I have to hand it to Frontier Communications, the DSL competitor to Time Warner’s cable modem service in Rochester.  They seem to have improved their marketing efforts considerably since last summer, and have handily taken advantage of Time Warner’s nightmarish rationing plan, now temporarily shelved.  Below the fold, check out the full page ad they took out in the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle.  Our advice: keep the ads running all spring and summer, because it’s highly likely we haven’t heard the last of the cap nonsense from Time Warner.

StoptheCap! has sent Frontier quite a bit of business since the cap announcement was made by Time Warner and customers sought alternatives.  Now, if Frontier management would only stop penning internal memos to their employees as late as a few weeks ago bashing the “opinion leaders” like us they claim “harm their reputation.”  Note to Frontier: When you do dumb-dumb things like define an acceptable amount of broadband usage at 5GB per month, don’t blame us for harming your reputation.  You did that all by yourself.  When you reformed and dumped those caps overboard, as you did recently, you gained a lot of new customers and kept your existing ones.  If, in 2010, you decide to try and bring back caps, just remember what this community did to Time Warner in two weeks, and then get smart and don’t even consider it.  We’re watching.  We’re always watching.

Remember, customers don’t want caps.  Not now.  Not ever.  Period.

… Continue Reading

Despite the propaganda campaign underway in the domestic broadband marketplace, especially among cable operators, the NY Times reported today that profits remain high for broadband service while costs for bandwidth, and the level of investment by those companies to provide it, is on the decline.

This comes in marked contrast to the public relations campaigns underway at some broadband companies, which seek to impose punitive caps, limited tiers, steep overlimit fees, and increase prices on residential broadband service.  As late as last week, Time Warner Cable sought to effectively triple the rate for their broadband customers in five cities for an equivalent level of service.  Road Runner subscribers paying $39.95 per month for service would now, under last week’s proposal, have to pay $150 a month for the same service.

The resulting firestorm of customer protest, and the involvement by Congress, temporarily sidelined Time Warner’s tiered pricing scheme, but company officials in the Triad region of North Carolina hinted strongly tiered pricing was coming back after a “customer education campaign” had been completed.

These plans to charge for above-average Internet use “are unjustifiable for almost everywhere in the country except for rural America,” Richard F. Doherty, the research director of the Envisioneering Group, a consulting firm that studies cable technology.

The Times report by Saul Hansell found that network engineers plan their networks based on peak potential traffic loads.

“All of our economics are based on engineering for the peak hour,” said Tony Werner, the chief technical officer of Comcast. “Just because someone consumes more data doesn’t mean they drive more cost.”

This belies Time Warner’s claims that light use customers might be effectively subsidizing heavier users.  In fact, the Times reports that the actual costs for Time Warner are identical whether a consumer watches 50 movies or doesn’t even use their connection that day.

The costs for upgrading networks is declining at an even steeper rate than StoptheCap! realized.  Comcast’s own reports to its shareholders now reveals the upgrade cost to manage the Internet growth Time Warner officials have been worrying about is an average of $6.85 per home to provide double the speed of existing service.  That’s a far cry from a 300% rate increase, per month, that Time Warner was seeking in lieu of punitive caps with substantial overlimit fees.

Costs are dropping even more rapidly with the implementation of DOCSIS 3, a new technology that increases capacity, dramatically raises speeds, and actually reduces expenses for cable systems, who currently have to face sub-dividing traffic congested neighborhoods.  In fact, Comcast told investors it will actually cost them less to provide 50 megabits per second connections than to continue the current level of service, at around 6 megabits per second.

This raises an even larger number of questions about why Time Warner, among other providers, needs to overcharge customers and penalize them for using their Internet connections with enormous overlimit fees that are possible with a tiered rate system, when their own bottom line would benefit from completing the upgrades without making any changes to customer’s bills or level of service.

Hansell also hints domestic broadband providers may be charging too much now.

Comcast has introduced a new 50-megabit-per-second service at $139 a month, compared with its existing service that costs about $45 a month for 8 megabits per second. Time Warner just announced it will charge $99 for 50 megabits per second [Editor’s Note: This service was to be capped at 150GB per month minimum, as per TWAlex].  By contrast, JCom, the largest cable company in Japan, sells service as fast as 160 megabits per second for $60 a month, only $5 a month more than its slower service.

[Editor’s Note: The fast-changing news on the Time Warner metered usage plan and its temporary demise did not allow sufficient time to present a full history of media coverage of this issue across all of the affected areas. For historical documentation, and in case of any potential resumption of this type of plan, I feel it is important to have this material archived here for future reference. Some of the information in this news report may no longer be applicable.]

I remember hearing bits and pieces about the “loyalty program” or extra benefits for “loyal customers” here and there but never pinned down exactly what that represented.  WROC’s cameras panned across one of the publicity sheets Time Warner had created to help explain their plan, and I finally caught a glimpse of what that represented.

As you’ll see in the clip below, “loyal” customers of Road Runner’s standard service plan would be upgraded from 10Mbps to 15Mbps, and Turbo plan customers would be upgraded from 15Mbps to 20Mbps (nothing is shown about upload speed changes.)  As we’ve remarked previously, speed upgrades on a draconian usage capped broadband plan only let you hit the limits faster than ever, and additional speed is incidental under this kind of business model.  Since only low bandwidth applications are likely to be used by customers who don’t come anywhere close to their “allowance,” extra speed makes little difference to them.  Higher consumption or “power users” enticed by speed upgrades are discouraged from enjoying them because of the caps.

Incidentally, those “loyalty” speeds for Rochester are already commonplace in Time Warner markets where they face competition from Verizon FiOS.  No loyalty or cap required.  Time Warner’s “loyalty” program was just the frosting on this cake of inadequacy.  Consumers were not placated by Time Warner’s “new and improved” Cap ‘n Tier system of Internet rationing, and they remain dissatisfied and suspicious that the “shelved” cap proposal will be back by autumn like a bad penny.

Also not to miss is Frontier’s very clever injection into the story, expressing “surprise” Time Warner would stick it to their customers at a time when the economy is hurting.  Very nice touch.

Samuel Greenholtz, a retired manager from Verizon, offered this absolutely impenetrable thinking on why broadband providers needed to impose caps on customers and were forced to charge way too much for them:

While a tiered pricing structure may have been inevitable in the long run, if the corporate bashing horde stayed out of the way, the vast majority of users would have avoided paying more for additional capacity.  Time Warner Cable does give the politicians what they are looking for – more bandwidth availability for all of its subscribers.  Still, the lowest speed package is not going to be enough for most of the consumers – and so they will have to take the higher tier offerings — along with the new overage charges.  Had the MSOs been allowed to just cap excessive users, most of the subs would have continued to receive a reasonable amount of bandwidth at the same flat price.

Ironically, all of the illogic obsession with net neutrality will result in even more of a usage-based pricing scheme.  There will now be several layers of capping.  The anti-ISP crowd has actually created a more beneficial pricing system for these companies.  And there is certainly nothing unfair about this development.  But the clamoring for so-called equality resulted in an acceleration of the removal of the all-you-can-eat advantage for consumers.

What in the world is this man talking about, and why is he part of some so-called “expert network,” Gerson Lehrman Group?

Broadband Providers: How Low Can They Go?

The history of usage capping actually goes back into the earliest days of Internet service providers, providing both dial-up and broadband service in areas where network capacity simply didn’t allow customers to utilize unlimited bandwidth.  Some Time Warner customers in the midwest and central part of the country lived under “limits” for years, mostly due to lack of any viable competition.  The imposition of caps on customers has always been driven by the capacity argument, never by a more honest claim that lack of competition discourages significant upgrades, and allows a provider to limit usage to ensure a higher rate of return. Where competition exists offering similar types of service, caps and limits are much rarer, speeds are higher, and pricing is lower.  A provider that doesn’t regularly invest in upgrades to his network in a competitive marketplace will soon no longer be a part of that marketplace.

Today, a handful of major broadband providers are now colluding in a version of telecommunications limbo, with several watching each of the others “experiment,” to see how low a cap they can set before subscribers and public officials rebel.  Multichannel News columnist Todd Spangler literally wrote that “Time Warner is taking one for the team.”

The “corporate bashing horde” argument, which Greenholtz casually tosses out without any examples or proof, doesn’t hold water.  No group I am aware of has ever bashed the widespread deployment of broadband service from multiple providers.  Oh wait, there is one.  Those providers themselves when they attempt to squelch community cooperative broadband services or municipally-run wi-fi networks, run for the benefit of residents.

Greenholtz completely ignores the fact broadband service is almost entirely unregulated, and providers have always been free to set terms and prices.  Someone draw me a map where corporate critics have developed the leverage to force operators to impose usage caps and tiered pricing.

The net neutrality issue that comes into his argument stems from the Comcast controversy a few years ago, when the nation’s largest cable operator attempted to manage traffic on its network by “throttling,” or limiting the speed of customers using certain bandwidth intensive applications.  Comcast claimed they were primarily targeting peer-to-peer software, which allows users to exchange files with one another, during peak usage of their network.

But this came about at the same time several large corporate broadband providers were advocating for a new distribution system for the Internet, one that would potentially no longer provide an equal level of priority for data traveling across the Internet.  Opponents feared that broadband providers could discriminate or even throttle traffic that didn’t pay their asking price.  And then Comcast provided the net neutrality opponents with a real-world example of bandwidth throttling in action.

Comcast abandoned, at least for now, the bandwidth management approach that included throttling, and instead imposed a simple 250GB “limit” on residential accounts.  Those exceeding that amount of usage risked having service suspended.

Mr. Greenholtz fails to connect this event with any cogent argument or evidence that suggests multiple capped tiers were borne as a result of this controversy.  Indeed, until Time Warner “took one for the team,” other domestic broadband providers simply upgraded their networks to handle capacity issues and imposed no caps, or have simply asked residential users to limit their usage, mostly between 150-250GB per month.  Customers seeking more than that can purchase another account, move to a business plan, or switch to another provider, where available.  Curiously, the imposition and testing of lower limits has often been in areas where competitors either do not exist or cannot offer an equivalent level of service at the same price across an entire community.

But Greenholtz does say one thing that has been obvious to all of us: the Internet service provider is using this as an excuse to create a “more beneficial pricing system.”  Of course, it’s only beneficial to them, not to consumers.  The latter routinely object in overwhelming majorities to the concept of usage caps and the elimination of the existing flat rate pricing which has always been profitable for the broadband industry.  Any other connection, particularly with the absence of any evidence, is tenuous at best.

Michelle wrote StoptheCap! to remind us that we’ve all been here before.  The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle takes us back:

About 75 of Rochester’s leading businessmen, merchants and bankers gathered at the mayor’s office on Oct. 28, 1886.

They were not happy. Not one bit.

The Bell telephone company had announced a rate increase. And many of the businessmen felt betrayed.

As F.J. Amsden put it, “the business men of Rochester had been encouraged to use the telephone so that it had become almost a necessity in the conduct of business. They (telephone company) have appropriated our streets and the roofs of our buildings (to string their telephone lines), and now when the system has become of general use they demand an entire change and the adoption of the toll system.”

To be sure, the rate change was substantial. Instead of paying a flat fee, as in the past, customers would pay according to actual usage. Those within a half mile of the downtown telephone exchange would pay $50 per year for 500 calls, and six cents for each call beyond that. Customers more than a half-mile from the exchange would pay an extra $20 per mile.

To angry customers, this was not only “unjust,” it was “extortionate.”

Hmmm… sounds sort of familiar, doesn’t it?  So what did people do?

J.H. Stedman, one of the angry businessmen who met in the mayor’s office that October day, urged telephone customers to unite and “refuse to use a phone.” And that’s just what they did. They went on strike.

“On November 20, 1886, they united in an action that is unparalleled in telephone history. At noon that day every subscriber removed his telephone receiver, with the understanding that it would not be replaced until the company came to terms,” according to The Great Contrivance.

The strike went on and on as customers simply canceled service, and in some cases formed their own cooperatives to provide alternative service in different areas.  Bell finally threw in the towel 18 months later and restored flat rate service to customers.

Rochester never entirely trusted Bell again, and by 1899, Rochester Telephone Company, an independent provider, was granted a license to serve the area and compete against Bell.  They promised and delivered flat rate service to customers, and maintained a reputation of excellence for decades, with one of the nation’s largest local calling areas at a cost of less than half charged by Bell in nearby Buffalo and Syracuse.

Bell eventually threw in the towel as more and more customers chose Rochester Telephone for their respect for customers and their delivery of an essential service at a fair and reasonable price.  Bell exited Rochester several years later altogether.

A lesson a certain cable company needs to remember, because consumer empowerment to cancel service is something not limited to Rochester.