Internet Overcharging schemes bring even more profits to a cable industry that already enjoys a 95% gross margin on broadband service.

At least one major national cable company plans to implement a usage-based billing system in the coming year, predicts Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett.  Bloomberg News quotes Moffett in a piece that thinly references Time Warner Cable as that operator, whose CEO strongly believes in further monetizing broadband usage.

Moffett is among the chief cheerleaders hoping to see operators charge customers additional fees for their use of the Internet.

“In the end, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the cable industry,” Moffett said.

For customers, DISH Satellite chairman Charlie Ergen predicts it will lead to at least a $20 monthly surcharge for broadband users who watch online video, which could bring already sky-high broadband pricing to an unprecedented $70-80 a month, the same amount most cable operators now charge for standard digital cable-TV service.

The cable industry’s interest in being in the cable television business has waned recently as subscribers increasingly turn away from expensive cable packages.  Now companies that used to consider broadband a mildly-profitable add-0n increasingly see Internet access as the new mainstay (and profit center) of their business.

Time Warner Cable, for example, wasn’t even sure its entry in the broadband business in the late 90s would ever amount to much.  Fast forward a dozen years, and it is an entirely different story:

“We’re basically a broadband provider,” Peter Stern, chief strategy officer for New York-based Time Warner Cable, said Nov. 17 at the Future of Television conference in New York. “As a convenience for our customers, we package and distribute television and provide service around that.”

Bloomberg reports the cable industry profit margin on broadband is nearly 95 percent, a testament to the lack of competitive pressure on Internet pricing.  The industry is going where the money is to make up for increasing challenges to their video business, which currently “only” brings them a 60 percent profit margin.

Suddenlink, already enjoying a 12 percent increase in broadband revenue in the last quarter alone, is implementing its own Internet Overcharging scheme, charging $10 for every 50GB a customer exceeds their arbitrary usage allowance.  That, despite the fact CEO Jerry Kent admits Suddenlink’s broadband margins are double those earned from the cable company’s video business.

Complicit in the parade to Internet Overcharging is Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, who publicly supported usage-based pricing in public statements made last December.  Cable operators were fearful Genachowski might lump the pricing scheme in with the Net Neutrality debate.  Providers have since used Genachowski’s loophole in an end run around Net Neutrality.  If providers cannot keep high volume video traffic from competitors like Netflix off their networks, they can simply make using those services untenable on the consumer side by increasing broadband pricing, already far more expensive than in other parts of the world.

That is a lesson already learned in Canada, where phone and cable companies routinely limit usage and slap overlimit fees on consumers who cross the usage allowance line.  Canada’s broadband ranking has been deteriorating ever since.

Moffett - The chief cheerleader for Internet Overcharging

Bloomberg says such a pricing regime would discourage investment in online video products that currently are held responsible for some cable cord-cutting:

“It’s the reason why Apple or Google would inevitably be reticent about committing a significant amount of capital to an online video model,” Moffett told Bloomberg. “You can’t simply assume just because you can buy the content more cheaply, you can offer a product that’s cheaper to the end user.”

The only way around this might be video providers like Google getting into the broadband business themselves, something Google is experimenting with in Kansas City.  Google’s “Think Big With a Gig” project is partly designed to prove gigabit broadband delivered over a fiber network is practical and doesn’t have to be unaffordable for consumers.  It will also finally bring competitive pressure on a comfortable broadband duopoly, at least for residents in one city.

So far, video providers who depend on an Internet distribution model are not putting much money in the fight against usage-billing.  Instead, companies like Netflix are releasing occasional press releases that decry the practice.

“[Usage billing] is not in the consumer’s best interest as consumers deserve unfettered access to a robust Internet at reasonable rates,” Steve Swasey, a Netflix spokesman, said previously.

It is clear consumers despise usage pricing.  In every survey conducted, a majority of respondents oppose limits on their broadband usage, especially at today’s prices.  But that may not be enough to get companies like Time Warner Cable to back off.  The company has reportedly been quietly testing usage meters since last summer.  CEO Glenn Britt, with a considerable drumbeat of support from Wall Street analysts like Mr. Bernstein, has never shelved the concept of usage pricing, seeing it more lucrative than hard usage caps.  The company retreated from a 2009 plan to charge up to $150 a month for flat rate access after consumers rebelled over planned trials in Texas, North Carolina, and New York.

But without a solid message of opposition from consumers, and an about-face from an FCC chairman that should know better, they’ll be back looking for more money soon enough.

[Thanks to regular Stop the Cap! reader Ron for sharing the news.]

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)

Republicans in the Senate are falling in line behind their colleagues in the House in voting to repeal the Federal Communications Commission’s anemic Net Neutrality rules.

Virtually every Republican in the Senate is expected to vote in support of a resolution introduced by outgoing Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) that would strip the FCC of its authority to impose the new rules, which would prohibit Internet Service Providers from interfering in the free flow of Internet content across their networks.  Nearly every Democrat in the Senate is expected to oppose the Republican-backed measure in a vote expected later today.

Republicans serving at the FCC and in Congress claim the federal agency has no congressional mandate to oversee the Internet.  The agency itself under Chairman Julius Genachowski has refused to fully enable its authority by reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service.  Because the agency’s role to oversee the conduct of the country’s service providers is at issue, it has left the FCC in a grey area, with its authority challenged both politically and in the courts.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) claims Net Neutrality rules are completely unnecessary because providers have already promised they will not tamper with traffic and, in his words, “This is a another big government solution in search of a problem.”

Hutchison said enforcement of Net Neutrality would stall broadband Internet development.

“It will increase costs and freeze many of the innovations that have already occurred under our open Internet system,” she said in a statement.

Democrats like Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington State think otherwise.

Cantwell pointed to Comcast’s secretive effort in 2007 to throttle the speeds of peer-to-peer file sharing traffic.  Comcast initially denied it was interfering with torrent traffic, until eventually admitting it was.  The FCC sought to fine Comcast for the practice, but the cable giant sued the FCC and won in federal court.  The judge in the case ruled the FCC didn’t appear to have the authority to regulate Internet traffic or impose the associated fine.

Cantwell believes sensible Net Neutrality policies will prevent further instances of provider interference.

“These providers think if [they] can control the pipe [they] can also control the flow,” Cantwell said. “Why allow telcos to run wild on the Internet charging consumers anything they want based on the fact that they have control of the switch?”

Reporters questioned Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller about Net Neutrality, noting the measure opposing FCC involvement won support from several House Democrats.

Rockefeller pointed to the universal support for the anti-Net Neutrality measure on the Republican side as evidence this has become a partisan political issue.  Rockefeller hopes his Democratic colleagues in the Senate will see it the same way.

“There’s still 53 of us [Democrats], and if we stay together we’ll win,” Rockefeller said. “I think we’re going to prevail.”

Should the measure pass, President Barack Obama indicated he will veto it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/C-SPAN Net Neutrality 11-9-11.flv[/flv]

C-SPAN talks with National Journal reporter Josh Smith about Net Neutrality’s prospects and the background issues surrounding Net Neutrality.  (3 minutes)

Rogers Cable lets their customers purchase this cable box outright to avoid rental charges.

Stephen Simonin first came to our attention in January 2010 when he proposed charging cable operators room and board for their expensive cable set top boxes they require subscribers to rent.  Now, the chairman of the Litchfield (Conn.) Cable Advisory Council is back with another salvo — demanding an end to mandatory rental charges for cable TV equipment and access to competing providers:

The biggest industry in the US that has money for jobs is the entertainment industry. Federal law requires Cable to carry local broadcast and public channels in the clear for all. If we contact our Federal representatives and ask them to add: “Must carry adjacent competitors programming” We would add a million USA jobs immediately. Paid for by corporate cable and NOT tax dollars!

Cable has forced all of us to RENT cable boxes. We are not allowed to buy them because this is guaranteed free revenue forever for them. A box costs less than $100 and we pay nearly $10 a month for rental and power each month. Cablevision makes over $1,000,000,000 a year on set top box rentals alone. This is only one company! They have compressed TV to less than 20% of the transport. They use the other 80% for business and not covered under TV franchise (Wi-Fi, data, phone business). However, they use the TV franchise for this monopoly access to our front doors.

Adding this must carry clause will allow up to 5 different cable providers at our front doors for lower costs, higher quality and real competition. Cable will not want to give up that fat 80% business revenue they have today and will need to add a new fiber/co-ax transport across the country on their nickel! Think how many local jobs $1,000,000,000 can pay for. Now remember that we have several cable companies here in CT!

These are American jobs! Please help us get this passed! Call our Federal Congressman and Senators today. Remind them of the details I have sent them on behalf of the People.

Simonin’s proposal, sent to Stop the Cap!, enjoys some precedent… in Canada.

Sky Angel, a Christian television distributor, abandoned satellite in favor of IPTV several years ago. Their subscribers watch Sky Angel's channel lineup over a broadband connection.

Consumers there can purchase cable boxes in stores like Best Buy ranging from $80 for a refurbished unit that works with Shaw Cable to $500 for a cable box with DVR designed for Rogers Cable customers.  Buying your own box puts an end to rental fees, often $7+ per month, which never stop, even after the box is effectively paid for in full.  But for those seeking a built-in DVR, the initial price tag is on the steep side.  The practice of buying boxes has also generated some surprising competition between Rogers and itself.  When customers call to inquire about new service, Rogers often includes discounts including free box rentals, making it unnecessary to purchase the box at all (as long as you remember to re-negotiate an extension of the promotion when it ends).  That’s a savings of nearly $100 a year for some customers.  Buying DVR equipment guaranteed to work with your current provider also makes it easy to upgrade the device with larger capacity hard drives that can store more programming.  Since the failure point for most DVR’s is the hard drive, occasional replacements and upgrades can keep a box running for years.  Many pay providers in the United States charge higher rental prices for higher capacity equipment, with no option to buy.

Simonin’s proposal to open up cable networks to other providers is more novel, and probably a lawyer’s dream come true for the endless litigation it offers.  It’s highly unlikely the courts will side with the notion of forcing cable operators to open their infrastructure to competing providers, and considering the amount of informal collusion between companies today, it’s probably not going to deliver much savings.

A bigger hope on the horizon is the ongoing march to IPTV — television programming delivered using Internet technology.  With strong Net Neutrality policies in place (and a strong position against Internet Overcharging with usage caps or usage-based billing), dozens of new virtual “cable companies” could be launched, delivering their lineups over the Internet, direct to computer and television screens.  That could deliver consumers an endless choice of providers, assuming regulatory oversight is in place to make sure programming is available to all at fair and reasonable prices and that broadband providers are not allowed to block or impede access to the offerings that result.

It’s much easier to do an end run around Big Cable than trying to find a way to get them to change their business plans.

Hours before the deadline imposed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Rogers Communications responded Tuesday evening to the CRTC, which demanded Rogers correct malfunctioning speed throttle technology that slowed certain online gaming traffic to a crawl, because is mistook it for peer-to-peer file sharing traffic.

In a four-page letter to the Commission, Rogers essentially rehashed the Commission’s original concerns and then attempted to explain why the company throttles broadband traffic in the first place:

We manage P2P upload traffic because if we did not, this traffic would grow to occupy the capacity available on our network and so impact our customers’ experience. The vast majority of P2P upload traffic is being sourced by non-Rogers customers. Without our traffic management practices, our customers, including online gamers, would experience difficulty uploading traffic. The traffic management we do slows down the upstream delivery of P2P file sharing but does not prevent it. Since P2P file sharing is not as time sensitive as other forms of traffic, we believe managing it has little impact on customer satisfaction.

Remarkably, unthrottled peer-to-peer traffic on other Internet Service Providers in places like the United States does not seem to threaten the viability of those networks, but evidently Rogers is a special case.

Our ITMP policy does not target any customer group or content: it is designed to allow us to manage traffic to maximize our customers’ overall experience. Online gamers, in particular, need a responsive upstream network. In an effort to provide the best service for all of our customers, Rogers’ ITMPs limit only P2P file sharing applications to a maximum of 80kbps of upstream throughput. Our traffic management deploys specialized network appliances to classify traffic and apply our policy where appropriate.

That explains why the Canadian Gaming Organization (CGO) was so upset about Rogers’ throttling technology malfunctions which can slow game traffic to a crawl. But Rogers decided in light of the evidence exposing the gaming traffic throttling problem, the best thing to do was to blame someone else. Getting the right kind of server with the right Keywords can be helpful:

The technology and software in use at Rogers is provided by a leading network equipment vendor: Cisco. This is the same technology that is in place in hundreds of other ISPs worldwide, and Rogers does not believe the problems we have experienced are unique to our network.

Most traffic, such as web browsing or email, can be clearly identified by our Cisco equipment with very little chance of error. In very rare situations, traffic that is not P2P file sharing may be misclassified, such as was the case with World of Warcraft (WoW). Rogers has experienced a small number of cases of gaming traffic being misclassified as P2P file sharing traffic. In these cases, gaming customers have only been affected when running P2P file sharing simultaneously with a misclassified game. The typical game requires less than 80 kbps and so would not be affected even if a misclassification were to occur. It is only when the games are running in conjunction with P2P file sharing that our ITMP would be deployed. This has been confirmed by repeated testing in our lab. We have currently resolved all of these cases.

In other words, if customers shut off the offending peer to peer software, gaming traffic won’t be impacted by the throttle which reduces file sharing speeds to around 80kbps, which is just above dial-up.

Rogers’ “Rube Goldberg” Throttled Traffic Resolution Flow Chart. (All you wanted to do was play your online game in peace.)  Our suggestion for improvement: turn off the broadband traffic throttle and upgrade your network and the problems go away for everyone.

Rogers denies there is a problem worth getting upset about, because in their view, game traffic doesn’t need anything faster than 80kbps anyway.  Rogers’ attitude and response were both hotly contested by CGO co-founder Jason Koblovsky, who says his members are still directly and clearly affected by Rogers’ throttle.

“Rogers is stating here that they are actively dealing with throttling issues, and suspecting throttling when connection problems are being reported to them.  Quite frankly we are seeing quite the opposite,” Koblovsky says.  “They are actively refusing to even acknowledge that throttling might be taking place, and evidence of this has been submitted to the Commission in previous complaints proving what Rogers is claiming with this flowchart is false.  Hopefully the CRTC can read flowcharts and connect the dots.”

Rogers says it will take a two-step approach to make further corrections to reduce the impact of its errant broadband throttle, but did not provide any timeline.

“In the few cases where we have determined there has been a misclassification of an online game, we have used a two-stage solution to fix the problem. In the short term, we whitelist the game manufacturer’s servers. Whitelisting means creating a policy that will not apply ITMPs to packets going to and from a game manufacturer’s servers no matter how the traffic is classified. This can usually be accomplished in a very short period of time. Whitelisting is effective where the game manufacturer’s server can be located. The second stage is a long term solution that involves a software upgrade created by Cisco and deployed on our network that will correct the misclassification. We note that we did not use whitelisting until recently. Using whitelisting allows us to resolve problems much more quickly than was the case with WoW.”

Whitelisting, according to CGO, is not a sufficient solution to the problem because game manufacturers often change or add additional servers that Rogers will not initially be aware of, requiring constant tweaking to keep the whitelist up to date.

CGO co-founder Teresa Murphy added that “World of Warcraft traffic isn’t safe until the final fix from Cisco is applied to all Rogers-controlled Deep Packet Inspection systems.  Until that happens, if Blizzard moves any of their servers (as they did last summer), the whitelist will no longer apply to World of Warcraft traffic, and we’ll be back in this same situation all over again.  We’re also curious as to the current status of the other games users reported to Rogers back in March which were experiencing the same problems as World of Warcraft, but which didn’t get as much user outcry as World of Warcraft garnered.  There has been no update from any Rogers employee regarding these other games, which we find concerning.  Updates were sparse on the World of Warcraft issue before the CRTC complaint went in, but updates to users on the forums became non-existent after Rogers was forced to admit their practices with WoW.”

Rogers also promises to begin testing the top-ten most popular gaming titles on an ongoing basis to make sure game traffic for those applications goes unaffected.  Woe to those who don’t make the top-ten list, however.

CGO calls Rogers’ response wholly inadequate.

“The way the CRTC has put this to Rogers is that the CRTC expects a plan with dates to have this misclassification issue resolved. This just simply hasn’t happened here,” Koblovsky added.  “The CRTC has been pretty clear to Rogers they want no possibility of misclassification here on any programs, games etc.”

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has issued new guidelines for consumers with complaints about their Internet Service Providers’ throttling practices that puts the burden of proof on the consumer to demonstrate an ISP is engaged in wrongful behavior before the CRTC will act.

The revised guidelines appear to come in response to complaints from consumers who have been subjected to dramatically reduced speeds when using Rogers Cable Internet service to play online games while also running file sharing software in the background. Rogers’ speed throttling technology appears to be unable to discriminate between game traffic, which is not subject to speed reductions, and file swapping traffic, which is.

The Canadian Gamers Organization filed a formal complaint with the CRTC this summer accusing Rogers of engaging in Network Neutrality violations.

The CRTC gave Rogers until today to fix the errant speed throttle or respond to the agency with an explanation for the delay.  As of this hour, Rogers appears not to have responded.

Last week, the CRTC began a crackdown of its own — against consumers bringing Internet complaints.  The CRTC modified the complaint procedure to instruct consumers to first work with their ISP and application developers to resolve any outstanding issues before filing complaints.  From the updated CRTC Guidelines:

How to make an Internet performance complaint

Before you complain to the CRTC about an Internet traffic management practice, you should first contact your Internet service provider to see if it can resolve the issue.

If your service provider doesn’t address your complaint to your satisfaction, and you believe that your service provider’s traffic management practices are not compliant with the CRTC’s policies, you can complain to the CRTC. Before doing this, make sure that you know your rights.

Rogers chokes the speed of undesireable peer to peer file traffic, but other applications like online gaming are also impacted. Consumers are complaining about the collateral damage.

What to include in your complaint

In your complaint, explain why you think your service provider’s traffic management practice doesn’t meet the requirements set out in their traffic management policy.  It is not necessary to provide technical details about the problem, but the CRTC needs enough information to understand the problem.  Please, clearly describe:

• What part of the traffic management policy you believe the provider has not followed
• When the problem occurred, and whether it is a recurring problem
• Which software program, or application, has been affected
• How the application has been affected
• The steps you’ve taken to try to resolve the issue with your service provider, including your provider’s response to your complaint

Consumer groups are not pleased the CRTC won’t engage directly in independent oversight of ISP speed throttling practices regardless of consumer complaints.

“We are not a consumer-protection agency,” the CRTC’s Denis Carmel was quoted as saying back in July.

“The CRTC must start enforcing its own policies,” says Canadian Gamers Organization co-founder Jason Koblovsky. “The CRTC needs to put a plan forth to ensure that regular audits are done on Internet Providers rather than relying solely on consumer complaints. We are asking the public to tell the CRTC that enough is enough: the Commission needs to take a much more proactive role in ensuring that Internet providers play by the rules. We are ready to act politically and force a solution here if need be.”

Koblovsky expanded his views on the subject in a blog entry:

We find this policy update to be more of an insult to consumers, and puts the responsibility of monitoring ISP’s use of [speed throttles] directly on the back of consumers. This is not acceptable by any means, and none of the policy recommendations we made that were thrown out by the CRTC in our initial complaint were taken into consideration, or for that matter seriously by the CRTC. This is a slap in the face to what we have been fighting for, and that is the CRTC has the responsibility to follow through, monitor and enforce its policies.

[…] Not one ISP has been found by the CRTC to be acting against net neutrality policy since they acted on this in 2009 with several complaints sent to the CRTC by consumers being dismissed due to lack of evidence over years of enforcement failure by the commission. There is no indication here that the CRTC is going to be dealing with a very high evidentiary thresh hold put on the consumer to launch a CRTC investigation in this policy update. All this update does is provide information on CRTC complaints procedures that are already in place, and consumers are already abiding by.

[…] Maybe it’s time we start acting politically on this issue instead, drop the CRTC from the picture to force the CRTC through legislation to listen to consumers, and start putting forth a much better effort on their responsibility to the public to enforce their policies. Or better yet, start billing the CRTC for our efforts on each complaint we become a part of.

Read this excellent analysis of game throttling and how Canadian ISPs master the art of Internet Overcharging.