoldCo LLC are facing at least $3.5 million in higher pole attachment expenses the utility said nothing about when they reached an agreement with National Grid in December.

Taxpayer grant money is backing the projects, including Slic’s 136-mile network covering parts of Franklin County and another 660-mile project in St. Lawrence County.  Ion operates a fiber optic broadband backbone that extends throughout upstate New York.

Keith J. Roland, an attorney with the Herzog Law Firm representing the three companies, has filed a formal complaint with the N.Y. State Public Service Commission, calling the rate increase “unjust, unreasonable, excessive, and unlawful.”

Roland says the increased costs, which he calls “arbitrary,” could threaten the viability of the projects.

“Without access to those poles, SLIC, DANC and Ion and almost any other telecommunications, cable TV and Internet provider in rural area of Niagara Mohawk’s territory would be driven out of business or effectively be precluded from doing business,” the complaint states.

Qatar

The kingdom of Qatar announced broadband is of urgent importance, and has unveiled plans to deliver fiber-to-the-home broadband, phone and television service to 95 percent of the country by the end of 2015.

Under the auspices of a newly formed public-private venture, the Qatar National Broadband Network Company will construct the near-universal fiber network, extending it to every business and home it can reach.  On that network, private providers, including Qtel and Vodafone, will market their products and services to government, business, and consumers.

“The Qatar National Broadband Network represents a bold step forward in Qatar’s drive to be a leading knowledge economy. Ubiquitous access to a high-speed network is essential to business development, economic growth, innovation and enhanced government services for our citizens. This network will do more than connect Qatar to the world; it will truly help enrich the lives of those who live here,” said Dr. Hessa Al-Jaber, who leads broadband development matters inside the kingdom.

The project is specifically designed to address Qatar’s current broadband marketplace — slow and expensive.  Qtel markets its landline customers up to 8Mbps DSL at prices that can exceed $100 a month, but few customers actually achieve 8Mbps results.  The project would largely replace the kingdom’s copper-based phone network.

“A lot of Qatari citizens don’t use fixed line DSL and prefer the country’s mobile broadband networks which can be cheaper and even faster than DSL,” Abdul Al-Attiyah, who lives in Doha, tells Stop the Cap! “This fiber network will bring 100Mbps service to just about everyone at prices a fraction of what we pay for DSL today.”

Al-Attiyah recently had the opportunity to communicate with the kingdom’s telecommunications ministry on the issue of bandwidth caps.

“I asked them if there were any plans to allow providers to limit how much broadband service Qataris could use, because we have caps on mobile broadband today, and I was assured there was never any point to limit use on a limitless capacity fiber network,” Al-Attiyah says.

“Fiber is also a far better solution than wireless broadband because of congestion issues,” he adds.

Qatar is a small country — about the size of the state of Connecticut, and is located on a peninsula adjacent to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  Thanks to significant oil and gas revenues, the kingdom enjoys the highest G.D.P. in the world, and will soon be one of the leaders in broadband as well.