Among the public interest groups that have historically steered clear of the fight against usage caps and usage based billing is Public Knowledge.

Stop the Cap! took them to task more than a year ago for defending the implementation of these unjustified hidden rate hikes and usage limits.  Since then, we welcome the fact the group has increasingly been trending towards the pro-consumer, anti-cap position, but they still have some road to travel.

Public Knowledge, joined by New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern over AT&T’s implementation of usage caps and asking for an investigation:

[…] Public Knowledge and New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative urge the Bureau to exercise its statutory authority to fully investigate the nature, purpose, impact of those caps upon consumers. The need to fully understand the nature of broadband caps is made all the more urgent by the recent decision by AT&T to break with past industry practice and convert its data cap into a revenue source.

[…] Caps on broadband usage imposed by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can undermine the very goals that the Commission has committed itself to championing. While broadband caps are not inherently problematic, they carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive and monopolistic ways. Unless they are clearly and transparently justified to address legitimate network capacity concerns, caps can work directly against the promise of broadband access.

The groups call out AT&T for its usage cap and overlimit fee model, and ponder whether these are more about revenue enhancement than network management.  The answer to that question has been clear for more than two years now: it’s all about the money.

The two groups are to be commended for raising the issue with the FCC, but they are dead wrong about caps not being inherently problematic.  Usage caps have no place in the North American wired broadband market.  Even in Canada, providers like Bell have failed to make a case justifying their implementation.  What began as an argument about congestion has evolved into one about charging heavy users more to invest in upgrades that are simply not happening on a widespread basis.  The specific argument used is tailored to the audience: complaints about congestion to government officials, denials of congestion issues to shareholders coupled with promotion of usage pricing as a revenue enhancer.

If Bell can’t sell the Canadian government on its arguments for usage caps in a country that has a far lower population density and a much larger rural expanse to wire, AT&T certainly isn’t going to have a case in the United States, and they don’t.

The history of these schemes is clear:

1. Providers historically conflate their wireless broadband platforms with wired broadband when arguing for Internet Overcharging schemes.  When regulators agree to arguments that wireless capacity problems justify usage limits, extending those limits to wired broadband gets carried along for the ride.  Dollar-a-holler groups supporting the industry love to use charts showing wireless data growth, and claim a similar problem afflicts wired broadband, even though the costs to cope with congestion are very different on the two platforms.
2. Providers argue one thing while implementing another.  Most make the claim pricing changes allow them to introduce discounted “light user” plans.  But few save because true “pay only for what you use” usage-based billing is not on offer.  Instead, worry-free flat use plans are taken off the menu, replaced with tiered plans that force subscribers to guess their usage.  If they guess too little, a stiff overlimit fee applies.  If they guess too much, they overpay.  Heads AT&T wins, tails you lose.  That’s a clear warning providers are addressing revenue enhancement, not network enhancement.
3. Claims of network congestion backed up with raw data, average usage per user, and the costs to address it are all labeled proprietary business information and are not available for independent inspection.

There are a few other issues:

In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by AT&T are particularly aggressive. Unlike competitors whose caps appear to be at least nominally linked to congestions during peak-use periods, AT&T seeks to convert caps into a profit center by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap. In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands.

In North America, only a handful of providers use peak-usage pricing for wired broadband.  Cable One, America’s 10th largest cable operator is among the largest, and they serve fewer than one million customers.  Virtually all providers with usage caps count both upstream and downstream data traffic 24 hours a day against a fixed usage allowance.  The largest — Comcast — does not charge an excessive usage fee.  AT&T does.

Furthermore, it remains unclear why AT&T’s recently announced caps are, at best, equal to those imposed by Comcast over two years ago.  The caps for residential DSL customers are a full 100GB lower than those Comcast saw fit to offer in mid-2008. The lower caps for DSL customers is especially worrying because one of the traditional selling points of DSL networks is that their dedicated circuit design helps to mitigate the impacts of heavy users on the rest of the network. Together, these caps suggest either that AT&T’s current network compares poorly to that of a major competitor circa 2008 or that there are non-network management motivations behind their creation.

AT&T has managed to create the first Internet version of the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, combining Comcast's 'tolerated' 250GB cap with AT&T's style of slapping overlimit fees on data plans from their wireless business.

As Stop the Cap! has always argued, usage caps are highly arbitrary.  Providers always believe their usage caps are the best and most fair around, whether it was Frontier’s 5GB usage limit or Comcast’s 250GB limit.

AT&T experimented with usage limits in Reno, Nevada and Beaumont, Texas and found customers loathed them.  Comcast’s customers tolerate the cable company’s 250GB usage cap because it is not strictly enforced — only the top few violators are issued warning letters.  AT&T has established America’s first Internet pricing version of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup: getting Comcast’s tolerated usage cap into AT&T’s wireless-side overlimit fee.  The bitter aftertaste arrives in the mail at the end of the month.

Why establish different usage caps for DSL and U-verse?  Marketing, of course.  This is about money, remember?

AT&T DSL delivers far less average revenue per customer than its triple-play U-verse service.  To give U-verse a higher value proposition, AT&T supplies a more generous usage allowance.  Message: upgrade from DSL for a better broadband experience.

Technically, there is no reason to enforce either usage allowance, as AT&T DSL offers a dedicated connection to the central office or D-SLAM, from where fiber traditionally carries the signal to AT&T’s enormous backbone connection.  U-verse delivers fiber to the neighborhood and a much fatter dedicated pipeline into individual subscriber homes to deliver its phone, Internet, and video services.

A usage cap on U-verse makes as much sense as putting a coin meter on the television or charging for every phone call, something AT&T abandoned with their flat rate local and long distance plans.

Before partly granting AT&T’s premise that usage limits are a prophylactic for congestion and then advocate they be administered with oversight, why not demand proof that such pricing and usage schemes are necessary in the first place.  With independent verification of the raw data, providers like AT&T will find that an insurmountable challenge, especially if they have to open their books.

[flv width=”640″ height=”368″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell’s Arguments for UBB 2-2011.flv[/flv]

Canada’s experience with Usage-Based Billing has all of the hallmarks of the kind of consumer ripoff AT&T wants Americans to endure:

• A provider (Bell), whose spokesman argues for these pricing schemes to address congestion and “fairness,” even as that same spokesman admits there is no congestion problem;
• Would-be competitors being priced out of the marketplace because they lack the infrastructure, access, or fair pricing to compete;
• Big bankers and investors who applaud price gouging and are appalled at government checks and balances.

Watch Mirko Bibic try to rationalize why Bell’s Fibe TV (equivalent to AT&T U-verse) needs Internet Overcharging schemes for broadband, but suffers no capacity issues delivering video and phone calls over the exact same line.  Then watch the company try and spin this pricing as an issue of fairness, even as an investor applauds the company: “I love this policy because I am a shareholder.  That’s all I care about.  If you can suck every last cent out of users, I’m happy for you.”  Finally, watch a company buying wholesale access from Bell let the cat out of the bag — broadband usage costs pennies per gigabyte, not the several dollars many providers want to charge.  (11 minutes)

For several days now, Time Warner Cable customers in northeast Ohio have endured disruptions to their digital cable, as pixel problems and frozen pictures plague the cable company.  Communities like Cleveland, Mentor, and Elyria are all affected, and the cable company can’t figure out what is causing the trouble.

Time Warner Cable reports more than 100 employees are trying to track down the problem, but the company will not issue general credits to affected customers.  Instead, you must write or call Time Warner requesting credit.  You can send a credit request on Time Warner’s website under the contact section.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WEWS Cleveland Time Warner Pixel Problems 5-3-11.mp4[/flv]

WEWS-TV in Cleveland covers Time Warner’s troubles after problems with the cable company brought many requests from viewers to get to the bottom of it.  (3 minutes)

One of Canada’s largest phone companies is willing to admit it is prepared to launch an Internet Overcharging scheme on its broadband customers now, while western Canada’s largest cable company would prefer to wait until after the next election to spring higher prices on consumers.

When Shaw’s president Peter Bissonnette told investors and the media he believes users who use more should pay more, all that needs to be put in place is exactly how much more Shaw customers will pay for already-expensive Internet access.  With Shaw making noises about usage-based billing, Telus felt it was safe enough to dive right into their own usage cap and overlimit fee pricing scheme.

Shawn Hall, a spokesperson for Telus, told CTV News that the phone company was ready to begin overcharging customers as soon as this summer.

Shawn Hall (CTV BC)

“It’s only fair that people pay for how much Internet capacity they use,” Hall told CTV.

Telus doesn’t seem to be too worried about the fact usage-based billing has become a major issue in the upcoming elections.  A review of the pricing scheme by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is due within months, but the phone company isn’t going to wait.

Shaw is being more cautious.  After the pretense of a “listening tour,” and with federal officials breathing down their necks, Shaw wants to wait until the elections are over before moving forward on their own price gouging, according to Openmedia.ca.

As Stop the Cap! has told our readers repeatedly, corporate “listening tours” about Internet Overcharging are about as useful as lipstick on a pig.  Providers don’t actually listen to their customers who are completely against these pricing schemes — and every survey done tells us that represents the majority of customers.  Instead, they only hear what they want to hear, cherry-picking a handful of useful statements in order to make it appear they are responsive to customer needs.

Shaw heavily redacted their own meeting minutes on their website, completely ignoring a large number of customers unalterably opposed to usage-based billing of any kind.  Instead, statements that fit their agenda were repeated in detail, especially those that suggested average users don’t want to pay for heavy users.

Shaw executives discuss with investors how they will stick customers with usage-based billing, despite customers telling them they don’t want these schemes. April 13, 2011. (7 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

It’s like arguing marathon runners should pay extra for the oxygen they consume because others don’t breathe as much.  It’s all a lot of hot air.

Broadband traffic costs providers only a small percentage of the amount they charge customers, and that number is dropping.  Yet providers want to raise prices, restrict usage, and charge punitive fees for those who exceed their arbitrary usage limits.

The power of the duopoly in place across most of western Canada has given providers little to fear from overcharging consumers.

Shaw CEO Bradley Shaw told investors they know few customers will switch providers if usage-based billing is imposed.

“We are of the mind that we still have a tremendous upside in terms of pricing power on our Internet services,” Shaw said.

The fact many Shaw customers have no other choice other than Telus does not escape Shaw’s notice either.

Telus’ Hall even had the nerve to call their Internet Overcharging pro-consumer.

Bissonnette

“It’s going to be really customer friendly,” he said. “You’d be forgiven for the first month you go over. You’d get lots of warning, lots of notice that you were going over with options of moving to other plans.”

Except an unlimited one — that is not available.

Openmedia.ca is trying to hold politicians’ feet to the fire on the issue of Internet Overcharging, demanding answers from every major party in Canada about how they will keep providers from imposing these pricing schemes.

Every major party, with one exception — the Conservative Party of Canada, has answered.  That’s the party currently in power.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has spoken out against usage-based billing, while NDP Leader Jack Layton has promised to ban it outright if elected to power.

Nearly a half-million Canadians have signed a petition opposing usage-based billing, and providers are showing once again they are not open to listening to anyone but their bean counters, intent on extracting as much cash as possible from Canadian customers’ wallets.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV British Columbia – Shaw planning to revive metered internet billing critics 4-25-11.flv[/flv]

CTV in British Columbia covers Shaw’s plans to revive metered Internet billing later this year.  (2 minutes)

HissyFitWatch: When contract negotiations with the local cable company get a little too heated for comfort.

The city of Troy, N.Y. has lived with an expired franchise agreement with local cable company Time Warner Cable for more than a decade.  After a shouting match erupted between a city councilman and a city economic development coordinator over its renewal, now we know why.

City officials managed to complete a tentative renewal with the cable company back in March, subject to city council review.  The agreement comes even as Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network threatens to provide the cable company with some competition in the region.

As part of the renewal, Time Warner has agreed to provide $80,000 to fund a Digital Technology Lab at the Arts Center of the Capital Region. It will also front $70,000 to help construct a studio for a new government channel that will deliver coverage of city council meetings, which could draw some high ratings if tensions always run this high.

Troy also gets the right to collect the maximum franchise fee allowed by law and receives a $200,000 settlement to cover alleged franchise violations that occurred under the old agreement.

One of Time Warner Cable’s biggest skeptics on the city council is Councilman Bill Dunne, (D-District 4).  He’s heard complaints about Time Warner’s prices and service from his constituents for some time, and told The Record he is “cautiously optimistic” about the potential deal, but stressed it will not be approved by the council until it is thoroughly reviewed.

Dunne suspects the cable company has made a fortune off Troy residents for years, and he wants to closely examine how well the cable company has done in upstate New York before handing them a lengthy contract extension.

Troy, New York

“I would like to see an independent auditor open up the books on Time Warner Cable … to see exactly where the money is going and how much money is being made [from Troy cable subscribers],” he told the Troy newspaper.

Some residents suspect whatever Time Warner Cable “gives” the city as a result of contract negotiations will be quickly made back in future rate increases.

“These negotiations are a sham because Time Warner Cable is negotiating with our money,” Troy resident Bill Thompson tells Stop the Cap! “If they give the city $500,000, they’ll just raise our rates to get that money back.”

Thompson says he applauds Dunne’s skepticism, and believes bringing in competition from Verizon is the only way to keep prices in check.

Christopher, during happier times.

Dunne’s ongoing concerns about Time Warner caused a fracas during last Thursday’s city council meeting, when Dunne won approval to take the Time Warner Cable franchise renewal off the table.  In its place, Dunne’s new substitute resolution forming a working group to study the proposed franchise renewal and more importantly, perform an audit of Time Warner Cable and their supporting documents.

That decision infuriated Economic Development Coordinator Vic Christopher, who had been working with Time Warner Cable and the mayor’s office to push for a speedy approval of what he felt was a well-reviewed franchise renewal agreement. When Christopher objected to the study group, and delaying the agreement in general, Councilman Ken Zalewski (D-District 6) suggested he and the mayor’s office were representing the cable company more than city residents.

That did it.

As the meeting ended, a shouting match ensued between an offended Christopher, Zalewski, and Dunne. Christopher called the city council “obstructionists” and then followed up on his Twitter account accusing the council of talking everything to death. Dunne suggested Christopher should run for office if he didn’t like the way the council represented the interests of Troy residents.

“Christopher’s petulance was an amazing spectacle to watch, especially considering nobody was directly attacking him,” Thompson says.  “He took it as a personal attack and responded in kind, and it only reinforced the notion the mayor’s office was in a hurry to get this agreement signed.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/The Record Spat in Troy Over TWC 4-22-11.mp4[/flv]

The hissyfit over a Time Warner Cable franchise agreement extension was caught on a cell phone camera, and the resulting video was promptly published online by The Record, Troy’s local newspaper. (1 minute)

TWC Franchise Agmt

As Time Warner Cable continues it channel re-alignments in markets across the country, some subscribers are coming up with fewer channels after the changes, but they are still paying the same cable bill — for fewer channels.

“It’s classic cable bait and switch,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Kyle from Kansas City, who spent hours fiddling with his TiVo box after Time Warner re-mapped the area’s channel lineup earlier this month.  “TiVo really underlined it for us, albeit unintentionally, when we discovered several channels no longer available to us unless we paid extra.”

While Time Warner Cable moved Kansas City to its theme-based lineup, which places similar channels together and aligns HD channels with their standard definition counterparts, they also used the occasion to re-tier some of their “free” channels into mini-pay tiers.

Among the channels out of the digital cable standard lineup:

• Encore MoviePlex — Seven theme-based commercial-free movie channels;
• IFC — Independent Film Channel
• Fox Movie Channel
• Flix
• RFD-TV
• Ovation

The movie channels are being re-tiered in a mini-pay package called TWC Movie Pass, which will eventually sell for $4.95 per month after some early promotional discounts.  RFD and Ovation are part of a new “Digital Choice” tier.

“It’s the usual deception from Time Warner, which claims to sell you ‘free HD’ service without also telling you a rented set top box is required, which adds at least $7 a month for the ‘free HD’ channels,” Kyle says.  “Now they don’t even give you that as they start stripping networks away from their HD lineup to sell you for more money.”

Some subscribers are less than happy with the outcome, considering they now have fewer channels and are still paying the same cable rate they were before the channel change.

“It’s a shell game they always win — find the channels, keep your eye on the channels, wait — they are gone.  Pay us anyway.”

Aaron Barnhart, who writes for the Kansas City Star, called it a PR failure.

“Time Warner proved once again to be its own worst enemy, hyping all the good things and leaving it to customers to discover the not-so-good-things on their own,” Barnhart wrote.

Time Warner’s reasons for the channel changes, reported by Barnhart, seemed less than convincing to customers.

Time Warner’s spokesman Matt Derrick pointed out that “in most places, Encore is bundled as a premium package with Starz.” Liberty Media, which owns both Encore and Starz, used to offer Encore to cable operators as a digital-cable value alternative to premium channels. But that has changed, and Time Warner negotiated this 12-month rate with Liberty to encourage customers to go along with the switch.

Derrick explained that Digital Choice was designed as a low-cost alternative to its larger Digital Variety package, where the same channels are also available.

“Wait, that doesn’t even make sense,” Kyle argues.  “Time Warner negotiated with Liberty to turn a free set of channels into a pay tier to encourage us to go along?”

Kyle doesn’t think the reasons for Digital Choice made any sense either.

“How many people are demanding to pay extra for Ovation and RFD, exactly?” Kyle wonders.  “What is missing from all this is why our rates did not decrease to compensate us for the lost channels.”

Kyle says the $4.95 a month rate for TWC Movie Pass may not seem as much as a pay network, but he reminds us Time Warner will continue to collect money from every subscriber for the channels they’ll no longer get.

“So if it costs them $4.95 a month for Encore, we’re all still paying that because our bill isn’t going down; if we actually want those channels, that costs another $4.95 — $9.90 a month.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLWT Cincinnati Time Warner Channel Realignment 4-18-11.mp4[/flv]

WLWT-TV in Cincinnati explains to certain Ohio viewers how to accomplish a needed channel “re-scan” that comes along with the channel re-alignments Time Warner Cable is performing across the country.  (2 minutes)