Recent Articles:

The Broadband Generation Gap: The Truth About Paying for More Than You Need

Phillip Dampier April 21, 2009 Editorial & Site News 46 Comments
Broadband Caps: Turning the Internet Back to 1996

Broadband Caps: Turning the Internet Back to 1996

There is a disparity in Internet usage between the young and the old.

If one were to poll customers about whether or not they wanted limits and tiers on their broadband service, two things are apparent:

  1. Consumers overwhelmingly oppose usage caps and tiered accounts.
  2. Those that do approve of caps and tiers are overwhelmingly older users of the Internet, particularly 45+ of age.

Broadband providers recognize these facts, yet continue to attempt to place limits on broadband usage.  Many providers’ have marketing and public relations strategies that target older customers with an “us vs. them” approach.  Why should you, as a casual Internet user, “subsidize” those younger heavy users who are fully leveraging the Internet to its fullest potential?  Company officials will often toss around broadband services older users have never heard of, much less used.  “Bit Torrents,” “heavy movie downloads from newsgroups,” “Hulu,” just to name a few, confound a lot of casual net users who have barely mastered their e-mail account, much less considered making video calls using Skype.

The generation gap lives online too.  But there is a lot more to this story than they tell you.

Some companies claim the majority of their customers consume a tiny amount of bandwidth when compared against other customers.  Traditionally, the older a customer, the less bandwidth they consume.  And therein lies a problem for them.  As the demographics for the net continue to shift towards younger, heavier consumers of Internet applications, the writing is on the whiteboard.  No longer can a broadband provider expect to pocket the enormous profits they earn from a monthly service that some users barely even use.

There should be nothing wrong with a casual user paying less for their Internet service.  The question is, should they receive less expensive service at the “price” of severely curtailing other users who naturally consume more?  That seems to be the marketing plan.  They get to overcharge you for a casual user plan and also overcharge and limit heavier users from consuming too much on their networks.  They win.  Everyone else loses.

The truth is, most broadband providers already provide discounted plans for light users, usually at slower speeds, but at significantly lower pricing.  For a casual user reading e-mail and browsing web pages, the Internet speed war is irrelevant.  Anything more than three or four times faster than dial-up access will provide comfortable browsing without sitting around waiting for pages to load.  With a “light” user plan, you can still listen to Internet radio, move pictures of the kids back and forth, do all the web browsing you could imagine, and your e-mail will still arrive super fast.  Since you don’t care about big downloads or watching TV online, why pay for the extra speed you’ll never use?  You don’t have to.  More importantly, you don’t have to right now!  Despite the fact many of these “lite” plans are the best kept secret in town, your provider probably already offers them, and you don’t have to wait for some new tier plan to sign up!

I called several providers this afternoon and inquired about Internet broadband service.  Every last one of them quickly tried to sell me a bundle of services combining cable television, telephone, and Internet service for a single monthly price.  No provider asked about how I used the Internet, much less talk about different levels of service.  They simply wanted to move that bundle, often with a promotional price for the first six months or year of service.  That bundle always included the standard package of Internet for around $40 a month, which is probably overkill for casual users.

Only when I complained about the price or suggested I didn’t think I would use the Internet that much did the “lite plan” details finally start coming into the conversation.  Time Warner pitched Road Runner Lite only after saying I didn’t want the phone service and felt I wouldn’t use the Internet very often.  Frontier tried to convince me that once I got online, I’d want the extra speed and resisted trying to get me into anything other than a bundle with a standard Internet plan, touting a free mini netbook if I also took their “Peace of Mind” support package and a contract.  Verizon FiOS in Buffalo said it was no problem, since they sell packages of Internet service based on speed anyway.  Typical.  The fiber optic competitor was the only one that volunteered the light plan and asked how much I used the Internet before recommending a plan.  Of course, where there is FiOS, there are no usage caps in those communities.

If you are shopping for cable modem or DSL service, they are not apt to volunteer information about their “light user” plans unless you ask.

Another way you are certain to hear about these kinds of discount plans is when you try and cancel your standard broadband service.  They want to keep you as a customer, so you’ll be pitched a discount plan just to keep you.

It’s unfortunate that many broadband providers claim to be for saving light users money, but for all intents and purposes keep those plans a secret.  If you are a casual user looking for a deal, buying into the proposition of tiered pricing with steep overlimit fees is a bad deal for you and everyone else.  A flat rate, speed limited “lite plan” gives you everything you need, and you never have to worry that you might get billed for more than you expect.  The good news is, you can get these types of plans today.  Call your provider and ask!

WHAM Rochester – “About 85% of Customers Won’t See Any Change to Their Bills,” Says TW

Phillip Dampier April 21, 2009 Issues 2 Comments

I should really start a spreadsheet (or better yet ask one of our readers), to track all of the varying claims and percentages Time Warner officials were using throughout the entire metered broadband debacle.  More numbers have been tossed around in this discussion than on Wall Street.  WHAM-TV had a quick report on their 5:30pm newscast last week, before TW suspended their plans, outlining the v2.0 of the Time Warner usage cap plan.

Internet usage is increasing, costs to provide it are decreasing, and profits are up.  So it’s only fair to increase rates up to 300% for the same service?  It was logic like this that caused the volcanic lava flow of hatred towards the plan in every city that was included in the “experiment.”  And, as I always ask, produce the raw data to show who is affected by what.  Time Warner traditionally bases their estimates on their experiences in Beaumont, Texas where 14% or so of new customers (the plan never was implemented for all customers during the trial) saw significant overlimit fees charged on their bills, averaging close to $20 a month.  That’s nothing to sneeze at.

Not rated.  This was a 57 second report.  Would have liked to see a sentence about continued customer opposition to the proposal, however.

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY): Time Warner – What the Heck Were They Thinking?

Phillip Dampier April 21, 2009 Public Policy & Gov't 6 Comments
Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY)

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY)

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY), whose 25th Congressional district reaches into the eastern suburbs of Rochester, addressed the issue of Time Warner’s usage cap proposal at a Town Hall meeting earlier in April.  Maffei expressed concern about the “experiment,” recognizing the limited alternative options consumers in his district have for broadband service.  Maffei warned that Time Warner’s cap proposal may create potential difficulties for the company in Washington, as issues affecting the cable television and broadband industry are likely to come before Congress in this session. [Courtesy: Rochester Turning]

25th Congressional District Map

25th Congressional District Map

To contact Congressman Maffei:

Syracuse Office

Dan Maffei
P.O. Box 7306
1340 Federal Building
Syracuse, NY  13261
Phone: (315) 423-5657
Fax: (315) 423-5669

Irondequoit Office

Dan Maffei
1280 Titus Avenue
Rochester, NY  14617
Phone: 585-336-7291
Fax: 585-336-7274

Clearwire Service Area – Rochester, New York: Outside of the Metro? Clearwire Remains an “Iffy” Proposition

Phillip Dampier April 21, 2009 Issues 4 Comments

I continue to hear from a few of the “competition is breaking out all over” crowd claim that people who can’t get DSL service from Frontier and don’t want Road Runner after “things just aren’t the same with us anymore — the trust is gone,” can jump to Clearwire and they will live happily ever after. Sure, if you are well within their current service area, depicted below for the Rochester market. They aren’t available in any of the other “experiment” markets in western New York. By the way, I am told their speeds currently max out around 2.1Mbps. That’s slower than DSL.  If anyone here uses them and would like to write up a review, please let me know.

Clearwire Coverage Map - Rochester, NY

Clearwire Coverage Map - Rochester, NY

AT&T Broadband: We’re Capping You, But We Won’t Tell You Until After You Sign Up

Phillip Dampier April 21, 2009 AT&T 21 Comments

GigaOM blows the lid off what will likely be an upcoming target of StoptheCap! — the ludicrous and unacceptably botched usage cap trial in Reno, Nevada by AT&T.

It seems that new customers to AT&T’s high speed Internet service aren’t being told their usage is being capped, until the mailman delivers an express letter to your home with the shocking news after you’ve already signed up for service!

Adding insult to injury, their tiers for traditional DSL max out with an 80GB allowance on their “Elite tier,” which only offers up to 6Mbps service.  That might be “elite” in Kenya, but it shouldn’t be in a major American city.  Each additional gigabyte comes at the traditional Pillage Price of $1/GB, which is nearly 1,000% above what it costs them to provide.  And for the woman who brought all this to the attention of GigaOM, there is no competitor currently available for broadband.

The Super Whammo Extreme Maxalot tier of 150GB isn’t even available unless you have access to their U-verse fiber-alternative service.  Also, incompetence seems to be the order of the day over at AT&T:  GigaOM reported that customer service representatives denied there was a usage cap at all when the Lake Tahoe-area resident called to inquire.

AT&T’s letter explaining the limits is reproduced below the fold.  Customers signing up for service at att.com will need to call the Psychic Hotline to discern that there is a cap in place on their service — not one word of it appears on their website as the screen captures GigaOM obtained illustrate.

Of course AT&T is also the home of the “unlimited” AT&T Wireless DataConnect plan that, in the fine print, changes your reality of what the word “unlimited” means to their own, which means “not more than 5GB.”

Sounds like bait and switch to us and the next step should be a contact with the Nevada Attorney General’s office, the Better Business Bureau, local and state officials, and the Congressional delegation for Nevada.  If AT&T wants to treat Reno like a broadband backwater, they couldn’t do a better job of it by also forgetting to tell customers until after they already signed up.

… Continue Reading

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!