The $49 "cap" plan isn't your maximum monthly fee, it's the MINIMUM monthly fee. The company selling it was fined for misleading advertising.

Banking on the fact most consumers do not understand what a “gigabyte” represents, much less know how many they use per month on usage-capped broadband plans, large telecommunications companies enjoy a growth industry collecting enormous overlimit fees that bear no relation to their actual costs of delivering the service.

The social implications of “usage cap and tier” pricing are enormous, according to Australia’s Communications & Media Authority.  Australia remains one of the most usage-capped countries in the world, and broadband providers have taken full advantage of the situation to run what the ACMA calls a broadband Confusopoly.

As a growing number of mobile broadband customers in the United States and Canada approach the allowance limits on their mobile data plans, Australia’s long experience with Internet Overcharging foreshadows a North American future of widespread bill shock, $1000+ telecom bills, and families torn apart by finger-pointing and traded recriminations over “excessive use” of the Internet.

Not helping matters are providers themselves, some who distort and occasionally openly lie about their plans.  In Australia, Optus was fined $200,000 for advertising a “Max Cap $49” plan that led many to believe their maximum bill would amount to $49.  But not so fast.  Optus turned the meaning of the word “cap,” typically a usage limit, upside down to mean a capped minimum charge.  Indeed, the lowest bill an Optus customer could receive was $49.  Using data services cost extra.  The company also claimed customers could use accompanying call credits “to call anyone,” another fact not in evidence.

Another common marketing misconception is the “unlimited mobile broadband” plan — the one that actually comes with significant limits. In most cases, providers want “unlimited” to mean there are no overlimit fees — they simply throttle the speed of the service down to a dial-up-like experience once a customer exceeds a certain amount of usage.  Companies like Cricket disclose their usage triggers.  Others, like Clearwire, do not — and they are applied arbitrarily based on customer usage profiles and congestion at the transmission tower.  While annoying, at least these plans do not impose overlimit fees which lead to the growing problem of “bill shock.”

Bill Shock

North Americans getting enormous mobile data bills remains rare enough to warrant attention by the TV news.  Often the result of not understanding the implications of international roaming, customers can quickly run up thousands of dollars in mobile bills while touring Europe, cruising, or even just living along the Canadian-American border, where accidental roaming is a frequent problem.

But as Americans only now become acquainted with usage-capped mobile data plans with overlimit fees, bill shock may become much more common.

In Australia, which has had a head start with usage-capped mobile data, an incredible 58 percent of customers exceeded their usage allowances at least once in a calendar year, and this statistic comes from April 2009.  The bill shock problem has now become so pervasive in Australia, in 2010 the office of the Telecom Ombudsman received more than 167,955 consumer complaints about the practice.

In the United States, one in six have already experienced surprise data charges on their bills — that’s 30 million Americans.  The Federal Communications Commission found 84 percent of those overcharged said their cell phone carrier did not contact them when they were about to exceed their allowed service limits. In about one-in-four cases, the overlimit fee was greater than $100.

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) proposed legislation that would require a customer to consent to overlimit fees before extra charges accrue for voice, data, and text usage.

The Cell Phone Bill Shock Act of 2011 would also require carriers to send free text messages when a customer reaches 80 percent of their plan’s allowance.

“Sending an automatic text or email notification to a person’s phone is a simple, cost-effective solution that should not place a burden on cell phone companies and will go a long way toward reducing the pain of bill shock by customers,” said Udall, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee. “As more and more cell phone companies drop their unlimited data plans, this problem only stands to get worse. I am proud to stand up for cell phone consumers and reintroduce this important legislation.”

In Australia and North America, legislation to warn consumers of impending overlimit fees has been vociferously fought by the telecommunications industry.

Udall

The CTIA-Wireless Association in Washington said such measures were completely unnecessary because consumers can already check their usage by logging into providers’ websites.  Even worse, they claim, bills like Udall’s threaten to destroy innovation and harm the industry by locking a single warning standard into place.  CTIA claims that wouldn’t help consumers.

But Australian regulators, who have years of experience dealing with unregulated carriers’ usage limit schemes say otherwise, noting industry efforts to self-regulate have been spectacular successes for the industry’s bottom line, just as much as they are a failure for consumers who end up footing the bill.

Even worse, unregulated providers taking liberties with marketing claims can have profound social implications when customers find they can’t pay the enormous charges that often result.

The Brotherhood of St. Laurence, a charity, reported one instance of an elderly client who received a $1,200 broadband bill he couldn’t pay outright.  Even as he negotiated a monthly payment plan with the provider, the company shut off his home phone line without warning.

“His telephone service was particularly important because he used a personal alarm call system, which entailed wearing a small electronic device that he could activate in the event of a medical emergency,” noted a report on the incident.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found a long-standing competitive feud by two large mobile providers in Australia — Telecom and Optus — has only brought more instances of marketing excesses that ultimately don’t benefit consumers.  The Commission increasingly finds it lacks the resources to keep up with the slew of questionable advertising.

Some industry critics suspect providers treat ACCC’s fines as simply a cost of doing business, and some like Optus have been rebuked more than once by the regulator for false advertising.

The ACMA says the longer government waits to protect citizens from provider abuses, the more consumers will be financially harmed, especially as data usage grows while usage caps traditionally do not.

Verizon Communications is a study in contrasts.  It runs one of the most advanced wired broadband services in the country that wins rave reviews from consumers and businesses, is on the verge of ending its unlimited use data plans for smartphone customers on the wireless side, and has launched a major “police action” against individuals that are using their smartphones as wireless hotspots without paying an additional $20 a month for the privilege.

Verizon Says No to Data Caps and Consumption Billing

When you run an advanced fiber to the home network like FiOS, the concept of data caps is as silly as charging for each glass of water collected from Niagara Falls.  That’s a point recognized by Joseph Ambeault, director of media and entertainment services for Verizon.  Talking with GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham, Verizon continues to insist their network was built to handle both today and tomorrow’s network demands.

“Our network is always engineered for big amounts of data and right now there are no plans [to implement caps], but of course you never want to say never because things could change.”

However, in the same conversation he talked about how the FiOS service has gone from offering a maximum of 622 Mbps shared among 24 homes in the beginning to tests of 10-gigabit-per-second connections in individual homes that Ambeault mentioned. For now, Verizon is testing 10-gigabit-per-second-shared connections and offering up to 150 Mbps home connections. This kind of relish for massive bandwidth is not evident in conversations with folks at AT&T or even those cable firms deploying DOCSIS 3.0. Which is why when Ambeault added, “We don’t want to take the gleam off of FiOS,” as his final say on caps, I tend to believe that Verizon may be the last holdout as other ISPs such as AT&T, Charter and Comcast implement caps.

Verizon Says Yes to Ending Unlimited Smartphone Data Plans

Verizon is among the last holdouts still offering unlimited data plans for smartphone customers.  Priced at $30 a month per phone, these plans have proved very profitable for Verizon in the past, in part because they are mandatory whether you use a little data or a lot.  But now as data consumption grows, Verizon’s profits are not as luxurious as they once were, so the “unlimited plan” must and will go, probably within the next three months.

Verizon has always been hesitant about following AT&T’s lead for wireless data pricing, which delivers a paltry 2GB for $25 a month.  AT&T still sells its legacy unlimited plan, grandfathered for existing customers, for just $4 more per month.  So while AT&T can claim they’ve reduced the price for their data plans, they’ve also introduced a usage allowance.  Those exceeding it will find a much higher bill than the one they would have received under the old unlimited plan.

Verizon will probably echo AT&T’s tiered data plans, perhaps with slightly more generous allowances, but the real excitement came from Verizon CFO Fran Shammo, who told attendees at the Reuters Global Technology Summit it was prepared to finally introduce the much-wanted “family data plan,” which would allow every family member to share data on a single plan.  That’s a potential smartphone breakthrough as customers resistant to paying up to $30 a month per phone for each individual data plan might see their way clear to buying smartphones for everyone in the family if they all shared a single family-use data plan.

“I think it’s safe to assume that at some point you are going to have megaplans and people are going to share that megaplan based on the number of devices within their family. That’s just a logical progression,” Shammo said.

Of course, the devil is in the details, starting with how much the plan will cost and what kind of shared allowance it will offer.

Verizon Says ‘Oh No You Didn’t Tether Your Phone Without Our $20 Add-On’

Phandroid posted this copy of a message Verizon customers are receiving if they are using unauthorized third party tethering apps. (Click to enlarge.)

Earlier today, Verizon Wireless customers using popular third-party tethering apps to share their smartphone’s built-in Wi-Fi Hotspot with other nearby wireless devices began receiving the first of what is expected to be a series of warnings that the jig is up.

Tethering allows anything from a tablet computer to a netbook or laptop to share a Verizon Wireless data connection without having to pay for individual data plans for each device.  Third party software applications bypass Verizon’s own built-in app, the 3G Mobile Hotspot, which involves paying an additional $20 a month for a secondary data plan delivering a 2GB monthly usage allowance.

Just as AT&T hated to see the possibility of lost revenue passing them by, Verizon has begun ferreting out customers using these apps and sending them friendly reminders that tethering requires an official Verizon Wireless add-on plan.  While the third party apps are not yet being blocked, most expect Verizon to gradually crack down on their use if customers persist in using them.  Verizon can also block the sale of the apps from the Android Market and can also insert roadblocks to prevent their use.  Or they can follow AT&T’s lead and threaten (perhaps illegally) to automatically enroll customers caught using tethering apps in their paid tethering plans.

Wading through the bulging file of comments at the Federal Communications Commission website reveals some strange and unusual testimonials from groups one would think would have much better things to do with their time and resources than advocate for a multi-billion dollar super merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.  But integrity means little next to a big fat check from AT&T, and many so-called “charities” really do believe it begins at home in their own bank accounts.  So with their hands out, groups like Wisconsin Coalition for Consumer Choice and the Urban League, and politicians like Bobby Jindal become dollar-a-holler advocates for AT&T’s agenda, offering the flimsiest reasons around to push for the merger’s approval.

Among the least savory are groups purporting to represent income-challenged minority communities who advocate for a merger that will promote higher prices for less service.  Such advocacy would taint any group and calls into question whether contributions are really helping those in need or just those who claim to represent them.

As we suspected, after reviewing dozens of submissions favoring the merger, virtually every last supporter either had direct financial ties to AT&T, had AT&T personnel in leadership positions, or were run by Washington, DC lobbying firms that have a past history of doing work on behalf of AT&T.  Ordinary consumers, and there were thousands, submitted comments opposing the merger — citing reduced competition, higher prices, fewer choices, and offering few benefits or improved service.  At least some live in the reality-based community, not AT&T’s field of overpriced dreams and broken promises.

A Sampling:

Klaetsch: The Coalition of One Lobbyist

Wisconsin Coalition for Consumer Choice

Here’s a “group” purporting to represent the interests of consumers, but they’re nowhere to be found.  George Klaetsch, executive director, claims AT&T’s merger will “immediately increase consumer choices and access to quality broadband and mobile services. Thousands of new cell sites will become available, the nation’s broadband footprint will be significantly expanded, and most importantly, more than 46 million more customers will gain instant access to 4G LTE technology – many of them right here in Wisconsin.”

Why if you approve this merger, there will be free candy for everyone, too.

The group’s website offers an unwelcome introduction with a series of technical faults, perhaps a testament to how few consumers ever bother to visit it, and carries an earnest disclaimer:

[…] We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Good to know.

Klaetsch’s letter forgets to mention he’s a registered lobbyist for Public Affairs Strategies, Inc.  When he’s not fronting AT&T’s agenda, he also represents the interests of AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, the Elevator Industry Work Preservation Fund, and the creepy-sounding Funeral Service & Cremation Alliance of Wisconsin, among other groups.

Wellington Area Chamber of Commerce

This well-meaning local chapter of the Chamber, who counts AT&T as a member, has fallen hook, line, and sinker for AT&T’s promise to deliver 4G service to “97 percent of the country,” assuming the merger gets approved.  Of course, AT&T will upgrade to 4G with or without the merger, and this particular Chamber’s executive director apparently does not realize T-Mobile’s contribution to improving service in rural America is less than robust.  When an active member of a civic or business group happens to be AT&T, getting a letter written on behalf of the company’s agenda comes as soon as the talking points can be handed out at the next Chamber meeting.

Unfortunately for the people of Wellington, losing one more competitor guarantees rural America fewer competitive choices, higher prices, and less service, not more.

United Way of Northwest Florida

AT&T Donates $9,000 to the United Way of Northwest Florida, which promptly returns the favor with a nice letter to the FCC supporting the telecom company's agenda.

Some residents in northwest Florida could reconsider their future contributions to “charitable groups” who increasingly spend their time and attention involving themselves in big corporate mergers, meeting the needs of some of their biggest donors.  No better example of this comes from the United Way of Northwest Florida, who accepted a $9,000 contribution from AT&T in one hand, while banging out this letter of support for AT&T’s merger with the other.  It’s classic dollar-a-holler advocacy.

While this chapter believes the interests of cell phone users will be best served by an AT&T – T-Mobile merger, we’re wondering what actual charitable endeavors go unserved while its leadership wastes time and resources filing comments with the FCC on a billion dollar telecom deal.

Urban League of New Orleans

This chapter of the Urban League “firmly believes that the greater New Orleans area we serve would greatly benefit by added broadband connectivity. Studies show that the underserved, urban communities with the greatest access to broadband Internet see the strongest economic growth. With high-speed Internet, residents can more easily access important resources online, from educational resources for schools to job opportunities for those who are out of work or seeking to update their skills. High-speed Internet enables greater connectivity between all stakeholders, more able to respond effectively and efficiently to the needs of our city.”

Somehow, for those noble reasons, they are supporting AT&T’s and T-Mobile’s merger.  AT&T is the company that pitches some of the most expensive and most limited wireless broadband plans in the country.  How this benefits urban New Orleans may escape you.

What didn’t escape us was the fact AT&T Louisiana president Sonia Perez is the group’s 2011 Annual Gala Chairperson.  She’s also a participant on the group’s governing board.

In addition to the big oil, chemical, credit card, and health insurance companies sponsoring Jindal's wife's charity is none other than AT&T.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana

Gov. Jindal is a big supporter of AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile.  The Washington Post notes he is joined by 13 other governors writing the FCC to push for approval.  Jindal is honoring Louisiana’s time-tested notoriety for questionable political dealings.  Perhaps it is just a coincidence his wife runs the Supriya Jindal Foundation, who counts among its key sponsors… you guessed it, AT&T.  Before one assumes Jindal has a legitimate interest promoting AT&T, which invests money in Louisiana, consider this: Jindal has written only one letter to the FCC on a telecommunications issue since the agency’s electronic filing system was inaugurated in 1992. This one.  Maybe he was busy on those other days.  Then again, maybe he wasn’t.

Jindal closes his letter with these words: “I am confident that this merger will benefit the people of Louisiana.”  That’s true, if you define “people” as his immediate family and the corporate executives of AT&T and T-Mobile who work and live in his state.  Everyone else doesn’t matter.

United States Hispanic Leadership Institute

USHLI does AT&T the honor of penning letters supporting the phone company's agenda.

After reviewing dozens of submissions from charities and non-profit groups, the comments from USHLI really stood out above the others.  Dr. Juan Andrade, president of the group is a downright feisty guy, singing paragraphs of praise for AT&T as a “model corporate citizen”:

“Like you, I too have heard that the merger will have a devastating impact on consumers, promote anti-competitive behavior, and result in higher prices; that the merger will be bad for business, bad for innovation and bad for workers. We’ve heard this all before – when SBC was acquiring Ameritech, when AT&T was merging with SBC, and so forth. And what have we seen? We’ve seen just the opposite. The Federal Communications Commission’s own data show that these concerns proved unfounded as consumers benefited from tremendous innovation and competition in the wireless space, all while seeing wireless voice and data prices drop. This “sky is falling” attitude is replaying itself as AT&T seeks approval to merge with T-Mobile. But the facts speak for themselves. The United States Hispanic Leadership Institute (USHLI) believes the Federal Communications Commission should rise above the skepticism, above the unsubstantiated claims, and above the impractical requisitions.”

What the FCC also needs to rise above is the considerable support Dr. Andrade’s group gets from AT&T.  Undisclosed in Andrade’s spirited defense of one of the worst mergers in telecommunications history is the fact AT&T is the “honorary co-chair” and sponsor of the group’s 2011 fundraising efforts.  It’s the public policy equivalent of “My Dinner With AT&T.”  More wine?

Andrade conveniently ignores the fact AT&T is raising prices on wireless data products with punitive usage caps and overlimit fees.  It’s not the sky falling, Dr. Andrade, it’s your credibility to speak as an independent observer while also enjoying AT&T’s largesse.  When you engage in dollar-a-holler advocacy, American consumers have more than a right to be skeptical.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TVNZ Sam Morgan Interview Digital Future 5-29-11.flv[/flv]

Southern Cross has the monopoly for international fiber connections between New Zealand and the rest of the world.

Three companies — Telecom New Zealand, Verizon, and Optus jointly own the single underseas fiber network that connects New Zealand with the rest of the world.  Unless a second underseas fiber provider provides competition, the monopoly control on international connectivity may guarantee New Zealand an ultra fast fiber broadband network for domestic use, but leave consumers heavily usage-capped and subjected to monopoly price-gouging for international traffic.  Those are the claims of Sam Morgan, a venture capitalist and philanthropist who advises Pacific Fibre, the company that wants to bring that second underseas fiber cable to New Zealand.

American and Canadian providers routinely point to Australia and New Zealand as examples of countries with usage-caps firmly in place, arguing this provides justification to do likewise in North America.  But usage caps in the South Pacific are a product of international capacity shortages — a problem not found in either the United States or Canada, so their claims have no merit.

Morgan explores the implications of a second fiber cable reaching New Zealand — the imminent removal of the hated Internet Overcharging schemes.  The clip comes courtesy of TV New Zealand.  (17 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOAI San Antonio Getting Charged to Pay Bills 5-30-11.mp4[/flv]

Warning: Loud Volume Alert!  Adjust your volume controls before playing.

An increasing number of phone and cable companies are introducing new “convenience fees” for customers making payments by phone or using the company’s online website.  That is the finding of a new report from WOAI-TV in San Antonio.  While few companies currently charge for payments scheduled well in advance, an increasing number are asking for fees ranging from $1.99 to $25 for using online bill payment systems or making last minute payments over the phone.

If your provider charges a fee, be sure to ask for it to be waived, especially if you have a good payment history.  If you are charged the fee anyway, file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, which should get the attention of the executive customer service team empowered to refund it back to your account.

Paying to pay is just another way for providers to reap more revenue from customers, even when they are trying to make payments on time.  (3 minutes)