AT&T 3G MicroCell

If you are an AT&T customer with a 3G MicroCell, AT&T’s home-based “cell tower”, take note: your 3G data usage, even while at home, counts against your monthly usage cap.

AT&T’s MicroCell ($150) does not use AT&T’s mobile network — it instead relies on your home broadband connection — but AT&T charges customers as if they were.

For customers who assume MicroCell traffic should be exempt because they provide and pay for the connectivity, AT&T’s overlimit fees await.

The company’s pricing and policies make owning a MicroCell increasingly pointless, particularly for data applications.  That’s because AT&T does not meter Wi-Fi usage, even when using AT&T’s own Wi-Fi network.

The disparity between femtocell traffic (the industry name for devices like the MicroCell) and Wi-Fi doesn’t make much sense to Dean Bubley, writing for his Disruptive Wireless-Disruptive Analysis blog:

Given that the RAN generally costs much more than the core network for most operators, there should clearly be differential (or zero-rated) pricing for traffic using femtocell offload. Either that, or there should be a mechanism for customers to charge AT&T for using THE USER’S broadband pipes for backhaul.

It is critical that any policy management and charging infrastruture is capable of discerning bearer type (which could also be UMA WiFi tunneled via the core on some other networks). Otherwise it makes a total mockery of the concept that policy is intended to align pricing with the underlying costs of service delivery.

It also makes a mockery of the femtocell concept as a mass proposition, if the end-user has to pay more than using their own WiFi. If I was a femto vendor today, I’d be spitting feathers about this, as it completely undermines the positioning vs. WiFi as an offload tool.

AT&T doesn’t care.

“The 3G MicroCell complements Wi-Fi by providing enhanced in-home voice coverage and reliable data when Wi-Fi may not be available — but it is primarily intended for voice calls,” an AT&T spokeswoman wrote in an email to Light Reading Mobile.

As the website notes, for consumers, the femto price model means that they will pay AT&T for the Microcell to get better indoor 3G coverage, pay for the backhaul connection to AT&T’s core network, and pay AT&T to use that indoor 3G base station.  What a great deal — for AT&T.

An Associated Press report gave credit to Stop the Cap! for getting first official word that AT&T ended its Internet Overcharging experiment in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.

Stop the Cap! reader Scott Eslinger managed to get an AT&T customer service representative to read aloud a confidential memo distributed by the company terminating the experiment effective April 1st.  Because AT&T never disclosed the end of the experiment to impacted customers, the coverage by the wire service should help spread the word to residents that the rationing is over:

The phone company confirmed Tuesday that it is no longer holding DSL subscribers in Reno, Nev., and Beaumont, Texas, to data consumption limits and charging them extra if they go over.

With AT&T’s retreat, no major Internet service provider is championing the idea of charging subscribers for their data usage. Time Warner Cable Inc. was a major proponent of the idea and also conducted a trial in Beaumont, but backed away last summer after its plan to expand metered billing to other cities met fierce resistance from consumers and legislators.

AT&T’s trial started in November 2008 in Reno, and was later extended to Beaumont. It ended on April 1 this year, said AT&T spokeswoman Dawn Benton.

“We’re reviewing data from the trial, and this feedback will guide us as we evaluate our next steps,” Benton said.

AT&T should carefully review feedback from customers who despise usage limits and overlimit fees.  Studies show the overwhelming majority of customers do not like their broadband usage artificially limited with arbitrary allowances and overlimit fees, and customers will dump providers who ignore their wishes.

AT&T’s experiment never saved consumers a penny — the company simply slapped allowances as low as 20 GB per month on existing speed-based tiers.  Customers already face practical usage limits from Internet providers.  Those purchasing slower speed tiers are usage limited by those speeds.  Those who pay for higher priced, faster tiers benefit from naturally greater allowances those speeds provide.  Adding a new layer of limits only discourages customers from using the service they already pay good money to receive.  Besides, as profits explode in the broadband sector, the costs (and investment) to provide the service have declined, wiping out the justification for these schemes.

Stop the Cap! opposes all of these Internet Overcharging schemes.  While many providers seek to demagogue some broadband users as “data hogs” or “pirates,” the fact is today’s “heavy user” is tomorrow’s average consumer.  High speed broadband has the potential to revolutionize education, health care, private business, and entertainment, but not if a handful of major providers decide to end innovation by rationing the service to its customers.

AirRunner Wireless serves a small portion of central Wisconsin from its headquarters in Marathon.

A wireless Internet provider serving central Wisconsin has banned online video streaming from its wireless Internet service, telling its customers WISPs are not designed for it.  To drive home the point, the service is jumping on the bandwagon of AT&T’s mobile network 2 GB usage limit with some stringent limits of its own.

Bill Flood, owner of AirRunner Networks LLC dispatched e-mail to every one of its central Wisconsin customers informing them some are violating the company’s use policies by streaming online video on its service, which it cannot accommodate.  Flood blamed companies like Netflix for forcing him to carry the costs of transporting movies and TV shows to his customers:

Hello! Over the past month we have been seeing an increasing issue on the network during peak times. From our investigation we have determined these problems stem from customers who are streaming Netflix or other ‘instant movie or movie on demand’ type services.

These types of products should not be used on the network for these reasons:

First, a wireless network uses access points, those by design do not handle continuous connections without affecting the other customers of that access point. Because the movie stays connected for a longer period of time, eventually other customers simply get less access and as a result see a severe network degradation.

Our Acceptable Use Policy over the years has grown as a result of new technology.

Not all new technology works well on every type of Internet platform. Although some customers have told me they have been using this type of service in the past, the increased usage spurred on by recent Netflix advertising, a CD for Wii devices and now by one of the satellite TV companies has brought this issue to the forefront.

These companies see the Internet as a means to save their resources and push the load onto the Internet.

Welcome to the Internet circa 2010.  The days of a voice declaring “You’ve got mail” from your AOL account are long gone.  Customers are demanding access to a much richer multimedia experience available online today.  That demand is beginning to regularly collide with the limitations some networks have to deliver the service.

To make sure his customers understand the implications of streaming video, Flood is also introducing one of the most punitive Internet Overcharging schemes we’ve yet to encounter, starting with a monthly usage limit of 5 GB accompanied by some vicious overlimit fees:

All non-business customers will be allotted 5 GB of total aggregate usage.

If the customer exceeds 5GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $30.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

If any customer exceeds 10GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $60.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

If any customer exceeds 15GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $90.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

Although these additional charges seem excessive, we are not alone on making such changes as the rest of the ISP’s [Internet service providers as well as cellular providers] are also implementing similar programs on their networks to deal with network congestion issues caused by ‘on demand’ type products. The good news is, the typical Internet customer never exceeds 5GB of aggregate usage. Only a small percentage of our customers are involved in this ‘on demand streaming activity’. Here is what can be done by the typical customer while not exceeding the 5GB threshold: Our basic residential Internet packages will offer 5GB of usage — that’s the equivalent of 500,000 basic text e-mails, 2,500 photos, 40,000 web pages, over 300 hours of Online game time, 1,250 downloaded songs, or a mixture of the above! 1,000 megabyte (MB) = 1 gigabyte (GB) We will send out a notice to everyone again when we are ready to implement these changes.

Flood’s e-mail doesn’t tell the whole story to his customers, however.

First, his imposed overlimit fees are ludicrously high.  A customer using 16 GB for the month would face an overlimit penalty of $90.  Considering AirRunner’s pricing, that’s a potentially enormous bill:

AirRunner offers six rate plans for residential and small business:

• $15.00 256K/256K, tiered access. New accounts only

The below programs require a contract.

• $19.00 1.0 Mbps/768K, tiered access. New accounts only
• $45.00 2Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access
• $55.00 2Mbps/2Mbps, tiered access Bi-direction connection; useful for working from home.
• $65.00 3Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access
• $75.00 5Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access

Second, “the rest of the ISPs” are not in fact imposing similar programs.  AT&T just abandoned theirs for DSL customers in two cities.  Attempts to ration broadband access typically meets resistance from consumers, if not an outright revolt.  As soon as customers get a bill with a $90 overlimit penalty on it, they will revolt as well.

It is true that wireless providers do face bandwidth challenges, but that’s not always disclosed to customers until after they sign up for service.  In 2010, would you sign a two year contract for a broadband service that banned online video?  Of course, if Flood offers the only service in town, for all practical purposes he can dictate the terms of the service provided.  But many customers have long memories and when another provider does arrive, they’ll take their business elsewhere.

Therein lies a potential problem for Flood.  A considerable part of central Wisconsin has been served by Verizon North, one of the divisions Verizon has sold to Frontier Communications.  Verizon dramatically cut investment in Wisconsin broadband expansion as soon as it became apparent they were leaving.  Frontier Communications is betting its long-term survival on bringing at least 1-3 Mbps DSL service to areas just like central Wisconsin.  It’s a safe assumption at least some parts of Flood’s service area will be challenged by Frontier DSL within the next year.

At that point, perhaps Flood will adopt a less hostile attitude towards his own customers.  Some of those who departed didn’t appreciate Flood’s tone or actions and shared some of his hostile communications on the subject.  Taking an adversarial stance even with former, paying customers never works well.  Among the thoughts Flood has shared:

• If you don’t like his caps, move to the city;
• One customer was told his service was canceled because he just doesn’t get it — besides, Flood wrote, he can do whatever he wants;
• Customers who are caught streaming are gone;
• If you complain too much, watch out.

Third, Flood follows the discredited playbook of trying to convince customers a 5 GB usage limit for the Internet in 2010 is reasonable with generous-sounding e-mail and web page browsing allowances.  Flood himself exposes the real issue — customers want to watch YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu and his network can’t handle it.  Of course, his marketing materials never bother to mention any of this.  Only after customers sign up, many under a two-year contract, does the truth come out (underlined emphasis ours):

In the case of ‘streaming video/movies or on demand type products or services’ recent weeks shows exactly what happens when these types of products are used. Everyone who uses ‘on demand or streaming products or services’ also knows there is an alternative which does not have an affect on any other user. We suggest the alternative as the best solution. We would appreciate everyone’s cooperation in resolving this current issue. If you are streaming movies you are making everyone mad!! Someday you may want to use the Internet and your neighbor will be streaming, then you won’t work. Wireless Internet was not designed to watch TV or movies.

If you are a ‘on demand user’ you may want to look at other options in lieu of streaming movies over the Internet. A basic resolution movie is typically 700Mb of data. So 1000Mb is equal to 1GB. So roughly 3-6 on demand or streamed movies will draw and additional charge to your account. All paying customers have the right to access their Internet connection, however any customer cannot deny any other customer access as the result of their usage. When this occurs policy is made to correct such actions. We make every effort to provide the best service we can, sometimes new Internet based programs and products do not work well on this type of network, that is not the fault of AirRunner Networks LLC and we cannot guarantee that any type of program or product will work properly or as advertised.

At least Flood was finally honest about the implications of watching online video from a provider with a low monthly usage allowance.  Just watching 3-6 online movies blows right through it, even fewer if it’s an HD title.

Unfortunately for Flood and other WISPs with similar network constraints, the evolution of the Internet and its online resources will increasingly place pressure on many networks that were built for a 1990s-era Internet.  As advanced video game streaming technology, online movies and television, online file backup, and other high bandwidth innovations not yet envisioned become increasingly popular, companies like AirRunner will be forced to upgrade their network or add new applications to the ban list, eventually facing obsolescence if a better provider arrives in town.

Sprint will not limit use or throttle speeds for users of its 3G or mobile WiMax networks, despite a report from Engadget claiming the company was on the verge of applying speed throttles on its users exceeding 5 GB per month of usage.

A Sprint spokesman told Dow Jones Newswires any limits would apply only for Sprint mobile broadband data users roaming on other companies’ data networks using modems attached to laptops or personal computers.  Smartphone users are not affected.

“Sprint does not, nor plan to limit speeds, nor change a customer’s ability to use any particular application or Internet site,” said Sprint spokesman Mark Elliott.

However, the company has made it clear it can temporarily suspend a customer’s ability to roam on Sprint’s data network if “excessive usage” is detected.  Current plans provide up to 300 megabytes of service while roaming.  Higher allowances are available for purchase.  Customers will receive text messages notifying them when they reach 75 percent and 90 percent of their allowance.  After that, Sprint can cut off service until the next bill cycle begins.

Sprint has to pay higher fees when customers roam on non-Sprint networks, hence the usage limit.

Sprint, America’s third largest wireless carrier behind Verizon Wireless and AT&T, is trying to position itself as the competitive choice for customers who do not want to worry about usage allowances and overlimit fees.  The company hopes customers who are tired of escalating wireless bills will once again look beyond the two largest providers.