More drive-by reporting on Comcast’s usage caps.

When the media covers Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, it is often much easier to take the provider’s word for it instead of actually investigating whether subscribers actually need their Internet usage limited.

Comcast’s planned reintroduction of its usage caps on South Carolina customers begins Friday. Instead of the now-retired 250GB limit, Comcast is graciously throwing another 50GB of usage allowance to customers, five years after defining 250GB as more than generous.

The Post & Courier never bothered to investigate if Comcast’s new 300GB usage cap was warranted or if Charleston-area customers wanted it. It was so much easier to just print Comcast’s point of view and throw in a quote or two from an industry analyst.

In fact, the reporter even tried to suggest the Internet Overcharging scheme was an improvement for customers.

The newspaper reported Comcast was the first large Internet provider in the region to allow customers to pay even more for broadband service by extending their allowance in 50GB increments at $10 a pop. (Actually, AT&T beat Comcast to the bank on that idea, but has avoided dropping that hammer on customers who already have to be persuaded to switch to AT&T U-verse broadband that tops out at around 24Mbps for most customers.)

Since 2008, the company’s monthly limit has been capped at 250 GB per household. When customers exceeded that threshold, Comcast didn’t have a firm mechanism for bringing them back in line, other than to issue warnings or threaten to cut off service.

“People didn’t like that static cap. They felt that if they wanted to extend their usage, then they should be allowed to do that,” said Charlie Douglas, a senior director with Comcast.

Charleston is the latest in a series of trial markets the cable giant has used to test the new Internet usage policy in the past year. As with any test period, the company can modify or discontinue the plan at any time.

During the trial period in Charleston, customers will get an extra 50 GB of monthly data than they’re used to having. If they exceed 300 GB, they can pay for more.

“300 GB is well beyond what any typical household is ever going to consume in a month,” Douglas said. “In all of the other trial markets with this (limit), it really doesn’t impact the overwhelming super-majority of customers.”

The average Internet user with Comcast service uses about 16 to 18 GB of data per month, Douglas said.

Customers who use less than five GB per month will start seeing a $5 discount on their bills.

“We think this approach is fair because we’re giving consumers who want to use more data a way to do so, and for consumers who use less, they can pay less,” Douglas said.

Data caps are designed to stop content piracy?

The Charleston reporter asserts, without any evidence, “data-capping is a trend many Internet service providers are expected to follow in the next few years as the industry aims to reduce network congestion and to find safeguards against online piracy.”

Suggesting data caps are about piracy immediately rings alarm bells. Comcast and other Internet Service Providers fought long and hard against being held accountable for their customers’ actions. The industry wants nothing to do with monitoring online activities lest the government hold them accountable for not actively stopping criminal activity.

“It’s not about piracy, per se,” said Douglas. “We don’t look at what people are doing. The purpose is really a matter of fairness. If people are using a disproportionate amount of data, then they should pay more.”

Comcast’s concern for fairness and disproportionate behavior does not extend to the rapacious pricing and enormous profit it earns selling broadband, flat rate or not.

MIT Technology Review’s David Talbot found “Time Warner Cable and Comcast are already making a 97 percent margin on their ‘almost comically profitable’ Internet services.” That figure was repeated by Craig Moffett, one of the most enthusiastic, well-respected cable industry analysts. That percentage refers to “gross margin,” which is effectively gravy on largely paid off cable plant/infrastructure that last saw a major wholesale upgrade in the 1990s to accommodate the advent of digital cable television and the 500-channel universe. Broadband was introduced in the late 1990s as a cheap-to-deploy but highly profitable, unregulated ancillary service.

How things have changed.

Just follow the money….

Customers used to being gouged for cable television are now willing to say goodbye to Comcast’s television package in growing numbers. Today’s must-have service is broadband and Comcast has a high-priced plan for you! But earning up to 97 percent profit from $50+ broadband isn’t enough.

A 300GB limit isn’t designed to control congestion either. In fact, had she investigated that claim, she would have discovered the cable industry itself disavowed that notion earlier this year.

In fact, it’s all about the money.

Michael Powell, the head of the cable industry’s top lobbying group admitted the theory that data caps are designed to control network congestion was wrong.

“Our principal purpose is how to fairly monetize a high fixed cost,” said Powell.

Powell mentioned costs like digging up streets, laying cable and operational expenses. Except the cable industry long ago stopped aggressive buildouts and now maintains a tight Return On Investment formula that keeps cable broadband out of rural areas indefinitely. Operational expenses for broadband have also declined, despite increases in traffic and the number of customers subscribing.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Internet v. Cable 8-20-10.flv[/flv]

Don’t take our word for it. Consider the views of Suddenlink Cable CEO Jerry Kent, interviewed in 2010 on CNBC. (8 minutes)

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” said Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Unfortunately, Charleston residents don’t have the benefit of reporting that takes a skeptical view of a company press release and the spokesperson readily willing to underline it.

If Comcast seeks to be the arbiter of ‘fairness,’ then one must ask what concept of fairness allows for a usage cap almost no customers want for a service already grossly overpriced.

After nine months of foot dragging-negotiations between Overland Park officials and Google Fiber, a last-minute protest by a city council member over an indemnification clause that turned out to be insignificant was the last straw.

Now residents of Overland Park are off Google’s upgrade list for gigabit broadband indefinitely.

Service providers often face a minefield negotiating with local governments over issues like zoning, performance guidelines, franchise agreements, and minimizing disruption to the community. Some also face confusion about technology or a lack of understanding that infrastructure projects require careful scheduling and seasonal construction limitations.

In Overland Park, it was “all of the above” say infuriated residents who watched the fiber project slip away at an Oct. 14 city council meeting when lawyers representing Google requested an indefinite continuance.

“Clearly Google was saying to Overland Park and other cities: if you make this process too difficult for us, we will pick up our ball and go play somewhere else,” said Overland Park resident Robert Walch.

Walch said city council members appeared shocked when Google’s representative broke the news. Just a month earlier, council members including Terry Goodman, Curt Skoog, and Richard Collins seemed intent to pelt Google with a range of objections and unusual questions that suggested a lack of basic knowledge about fiber broadband.

Phillip Dampier

According to those in attendance, Skoog in particular seemed far out of his depth, questioning if 1,000/1,000Mbps was fast enough to provide connections for 6-12 computer terminals inside a local school.

Council member Park Lyons patronizingly told Google representatives Overland Park was one of the best cities in the country and he was glad Google recognized as much.

“There is so much excitement about Google Fiber, and I know people think we should blindly go forward, but I think we need to look at this in a dispassionate way and have due diligence,” Lyons explained.

As Google’s representatives continued to field questions about the project even as the 2013 construction season began to wind down, Skoog sensed Google’s growing exasperation, finally asking at an earlier meeting if they were prepared to walk away over what Skoog characterized as a “minor detail.”

The answer, apparently, was yes, much to the surprise of a stunned city council witnessing a privately funded, multi-million dollar broadband improvement project collapsing before their eyes. Damage control for exposed council members likely to face the wrath of voters began immediately, starting with a symbolic, but largely empty resolution expressing the council’s profound interest in the fiber project they just buried.

“It’s disappointing because it would have been nice to have in the schools and the libraries and stuff. I know that the Internet is really spotty at the school,” Katie Lehn, an Overland Park mother told KCTV-5.

“Overland Park made it really, really hard for Google, and Google has a lot of other cities and towns to work with,” noted Walch. “I have to say, if you’re on Overland Park Council now, you have to know that this is your last term.”

Industry observers agree with Walch.

“Google maybe wanted to send a louder message that they wanted faster response from other communities to come,” said Donna Jaegers, a telecommunications analyst for D.A. Davidson & Co. “A month delay would not be enough to put off a design like that.”

“Google is sending a negotiating message to any other city: You take our terms, or we’re going to walk,” said Steve Effros, an industry analyst who headed the Cable Telecommunications Association for two decades.

Effros told the Associated Press Google was obviously making an example out of Overland Park, while getting special treatment from other nearby communities that incumbent cable and phone companies never got.

The message that Google is willing to walk away from lucrative, upscale communities like Overland Park over bureaucratic headaches has an impact on both Google and local government. Overland Park is an upscale community of 176,000 within metro Kansas City. The community’s median household income is more than $66,500 a year — excellent prospects to sign up for Google service.

But now Overland Park will have to wait even as neighborhoods around the community get the fiber optic service first.

“Overland Park wants Google Fiber,” said Overland Park Mayor Carl Gerlach. “The city council is ready to sign on the dotted line. … We’re willing to wait as long as it takes.”

Google isn’t ready to forgive and forget just yet, and communities like Overland Park cannot say they were never warned.

Milo Medin, Google’s vice president of access services, told the media in May that Google was picking communities that make their life easier as the fiber infrastructure is installed.

“In general, we go where it’s easy to build,” Medin said. “If you make it hard for me to build, and there are other places where it’s easy to build, I will probably go to those other places.”

Six months later, nothing has changed.

“We need to refocus our energy and our resources on the communities that are waiting for fiber,” said Google spokeswoman Jenna Wandres.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Overland Park on Hold With Google 10-25-13.mp4[/flv]

KCTV in Kansas City reports Overland Park residents are unhappy Google Fiber is popping up everywhere, but not in Overland Park.  (3 minutes)

An unlimited wireless broadband plan popular with rural Americans and traveling RV owners has been revived after customers were informed unlimited access was going to be unavailable after Oct. 31.

Millenicom resells wireless broadband service on the Sprint and Verizon wireless networks. Millenicom’s $79.99 Unlimited Plan had no contract requirement and customers were allowed to bring their own wireless device.

Millenicom bucked the trend by continuing to find ways to offer unlimited access plans even as wireless companies began imposing usage caps. Sprint’s decision to cut service to a third-party reseller forced Millenicom to send an e-mail notice on Oct. 18 to unlimited use customers:

Sprint has discontinued service to our gateway provider, unfortunately that means we can no longer provide the Unlimited or BYOD Plan to you.

We anticipate your plan to be discontinued by Sprint by the end of this month. We can offer a couple of options for you available through October 31, 2013.

1. Continue your service through the BMI.net Unlimited/BYOD Plan. They have agreed to honor your service through the end of this month at no charge with an ongoing monthly service fee of $79.99;
2. Switch your service to the Millenicom 20GB Hotspot Plan. We will provide a Novatel MiFi 4620LE with activation and shipping free of charge.

Given this is out of our control, we recommend that you act on this at your earliest convenience.

We deeply regret this circumstance.

Millenicom

The decision would have had an immediate impact on rural customers who cannot get cable broadband or DSL. Many Millenicom customers receive wireless broadband over 3G, 4G, and/or LTE networks, depending on reception quality, the carrier, and what services are available on the nearest cell tower.

Just a few days later, the company reversed course, at least for current customers:

The upstream carrier is reconsidering their decision with our gateway. At this time it appears the accounts will be allowed to continue.

We apologize for any confusion or frustration and thank you for your patience; we will immediately provide updates as information is provided.

At the moment, Millenicom’s website still advertises three plans, although the Unlimited Plan details are now missing and might no longer be an option for new customers:

(Verizon Wireless Network) Hotspot Plan – No contract – Nationwide coverage (Check coverage)

• 3G/4G Novatel MiFi Hotspot
• 20 gigabytes of data
• Connect up to 10 WiFi-enabled devices

The 3G/4G Hotspot Plan is a no-contract service that allows for 20 gigabytes of data transfer for $69.99/month. The service automatically allows for up to 10 wireless devices to connect simultaneously and is backwards compatible to 3G in the event the device is outside the coverage area.  The service supports 802.11 b, g and n and is also VPN compatible. Initial charges require $99.99 device purchase fee, $49.99 activation fee and $15.00 shipping fee as well as the prorated balance of the first month service fee.

(Sprint Network) Unlimited Plan – No contract – Nationwide Coverage – Plan Details Missing – May only be available for current customers ($79.99)

• Netgear 341U USB Device
• Unlimited data
• 3G/4G/LTE

Bring Your Own Device Plan – No contract – Nationwide Coverage

• Bring Your Own Device
• Soft capped unlimited data*
• 3G, 4G, LTE

The Millenicom BYOD mobile broadband account is a no contract service that allows for nationwide coverage using the clients own mobile broadband device. There is a one-time set up fee of $49.99 to activate the account. The BYOD service is for personal and family use and is not to be used for commercial purposes or as a public WiFi or broadcast to multi-dwelling units or any other extraordinary circumstance. Usage over 50 gigabytes in one month will alert our investigative team. Devices usable with this plan: Customer must own a non-active mobile broadband device of the appropriate upstream carrier (email service@millenicom.com for clarification). We highly recommend you contact us before signing up for this type of account to ensure your device is compatible. (*-Soft cap of 50GB)

Customers report Millenicom has been a reliable reseller for years and is tech-savvy about finding ways to deliver rural wireless broadband to customers without onerous usage caps. However, their services are only as good as your cell reception. Sprint’s 3G network is notoriously oversold and slow in urban areas but might still be useful in rural communities. Sprint’s older Clear WiMAX 4G network rarely offers coverage in rural areas. But rural residents are in luck: Sprint’s rollout of 4G LTE service seems to run against the grain of most wireless providers. Sprint is upgrading rural and small city towers for LTE service before many larger urban areas get the next generation 4G service.

“Anything is better than satellite,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Dan Gallo. He has been a loyal Millenicom customer in rural Virginia for several years, where Verizon DSL is still not available and cable companies are nowhere to be found. “That Sprint tower next to the highway three minutes from my house delivers a solid signal, so there is civilization here.”

Thanks also to Stop the Cap! reader Daniel alerted us to the story.

[flv width=”204″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Jeff Schefke Rural internet setup 6-21-13.mp4[/flv]

Jeff Schefke shows off his involved Millenicom setup and illustrates the complexities of getting rural wireless broadband from Sprint or Verizon Wireless through Millenicom. Schefke reports normal speeds are up to 2.5/1Mbps, which is far better than the 120kbps he used to get on his phone. (4 minutes)

More than 5,000 residents and businesses living on the island Bailiwick of Jersey now have a choice of two Internet Service Providers – both supplying gigabit fiber optic broadband.

Jersey Telecom, a government-owned provider, has been removing obsolete copper wiring and replacing it with fiber to the home service that should reach the entire island by 2015. The fiber network is open to all competitors. JT charges £59.99 ($97.25) per month for gigabit speeds, but now caps usage at just 100GB a month. Overlimit fees are around 50c per GB between the hours of 8am-midnight. Usage is unlimited during off-peak hours.

In addition to JT, Jersey customers who live on the remote Channel Island, a British Crown Dependency off the coast of France, can now also choose Sure Jersey, a privately owned ISP that offers unlimited use plans.

The fiber optic network is spreading to other Channel Islands, with significantly populated parts of Guernsey set to receive a fiber upgrade next.

Using traditional Return On Investment standards, Jersey would barely qualify for basic DSL service. The island has a population of just 100,000 residents, some spread far and wide in remote locations. Basic DSL service was supplied to customers in more densely populated communities, but speeds were often slow and congestion became a major problem, especially at night.

The local government determined Jersey’s broadband needs could best be met by upgrading to government-owned infrastructure that private businesses could lease to sell service. Much like public roads benefit private companies that use them to transport goods, JT’s fiber network is designed to help bolster the island’s digital economy.

Since the introduction of gigabit fiber, new digital startups have launched on the island and others have moved their digital businesses to the fiber-enabled island. FeelUnique, launched from Jersey, has now become Europe’s largest online beauty retailer, employing over 150. Other businesses on the island have launched software ventures for the health care and education markets, banking/investment products and services, and 3D printing ventures. Having a wide broadband pipe has helped anchor digital businesses to the island because moving elsewhere leaves many with little better than substandard DSL or an enormous price tag for a customized new fiber build.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/JT Fiber Has Arrived 2013.mp4[/flv]

Residents of Jersey talk about how fiber broadband has changed their online experience. (2 minutes)

 [flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Digital Jersey Limited – Vision 2014 from Digital Jersey.mp4[/flv]

Digital Jersey released this video showing the group’s vision on how to leverage gigabit fiber broadband to boost the island’s digital economy in 2014. (3 minutes)

FiOS Have’s and Have-Nots

Despite complaints earlier this month from Boston Mayor Thomas Menino that Verizon’s latest ad for FiOS was filmed in Boston — a city that lacks the fiber optic service, not every Massachusetts community is so unlucky.

Stop the Cap! reader John C. wrote to alert us that the town of Raynham will get Verizon FiOS service despite Verizon’s long-standing intention not to further expand the fiber service outside of areas already committed.

It turns out Verizon’s partial buildout of fiber optics in the area was reason enough for Verizon to complete wiring Raynham with fiber and seek a formal franchise agreement from the town’s board of selectman. Phil Santoro, a Verizon spokesman, noted the company did the same thing a year earlier in Medford.

Raynham residents will be able to buy voice, data, and television service from Verizon, in direct competition with Comcast.

Verizon plans to offer residents FiOS TV service, FiOS Internet service and the FiOS Digital Voice unlimited calling plan starting at $89.99 a month, with a two-year contract.

Meanwhile, the city council of Quincy is desperately seeking cable television competition after hearing complaints from senior citizens they can no longer afford Comcast’s prices.

The city council has repeatedly reached out to Verizon in hopes the company will bring FiOS to town, but to no avail.

Comcast is in the seventh year of its 10-year franchise agreement in Quincy and is unlikely to change much when it requests a renewal.

City Solicitor James Timmins believes the reason Verizon isn’t interested is the fact “it costs the company about $1,500 to hook up each home.” Timmins also claimed “Verizon knows that in a few years FiOS (TV) is going to be obsolete.”