South Africans won uncapped broadband service one year ago tomorrow when an upstart provider — MWeb — unveiled its “Free the Web” campaign, delivering usage-limit free Internet access to customers across South Africa.

The company’s move to unlimited, flat rate service was heavily criticized by competing providers, who enforce draconian usage limits and have tried to convince customers the global trend was moving towards metered broadband.  But MWeb president Rudi Jansen dismisses the notion limiting broadband is the way to go, suggesting usage caps and meters are more about profits than serving customers.

Today, MWeb’s uncapped broadband is a runaway success, with more than 50 percent of its customers switching to the meter-free service.  It has been profitable, too.

“We are running ahead of our business plan and all our products are profitable,” Jansen tells TechCentral.

Now the nation’s semi-privatized, 39% state-owned phone company Telkom is widely expected to stop the erosion of its own broadband customers by adopting flat rate broadband service itself.

For Jansen, that would represent a welcome move.  The Internet visionary wants to transform South African broadband away from its current expensive pricing model and throw the Internet wide open.

“I’m looking forward to it,” Jansen says. “The sooner they launch it the better.”

The arrival of flat rate broadband made headlines across the country in 2010. (click to enlarge)

South African broadband has coped with challenges few other countries endure.  International connectivity has always been one of the biggest — sustaining traffic on satellite backbone links or underpowered undersea cables first forced providers to limit Internet use because of capacity concerns.  But new fiber-based underseas cables from Seacom and Wacs, including the forthcoming 5.1Tbps West African Cable System project will dramatically increase capacity and slash costs.

Jansen (Courtesy: TechCentral)

Yet several of his competitors want to keep the caps on and prices high, earning lucrative profits on a service Jansen says is becoming less costly to deliver every day.

Jansen admits MWeb is currently forced to traffic shape certain activities on his network, particularly bandwidth-intensive peer to peer traffic, because other providers in the country don’t agree with his wide-open view of the Internet.

He wants every provider in South Africa to agree to “open peering,” a practice that allows providers to exchange traffic with each other without charging transit fees.  He also wants to see wholesale mobile wireless pricing come down.  In Africa, mobile broadband has a strong place in a market where cable infrastructure (and broadband speed) is often lacking.

Telkom, South Africa’s equivalent to AT&T or Bell, is cited by Jansen as the biggest impediment to his plan to deliver truly unfettered, unlimited access.

Some South Africans deride the state phone company as "Hellkom"

In South Africa, broadband customers pay two providers — Telkom for the monthly rental of the telephone line and an ISP for the DSL service that connects through it.  Jansen says Telkom’s broadband line rental prices are too high.  But more importantly, the interconnection fee Telkom charges providers to access its network is “absolutely ludicrous.”

“Those prices are far more than the price of international connectivity,” Jansen says. “Telkom charges us to get access to their last mile and then charges end users to get access to the same last mile, so they make double money on it. And it’s completely mispriced.”

Despite the challenges from other providers, MWeb will celebrate the first anniversary of uncapped broadband tomorrow with a surprise announcement, probably targeting small business clients.

Time Warner Cable’s new free iPad application, giving authenticated cable customers a selection of live cable channels to watch on the portable device, crashed under heavy demand last evening, hours after the company unveiled it in a mass e-mail campaign to customers.

Time Warner Cable TV for iPad is Time Warner’s first serious effort at delivering a cable TV experience to an online audience, initially streaming 31 cable channels in HD to customers who pay for both cable television and broadband from the company.

Several of the featured networks were part of earlier contract battles with the cable company. Scripps-Howard’s Food Network and HGTV are there, as is Fox’s FX and Fox News.  Some smaller “less-connected” networks like Hallmark Channel also made the cut.  Comcast-NBC’s networks also have a prominent place, including Bravo and CNBC.  All four major cable news channels are included.  Time Warner has been making a point to negotiate for on-demand and streaming rights with cable networks as part of contract negotiations.

Channel Lineup

Requirements

• iPad™ with iOS 4.
• Time Warner Cable video package at the Standard (Expanded Basic) level or higher.
• Time Warner Cable Internet Service (Road Runner^® Standard or higher recommended for best experience. EarthLink^® High Speed or EarthLink^® Cable Max is also supported).

[flv width=”416″ height=”254″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TV for iPad Time Warner Cable Ad.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable advertises its new iPad app for online viewing.  (15 seconds)

Time Warner Cable's new app for the iPad delivers 31 channels of live cable network viewing for free -if- you are a cable subscriber willing to watch from home.

Plenty of channels are missing though, including local broadcasters, Turner Broadcasting-owned networks like TNT and Turner Classic Movies, and sports networks.

But the most obvious limitation is that the service only works from inside of your own home, over a Time Warner Wi-Fi broadband connection.  You cannot take your viewing on-the-go.  This limitation seemed curious, considering other companies provide similar online viewing apps that can be used anywhere a wireless connection exists. 

Despite the limits, AdWeek reports several unnamed cable networks fired off warning shots yesterday to Time Warner Cable executives warning them they were streaming networks without permission.

Network legal reps are issuing a flock of heated missives to the nation’s No. 2 cable operator, calling for an immediate halt to a new service that allows subscribers to stream video content to iPads and other tablet devices. Although Time Warner Cable introduced the free app just 24 hours ago, a number of cable network groups have already made it abundantly clear that they had not signed off on any such distribution arrangement.

[…] “Distribution via any sort of third-party app is not addressed in our carriage deals with Time Warner Cable or any other operator,” said one affiliate chief. “There is going to be a messy dissection of what the rights are, but our position is that [this sort of distribution] is not authorized by our affiliate agreements.”

TWC CEO Glenn Britt has cautiously navigated the syntactic rapids, offering carefully worded assessments about the nature of the service. “Certainly all the business structures with the owners of copyrights are not fully in place, but you can begin to see a very exciting future for this set of industries and for the American consumer,” Britt said last August, after announcing plans to bow the iPad app. “There is great potential in all these devices…But it’s also a complicated process.”

Cable networks are concerned viewers who are not authenticated cable subscribers could get free access to programming from account sharing.  But considering Time Warner Cable has locked down viewing to inside the home for the time being, it is unlikely Time Warner Cable faces the same degree of wrath that could be heaped on Comcast and satellite dish TV providers who deliver apps that permit anywhere-viewing.

Time Warner Cable's new iPad app crashed under a heavy load last night.

The cable company’s heavy promotion of the newly-available app in mass e-mail announcements was probably a mistake, however.  The online viewing party came to a rapid end last night when the company’s servers, unprepared for the demand, ended up turning away many would-be viewers.

Jeff Simmermon, director of digital communications for the cable company, said they did not anticipate the level of demand they got last night.

“At about 8 o’clock last night the app crashed under a much heavier load than we anticipated. Our engineering team is working as hard as they can to put a fix in place and get everything up and running as soon as they can,” Simmermon wrote on Time Warner’s blog.

“For the time being, the app is running with only 15 channels. We have found that by temporarily reducing the number of available channels, we can ease strain on the authentication process. This will enable us to offer at least some sort of an experience to our customers while we get a fix in place. We’ll add the other 17 channels back in as soon as we can fix the underlying issue, and we’ll be adding more channels in future iterations of the app as well.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BTIG Time Warner Cable iPad App.flv[/flv]

Rich Greenfield demonstrates Time Warner’s new iPad app.  (3 minutes)

AT&T's Fairy Tales of Broadband Congestion

Just a few days after Broadband Reports broke the news AT&T was imposing an Internet Overcharging scheme on its broadband customers, evidence continues to arrive illustrating the company’s planned usage limits are more about protecting their U-verse video business than actually controlling “heavy users.”

Dave Burstein, a well-known industry analyst who has tracked the broadband universe for years was so miffed about the nonsense he was reading in the Wall Street Journal, he picked up the phone and called the AT&T spokesperson who claimed the company was overburdened by heavy users:

Mark Siegal, AT&T’s top flack, hung up the phone on me when I said his comment to the Wall Street Journal was apparently a lie. It’s prohibitively unlikely their DSL cap “is to ensure the quality of the customer experience” necessary to solve “congestion in certain points of the network and interfering with other people’s access.” I’m certain that far less than 1% of the time do AT&T DSL customers have any impact from congestion. I’m pretty confident it’s less than 1/10th of 1% and probably less than 1/100th of 1%. My sources that wireline congestion on AT&T is minimal include statements from two CTOs of the company. Cheng, now a veteran in D.C., knew the comment was misleading at best. A mantra in D.C. is “wireline may not have congestion but wireless is different.” It was Sunday and perhaps hard to factcheck, but he’ll easily confirm the problem on Monday.

AT&T has long maintained they have a more robust network and cable is the one with “bandwidth hog” problems. But Comcast’s cap was 60% higher than AT&T and Comcast has said they will raise it. AT&T has gone 13 years without caps on their DSL network because they said they didn’t need them. Traffic growth is actually down slightly (Cisco, Odlyzko) so there’s only one reason to impose caps now: their video service, U-Verse, has become a $5B business. They don’t want people to be able to cut the cord and watch all their video over the net. 150 gigabytes is 40-80 hours of U-Verse quality TV, far less than the average U-Verse user watches.

In fact, AT&T is one of America’s largest Internet Service Providers, and maintains an important role in America’s Internet backbone.  As one of the largest providers, AT&T doesn’t worry about broadband traffic like a small wireless ISP does.  Its broadband pipes from the middle-mile to their nationwide network offers near limitless capacity thanks to fiber optic technology.  In fact, AT&T’s theoretical “bottlenecks” occur in the “last mile” of the network, from the phone company’s central switching offices or its interface between a fiber connection and the plain old copper wires that work their way into your home or business.

But first, a word about costs.

Dave Burstein

We have new evidence from both Burstein and the Internet Overcharging drama unfolding in Canada that providers literally pay pennies per gigabyte of traffic.  In fact, the broadband traffic customers generate represents only 2%-5% of what we pay for broadband in both countries.  Burstein uses some of Craig Moffett’s prolific comments in the media against his own argument for Internet Overcharging.  Moffett, a Wall Street analyst, is not alone when he reports broadband margins are as high as 90%, according to official company filings.  John Hodulik from UBS joins him.

Burstein gives providers’ argued need for increased investment to keep up with demand the benefit of the doubt and is willing to suggest profit margins at a reduced 75%.  In either case, running a large broadband network is a veritable license to print money in North America.  The costs to provide the service keep dropping, and providers keep on raising prices.

Burstein was generous with Comcast when he called their 250GB usage limit imposed in 2008 “fair.”  But as Stop the Cap! has argued, Comcast — like other Internet Overchargers — has not grown the cap over time, even as their costs decline.  In fact, customers are probably lucky the country’s largest cable operator hasn’t reduced it, as providers in Canada have done repeatedly. Burstein calls on Comcast to honor their promise and raise their cap.

Burstein also notes the rest of the world enjoys lower prices, more competition, and often faster service — with providers across the board still enjoying considerable profits.

But why not here?

America’s broadband market is a monopoly or duopoly in virtually every American city.  One cable operator and one telephone company deliver service to the vast majority of American broadband users.  Wireless providers are largely owned by legacy phone companies and strictly limit usage.  Without significant competition, providers can raise prices at will and milk profits to sustain their balance sheets even as other business divisions suffer from a downturned economy or shifting cultural changes.  The “landline” is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and cable television provided by cable and phone companies could face cord cutting from consumers watching their favorite shows over their broadband connections.

Broadband service carries up to a 90 percent profit margin

Burstein tracks the business model:

15 gigabytes/month: The average (mean) user in the U.S., per Cisco’s respected VNI survey and numerous comments from the major companies.

Going Down: Bandwidth usage growth per customer. The rate has been about 30% per year, with the rate slightly falling the last few years. The growth in average usage is actually going down slightly, per Cisco VNI and the MINTS data of Professor Andrew Odlyzko.

Going Down: Capital investment required. In 2009, AT&T cut U-Verse by 1/3rd. In 2010, Verizon cut FiOS by 2/3rds. John Stankey of AT&T has said they will cut U-Verse much further after this year. Fran Shammo of Verizon says “Wireline will continue to come down year over year.” Cablecos have been dropping capex as a % of sales and often in absolute dollars. According to a recent survey by Heavy Reading, 70% of the cable networks have been upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 already. There’s no significant capital spending beyond that at least until mid-decade. The Columbia University CITI report to the broadband plan aggregated analysts forecast and predicted a drop in overall capital spending on broadband, particularly in wireline. The primary capital spending for wired broadband is behind us, with few significant network buildouts in the next five years or longer.

Going Up: Profit Margins. Prices for broadband have generally been going up in the U.S. since 2007 while costs drop. Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and most others have raised their broadband prices and ARPU. They also have (modestly) raised the prices of triple play including broadband, according to Dave Barden of Bank of America. Capex is dropping pretty dramatically while other operating costs are also falling. Customer support costs have gone down as few new customers (who need more support) are added. Modems and other gear continue dropping in price. Costs down, prices up = higher profits. Both Stankey and Shammo pointed to improved margins.

AT&T DSL (left) vs. AT&T U-verse (right): Hunting season on customers of both is now open.

AT&T argues their usage caps are less about the money and more about dealing with network congestion.  But does that play out?

AT&T has a convenient argument to use, which several journalists have come to believe gives the company a track record of being victimized by “heavy users.”  Namely, their network congestion brought about by the flood of iPhone users on AT&T Mobility’s cellular network.  Even if a reporter does not understand the profound differences between a wired and wireless broadband network, they have heard about AT&T’s problems coping with their wireless traffic.

In short, the company underestimated demand from its exclusive deal with Apple for the wildly popular phone, and refused to invest adequately to mitigate overcongested cities.  Instead, it spent millions lobbying for permission to “manage” the traffic with artificially-slowed speeds, usage limits, confiscatory overlimit penalties, and even some equipment to offload wireless users onto home broadband connections (for which AT&T still deducts airtime and data usage from your wireless allowance.)  Robust Wi-Fi also tries to drive customers off of AT&T’s inadequate 3G network.

For home broadband users who will be affected by AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme, let’s break them into two separate categories: DSL customers who face a 150GB cap and U-verse customers who will get a 250GB allowance.

AT&T DSL is a legacy product dependent on traditional copper wire phone lines.  Available in many areas unserved by U-verse, this technology typically provides up to 6Mbps service — often slower, sometimes higher.  The distance between the phone company office and one’s home usually determines what speeds customers receive.  In rural areas, 1-3Mbps is often typical.  In some urban areas, higher speeds are sometimes possible.  DSL is not a “shared” technology like cable broadband.  Each DSL customer has their own line between their home and central office (or remote repeater).  From there, a connection from the central office to AT&T’s backbone is made over a middle mile network.

AT&T U-verse VRADs (a/k/a 'lawn refrigerators') in Houston, Tex. (Courtesy: Swapdisk)

But AT&T’s DSL customers are already constrained by the reduced speeds DSL provides them.  It is unlikely a customer with 3Mbps DSL service is going to present much of a traffic challenge to a multi-billion dollar company unless they purposely under-invest in network upgrades.

Where congestion does exist, it occurs at the central office — usually because the company inadequately provisioned a sufficiently large data pipe to handle the traffic.  Since these circuits are increasingly fiber-based, congestion issues disappear when AT&T uses technology from this century instead of the last.

AT&T argues heavy users are overburdening their DSL lines, but their prescription makes no sense.  The company says, despite the alleged traffic jam, it is more than willing to sell users additional capacity for $10 per 50GB increment.  If AT&T’s aim was to cut congestion, they would be unwilling to sell additional capacity they don’t have to customers who need it.

A usage cap on AT&T’s new U-verse platform makes even less sense and opens a political minefield.

When one pushes away the promotional and marketing glitz AT&T provides when pitching U-verse, you are left looking at just one thing — a high speed broadband connection.  AT&T’s entire platform of television, phone, and broadband all resides on that single, super-speed broadband pipeline.

AT&T has built this super fast pipe with a combination of fiber optic cables and copper phone wires.  It uses fiber, which doesn’t degrade with distance the way copper wire connections do, to reduce the amount of copper phone wiring between your home and AT&T.  With this “fiber to the neighborhood” approach, AT&T can create a robust pipeline which can accommodate multiple television channels, a phone line, and your broadband connection all running concurrently.

AT&T only seeks to limit one part of that connection, however: the broadband service you could theoretically use to bypass AT&T’s television and phone service in favor of another provider.  It’s the same platform — only the services are different.

AT&T claims network congestion is a problem for U-verse as well, which is a controversial claim to make considering AT&T designed U-verse with excess capacity that goes unused to this day.

What does AT&T’s U-verse network look like?

AT&T’s regional offices maintain watch over their U-verse network of TV, Internet, and phone services.  This portion of the network is entirely fiber-based.  From there, fiber extends to individual central offices, part of the company’s middle-mile network.  AT&T’s fiber journey typically ends at large metal cabinets strategically placed in different neighborhoods.  These “Video Ready Access Devices” (VRADs) are probably familiar to you if you live in an AT&T area.  Sometimes derided as “lawn refrigerators,” the huge metal cabinets contain the interface between the fiber optic network and the copper wire telephone lines running to your home.

It’s this “choke point” AT&T tries to claim as a point of congestion.  If enough customers use their connection at the same time, it can “overburden” the network.  But can it, really?

Early adopters of U-verse pestered AT&T engineers about the network as it was constructed and learned a lot about it.

Phil Karn has been a U-verse customer since November 2009 and has become an expert on how his U-verse service works, and importantly how it holds back a considerable amount of available bandwidth.

An AT&T engineer “tried to tell me that the network equipment was like the engine in a sports car. You don’t want to drive it at the red line all the time because that will wear it out. I don’t know if he was told to use that analogy or if he came up with it on his own, but needless to say it’s a pretty silly one. And completely inapplicable,” Karn shares on his website.

He then claimed, rather weakly, that backhaul capacity considerations from the VRAD limit how much can be offered to each individual subscriber. This argument might even have begun to hold water except for the numbers he then provided. The VRADs, he said, are connected by 10 gigabit Ethernet over fiber, and each VRAD serves upwards of 200 homes. Let’s see…10 gigabits over 200 homes is 50 megabits per home. My [U-Verse] link runs at 32.2Mbps.

The whole point is that it doesn’t really matter how fast or slow the backhaul from the VRAD may be. With modern Internet routers and priority [Quality of Service] mechanisms, there is no reason to force capacity to remain idle when a user could be using it. Not unless, of course, you’re trying to maintain the public impression that broadband capacity is really scarce and expensive.

Karn

In fact, because few Internet users fully drive their broadband connections on a continuous basis, it can be argued that continuous video streams delivered to television sets left on in the homes of U-verse customers for hours at a time present a bigger “congestion” problem for AT&T, at least at this point in their network.  But the company has no plans to limit television viewing — only their broadband Internet service.

U-verse is AT&T’s answer to slow speed DSL, and part of how the company intends to stay relevant as landline customers depart.  But the company’s business plan depends on a certain percentage of customers subscribing to their pricey television service.  Should AT&T’s broadband customers decide to stop paying for television service, watching everything online instead, that threatens a $5 billion dollar business.

Burstein predicted this scenario when he discussed it with former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

“In 2005, Kevin Martin discussed with me the issue of what he would do if AT&T favored U-verse. I believe he felt he would have to act, but at that point hoped competition would prevent him from facing that decision. Now AT&T’s multi-million dollar über-lobbyist Jim Cicconi has presumably told them [current FCC Chairman] Julius Genachowski is sufficiently under control he won’t do anything about this.”

In the end, many of AT&T’s arguments simply are incoherent.  If only a small handful of AT&T customers are creating such a dilemma for the company it has to inconvenience every customer with a usage limit, AT&T has a much larger problem to contend with.  Furthermore, the company’s existing acceptable use policy already includes provisions for dealing with users that create problems on their network, all without bothering everyone else.

Jenkins

The Wall Street Journal attempted to attach its own conventional wisdom in an opinion piece about cloud-based streaming that suggests Canada “is just ahead of the U.S. in introducing usage-based pricing [and] has bloggers and politicians accusing Bell Canada of unconscionable ‘profiteering’ from usage caps. The company, they rage, is reaping huge fees for additional units of bandwidth that cost Bell Canada virtually nothing to provide.”

The author, Holman Jenkins, is a regular on the ultra-business friendly editorial page of the Journal, and has been raging against Net Neutrality and for higher Internet pricing for several years now.

Jenkins’ latest argument, just like his earlier ones on this subject, falls apart almost immediately:

This critique, which is common, could not more comprehensively miss the point. Another car on the roadway poses no additional cost on the road builder; it imposes a cost on other road users. Likewise, network operators don’t use overage penalties to collect their marginal costs but to shape user behavior so a shared resource won’t be overtaxed.

Jenkins needs to spend less time supporting his friends at companies like AT&T and Bell and more time exploring road construction costs.  If you are going to try and make an analogy about traffic, at least get your premise straight.

Before debunking his usage-based billing meme, let’s talk about road construction for a moment.  In fact, the kind of traffic volume on a roadway has everything to do with what kind of road is constructed.  In the appropriately named “Idiots’ Guide to Highway Maintenance,” C.J.Summers explores different types of road surfaces for different kinds of traffic.  Light duty roads in rural areas can get results with oil and stone.  Medium duty side streets and avenues are frequently paved with asphalt, and heavy duty interstates routinely use concrete.  Traffic studies are performed routinely to assist engineers in choosing the right material to get the job done.

Digital information doesn’t wear down cables or airwaves.  If broadband traffic occupies 5 or 95 percent of a digital pipeline, it makes no difference to the pipeline.  Jenkins is right when he says Internet Overcharging schemes are all about shaping user behavior, but for the wrong reasons.

Jenkins thinks Netflix and other high bandwidth applications face usage-based pricing to allow providers to keep their broadband pipes from getting overcongested:

Netflix is one of the companies most threatened by usage-based pricing, and it has quickly geared up a lobbying team in Washington. In a recent letter to shareholders, CEO Reed Hastings downplayed the challenge to Netflix’s video-streaming business. In the long run, he’s probably right—the market will settle on flat-rate pricing once the video-intensive user has become the average user.

In the meantime, however, Netflix shareholders had better look out.

In fact, providers are reaping the rewards of their popular broadband services, but almost uniformly are less interested in investing in them to match capacity.  It is as if the AT&Ts of this world assumed broadband users would consume    T H I S    M U C H   and that’s it — time to collect profits.  When upgrade investments don’t even keep up as a percentage of revenue earned over past years, the inevitable result will be a custom-made excuse to impose usage limits and consumption billing to manage the “data tsunami.”

Canadian providers did not slap usage caps on broadband users because Netflix arrived — they lowered them. Telling users they cannot consume the same amount of bandwidth they used a month earlier has nothing to do with managing traffic, it’s about protecting their video businesses by discouraging consumers from even contemplating using the competition.  Jenkins works for a company that understands that perfectly well.  News Corp., has a major interest in Hulu as well as satellite television services in Europe and Oceania.

The rest of Jenkins’ piece is as smug as it is wrong.  In attacking Net Neutrality supporters as “crazies” trying to defend their “hobby horse,” Jenkins claims public interest groups are pouting about usage-based billing, too:

All along, what the net neut crazies have lacked in intellectual consistency they’ve made up in fealty to the business interests of companies that fear their services would become unattractive if users had one eye on a bandwidth meter. That’s why opposition to “Internet censorship” morphed into opposition to anything that might price or allocate broadband capacity rationally. But such a stance is rapidly becoming untenable, whether the beneficiary is Google, with its advertising-based business model, or Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others who hope to capitalize on the entertainment-streaming opportunity.

All are betting heavily on the cloud. All need to start dealing realistically with the question of how the necessary bandwidth will be paid for.

Part of Jenkins’ theory calls back on his usual Google bashing — he perceives the company as a parasite stealing the resources bandwidth providers paid for, while forgetting the success of their businesses ultimately depends on content producers (who indeed pay billions for their own bandwidth) making the service interesting enough for consumers to buy.

But there is nothing rational about Jenkins’ support for Internet Overcharging.  North Americans already pay some of the highest prices in the world for the slowest service.  While providers attempt to lick the last drop of profits out of increasingly outdated networks (hello DSL!), their future strategy is less about expanding those networks and more about constraining the use of them.

Jenkins is ignorant of the fact several of Net Neutrality’s strongest proponents, Public Knowledge being a classic example, have not historically opposed usage-based pricing, much to my personal consternation.  As we’ve argued (and I submit proved), Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging go hand in hand for revenue hungry providers.  If they cannot discriminate, throttle, or block traffic they consider to be costly to their networks, they can simply cap demand on the customer side with usage limits or confiscatory pricing designed to discourage use.  That is precisely what Canadians are fighting against.

It’s all made possible by a broken free market.  Instead of hearty competition, most North Americans endure a duopoly — a phone company and a cable company.  Both, particularly in Canada, have vested interests in video entertainment, television and cable networks, and other entertainment properties.  As long as these interests exist, companies will always resist challenges to their core business models, such as cable TV cord cutting.  It’s as simple as that.

The “realistic” way bandwidth will be paid for escapes Jenkins because his quest for condescension takes precedence over actual facts.  Content producers already pay enormous sums to bandwidth providers like Akamai, Amazon, and other cloud-based distribution centers.  Consumers pay handsomely for their broadband connections, part of which covers the costs of delivering that content to their homes and businesses.  AT&T and other providers don’t deserve to get paid twice for the same content.  Indeed, they should be investing some of their enormous profits in building a new generation of fiber-based broadband pipelines to keep their customers happy.  Because no matter how much data you cram down a glass fiber, the ‘data friction’ will never cause those cables to go down in flames, unlike Jenkins’ lapsed-from-reality arguments.

Although more than 30 million Americans have experienced getting bill shocked with a cell phone bill loaded with overlimit fees and penalties, a wireless industry group says 19 out of 20 of these customers are economically better off getting those high bills, and any plan to notify customers in advance when their usage limits are reached would “harm innovation, limit consumer choice, and impair the potential for competitive differentiation.”

These incredible conclusions come in a filing from the Wireless Communications Association International, an industry group funded by AT&T, Sprint, Clearwire, and Time Warner Cable.

The WCAI just released a new white paper claiming Americans facing Internet Overcharging from usage-capped wireless data plans are actually saving money when carriers impose overlimit fees.  Their reasoning for this new math?  You might overpay for a usage plan that delivers a higher usage allowance than you need.

"And to think they actually believed us when we said Internet Overcharging saved people money!"

The wireless industry is heavily lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to stop the agency from imposing new rules to deal with the bill shock problem.  The FCC favors an advance warning system, which would force providers to notify customers by e-mail or text message when they near their usage allowance.  Letting customers know when they are about to pay enormous penalty usage rates before they are reflected on a future bill could save Americans millions annually.

The WCAI-funded study says consumers don’t need the agency’s help, going as far as to claim the majority of Americans are already well aware they are exceeding their plan limits, and are better off paying short-term penalties.

“The FCC is weighing new regulations that it says will eliminate so-called ‘bill shock,’ but this analysis makes plain that consumers don’t need regulators’ help,” WCAI President Fred Campbell said. “If you give them the right information, they know how to pick the best deal.”

But critics charge providers fighting this provision want to hide the most basic information of all — when consumers are on the verge of running up huge bills.

“The FCC’s effort on bill shock is long overdue in a wireless environment where today’s heavy user is tomorrow’s average user, and where the wireless Web is more and more important to commerce and to society,” Free Press Policy Counsel M. Chris Riley said. “It is vital that consumers are empowered with the information and the tools needed to make decisions about their own wireless usage so they can avoid outrageous charges.”

The WCAI white paper suggests that if providers are forced to issue advance warnings, companies may have to raise rates to compensate.  The paper’s author suggests consumers would find that worse than just paying the bills with overlimit fees:

The Nielsen Study indicates that many consumers incurring overages do so willfully and repeatedly. Their behavior suggests it is unlikely that usage notifications or usage controls would change their behavior because they are either indifferent to the overage charges or have determined that the occasional overage charge is more economical for them than choosing a more expensive plan. Notwithstanding that these overage-incurring consumers may not want or need additional notifications or controls, the adoption of the FCC‘s regulatory proposals would impose on all consumers the financial burden of ―protecting this one small group.

The WCAI dismisses the huge number of complaints that arrive at the FCC each year over this issue as simply “opinions” from consumers, not nearly as credible as their own analysis of actual customer bills.

The paper even argues with the definition of ” bill shock,” suggesting that the nearly 7 percent of wireless customers who blow past their voice allowances only face an average penalty of around $18.  That is “surprising or inconvenient; but it is unlikely to be shocking.”

Bill Shock

The WCAI study admits the dollar amounts for data-usage bill shock can be considerably higher, sometimes $100 or more.  The charges occur more frequently, too — impacting nearly 18 percent of customers.  But the group dismisses it as a rare occurrence anyway and that carriers will issue credits for astronomical surprise bills.  Besides, the paper concludes, when it was written most consumers were enrolled in increasingly-rare “unlimited use” plans.  Since the raw data was collected largely before AT&T abandoned its flat rate data pricing in 2010, statistics regarding bill shock for AT&T’s new limited use plans were not available.  The white paper inaccurately dismisses that major rate change, claiming it “had no impact on the data analyzed.”  That leaves readers believing the rate changes made no difference.

But the group’s logic completely derails when it concludes there are “consumer benefits to overages.”  Namely, providers “simplified” rate plans to reduce choice which was causing “customer confusion.”  The paper concludes “there is substantial evidence that consumers make deliberate choices to incur overages rather than upgrading to a more expensive monthly rate plan, and that they overwhelmingly benefit from such choices.”

The white paper ignores several important factors:

1. The diminishing number of unlimited access plans which give consumers a way to avoid overlimit fees, especially for data;
2. Carriers themselves arbitrarily set the arbitrary rules for the playing field – calling plan allowances, data allowances, limits, overlimit fees and penalties, and roaming rates;
3. The study ignores the record number of consumers complaining about surprising bills and the true economic impact providing simple text message or e-mailed notifications would have, and doesn’t give any reason why a consumer can’t simply shut off services once limits are reached, to prevent excess charges.

The white paper notes that 736,000 Americans annually are getting surprisingly high bills.  Assuming they are an average of $20 higher than anticipated, that represents nearly $15 million dollars in extra revenue for carriers — ample reason to hire dollar-a-holler groups to produce nonsensical reports that conclude a system to notify consumers they are about to be one of those 736,000 customers is actually bad for them and their wallets.

The FCC’s Consumer Task Force recommends these strategies to avoid bill shock:

•    Understand your calling pattern for making voice calls, and ask your carrier for a plan that would be best for your kind of use.
•    If you are an infrequent phone user, consider a pre-paid plan. Because you “pre-pay” for all your minutes, these plans make it impossible to go over your set limit.
•    Understand what your roaming charges are and where you will incur them.
•    Understand your options for data and text plans.
•    If you are going to use your mobile phone outside the U.S. for voice, email, and other services, make certain to find out beforehand what charges may apply. (Visit Wireless World Travel for more information about using a wireless phone in other countries.)
•    Ask how your carrier can help you avoid bill shock – with phone or text alerts, by letting you monitor your account online, or by giving you other information.
•    If you have tried to resolve a billing issue with your carrier and can not reach an acceptable resolution, complain to the FCC. You can call our Consumer Center, toll-free, at 1-888-CALL FCC (1-888-225-5322), or file a complaint here.

To learn more, read the FCC’s White Paper on Bill Shock.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FCC Bill Shock.flv[/flv]

The Federal Communications Commission discusses the problem of “bill shock.”  (1 minute)