Beaumont & Golden Triangle, Texas residents were the first to face Time Warner Cable Internet Overcharging experiments.

For awhile there, it seemed like nobody in the Golden Triangle on the Gulf Coast of Texas was paying attention to the fact their region was the nation’s guinea pig for Internet Overcharging schemes.  How wrong we were.

Stop the Cap! reader Mark, who lives just north of Beaumont in the city of Silsbee, had been fighting a one man battle against not one, but two providers serving his community of 7,400 — Time Warner Cable and AT&T.  Mark may exemplify the average consumer in the Golden Triangle, unaware that their broadband service had been subjected to Internet Overcharging experiments until the bill arrived in the mail.  Both providers have a track record of not always disclosing such schemes to their customers when trying to sign them up for service in southeastern Texas.

Both providers have used the area for pricing experiments, providing paltry usage allowances and charging steep overlimit fees for exceeding them.

Mark’s problems began when he unknowingly set himself up to be overcharged later.  Originally a Time Warner Cable customer, Mark decided to give AT&T’s Elite DSL package a try, primarily because it was less expensive than Road Runner service and supposedly faster as well.  AT&T claims their Elite DSL service in Silsbee provides up to 6Mbps down/768kbps up speed for $35 a month, compared with Time Warner Cable’s Golden Triangle Road Runner, providing (at the time) 5Mbps down/384kbps up speed for $44.95 a month.

“After DSL was installed, we discovered we were too far from the [phone company facilities] to get Elite speed, and instead of informing us about the problem, they switched us to Basic service speed, which is up to 768kbps down/384kbps up, and never bothered to tell us,” Mark writes.

The bill Stop the Cap! reader Mark received showing $73 in Internet Overcharging penalties (click to enlarge)

After Mark’s family felt AT&T was too slow to meet their needs, they ventured back to Time Warner Cable for Road Runner service.  The salesperson offered a “welcome back” discount, and mentioned nothing about the fact Time Warner Cable had implemented an Internet Overcharging scheme on the residents of the Golden Triangle region.  Instead of his old service priced at $44.95 a month for unlimited use, his new standard service was priced at $54.95 a month, and was limited to 20GB of usage per month before a $1/GB overlimit penalty kicked in.

When the first bill arrived showing his family exceeded that amount, it was quite a shock.  In addition to the $54.95 charge for “Roadrunner Residential”, there was a $73.00 fee entitled, “Road Runner Select Plan Additional Usage.”  (They also nickle and dimed him $0.99 for a “Paper Invoice Fee.”)

This was the first time Mark had encountered an “additional usage” overlimit fee, so he called Time Warner Cable to investigate.  Despite what the salesperson had sold him on, and online promotions were still selling to attract new customers, Mark learned for the first time Time Warner Cable changed pricing.  The Golden Triangle Division of Time Warner Cable implemented an Internet Overcharging scheme in June 2008, but only applied it to new customers.  Had Mark never left Time Warner Cable for AT&T, he would have never been an unwilling participant in the experiment to extract an extra $73 from his wallet.

Because he returned to Time Warner Cable after the “experiment” commenced, he was stuck.

Mark was angry.  He contacted the Better Business Bureau (BBB), the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission to complain about unfair business practices, improper disclosure of the Internet Overcharging scheme, and abusive pricing.

Time Warner Cable's 4/7/09 letter in response to a Better Business Bureau complaint regarding Internet Overcharging schemes implemented in the Golden Triangle, Texas (click to enlarge)

The most productive response came from Time Warner Cable, responding to the BBB complaint Mark had filed.  In addition to giving the standard talking points about Internet Overcharging schemes, Alberto Morales, Southwest Division Customer Advocate for Time Warner Cable, suggested the company would do a better job of training salespeople to disclose “the disclaimer regarding the consumption based billing when processing a new Roadrunner order.”  Morales also issued a one time credit for the $73 in overlimit fees charged to Mark’s account.

Mark recognized the language of the letter for what it was — propaganda from a cable broadband provider looking to cash in at the expense of their customers.  Among the dubious reasons given in the letter:

It’s also recognized that the Internet was not designed to handle the mass amounts of video that are now being consumed, therefore there is a risk that service speeds could slow down dramatically.  Video over the internet is an interesting and growing phenomenon.

So are Internet Overcharging schemes, but few would call them “interesting.”  Using the company’s own logic, Time Warner Cable should not be placing video on their own customer website, much less embark on a grand experiment called TV Everywhere to stream enormous amounts of video at broadband speeds to their customers.  Now that is interesting.  The “Internet brownout” theory of slowdowns and outages can occur when a provider chooses to pocket profits instead of keeping up with required investments to maintain their broadband network.  Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt disputes there is a problem with Time Warner Cable’s network as-is, telling a conference sponsored by Sanford Bernstein in May that, “I’m very comfortable with our plant… I don’t see a need for a massive upgrade.”

By implementing the Roadrunner Select Plan (where a customer can choose the level of speed they desire for their internet use), each level has its own cap of bandwidth consumption allowance per month.

Of course, customers cannot choose the one plan that has been an outstanding success for Time Warner Cable since its inception – the one they have right now (or had in the Golden Triangle prior to the “experiment”), unless they were willing to pony up 300% more for the same level of service, based on the last proposal Time Warner Cable introduced before temporarily “shelving the plan” due to customer outrage.

In the Golden Triangle, the maximum amount of usage was 40GB per month, followed by “the sky is the limit” $1/GB overlimit penalties.

Morales claimed that only “5% of users actually exceed their limit.”  But 100% of the Golden Triangle’s customers were left waiting for the arrival of a “gas gauge” measuring their usage, something they would now be required to check daily if they wanted to be sure not to exceed the paltry level of “bandwidth allowance” they were granted.

Time Warner Cable's follow-up letter of 4/29/09, in response to Mark's complaints that he was never told about the Internet Overcharging plan which subjected him to a 20GB monthly limit and $73 in overlimit penalties. (We assume the June 6, 2009 reference is a typo and should have read 2008) (click to enlarge)

Mark wasn’t sold by any of the arguments Morales was making.  That’s because he read Time Warner Cable’s own shareholder documents, as he had been accustomed to doing since he bought shares himself.  They told a very different story — one he shared in a letter to Morales:

“In 2007, Time Warner made $3,730 million dollars on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $164 million to support the cost of the network,” Mark writes. “In 2007, total profit on high speed data was $3.566 BILLION dollars.”

He adds, “in 2008, Time Warner made $4,159 million dollars on high speed data alone, and then spent just $146 million to support the cost of the network, a decline from the year past.  Total profit in 2008 on high speed data: $4.013 BILLION dollars.”

Mark realized “it cost Time Warner 11% less money to keep their network running in 2008 than in 2007.”

He also knew Time Warner Cable’s experiment in his city was done where the only alternative was his AT&T DSL service, which hardly offered comparable competition.

In a follow-up letter responding to Mark in late April (after the four city experiment was shelved), Time Warner Cable made it very clear their position was firmly planted in the ground:

“There are no plans to deviate from the consumption based billing plan.”

The company also elected to blame the customer for not understanding that an Internet Overcharging scheme had been introduced in the first place.

“When a customer goes online at www.roadrunneroffers.com, a disclaimer appears on the page with the first sentence including the following, “Subject to change without notice.  Some restrictions may apply.  Installation fees may apply.” This information is in view for anyone to read before proceeding with an order entry.

The fact this kind of disclaimer is, in the company’s view, sufficient notice for implementing Internet Overcharging schemes, is hardly adequate.

“We eventually dropped them again,” Mark writes. “We thought a usable slower Internet was better than a faster one we were not going to use.”

Mark realized Time Warner Cable’s business practices and models aren’t a good fit for the way he feels companies should treat their customers, and he dumped his Time Warner Cable stock and did what so many customers have also chosen to do: use the one word Time Warner Cable did seem to understand during their Internet Overcharging experiment:  C A N C E L.

As long as broadband providers continue to believe that Internet Overcharging schemes are the best way to protect their business models and leverage even more profits from their broadband division, action on every front, from legislative to direct consumer protest and refusal to do business with such companies remain the best course of action.

Stop the Cap! will continue to help deliver that action, along with a consumer education campaign that doesn’t require focus group testing to sell, because it’s based on common sense and not dollars.

Still to Come: Mark takes his battle to AT&T and gets an upper level AT&T retention agent to mark his account “exempt” from Internet Overcharging fees and penalties.  Perhaps you can, too!

From $199 to much more, Apple & AT&T expect premium prices for iPhone addicts.

High demand for a product often carries a premium price to acquire and use it.  The Apple iPhone, one of those few mobile products that can generate lines extending out the door of a retailer, is one such product.  AT&T Mobility, which still holds an exclusive contract with Apple for iPhones in the United States, has made it clear it will not be making any price changes to its wireless data plans with the introduction of the Apple 3G S on June 19.  Speculation about lower pricing started with AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de le Vega, who spoke at a conference last month indicating he was amenable to “limited data plans for lower fees.”  That message was soon modified into a more generic ‘price cut’ as the story traveled.

“We’ve been very happy with our pricing,” AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel told Dow Jones Newswires.

AT&T already charges a pretty penny for iPhone users on their network.  Customers signing up for service face a minimum voice plan of 450 minutes for $39.99.  An “unlimited” data plan, required for the iPhone, adds $30 per month.  AT&T claims the average iPhone customer spends about $90 per month for voice and data.  The company also reserves the right to crack down on excessive data usage and limits some applications.

Should de le Vega’s tolerance of limited data plans become reality, plans with more specific usage limits may be forthcoming, at a moderately discounted price.

AT&T has had a bad week in the public relations arena, as current iPhone owners continue to object to the full-price upgrade price they may have to pay if they are in a two year contract.  Thousands have signed a Twitter petition and have filled AT&T’s online support forums with complaints about AT&T “price gouging” loyal customers.

AT&T has enjoyed significant revenue from their exclusive arrangement with Apple.  But iPhone users are dedicated to their combination phone and data device, and try to get their money’s worth.  That has put pressure on AT&T’s network, and despite the company’s revenue from its premium priced plans, has been criticized for not keeping up with that demand.

Verizon Wireless, AT&T’s biggest competitor, trashed AT&T’s proposed upgrades as inadequate:

Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam characterized AT&T’s promises as “too little too late”. He said that AT&T’s “ceiling for their network will be the floor for our network.” McAdam called AT&T’s announcement on its network upgrade old news—about a year old. He also noted AT&T’s promises to upgrade speed are spin.

Stop the Cap! reader John, who lives in Beaumont, Texas, went shopping for Internet access recently and was sold on broadband from AT&T:

I looked for and did not find any reference to caps, and called the sales department. I was told there were no caps. I signed up and when tech support helped me with the registration, the tech bragged how AT&T had no caps when cable companies (Time Warner) did. The day after I installed, I received the express letter stating there was a cap trial in the Beaumont area. The cap is 80GB for my “Elite” service plan. The overage charge is $1.00 per Gig.

Of course what John, and many other residents in Beaumont may not have realized is that AT&T is continuing to test their Internet Overcharging schemes in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.  AT&T’s website and marketing materials are generally targeted to a nationwide customer base, and it’s easy to receive marketing materials that don’t disclose you reside in the two unluckiest cities in America to be an AT&T broadband customer.

If John is subject to any long term service commitments, he should have the right to exit his contract and terminate service without any further obligation.

Time after time, customers learning of Internet Overcharging with unwarranted limits and penalties are left angry and upset.

Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), a cable industry trade group, wants cable companies to be able to continue experimenting with metered broadband service.

McSlarrow

In an interview with Ars Technica, McSlarrow claims broadband pricing experiments aren’t about “gouging” customers or creating even fatter profit margins.  Instead, he claims the cable industry just wants to provide Internet access in a way “that’s best for the consumer.”

According to McSlarrow, there’s no particular rush to pick one business model, and the industry has no “grand plan” hashed out by cigar-smoking executives in clubby back rooms. In his view, though, cable needs to do the experiments to make sure that the Internet survives the coming bandwidth apocalypse.

“As demand goes in a certain direction,” he says, “someone’s going to have to build a network” to deal with “not just instantaneous peak but, more importantly, average peak usage. The whole point is to do it in a way, and to serve your customers in a way, that they have a great experience. If you fail on the network side to do that, particularly with our shared network, that’s a real problem.”

McSlarrow himself enjoys flat rate pricing from his Internet service provider, so he’s not a part of any experiment, nor is he willing to defend Time Warner Cable’s recent attempt to launch metered billing in several cities around the country.  But, he feels that broadband service doesn’t have to come with a single monthly price for everyone, claiming that the “majority” of broadband customers consume so little, they are basically overpaying to support heavier consumers of bandwidth.

McSlarrow, who has ties to the Republican party, having been the national chairman for Dan Quayle’s failed 2000 presidential bid, and has worked for two Senate Majority Leaders — Sens. Bob Dole and Trent Lott, is a firm believer in free markets, with no government regulation.  He also claims the broadband industry is highly competitive, which means market forces will protect consumers from gouging providers.

McSlarrow must have spoken to Ars Technica on Fantasy Island, because that must be where he is living these days.  He certainly doesn’t live in Reno, Beaumont, San Antonio, Rochester, Greensboro, or Austin, where AT&T and Time Warner Cable decided to test their paltry Cap ‘n Tier schemes.  It’s no surprise he wasn’t willing to defend Time Warner Cable, which tried to launch a Money Party at consumers’ expense.  McSlarrow should also know that free market competition without regulation only works when there are competitors — lots of them, offering similar levels of service.  That’s not the broadband industry the majority of America lives with today.

Nate Anderson, who penned the piece for Ars, took a skeptical aim at many of McSlarrow’s claims.  We’re willing to go further and say they don’t represent reality, period.

… Continue Reading

Following the Money: Telecom's Best Friends in North Carolina Get a Payday

If there is one thing I know about how politics work, it is that when you follow the money you find the reason certain people are pushing so hard to get legislation through.  After doing some intensive research into the Senators involved with S1004, I found a trail of money that leads right back to the Cable/Telecom industry.  S1004 was primarily sponsored by Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston County) and was co-sponsored by Sen Debbie Clary (R-Cleveland and Rutherford Counties).

Sen. David Hoyle (D-NC)

What made me think to look in the first place was the quotes in the local paper by Hoyle.

You can expect to see 1004 on the Senate floor and sent over to the House soon, said Sen. David Hoyle, its sponsor. Hoyle says he doesn’t much care how it gets studied, as long as it gets there.  “It’s an issue that needs to be looked at,” Hoyle said. “All the parties need to get in the same room and defend their position.”

Add that to a Hoyle quote reported on Facebook by the Greensboro News & Record’s Mark Binker, “I take great pride in being a pro-business member of the Senate.” Now I had to look.

What I found was that Hoyle took a total of $25,750 in telecom industry PAC money in 2008.  Embarq Employees PAC gave $4500, Time Warner PAC gave $4250,  AT&T PAC gave $4000, NC Cable PAC gave $2500, Sprint/Nextel PAC gave $3000, NC Broadcast PAC gave $1500, NC Association of Broadcasters PAC gave $4000 and ElectriCities gave $2000.  That last donor is particularly interesting, because their lobbyist, Drew Saunders, also happened to sponsor a nearly identical bill in  2007.

It is easy to see why Hoyle is pushing this legislation so hard for his telecom buddies: $25,750 is a lot of money for a state politician.  Most people don’t make much more than that in a single year working 40 hours a week.

Co-sponsor Clary has not been very outspoken on this bill, but her total take from telecom industry PACs was considerably lower as well, amounting to $4750.  Embarq Employees PAC gave her $1500, Time Warner PAC gave $1000, AT&T PAC gave $1750, and ElectriCities gave $500.

Other big players in the North Carolina Senate are also cashing their industry checks, and the details are forthcoming.  Next, my attention will turn to the sponsors of HB 1252 in the North Carolina House.  Soon, we’ll all know exactly how much is takes to get big telecom’s legislative agenda passed into law in the North Carolina General Assembly.

All information I have provided above was a matter of public records search at the NC State Board of Elections website.