Rogers Communications has announced usage cap and speed adjustments for many of its Internet service plans — changes that will bring increased allowances for some of the company’s most premium customers.

Rogers has modestly adjusted usage caps on its popular Extreme Internet Plan a year after slashing them, and brings dramatic increases for the company’s most expensive service tiers, even as it leaves usage caps unchanged for the bulk of their customers subscribed to the basic Express service plan:

A Rogers spokesman explained the changes.

The bar gets raised only for those who agree to spend more.

“With the rapid rise of online video, social media and online gaming, the way Canadians use the Internet is changing dramatically. We’re always reviewing our plans to ensure they meet your changing needs so starting later this month, our Hi-Speed Internet tiers are being upgraded with faster download speeds and higher data allowances for customers on Rogers DOCSIS 3.0, our best and fastest wireline network,” wrote RogersMarina on the company’s RedBoard blog.

Apparently the way Canadians use the Internet with Rogers’ most-popular Express plan hasn’t changed much, because Rogers leaves that cap unchanged at 60GB of usage per month.  Rogers previously reduced its usage cap for its Extreme level of service from 95 to 80GB, days after Netflix announced it was bringing its streamed video service to Canada.  Rogers’ latest increase amounts to just 5GB more usage than customers had during the spring of 2010.

The increased speeds that some usage tiers are gaining with the introduction of DOCSIS 3 technology come “at no additional cost” according to Rogers, but the company also mentions it charges higher prices — $1.50-$3 more per month — for the required DOCSIS 3 modem.

For customers certain to exceed their allowance, Rogers will sell you an insurance plan to protect your wallet from their $0.50-5.00/GB overlimit fees:

“Also starting later this month, you’ll be able to add a data assurance option if you’re currently using the Express and Extreme tiers. For an extra $20 per month, you’ll receive an extra 80 GB of data on top of your existing allowances. If you don’t need quite as much data, you can also get an additional 20 GB for an extra $5 per month.”

Most customers were not impressed.  Take Matt, for example:

“Speed increases are great but all they allow us to do is to get to our low data caps faster. These days with YouTube, Netflix, VOIP, and work VPN (heavy work from home user) $60 for 100 GB of data is pretty expensive, especially when a GB of data probably costs Rogers pennies per user. Competitors are starting to offer higher data caps for a similar price. In Toronto you can get a plan for same or slightly cheaper starting with 200GB.  In Vancouver you can get 50Mbps for $29 a month with a 400 GB data cap!”

Cambo notes the usage upgrades come easy for higher-priced tiers, but customers on the most popular Express tier have no increase in their usage allowance at all.

“You guys just don’t get it,” he writes on RedBoard.  “Speed isn’t the issue. Usage is. Why is it every tier gets a usage bump except the most popular Express? What is the point of bumping the speeds up and not significantly increasing usage, so we can get to the caps even faster I suppose. Sounds like a ploy to get people to spend more, to me.”

Andrew agreed:

“I also agree with this. I would rather get a larger usage bump than a speed bump — I don’t see a point in raising speeds when the data cap is still extremely restrictive. After all, I’d want to enjoy using the Internet, rather than monitoring my usage restrictions every day. If Rogers really listened to the customers, they’d know that most of us are more critical of their plans’ usage restrictions than their speeds.”

AT&T warns DSL customers they can watch 10 High Definition movies per month... and use their Internet connection for absolutely nothing else, unless they want to incur an overlimit fee of $10.

AT&T has released a phoney baloney video for their customers purporting to “explain” broadband usage and the company’s completely arbitrary usage limits on DSL and U-verse customers: “A single high-traffic user can utilize the same amount of data capacity as 19 typical households. Lopsided usage patterns can cause congestion at certain points in the network, which can slow Internet speeds and interfere with other customers’ access to and use of the network.”

Too bad these claims are not verified with actual facts.

Meaningless statistics

AT&T’s claim that less than two percent of their customers use 20 percent of available bandwidth is frankly meaningless to the company’s DSL and U-verse hybrid fiber-copper networks.  For years, phone companies made a marketing point that unlike cable broadband’s shared network, their DSL service was never shared with anyone else in a neighborhood.  Therefore, running it at a trickle or full speed ahead should have no impact on any other customer.  The only exception to this rule comes from phone companies that under-invest in their middle mile and backbone networks.  For AT&T, that means trying to serve too many customers on inadequate equipment ranging from a poorly planned network of D-SLAMs, which connect individual customers with a fatter pipeline back to the central office, or an inadequate network between the central office and AT&T’s regional backbones.  Fiber, such as that used by AT&T’s more modern U-verse system, completely solves any capacity issues.  Broadband traffic is only a tiny percentage of the bandwidth consumed by AT&T’s IPTV video service — the one that delivers U-verse TV to your home.  AT&T imposes no viewing limits on customers, of course.

Any actual capacity crunch would only show up during peak usage periods — when AT&T customers of all kinds pile on their broadband connection at the same time. AT&T’s usage cap regime does next to nothing to mitigate that kind of congestion.  Here’s why:

Since AT&T and other broadband companies routinely claim the average use per customer is well under 20GB per month, and only 2 percent of customers are currently deemed “heavy users” by AT&T, that tiny percentage of customers cannot create sufficient drag on AT&T’s DSL network even if they opened up their connections to full speed traffic.  In reality, the 98 percent of “average” users piling on the network during prime time would be the only thing capable of the kind of critical mass needed to create visible congestion.  What uses more capacity?  Two customers using their 7Mbps DSL lines to stream online videos concurrently or 98 customers all using their 7Mbps DSL lines at the same time for virtually any online activity?

The math simply doesn’t add up.

The Congestion Myth

AT&T targets their broadband customers with an unwarranted, arbitrary Internet Overcharging scheme they cannot effectively explain to customers.

As two week’s of hearings this month have demonstrated, Bell Canada’s similar arguments for its usage caps simply come without any evidence of actual congestion.  In fact, company officials modified their position to talk more about peak usage congestion, a problem that cannot be controlled with a usage cap well in excess of the average consumer’s usage.  In fact, only a speed throttle could control network congestion at the times it actually occurred.  AT&T also ignores when its customers are using its network.  Is a heavy user downloading files at 3 in the morning creating a problem for other users?  No.  Are the majority of their average-usage customers all jumping online after school or work creating a problem?  Perhaps, if you believed AT&T even had a congestion problem.

Industry maven Dave Burstein does not, and Burstein talked to two chief technology officers at AT&T who told him wired broadband congestion is a “minimal” problem for the phone company.

Upgrades and Cord-Cutting, Delayed

Two things usage caps can do is help your company delay necessary upgrades to meet customers’ broadband needs, whether they are “heavy users” or not.  AT&T has shown itself historically to be slow to invest, and cheap when it does.  AT&T’s wireless network is bottom-rated by consumers thanks to inadequate network capacity.  The company elected to upgrade on-the-cheap to an IPTV platform that still relies on copper phone lines to deliver service that simply cannot compete in quality and capacity with Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network.  But investors love the fact the company counts every penny, even if it means inconveniencing and overcharging customers for their services, usually offered in duopoly or monopoly markets.

AT&T’s usage caps on U-verse are even less credible than those imposed on their DSL service.  U-verse is a fiber to the neighborhood network with near limitless capacity for broadband and video.  In fact, the only “congestion” comes from the copper phone lines that limit how much bandwidth can be supplied to your individual home.  But no matter how much you use, you will not affect your neighbors because your copper phone line is shared with nobody else.  In fact, the biggest chunk of U-verse’s bandwidth is reserved for their video services, which makes arguments about excessive Internet usage on that pipeline un-credible.

What AT&T’s usage cap does assure is that you will not drop that video package from your U-verse service anytime soon.  That lucrative revenue from expensive video packages cannot be forfeit without a fight, and a nice deterrent in the form of an arbitrary usage cap does wonders to keep that cord cutting to a minimum.

Meters That Don’t Measure

One of the worst ongoing problems with Internet Overcharging schemes like AT&T’s is the broken usage meter.  Stop the Cap! has received hundreds of e-mails from AT&T DSL and U-verse customers who report AT&T’s usage meter is either unavailable, broken, or is wildly inaccurate.  With absolutely no independent oversight, and no consistently accurate usage measurement, charging anyone overlimit fees with a broken meter doing the counting is unconscionable.  Yet AT&T may well try.  The company has already been sued by one law firm for what it alleges is an unfair usage meter on the company’s wireless service — a meter that consistently overcounts usage in AT&T’s favor.

AT&T admits they cannot even accurately measure their own customers' usage.

Once getting over the broken meter, customers are directed to a pointless usage-estimator — the ones that tell you about how many tens of thousands of e-mails you can send and receive under AT&T’s cap regime.  In fact, these statistics are irrelevant for the vast majority of customers who never think of sending 10,000 e-mails or exchanging 2,000 pictures or songs.  That’s because customers do not use the Internet to exclusively do those things.  Even with the guestimator, they are left checking a broken usage meter to ponder whether or not they can watch one more show or download another file without incurring a $10 overlimit penalty (or more).  That “generous” limit AT&T touts suddenly doesn’t look so ample when the company gets to the wildly popular activity of streamed video.  AT&T’s own video warns you can only watch 10HD movies a month over your broadband connection — and absolutely nothing else.  No web browsing, e-mail, or photos or music.  Ten movies a month.  Still thinking of dropping your U-verse video subscription now?

Yet AT&T has the nerve to claim, “Our goal is to provide you with the best Internet service possible.”  Really?

Thankfully, not every member of the investor class is thrilled with nickle-and-diming broadband consumers for usage that costs the providing company next to nothing.

The Economist excoriated AT&T for its unwarranted usage limits on its blog earlier this year:

The use of caps allows providers to dish out bandwidth with one hand and take it away with the other. The companies have vastly increased the capacity of various copper, coaxial and fibre lines, but artificially separate out a portion—at least half and often much more—for video which a set-top box or a broadband modem spits out as an apparently distinct service. Cable firms simultaneously push out hundreds of digital channels, while telecoms firms rely on multiple digital streams from live broadcast or cable TV or on-demand pay-per-view. It is as though the water main were divided as it entered the home and a steady, modest stream was made available for showers and at the tap, while most of it was always at the ready for a coin-operated washing machine.

Increasing speed on the internet portion, which would allow consumers to give up on TV subscriptions, is balanced by capping volume. If a consumer does not monitor usage, his internet access can be withdrawn or, in AT&T’s case, overage fees of $10 charged for every additional 50 GB of usage. […] [That] $10 charge applies whether the limit was breached by 1 MB or a smidgen under 50 GB.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Usage.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s new video on broadband usage is based on facts not in evidence and only adds to consumer confusion about arbitrary Internet Overcharging schemes.  (4 minutes)

Phillip "No Data Tsunami Over Here" Dampier

As the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission enters into the second week of hearings on Internet Overcharging, there have really only been a few minor surprises.

First, and most importantly, when voting consumers pay attention, regulators start asking questions and get aggressive.  This is the same commission that only a year ago gave the green light to wholesale usage-based billing (UBB) — a practice that would guarantee every ISP in Canada dropped flat rate Internet service.  After a half-million Canadians signed Openmedia.ca’s petition opposing UBB, the Harper government (and the opposition parties) got interested, and the Commission got an earful from Industry Minister Tony Clement, who was simply appalled at this kind of Internet pricing.

Second, this round of CRTC hearings has found Bell — UBB’s biggest proponent — largely unrepentant.  It still supports charging people for their usage, even as the company’s foundation for that premise — bandwidth congestion — erodes away.  Providers can claim anything they like, but they cannot invent facts.  By Friday, most of the commissioners realized what consumer advocates had been saying all along — there is no great bandwidth crisis in Canada.  No data tsunami. No exaflood in the zettabyte era.  Growth is exponential to be sure, and Canadians have a passionate affair with their Internet connectivity, but one that remains easily managed when providers make regular, affordable investments in upgrading their networks.

Bell’s week-long contention that congestion pricing was paramount to managing Canada’s bandwidth finally fell apart when CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein noted Bell’s trinity of regional entities managed Internet usage completely differently, even though the traffic passed through the exact same network:

• 1) Bell Aliant, which provides service in the Atlantic provinces, has no usage caps at all.
• 2) Bell Quebec provides service with a considerably more generous usage allowance than given to those customers in Ontario, even those just on the other side of the border.
• 3) Bell Ontario’s usage cap is downright stingy compared with Quebec, most likely because it competes in Ontario with an equally stingy provider — Rogers Cable.

With these facts in evidence, Bell was finally forced to concede it was “competition” not “congestion” that brought three different treatments of Internet usage.  So much for “network congestion.”

Bell’s competitors also hung the telecom giant out to dry when it was their turn to testify.  Each in turn would claim that congestion presented no problems for their respective networks.  Telus, Rogers and Shaw all denied they shared Bell’s usage problems.  That is not to say any of them were in favor of restoring flat-rate Internet access.

Instead, they argued, UBB represented a combination of “stimulating investment” in broadband networks (already insanely profitable for all-comers) and “peak usage pricing,” a hybridized argument about congestion during peak usage periods.  Since some wholesale broadband services are priced at peak capacity requirements, some argue UBB helps keep that peak usage manageable during prime time.

Unfortunately, the peak usage pricing argument undermines itself because Canadian providers enforce usage limits 24/7, not only during peak usage periods.  This means there is no incentive for users to offload their heaviest usage to times when the network experiences low demand.  Independent providers continue to argue “peak usage pricing” may be defensible in certain circumstances, but it’s not even a possibility under Bell’s proposed wholesale UBB scheme.

The record being constructed from Canada’s hearings have direct implications for Americans, as the basic business models for cable and phone providers are similar in both countries.  The death rattle of the “congestion” myth is good news for North American broadband users who have long rolled their eyes at hysterical arguments about data floods and capacity crises.

The CRTC still needs to hear from some additional speakers, and we are under no illusion they will completely reverse themselves on Internet Overcharging schemes, but this represents a clear-cut case that consumers need not simply sit back and take abusive pricing.  Consumer activism can make a real difference in the broadband policies of both the United States and Canada.  It takes a concerted effort, but once a critical mass of consumers is achieved, the ability for providers to simply do as they please becomes a virtual impossibility.

That’s good news for all of us.

[flv width=”640″ height=”368″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC UBB 7-11-11.flv[/flv]

CBC News covers the start of the CRTC hearings and what UBB pricing is doing to Canada’s Internet experience.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOMO Seattle Man Loses Internet for a Year 7-14-11.mp4[/flv]

Last week, Stop the Cap! shared the story of Andre Vrignaud, a 39-year-old gaming consultant in Seattle who found his Comcast Internet service shut off for a year for twice exceeding the company’s arbitrary 250GB usage cap.  The story continues to draw media attention, including this TV news report from Seattle station KOMO-TV.  Cloud computing is implicated, but Vrignaud’s cure — paying more for additional usage, strikes us as the wrong answer.  Monetizing broadband usage is a provider’s dream come true.  The better solution would be to fight to remove the cap or at least ensure residential customers can upgrade to business service, if they choose, without the year-long “ban” in place.  (3 minutes)

Virgin Mobile, which last year excited a number of our readers with the introduction of its Broadband2Go unlimited mobile broadband plan, has continued to evolve the meaning of “unlimited,” to now mean just 2.5GB of usage per month before speeds are reduced to the very un-broadband level of 256kbps.

It’s just another in a series of limits Virgin Mobile has placed on its 3G “unlimited” pay-as-you-go service since last August.

Last summer, customers paid up to $100 to purchase the mobile broadband device used with the service, and promptly discovered a lot of people were doing the same thing, which promptly overloaded the network and drove speeds downward.  Within months, our readers reported Virgin had quietly implemented a “fair access policy” that began reducing customers’ speeds after as little as 200MB of use daily, usually to 256kbps or less.  By February 2011, Virgin announced a 5GB usage cap, after which speeds would be permanently throttled until customers either paid an additional $40 or waited out the end of their billing cycle.

Apparently, even 5GB of usage per month is considered too much, so now Virgin Mobile is slashing that in half to 2.5GB.  Despite the ongoing decreases, company officials insist whatever level they are, they are still generous.  The company said less than 3 percent of its customer base will be impacted by a 2.5GB limit on their supposedly “unlimited” plan.  Virgin Mobile, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sprint, gets around that pesky contradiction by calling their plan “unlimited access,” which means you can access it day or night at speeds that either might be fast, or heavily throttled.

What used to cost $40 a month for truly unlimited service today costs $50 for 2.5GB.

Virgin Mobile's Broadband2Go "Before" Pricing from August, 2010

Virgin Mobile's Broadband2Go "New and 'Improved'" Pricing

The days of "Sugar Mama" are long gone.

Virgin Mobile is also hiking rates for two budget handset plans that include data:

• 300 minutes, including unlimited texting and data up $10 to $35 a month
• 1,200 minutes, including unlimited texting and data up $5 to $45 a month

But competition does occasionally deliver some benefits to consumers as Virgin recognizes it is being killed by cheaper unlimited smartphone plans from MetroPCS and Cricket, so it has cut the price on its own unlimited calling, texting, and data smartphone plan by $5 to match its competitors’ $55 monthly price.

Virgin Mobile is in the process or repositioning itself away from being a prepaid budget-priced carrier towards a smartphone-oriented provider for customers who do not want to sign lengthy service contracts with Verizon, AT&T, or even parent company Sprint.

This certainly means the days of Virgin Mobile’s Sugar Mama are long gone. 

Thanks to Bones and several other Stop the Cap! readers for sharing this news with us.