When dealing with an increasingly deregulated telecommunications industry, legislative relief from bad company practices is usually unavailable.  Some customers turn to the courts, through class action lawsuits brought against companies that can’t or won’t do the right thing.  Unfortunately, all too often such actions never bring more than bottom dollar refunds or coupons that can only be redeemed with the provider that treated you badly in the first place.  The real spoils are reserved for the lawyers bringing the case.

In Illinois, that has been proven true yet again as a Madison County judge orders refunds of $21.20 for nearly 700,000 formerly-Illinois Bell business customers who deserved refunds dating back to 2001, but never got them.

Judge Daniel Stack ruled that AT&T, current owner of the impacted area, should pay $21,671,857 total.

But more than $7,000,000 of that will never reach wrongfully charged customers.  Instead, that money will be diverted to pay the lawyers who brought the class action case.

The Madison-St. Clair Record did the math:

[Judge Stack] awarded a third of the judgment, more than $7 million, to class action lawyers Terrence O’Leary of Granite City, Glenn Bradford of Edwardsville, Thomas Londrigan and Timothy Londrigan of Springfield, and Mary Leahy of Springfield.

Stack wrote that they expended more than 3,000 hours on the case.

That would mean they made about $2,400 an hour.

Subtracting their fee leaves less than $15 million for customers, and Stack conceded that complete payment “may be impossible and/or impracticable.”

He ruled that Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation should receive all funds that remain after AT&T has issued credits to current customers.

Legal firms that bring class action lawsuits should be paid for taking the risk of bringing the case, but far too often they, along with one or two original class members, profit handsomely while those actually harmed are left with little once the spoils are divided.  Lawyers and key class members are paid in full (or well beyond) while those victimized are handed lunch money or coupons for a free month of phone features or some other limited value giveaway.  Doesn’t this call into question why any customer would want to participate in such suits in the first place?

Phillip "He Who Shall Not Be Named" Dampier

I’ve tangled with Todd Spangler, a columnist at cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News before.  This morning, I noticed Todd suddenly added me to the list of people he follows on Twitter.  Now I see why.

Todd is back with another one of his cheerleading sessions for Internet Overcharging schemes, promoting consumption-based billing schemes as inevitable, backed up by his industry friends who subscribe and help pay his salary and a guy from a company whose bread is buttered selling the equipment to “manage” the Money Party.

GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham and Broadband Reports’ Karl Bode don’t pay his salary, so it’s no surprise he disagrees them.  Oh, and I’m in the mix as well, but not by name.  Amusingly, I’m “the StoptheCap! guy, who’s making a career directing his bloggravation at The Man.”

Todd doesn’t consider himself “an edgy blogger type because, as everyone knows, I am The Man,” he writes.

Actually, Todd, you are Big Telecom’s Man, paid by an industry trade magazine to write industry-friendly cozy warm and fuzzies that don’t rock the boat too much and threaten those yearly subscription fees, as well as your paid position there.  I’ve yet to read a trade publication that succeeds by disagreeing with industry positions, and I still haven’t after today.

Unlike Todd, I am not paid one cent to write any of what appears here.  This site is entirely consumer-oriented and financed with no telecom industry involvement, no careers to make or break, and this fight is not about me.  I’m just a paying customer like most of our readers.

This site is about good players in the broadband industry who deserve to make good profits and enjoy success providing an important service to subscribers at a fair price, and about those bad players who increasingly seek to further monetize their broadband offerings by charging consumers more for the same service.  As one of the few telecom products nearly immune from the economic downturn, some providers are willing to leverage their barely-competitive marketplace position to cash in.

It’s about who has control over our broadband future – certain corporate entities and individuals who openly admit their desire to act as a controlling gatekeeper, or consumers who pay for the service.  It’s also about organizing consumers to push back when industry propaganda predominates in discussions about broadband issues, and we know where we can find plenty of that.  Finally it’s about evangelizing broadband, not in a religious sense, but promoting its availability even if it means finding alternatives to private providers who leave parts of urban and rural America unserved because it just doesn’t produce enough profit.

Let’s derail Todd’s latest choo-choo arguments.

“The idea of charging broadband customers based on what they use is still in play.” — That’s never been in play.  True consumption billing would mean consumers pay exactly for what they use.  If a consumer doesn’t turn on their computer that month, there would be no charge.  That’s not what is on offer.  Instead, providers want to overcharge consumers with speed –and– usage-based tiers that, in the case of Time Warner Cable, were priced enormously higher than current flat-rate plans.  Customers would be threatened with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding a paltry tier proposed by the company last April.  The ‘Stop the Cap! guy’ didn’t generate thousands of calls and involvement by a congressman and United States senator writing blog entries.  Impacted consumers instinctively recognized a Money Party when they saw one, and drove the company back.  A certain someone at Multichannel News said Time Warner Cable was “taking one for the team.”  At least then you were open about whose side you were on.

“Verizon just wants to make more money by charging more for the same service. What an outrage! It’s not like the company spent billions and billions to build out their network and needs to recoup that investment.” — Recouping an investment is easily accomplished by providing customers with an attractive, competitively priced service that delivers better speed and more reliability than the competition.  Provide that in an era when fiber optic technology and bandwidth costs are declining, and not only does the phone company survive the coming copper-wire obsolescence, it also benefits from the positive press opinion leaders who clamor for your service will generate to attract even more business.  Stacey’s comments acknowledged the positive vibes consumers have towards Verizon’s fiber investment — positive vibes they are now willing to throw away.

Verizon FiOS already gets to recoup its investment from premium-priced speed tiers that are favored by those heavy broadband users.  Most will happily hand over the money and stay loyal, right up until you ask for too much.  Theoretically charging your best customers $140 a month for 50Mbps/20Mbps service and then limiting it to, say, 250GB of usage will be an example of asking for too much.  Verizon didn’t get into the fiber optics business believing their path to return on investment was through consumption billing for broadband.

“Today’s broadband networks — not even FiOS — are not constructed to deliver peak theoretical demand and adding more capacity to the home or farther upstream will require investment.” — Readers, today’s newest excuse for overcharging you for your broadband access is “peak theoretical demand.”  It used to be peer-to-peer, then online videos, and now this variation on the “exaflood” nonsense.  It sounds like Todd has been reading some vendor’s press release about network management.  Peak theoretical demand has never been the model by which residential broadband networks have been constructed.  The Bell System constructed a phone network that could withstand enormous call volumes during holidays or other occasional events.  Broadband networks were designed for “best effort” broadband.  If we’d been living under this the peak demand broadband model, cable modem service and middle mile DSL networks wouldn’t be constructed to force hundreds of households to share one fixed rate connection back to the provider.  It’s this design that causes those peak usage slowdowns on overloaded networks that work fine at other times.

No residential broadband provider is building or proposing constructing peak theoretical demand networks that are good enough to include a service and speed guarantee.  Instead, cable providers are moving to affordable DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which continue the “shared model” cable modems have always relied on, except the pipeline we all share can be exponentially larger and deliver faster speeds.  Will this model work for decades to come?  Perhaps not, but it’s generally the same principle Time Warner Cable is using to deliver HD channels quietly ‘on demand’ to video customers without completely upgrading their facilities.  You don’t hear them talk about consumption billing for viewing, yet similar network models are in place for both.

“Is it fairer to recover that necessary investment in additional capacity from the heaviest users, who are driving the most demand?” Apparently so, because providers already do that by charging premium pricing for faster service tiers attractive to the heaviest users.  But Todd, as usual, ignores the publicly-available financial reports which tell a very different tale – one where profits run in the billions of dollars for broadband service, where many providers Todd feels urgently need to upgrade their networks are, in reality, spending a lower percentage on their network infrastructure costs, all at the same time bandwidth costs are either dropping or fixed, making it largely irrelevant how much any particular user consumes. What matters is how much of a percentage of profits providers are willing to put back into their networks.

Do people like Todd really believe consumers aren’t capable of reading financial reports and watching executives speak with investors about the fact their networks are well-able to handle traffic growth (Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable CEO), that consumption based billing represents potential increased revenue for companies that deny they even have a traffic management problem (Verizon), or that broadband is like a drug that company officials want to encourage consumers to keep using without unfriendly usage caps, limits, or consumption billing (Cablevision.)

“From 7 to 10 p.m., we’re all consumption kings,” Sandvine CEO David Caputo told Todd. “Bandwidth caps don’t do anything for you.” The implication of this finding is that “the Internet is really becoming like the electrical grid in the sense that it’s only peak that matters,” he added. — I would have been asking Todd to pick me up off the floor had Caputo said anything different.  His bread and butter, just like Todd’s, is based on pushing his business agenda.  Sandvine happens to be selling “network management” equipment that can throttle traffic, perhaps an endangered business should Net Neutrality become law in the United States.  His business depends on selling providers on the idea that sloppy usage caps don’t solve the problem — his equipment will.  Todd has no problem swallowing that argument because it helps him make his.  The rest of us who don’t work for a trade publication or a net throttler know otherwise.

What would actually be fair to consumers is to take some of those enormous profits and plow them back into the business to maintain, expand, and enhance services that deliver the gravy train of healthy revenue.  In fact, by providing even higher levels of service, they can rake in even larger profits.  You have to spend money to earn money, though.

Technology doesn’t sit still, which is why provider arguments about increased traffic leading to increased costs don’t quite ring true when financial reports to shareholders say exactly the opposite.  That’s because network engineers get access to new, faster, better networking technology, often at dramatically lower prices than what they paid for less-able technology just a few years earlier.  With new customers on the way, particularly for the cable industry picking up those dropping ADSL service from the phone company, there’s even more revenue to be had.

Or, do you think spreading the cost across all subscribers, thereby raising the flat-rate pricing for everyone, is the better option? Note that Comcast did this to an extent when it raised the monthly lease fee for cable modems by $2 (to $5), citing costs associated with its DOCSIS 3.0 buildout.

The industry already thinks so.  As we’ve documented, cable broadband providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast (and Charter next year), are already raising prices across the board for broadband customers in many areas.  Does that mean the talk about Internet Overcharging schemes can be laid to rest?  Of course not.  They want their rate increases -and- consumption based billing for even fatter profits.

If, on the other hand, you want to pretend that all-you-can-eat plans are sustainable at today’s price tiers, you’d be kind of clueless.

Every ISP maintains an Acceptable Use Policy that provides appropriate sanctions for those users who are so far out of the consumption mainstream, they cannot even see the rest of us.  Slapping consumption based billing on consumers with steep overlimit fees and penalties punishes everyone, and the provider keeps the proceeds, and not necessarily for network upgrades.

If Todd believes consumers will sit still for profiteering by changing a model that has handsomely rewarded providers at today’s prices, with plenty of room to spare for appropriate upgrades, he’ll be the clueless one.  The cable industry’s ability to overreach never ceases to amaze me.  Every 15 years or so, legislative relief has to put them back in their place.  It’s what happens when just a handful of providers decide it is easier to hop on board the Internet Overcharging Express and cash those subscriber checks than actually engage in all-out competitive warfare with one another – keeping prices in check and onerous overcharges out of the picture.

Nobody needs to know my name to understand this.  But some of his provider friends already know the names of our readers, because PR disasters do not happen in a vacuum.  They are also acquainted with two other names: Rep. Eric Massa and Sen. Charles Schumer.  If they want to go hog wild with Internet Overcharging schemes, that list of names will get much, much longer.

Your company has been in bankruptcy since late March.  Investors wiped out, debtors in court fighting settlements, you try and hang on by keeping customers from fleeing for the limited alternatives.  You also overpay your management to make sure they don’t flee with annoyed customers.  Charter CEO Neil Smit, who waltzed Charter into bankruptcy under his leadership, effectively doubled his salary, becoming St. Louis’ top paid executive, negotiating a $6 million dollar bonus if he helped waltz the company out of bankruptcy.  If he agrees to do his job after that, he gets another bonus.  How nice.

Now that Charter is looking for the bankruptcy exit door, it’s time for someone to pay.  It won’t be Smit.  It will be Charter’s customers.

In addition to across the board price increases, Charter is also considering slapping Internet Overcharging schemes on their broadband customers with “consumption-based billing” sometime next year, Smit told Bloomberg News.

Charter’s failure didn’t come about because their broadband users are using their service too much.  It came from bad management decisions that have plagued the company since it went public in 1999.  Charter has never had a single year since when it did not report a loss, eventually accumulating an enormous $21 billion in debt through mergers and acquisitions and efforts to keep its position as the nation’s fourth largest cable operator.

Now, that same bad management team will be making all-new bad decisions to further alienate Charter’s remaining 5.3 million customers.  Many of them will be hearing from AT&T to switch to U-verse soon enough.

Perhaps instead of punishing customers, Charter should consider replacing the people that put the company where it is today.  If Charter needs money to upgrade their network, why not start with the ridiculous salaries paid to reward the people that failed the company and its customers in the first place.

Tell Charter Cable if they bring consumption billing to your area, you’ll waltz your business to the other provider in town.

Brian Whitton, Verizon's Executive Director of Access Technologies

At least Verizon is honest about it.  As providers contemplate slapping customers with usage limits, overlimit fees, and other tiered pricing systems, they’ve typically said they’re justified because of the strain they claim heavy users place on their broadband networks.  One network that doesn’t face that problem is Verizon’s robust fiber optic FiOS network, which is on the way to upgrading from the ridiculously fast current speeds to the “next generation” of FiOS speed: delivering 10 Gbps downlink and 2.5 Gbps uplink, shared among 32 locations.  That makes the cable modem competition, which shares slower speeds among many more customers wilt at the prospect.  DSL instantly becomes the dial-up service of the decade in comparison.

Make no mistake, Verizon tells all who ask: Fiber to the Home is near-infinitely upgradeable for decades to come, simply by swapping out some hardware at each end of the pipe.

Yet Verizon began making noises about ending its all-you-can-eat broadband buffet this past September, when Verizon Chief Technology Officer Dick Lynch said Verizon was in favor of consumption-based billing, too.

But why should Verizon FiOS, often priced higher than the cable competition, opt for Internet Overcharging schemes when it has a network that is nowhere near capacity and will increase its speeds even further next year?

As GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham found out, the answer is – because they can:

Brian Whitton, executive director of access technologies at Verizon did acknowledge how valuable broadband has become—precious enough that people will pay for premium access to it, especially those using up a disproportionate amount of network assets. “Ultimately this is the fairest cost-recovery model, and with a tiering plan or a meter everyone is paying their fair shares to finance the network,” Whitton said. Unlike other ISPs, Verizon doesn’t view heavy bandwidth users as hogs, but it does view them as potentially high-end customers.

Yet Verizon already does charge users a fair share to finance their network, based on the speed tier that customer chooses.  Those high-end customers are already paying Verizon premium prices for the fastest available speeds on Verizon’s fiber optic system.  Verizon’s ability to recoup their investment becomes easier and easier as costs decline to construct the fiber optic systems that will protect Verizon’s viability for decades to come, unlike those traditional phone companies sticking with copper wire lines until the last customer out the door turns the lights out for good.  Verizon’s average revenue per subscriber has never been higher with its ability to market video programming, speeds that make most cable operators blush, and an infinitely more reliable telephone network, all on one bill.  That helps achieve subscriber loyalty, particularly when offering service that keeps customers happy.

Creating Internet Overcharging schemes for your broadband service simply to monetize consumption does not keep customers happy.  Verizon sees the cream rising to the top — charging broadband enthusiasts more while promising nothing for customers who use the service less.  With average consumption per broadband user rising, there’s going to be a lot more cream to skim, charging an increasing number of customers more money for the exact same level of service.

No consumption billing scheme to date has ever provided customers with a “fair share” system, because none of them result in no charge for no consumption or charge a flat fee per gigabyte.  Instead, customers are allocated a pre-determined allowance for usage, charged whether they use it or not.  If they exceed it, punishing overlimit fees are always the result, unless a provider takes another step towards monetizing broadband by inventing overpriced “insurance plans” to protect consumers from overage fees.  The cost of delivering that data is already built-in to the price of today’s broadband plans, and those costs continue to decline.

Higginbotham adds another factor in the equation: with insufficient competition, those “fair share” schemes can inflate prices and lower allowances at a whim, as most customers lack a wide variety of competitors to choose from, which could help keep the greed factor in check.

Most places have two providers that offer slightly different sets of services and plans, making it hard to compare prices. I don’t mind paying more for a better network (I do so for my cell phone), but most consumers lack that option when it comes to wired access. Comcast—which competes against Verizon in about 12% of its footprint—is rolling out faster broadband to ensure that customers don’t leave the cable provider for Verizon’s fiber. But in other areas of the country, such as here in Austin, Tex., folks must choose between DSL (with some U-verse) and cable that hasn’t been upgraded to the faster DOCSIS 3.0 speeds.

Austin was one of the test markets for Time Warner Cable’s reviled “consumption billing experiment” this past April.  In other test cities, it’s more of the same.  In Rochester, New York broadband service is realistically available from two major players — Time Warner Cable and Frontier Communications.  The former has apparently passed over Rochester for DOCSIS 3 upgrades because the cable operator sees little need to upgrade service in an area whose only primary competitor believes DSL service is good enough, one that has stubbornly kept an Acceptable Use Policy defining an appropriate amount of usage at a piddly five gigabytes per month, and thinks fiber is for breakfast cereals, not for Flower City residents.

Verizon’s words help call out the fiction that some providers have used to peddle Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers.  It’s not about “fairness,” it’s not about “exafloods and Internet brownouts,” nor is it about “expanding networks.”  It’s about profit, pure and simple.  When you have a duopoly in place for broadband and almost no regulation governing that service, the sky is the limit for price increases and limits on usage.

[flv width=”480″ height=”284″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Whitton On Telecom Delivery 2-25-09.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s Executive Director of Access Technologies Brian Whitton speaks about the future of telecommunication delivery technologies with Kimberlie Dykeman of Web2point0.tv at The Future of Television East conference in New York (February 25, 2009 – 11 minutes)

Regulating mobile broadband data usage on a constrained network has posed a challenge for mobile broadband providers that can’t always easily expand their networks to accommodate growing demand.  As mobile broadband providers work with the frequency allocations they have either been assigned or won through airwave auctions, simply adding more capacity by using additional frequencies isn’t always possible.  So most providers have increasingly turned to usage allowances to artificially control demand on their existing networks.

Who wins the next round of spectrum auctions sets us up for the mobile broadband chicken and egg scenario.  Providers cannot bid the enormous dollar amounts these auctions routinely command without revenue from customers craving access.  Customers aren’t about to commit paying even more for mobile broadband service that, in the United States, is almost universally limited to five gigabytes of consumption per month.  Finding ways to attract new customers who have been resistant to the current pricing of mobile broadband service could provide a source for additional revenue.

But as far as consumers are concerned, the current model of “usage allowances” combined with punishing overlimit penalties is extremely unpopular, and will keep many potential customers away.

Camiant, which helps create and manage traffic management solutions for broadband networks, today announced the findings of its latest study, “Rethinking Mobile Broadband Data Rate Plans.”  Although some of the study was no doubt designed to help sell the case for Camiant’s product line devoted to “intelligent” network management and quota systems, it provides important insight into the European mobile broadband market.

The conclusion: Europeans don’t like Internet Overcharging schemes either.

In fact, when the 263 survey respondents using plug-in mobile broadband modems in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden were asked about their preferences for various rate plans, the key finding was consumers don’t like ‘Cap + Overage’ style rate plans.  Among their concerns:

• 62% didn’t know what their usage cap was;
• 76% didn’t know how much data they actually used;
• 39% didn’t know what happened if they went over the usage cap;
• 45% were very/moderately concerned about exceeding the cap.

When presented with four alternative rate plan structures and asked their preference — “Cap + Overage” was least preferred by consumers.  ‘None of the above’ was not an option, so those surveyed chose the plan most acceptable under the parameters of the study.  The result showed almost half wanted unlimited service, and just over one-third wanted to pay less for a plan with an allowance, but one that wouldn’t empty their wallets if they happened to exceed the limit:

Many users were willing to pay additional fees beyond the base subscription for potential “extras”:

• 43% of all respondents would pay €5 in addition to base plan for unlimited usage of one specific application. Of those that were interested, 90% said it was important that they select the application.
• 45% of respondents interested in a service that might provide lower speed at some point said they would be willing to pay between €1 and €3 for on-demand higher speed “for a short duration (e.g. 1 hour).”

“It’s becoming very clear that network operators need to offer a wider range of package options to users of mobile data users,” said Graham Finnie, Chief Analyst at Heavy Reading. “This study provides strong evidence that end users are willing to consider a range of alternatives to conventional usage management schemes.”

Some similar studies and focus groups being conducted in the United States testing additional rate plan options, most of which carrying a lower usage cap and lower pricing.  Many of the private studies are including the dreaded ‘I wouldn’t buy any of these plans because they are all too expensive for what you get’ option to determine if consumers are simply going to continue turning their noses up at overpriced data plans.

Mobile broadband growth at the $60 for five gigabytes price level has been accepted by the on-the-go traveler or business person dreading hotel Internet connection fees, but have been difficult to sell to occasional users, residential customers, or those who consider the price out of line for the amount of access it includes.  Most of these types of customers rely on free or reduced price wi-fi instead.

With 49% of survey respondents looking for unlimited plan options at reasonable prices, and most of the rest looking for a lower price with some limitations, today’s American mobile broadband pricing platform charging high prices for highly limited service is the worst of both worlds for consumers.