AT&T’s march towards monetizing data usage has just gotten a twist with a new idea from the company to develop “a toll-free wireless Internet” where app makers foot the bill for your data usage.

First appearing in a Wall Street Journal article, John Donovan, AT&T’s executive for network and technology, suggested the new “app maker pays”-option will ease consumers’ fears about using high bandwidth apps that eat into AT&T’s data allowances.

“A feature that we’re hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivalent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage,” Donovan said at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. “It’d be like freight included.”

Critics of the idea pounced immediately, calling AT&T’s latest plan the realization of former CEO Ed Whitacre’s dream that content producers “can’t use [AT&T’s] pipes for free.”

Harold Feld, legal director at consumer group Public Knowledge thinks he’s got AT&T’s number:

Just to be clear, here is what AT&T Wireless is doing:

1. Create an artificial scarcity with an arbitrary bandwidth cap for its wireless services;

2. Charge users who exceed this arbitrary bandwidth cap;

3. Claim to do consumers a favor by letting the ap developer pay for exceeding the arbitrary bandwidth cap.

Which cuts to the heart of the problem in wireless, IMO. The argument in favor of a wireless capacity cap is, in a nutshell, “wireless is different from wireline because the physics imposes bandwidth limitations.” In the presence of these bandwidth limitations, we need a rationing scheme of some kind. Bandwidth caps are a neutral way of rationing and encourage app developers to write more efficient applications — thus improving the system overall.

The problem with this argument is it is impossible at present to determine just how true or false it actually is. I referred above to AT&T’s bandwidth cap as arbitrary. As far as I (or any outside observer) can tell, AT&T just selected a number and said “this is where we impose a cap.” You can buy a higher cap on a monthly basis, or can pay as you go above the cap in the form of overages.

AT&T has no worries about data tsunamis and "exafloods" when app makers or consumers are willing to pay more.

In fact, AT&T’s journey away from unlimited access to their wireless network is well underway.  Just two years ago, customers paid $30 a month for unlimited data on a smartphone.  Then AT&T ended “unlimited” access, imposing a 2GB usage cap on their most popular wireless data plan.  Now AT&T is looking to monetize its wireless traffic even further as customers grow more reticent about using high volume applications that could threaten one’s usage allowance.

Despite AT&T’s ongoing drumbeat America is in the midst of a wireless bandwidth crisis, the ‘national emergency’ is over as soon as someone — anyone other than AT&T — opens their wallet and agrees to pay more for data traffic.  Then the sky is the limit.

The logical inconsistencies of a company crying for more mobile spectrum concurrently envisioning new ways to monetize high volume wireless traffic (eg. large file downloads, online video, etc.) exposes the hollow center of  Internet Overcharging.  The “exaflood”/data tsunami only seems to threaten AT&T’s network when content producers and/or consumers are not paying extra for every kilobyte.

As Stop the Cap! has argued before, AT&T is increasingly  in the bandwidth shortage/rationing business.

The company underspent on its network, balked at the price tag to upgrade capacity (but had no trouble planning to pay substantially more to acquire T-Mobile), and now complains it has to charge higher prices because the federal government blocked its merger and the FCC won’t hand over additional spectrum.

There are two approaches to fat profits in the broadband business these days:

1. 

   A Proud Member of: Team Rationing for Profit

   Team Innovation: Believe in your product and nurture its growth with upgrades, innovation, and pricing that guarantees an enthusiastic and loyal customer base;

2. Team Rationing for Profit: Leverage your dominant market power by rationing your product, charging higher prices for less service.  Monetizing usage controls traffic growth, reducing the expense of upgrading your network. With limited competition, even alienated customers face few alternative choices and a steep early termination exit fee.

Based on statements from AT&T’s Donovan, AT&T is a firm believer in the latter.

“There’s a view of an entitlement that says that any impediment to riding over the top of our network is inherently wrong, is un-American,” Donovan said, adding AT&T needed to find creative ways to deal with and profit from surging mobile-data use.

Feld thinks it says something else.

“This new plan is unfortunate because it shows how fraudulent the AT&T data cap is, and calls into question the whole rationale of the data caps,” Feld said. “Apparently it has nothing to do with network management.  It’s a tool to get more revenue from developers and customers.”

Phillip "Keeping an Eye on Time Warner's Eye" Dampier

Today’s announcement by Time Warner Cable that it is reintroducing usage based billing, at least optionally for customers in southern Texas, is a concerning development that requires further examination and vigilance.  But before we delve into that, I’d like to thank the company for avoiding the kind of mandatory usage billing/cap system we’ve seen appearing at certain other providers.  We also welcome the company’s admission that they have earned enormous profits from unlimited consumption plans and consider that pricing part of the success story they’ve had selling Internet access.

Stop the Cap! has never opposed optional usage-based billing tiers for customers who feel their light usage justifies a service discount.  However, industry trends so far have made no provisions for truly unlimited usage plans that sit side by side tiered plans without quietly diluting the value of flat rate Internet with tricks and traps in the fine print.  We have serious concerns this “foot in the door” to Internet Overcharging could eventually become mandatory for all customers.  Perhaps Time Warner Cable will be different than all the rest.  We can only hope so.

Let’s break it down:

First, Time Warner Cable’s admission it blew it the first time it experimented with these pricing schemes is most welcome.  Being on the front lines of the battle against the company’s Internet Overcharging experiment in 2009 remains very-well-documented on this website.  We confronted arrogant local management that argued usage billing was “fair” and would barely affect any customer.  In fact, the original plan a later revision would have tripled flat rate Internet access to a ridiculous $150 a month.

The company’s 2009 “listening tour” was also a farce, with a number of e-mailed comments deleted unread (we know, because Time Warner’s comment system sent e-mail to customers telling them exactly that.)  Local media outlets, newspaper editorials, and customers made it quite clear: customers want their unlimited Internet access left alone.  They do not want to learn the mysteries of a gigabyte, they don’t want to watch a gauge to determine how much usage they have left, and they sure don’t want to pay any more for broadband service.

If Jeff Simmermon, Time Warner Cable’s director of digital communications, now represents the prevailing attitude about unlimited Internet access among Time Warner Cable’s executive management, that is a very welcome change indeed.  But we’re not completely convinced.  For nearly two years, Time Warner executives have talked favorably about usage-based billing as the “fairest way” to bill for Internet usage.  Besides Simmermon’s comments, we have seen nothing from CEO Glenn Britt or CFO Irene Esteves that indicates they have changed their original views on that.

Unfortunately, we’ve learned over the last three years today’s promises may not mean a lot a year from now.  We’ve watched too many companies introduce these pricing schemes and then gradually tighten the noose around their customers.  Once broadband usage is monetized, Wall Street looks to the practice of charging for usage as a revenue source, and they pressure companies to keep that money flowing.  What begins as an optional tiered plan can eventually become the only plan when flat rate broadband is “phased out.”

Canadians understand this is not unprecedented.  They’ve been down this broadband road before, and it is loaded with expensive potholes and broken promises to repair them.  Usage allowances have actually dropped at some Canadian providers.  The fixed maximum on overlimit fees has gradually been relaxed or removed altogether, exposing Canadian consumers to broadband bill shock.

Time Warner Cable customers are now paying upwards of $50 a month for broadband after consecutive annual rate increases.  That’s plenty, and usage should remain unlimited for that kind of money.

Still, Stop the Cap! has never been opposed to truly optional usage-based billing plans.  We’re just unconvinced companies will keep the wildly popular flat rate pricing if boatloads of additional revenue can be made dragging customers to tiered usage plans, particularly in the absence of aggressive competition.  Just ask AT&T.

Second, as we’ve seen on the wireless side, “unlimited Internet access” means one thing to consumers and all-too-often something very different to providers.  For example, companies have discovered they can claim to provide unlimited access but then de-prioritize flat rate traffic, or even worse, throttle speeds and give preferential treatment to usage-based billing traffic.  Time Warner Cable needs to commit that unlimited access means exactly that — no traffic prioritization, no speed throttles, and no sneaky fine print.

Third, we don’t expect Time Warner will get too many takers for their Broadband Essentials Internet program.  The discount, just $5 a month, is quite low for broadband service limited to 5GB per month.  Exceeding that limit is quite easy, and after just 5GB of “excess usage,” the discount is eaten away and the penalty rate of $1/GB kicks in.  That could ultimately risk up to $25 a month in extra charges.  I’m uncertain how many customers would want to risk exposing themselves to that for a modest discount.

While we are not issuing a Call to Action over these developments, we will be watching them very closely.  Time Warner Cable should make no mistake: if their usage billing plans begin to eat away at fairly priced unlimited access plans, we will once again picket the company and do whatever is necessary to bring political and consumer pressure to force them to rescind these kinds of pricing schemes yet again.

CNN's Scare Stories on Wireless

As part of our ongoing coverage of the telecommunications industry, I talk with a variety of reporters in both Canada and the United States.  We have educated local newspapers, national wire services, local TV news, and even big national consumer magazines about the problems consumers have with the North American telecommunications industry.  Whether you are a wireless customer facing eroding usage caps and increasing prices, or a wired broadband customer now being slapped with Internet Overcharging schemes that monetize your usage, the truth about why your bill has gone up isn’t too hard to find, if you bother to look.

Unfortunately, CNN-Money just published a “week-long” series on the wireless mobile phone market that might as well have been written by the CTIA, the nation’s cell phone lobby.

“The Spectrum Crunch” was supposed to be a sober and objective report about the state of congestion on America’s cell phone networks. Instead, the reporter decided industry press releases and lobbyist talking points were good enough to form the premise that America is deep in a cell phone crisis.

Sorry America, Your Airwaves Are Full

Part one of CNN’s special report is a laundry list of disaster predictions, explaining away rate increases and usage caps, and an industry-skewed view that the answer to the “crisis” is to give wireless carriers all the frequencies they want.

The spectrum crunch is not an inherently American problem, but its effects are magnified here, since the United States has an enormous population of connected users. This country serves more than twice as many customers per megahertz of spectrum as the next nearest spectrum-constrained nations, Japan and Mexico.

When spectrum runs short, service degrades sharply: calls get dropped and data speeds slow down.

That’s a nightmare scenario for the wireless carriers. To stave it off, they’re turning over rocks and searching the couch cushions for excess spectrum.

They have tried to limit customers’ data usage by putting caps in place, throttling speeds and raising prices. Carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, MetroPCS and Leap have been spending billions to make more efficient use of the spectrum they do hold and billions more to get their hands on new spectrum. And they have tried to merge with one another to consolidate resources.

The FCC has also been working to free up more spectrum for wireless operators. Congress reached a tentative deal last week, approving voluntary auctions that would let TV broadcasters’ spectrum licenses be repurposed for wireless broadband use.

[…] The bad news is that none of the fixes are quick, and all are expensive. For the situation to improve, carriers — and, therefore, their customers — will have to pay more.

The United States also covers more ground, with lots of wide open spaces where frequencies can be used and re-used without interference problems.  As AT&T keeps illustrating, how you run your business has a lot to do with the quality of your service, spectrum crisis or not.  AT&T customers in heavily-populated urban markets cope with dropped calls and slow data not because the company has run out of frequencies, but because AT&T has failed to appropriately invest in its own network.  AT&T’s problems are generally not shared by customers of other carriers.  Even T-Mobile, which has the least spectrum of all major carriers, does not share AT&T’s capacity issues.

CNN reporter David Goldman suggests mergers and consolidation have been a solution for ‘wireless shortages’ of the past.  But are mergers about consolidating resources or leveraging profits?

The spectrum war’s winners and losers

AT&T’s failed $39 billion bid for T-Mobile was largely aimed at getting its rival’s spectrum. The Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission killed the deal, saying it would be too damaging to wireless competition.

That put the entire industry on notice: The carriers will have to solve their problems without any blockbuster takeovers.

The regulators’ main concern was that the deal would take the ranks of national carriers down from four to three. That’s why experts now expect the big players to focus instead on acquiring smaller, low-cost carriers like MetroPCS and Leap Wireless. Their spectrum could relieve capacity issues in large metro areas, which are the places most crippled by the crunch.

Industry analysts also think that Sprint and T-Mobile could gain approval to merge, though that’s a bit like two drowning victims clinging together. Sprint is losing piles of money every quarter, while T-Mobile is hemorrhaging customers with contracts.

Another possibility is that several carriers could partner in a spectrum-sharing joint venture.

But the most likely scenario is that the carriers continue fighting each other to snap up the last remaining large swaths of high-quality spectrum.

Stephenson

The claim that AT&T sought the purchase of T-Mobile USA for spectrum acquisition falls apart when you examine the record.  For instance, during AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson’s presentation at the merger announcement, shareholders were told the buyout would deliver cost synergies and savings, would stabilize earnings from a more predictable mobile market (with T-Mobile’s ‘market disruptive’ pricing out of the way), and would allow the company to secure additional frequencies.  However, as Stop the Cap! reported back in August, documents released by the FCC showed AT&T unprepared to specify what T-Mobile spectrum it expected to acquire, much less how the company intended to use it.

The “problem” AT&T sought to solve, in the eyes of both the Justice Department and the FCC, was pesky competition from T-Mobile and the reduced profits AT&T endured as T-Mobile forced competitors to deliver better service at lower prices.

Even Goldman admits T-Mobile had the smallest inventory of wireless spectrum among the major carriers — scant reason for AT&T to court a merger for spectrum purposes.

The spectrum winners continue to be AT&T and Verizon, who have the largest inventory of favorable frequencies, and both continue to warehouse spectrum they are not using for anything.

Your Cell Phone Bill is Going Up

Has your mobile phone bill jumped this past year?

Get used to it.

Demand for wireless data services is soaring, forcing carriers to invest massively to keep up. They have two main options: Upgrade their network technology or acquire more wireless spectrum to give them more bandwidth.

“Massively” is in the eye of the beholder.  Verizon outspent AT&T on network upgrades and continues to enjoy enormous returns on that investment.  Most major cell companies spend billions on network improvements, but also earn tens of billions from their customers.  Yet in the midst of the “spectrum crisis,” AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson told investors revenue was up — way up:

“We’ll expand wireless and consolidated margins. We’ll achieve mid-single-digit EPS growth or better. Cash generation continues to look very strong again next year. And given the operational momentum we have in the business, all of this appears very achievable and probably at the conservative end of our expectations.”

AT&T’s chief financial officer John J. Stephens put a spotlight on it:

In 2011, 76% of our revenues came from wireless and wireline data and managed services. That’s up from 68% or more than $10 billion from just 2 years ago. And revenues from these areas grew about $7 billion last year or more than 7% for 2011. We’re confident this mix shift will continue. In fact, in 2012 we expect consolidated revenues to continue to grow, thanks to strength in these growth drivers with little expected lift from the economy.

[…] We also continue to bring more subscribers onto our network with tiered data plans, more than 22 million at the end of the quarter, with most choosing the higher-priced plan. As more of our base moves to tiered plans and as data use increases, we expect our compelling [average revenue per subscriber] growth story to continue.

That’s a story AT&T has avoided sharing with customers, because more than a few might take exception that the past year’s rate increases have more to do with the company’s “compelling growth story” than a spectrum shortage.

CNN could have reported this themselves, had they bothered to look beyond the press releases and talking points from the wireless industry. The reporter even conflated recent increases in early termination fees as part of the “spectrum shortage.”

Readers have to glean the real story by reading between the lines.  Here is an example:

As Suraj Shetty, Cisco’s marketing chief, puts it: “Data caps are curbing the top 1% of users, but not the top 20%.”

For carriers, finding the sweet spot is a delicate balancing act. Heavy data consumption is costly for them. On the flip side, smartphone users, who are typically required to buy pricey monthly data plans, are their most lucrative customers.

The ideal customer is someone with a smartphone they use sparingly.

That reality could eventually be reflected in your monthly bill. All four of the major carriers declined to comment about their future pricing strategies, but analysts expect them to start experimenting with new “pay for what you consume” approaches.

The real agenda is finding customers who buy the most service and use it the least.  Usage caps and throttles don’t even work, if one believes Mr. Shetty.  Curbing one percent of your heaviest users does little to curtail congestion when the top 20% remain within plan limits and create an even greater strain on the network.

It’s another hallmark of Internet Overcharging — monetizing broadband usage while using “congestion” as an excuse.  If a customer uses 10GB on an unlimited usage plan or 10GB on a limited use plan, the impact on the network is precisely the same.  Only the profit-taking is different.

There Are Solutions

Only in the last part of the series does CNN’s reporter discover there are some practical solutions to the spectrum crunch.  They include:

• Splitting cell phone traffic to reduce tower load.  Adding additional towers is one solution, but not all have to be huge, unsightly monstrosities.  In parts of Canada and Europe, new “micro-cells” on top of traditional power poles or buildings can reduce tower load, especially in urban areas.  These units, which can fit in the palm of your hand, are especially good at serving fixed location users, such as those sitting at home, work, or in a shopping center.  They don’t create eyesores, are relatively inexpensive, and are effective.
• Allocation of spectrum.  The FCC is working on making additional wireless spectrum available.  Some carriers are cooperating to alleviate capacity issues, share towers, and collaborate on new tower planning.
• Consider Wi-Fi.  AT&T found offloading traffic to Wi-Fi and even home-based “femtocells” — mini in-home cell towers have effectively reduced demand on their wireless 3G/4G networks.  There is still room to expand.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Solutions to the spectrum crunch 2-2012.flv[/flv]

Alcatel-Lucent has a solution to the capacity crunch — a microcell cube that can be attached to a building or phone pole.  (3 minutes)

ABC’s Daisy Whitney (New Media Minute) went in search for evidence that Americans really are fed up with their cable TV bill and are cutting the cord.  She collided head-on with an industry still in denial that consumers are fed up with high cable bills and relying on their home broadband connection for video entertainment.

Nielsen reports there are 5.1 million homes in the U.S. that have broadband-only service from their provider, and presumably rely on over-the-air TV for live televised events.  That’s up a huge 23 percent over last year.  But some analysts dismiss that as growth that comes from homes that never had broadband in the first place, a conclusion that needs more evidence to back it up.

Providers admit most of their new customers are coming from other broadband providers, especially as Americans dump slow DSL in favor of faster cable or fiber-delivered service.  In most areas, those who want broadband service already have it.  The primary exception: rural residents just accessing newly-available broadband for the first time.

For 20 years, the cable industry has enjoyed a growth in video subscribers.  That is no longer the case.  While the numbers are not staggering, hundreds of thousands of big cable customers are dropping their cable TV subscriptions every quarter, and they don’t seem to be taking their business to the competition.  Granted, many cancellations are income-related, especially among video-only customers, but it is clear a ceiling has been reached on what Americans will tolerate from the cable company.

With programming rate increases continuing unabated, that bill is only going up.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC Quitting Cable TV Truth or Lie 2-22-12.m4v[/flv]

Daisy Whitney’s New Media Minute explores cord cutting.  (2 minutes)

Noted online petitioner Change.org will be promoting a petition to stop bandwidth capping this week.

Perhaps best known for hosting an appeal which influenced Bank of America to drop their proposed $5 monthly ATM card fee, Change.org will be presenting the ‘no data capping’ petition on various social media sites in an attempt to gain signatures.

The petition’s letter, directed to AT&T, Comcast, the Federal Communications Commission, and all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who practice data capping, demands that they return to a billing model of unlimited access for a reasonable monthly fee.  Telecommunication providers have a responsibility to improve service, not lower it, the authors argue, particularly in light of the fact that taxpayer-funded broadband pipelines already exist, which the providers are not using.

Petition author David K. Smith argues that data caps contradict the Internet’s inherent purpose.  In the petition page’s linked article, “Why Data Caps Are Censorship,” he states that as the Internet is exponentially growing, one can always access more information than any data cap could allow, resulting in censorship from “the Big Picture.” The article maintains that exclusion from the total amount of information available results in “leashed” users having an incomplete perspective due to restricted access, and that incomplete, fragmentary information is useless.

“Now is a great time to be signing and sharing this petition,” said Smith.  “We have Change.org’s attention, and more and more articles are appearing to protest bandwidth injustices.  I feel this is a critical fight for our freedom to information.”

Change.org online help assets suggest that one of the most effective ways to gain signatures is for advocates to place a link to the petition under appropriate news and technical articles, along with a paragraph describing its relevance to the subject discussed.

[Stop the Cap! encourages readers to sign this (and other) petitions which declare the practice of Internet Overcharging unacceptable.  Whether it’s data caps or throttled speeds, customers deserve an unlimited, unthrottled Internet experience they pay good money to receive.  As financial reports show, today’s unlimited pricing formula delivers enormous profits to broadband providers, even as their costs to provide the service continue to decline.]