An Associated Press report gave credit to Stop the Cap! for getting first official word that AT&T ended its Internet Overcharging experiment in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.

Stop the Cap! reader Scott Eslinger managed to get an AT&T customer service representative to read aloud a confidential memo distributed by the company terminating the experiment effective April 1st.  Because AT&T never disclosed the end of the experiment to impacted customers, the coverage by the wire service should help spread the word to residents that the rationing is over:

The phone company confirmed Tuesday that it is no longer holding DSL subscribers in Reno, Nev., and Beaumont, Texas, to data consumption limits and charging them extra if they go over.

With AT&T’s retreat, no major Internet service provider is championing the idea of charging subscribers for their data usage. Time Warner Cable Inc. was a major proponent of the idea and also conducted a trial in Beaumont, but backed away last summer after its plan to expand metered billing to other cities met fierce resistance from consumers and legislators.

AT&T’s trial started in November 2008 in Reno, and was later extended to Beaumont. It ended on April 1 this year, said AT&T spokeswoman Dawn Benton.

“We’re reviewing data from the trial, and this feedback will guide us as we evaluate our next steps,” Benton said.

AT&T should carefully review feedback from customers who despise usage limits and overlimit fees.  Studies show the overwhelming majority of customers do not like their broadband usage artificially limited with arbitrary allowances and overlimit fees, and customers will dump providers who ignore their wishes.

AT&T’s experiment never saved consumers a penny — the company simply slapped allowances as low as 20 GB per month on existing speed-based tiers.  Customers already face practical usage limits from Internet providers.  Those purchasing slower speed tiers are usage limited by those speeds.  Those who pay for higher priced, faster tiers benefit from naturally greater allowances those speeds provide.  Adding a new layer of limits only discourages customers from using the service they already pay good money to receive.  Besides, as profits explode in the broadband sector, the costs (and investment) to provide the service have declined, wiping out the justification for these schemes.

Stop the Cap! opposes all of these Internet Overcharging schemes.  While many providers seek to demagogue some broadband users as “data hogs” or “pirates,” the fact is today’s “heavy user” is tomorrow’s average consumer.  High speed broadband has the potential to revolutionize education, health care, private business, and entertainment, but not if a handful of major providers decide to end innovation by rationing the service to its customers.

Sprint will not limit use or throttle speeds for users of its 3G or mobile WiMax networks, despite a report from Engadget claiming the company was on the verge of applying speed throttles on its users exceeding 5 GB per month of usage.

A Sprint spokesman told Dow Jones Newswires any limits would apply only for Sprint mobile broadband data users roaming on other companies’ data networks using modems attached to laptops or personal computers.  Smartphone users are not affected.

“Sprint does not, nor plan to limit speeds, nor change a customer’s ability to use any particular application or Internet site,” said Sprint spokesman Mark Elliott.

However, the company has made it clear it can temporarily suspend a customer’s ability to roam on Sprint’s data network if “excessive usage” is detected.  Current plans provide up to 300 megabytes of service while roaming.  Higher allowances are available for purchase.  Customers will receive text messages notifying them when they reach 75 percent and 90 percent of their allowance.  After that, Sprint can cut off service until the next bill cycle begins.

Sprint has to pay higher fees when customers roam on non-Sprint networks, hence the usage limit.

Sprint, America’s third largest wireless carrier behind Verizon Wireless and AT&T, is trying to position itself as the competitive choice for customers who do not want to worry about usage allowances and overlimit fees.  The company hopes customers who are tired of escalating wireless bills will once again look beyond the two largest providers.

unlimited

Main Entry: un·lim·it·ed
Pronunciation: \-ˈli-mə-təd\
Function: adjective

1 : lacking any controls : unrestricted <unlimited access>
2 : boundless, infinite <unlimited possibilities>
3 : not bounded by exceptions : undefined <the unlimited and unconditional surrender of the enemy — Sir Winston Churchill>

An Alaskan Internet service provider is baffling its broadband customers with a blizzard of BS regarding just how unlimited its “unlimited” service plans really are.

A Stop the Cap! reader in The Last Frontier drops us a note to alert us of yet another provider trying to pull a fast one on its customers.

GCI markets cable-TV, telephone and broadband service in larger communities across many parts of the state.  Its broadband service, dubbed “Xtreme,” offer DSL-like speeds at a significant price premium over what users in the lower 48 pay for Internet access.

Since 2007, our reader writes, GCI offered customers a deal.  In return for letting the company provide all of your telecommunications needs — cable, phone, and Internet, GCI would provide you with unlimited broadband service.  The triple-play package was sold for at least $80 a month, and many customers agreed to the bundled route to avoid GCI’s restrictive, data-capped plans sold to its broadband-only customers.

GCI is now reneging on its end of the deal thanks to a creative redefinition of the word “unlimited.”  For the convenience of those who may be English-challenged, Stop the Cap! has provided the Merriam-Webster definition of the word “unlimited” above, which hasn’t changed much since its first use in the 15th century.

Broadband providers like GCI think they are clever enough to change all that.

Much to the chagrin of GCI’s bundled customers, the company unfairly slapped a “Fair Access Policy” on all of its unlimited customers on April 1st.  Customers started receiving usage warnings this spring, which came as quite a surprise for an “unlimited” service plan.  But the company insists it hasn’t limited its “unlimited” plans at all:

GCI offers some cable modem Internet service plans with “unlimited downloads”, meaning GCI does not bill customers additional fees for usage in a given month.

Actually, that isn’t the meaning of “unlimited” at all, no matter how much the company wishes it was.  Again, see the definition above.

In fact, even using GCI’s own definition, nonsensical as it is, it isn’t reality-based either.

Customers who exceed the arbitrary limits GCI determines as “fair,” could be subjected to higher pricing.  GCI’s website currently lists the overlimit fee starting at an impenetrable $0.005 per megabyte, which sounds pretty low until you realize it’s $5.00 per gigabyte, which is significantly higher than what most other naughty cappers charge.  On slower speed plans, GCI’s overlimit fee is a whopping $0.03 per megabyte — $30 per gigabyte.

What happens when you overuse your GCI unlimited Internet?  GCI will contact you to discuss your account and then ask you to agree to either reduce usage or pay additional fees for usage in a given month.

GCI loves to make its limits look mighty big by representing them in megabytes instead of the more commonly used gigabyte measurement.  They also include the usual comparisons: over 10,000 web pages, 250,000 e-mails, 1,000 pictures, etc.  On the lower speed plans, GCI avoids defining the far-smaller allowances for higher bandwidth services like near-DVD HD video streaming some Alaskan families may want to use during those cold and dark Alaskan winter evenings.

Here are the limits GCI assigns to its “unlimited” service plans:

That’s usage ranging from 40-100 gigabytes.  What this illustrates yet again is that Internet Overcharging schemes are ridiculously arbitrary.  A provider in rural Alaska defines “fair” use of its slowest speed “unlimited” broadband tier (3 Mbps/512 Kbps for $45 a month) at 40 gigabytes.  Meanwhile, Frontier Communications considers it fair to define its DSL service usage allowance at just 5 gigabytes per month.  Comcast says 250 gigabytes a month is fair.  AT&T’s wireless smartphone data plan now carries a 2 gigabyte limit AT&T claims is about right.

As is also commonly the case among Internet Overchargers, any unused allowances do not “roll over” to the next month.

GCI considers anyone exceeding these limits engaged in continuous high-volume data transfers, extensive use of streaming video and peer-to-peer file sharing programs, or using an unsecured wireless signal everyone in the neighborhood has hopped on to use.  But just backing up your family computer through an online backup service over a month could easily put you over these limits.  If a “mutually agreed on” solution cannot be reached to either limit your use or increase your price, GCI will show you the door.

Essentially, GCI hobbles its broadband service plans by imposing limits on services that could challenge some of its other products.  For standalone broadband customers, GCI builds in plenty of protection against customers potentially using its Internet service to bypass its cable and phone offerings, despite some recent speed and usage allowance increases.  How much online viewing will you feel safe doing on some of these Internet service plans:

Monthly service fees

Our reader in Alaska thinks the usage limits are unjustified considering GCI’s capacity, and its prices:

GCI has well over 600 Gigabits of capacity across two undersea fiber optic cables.
Since 2007, the only way to get an unlimited download option for the company’s various speed tiers was through its bundled packages.  With the new limit on “unlimited” downloads, GCI fraudulently misrepresents its service to Alaskans.

GCI is the poster child for the cable industry’s push for metered billing. I think you’re well aware that cable companies view metered billing as an anti-competitive solution to fend off emerging competition from online content providers like Hulu and Netflix Online. Time Warner backed down when confronted with the possibility of regulation for the entire industry. They will however try again if companies like GCI continue to have success over a long term. This is why it’s imperative that groups like Stop the Cap! fight beyond your region and get regulation passed to bar forced bundling and data transfer limits entirely. Content providers (video services) should be separate entities from network providers (ISPs). It’s the only way to keep rates low and businesses competitive. Thank you for keeping up the good fight.

Take the money and run

The Federal Communications Commission’s approval of Frontier’s takeover of 4.8 million Verizon landline customers in 14 states comes a year after the company announced the deal.  Frontier joins three other independent phone companies — FairPoint Communications, Windstream Communications, and CenturyLink zealously trying to grow their companies with additional mergers and acquisitions to avoid being swallowed up themselves.

What is common among all four companies is they rely heavily on dividend payouts to keep their stock price as high as possible.  That was a formula for disaster for FairPoint, the first of the four to end up in bankruptcy after a similar deal with Verizon in northern New England caused the company to falter.  Service and billing deteriorated, customers fled, and promises for better broadband were broken.  Now Frontier is following in FairPoint’s footsteps with more than 4.8 million new customers Frontier hopes they can swallow.

The FCC’s statement approving the merger reads like a press release for all involved, and delighted FCC Chairman Genachowski, who called these meager requirements “robust”:

Coming one week after the final state approval for the transaction, the FCC’s Order holds the applicants, Verizon and Frontier, to enforceable voluntary commitments, including:

• Extend faster broadband to more Americans: Frontier will significantly increase broadband deployment for the lines involved in this transaction, only 62 percent of which are broadband-capable today. Specifically, Frontier will deploy broadband with actual speeds of at least 3 Mbps downstream to at least 85 percent of transferred lines by the end of 2013, and actual speeds of at least 4 Mbps downstream to at least 85 percent of the transferred lines by the end of 2015, with all new broadband deployment offering actual speeds of at least 1 Mbps upstream.

Frontier's Fast One: 3 Mbps DSL Service with a 5GB Monthly Usage Allowance

Frontier’s broadband commitment gives the company a full five years to meet the bare minimum speed considered to constitute broadband in the National Broadband Plan.  One hopes Frontier doesn’t break into a sweat offering a piddly 3 Mbps service to homes using yesterday’s DSL service until then.  While Verizon’s rural castoffs get stuck eventually with 4 Mbps DSL, many of the company’s remaining customers are enjoying 50Mbps service over an all fiber network.  The FCC is accepting an urban-rural divide for broadband which will benefit the phone companies while leaving rural customers in the dirt.

Deploy fiber to libraries, hospitals, and other anchor institutions: Frontier will launch an anchor institution initiative to deploy fiber to libraries, hospitals, and government buildings, particularly in unserved and underserved communities.

Fiber for these locations sure, but no fiber for you or I.  Frontier, like most other telecom companies, loves to promote the benefits of fiber without actually deploying it to homes.

Promote competition: Frontier and Verizon have made a series of commitments to protect wholesale customers, including honoring all obligations under Verizon’s current wholesale arrangements that are in effect at closing.

Since wholesale customers often depend on the same network other customers do, if a company doesn’t deliver robust broadband into a state like West Virginia, there isn’t a robust service to sell to those wholesalers.

Improve data quality and collection: Frontier will make available to the Commission data on its broadband deployment progress at an unprecedented level of detail to enable effective monitoring of Frontier’s compliance with its commitments.

The Commission concluded that the commitments that applicants have offered, coupled with monitoring and enforcement by the Commission, will minimize the risks of harm and ensure that this transaction is in the public interest.

Phillip "Living on the Frontier" Dampier

Considering how weakly the FCC is committing itself to protecting rural customers from being dumped into the broadband backwater Frontier has on offer (complete with the 5GB monthly usage allowance), does collecting statistics help when things go sour?  Regulators collected statistics in New England when FairPoint failed, but that didn’t get service levels back until Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont threatened to toss FairPoint out.  Now the company is in bankruptcy and regulators are negotiating which of the promises FairPoint made can be let go ‘for the sake of the company.’

That’s why it’s so ironic to read editorials that proclaim the FCC is on some sort of power grab when they seek to restore what meager authority they exercised over broadband before a DC Court effectively excluded broadband oversight from their portfolio.

It will be a good day when federal agencies like the FCC start worrying first and foremost about consumers instead of how to make a parade of overpriced mergers and acquisitions succeed for the companies involved.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne Verizon hanging up on local landlines 5-24-10.flv[/flv]

WANE-TV in Fort Wayne warns viewers their landline company is about to change asVerizon vacates the area by July 1st.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Verizon Dont Take the Money and Run in WV.flv[/flv]

Too late.  The Communications Workers of America ran this ad spot asking the West Virginia governor to intervene and stop the sale.  (1 minute)

WTTG's "Ask Allison" segment answers a question about unwelcome mandatory data plans

Ever wonder why your cell phone bill seems to keep increasing when you renew your contract?

American wireless phone companies have discovered that subjecting an increasing percentage of customers to required data plans can create a revenue bonanza for companies, whether customers use many data services or not.

Many customers are just learning of new, mandatory data plans now required by all four of the country’s major carriers.  Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile now compel customers upgrading to new “smartphones” — designed to be used for accessing online services — to also choose an extra add-on plan to cover their data usage.  In some cases, that can add an additional $30 a month to monthly cell phone bills.

Some Verizon customers have learned about this the hard way when they tried to buy a new phone at the end of their two year contracts.  For those longstanding Verizon customers grandfathered on service plans developed five or more years ago, being forced to switch to one of Verizon’s current plans carries quite the sticker shock, especially for those who only occasionally send text messages or use data features.

The insistence by Verizon that Smartphone owners commit to their $29.99 unlimited data usage add-on plan adds considerably to monthly bills.  Many Verizon customers don’t care about increasing sizes of calling allowances — Verizon customers already enjoy free night and weekend calling and free calls to other Verizon Wireless customers (of which there are many — Verizon is now the nation’s largest wireless provider).

Here is a comparison between two near-equivalent Verizon Wireless calling plans, ones from 2005 and the other currently in effect.  There is a dramatic difference in pricing, particularly for those who would find a 250 text message allowance, and data usage counting against your minutes allowance more than sufficient to meet their needs:

AMERICA’S CHOICE II FAMILYSHARE PLAN (2005)

Plan Details

Promotion details

UNLIMITED N&W MINUTES, UNLIMITED VERIZON-TO-VERIZON CUSTOMER CALLING, MOBILE WEB – WEB USAGE COUNTS AGAINST MINUTE ALLOWANCE

Additional features

250 MESSAGE TEXT PLAN, INCLUDING TEXT AND VIDEO ($5 PER MONTH)

NATIONWIDE FAMILY TALK & TEXT SHAREPLAN (2010)

Plan Details

Promotion details

UNLIMITED N&W MINUTES, UNLIMITED VERIZON-TO-VERIZON CUSTOMER CALLING, UNLIMITED TEXT, PICTURE, AND VIDEO MESSAGING

Additional Features

REQUIRED UNLIMITED DATA PLAN (SMARTPHONE) ($29.99 PER MONTH)

Before taxes, fees, and surcharges, Verizon Wireless customers holding onto their legacy FamilyShare plan from 2005 would pay $65.00 per month for two lines sharing 700 minutes of calling, with one line also getting 250 text, picture, or video messages, and a data plan that ate from your minutes allowance, instead of charging you per megabyte.

Today’s plan costs far more — $129.98 — more than double, for most of the same features.  The only difference is that Verizon Wireless doesn’t presently limit your data usage or messaging on their SharePlan.

No wonder consumers are getting sticker shock when upgrading their phones.  The paradigm shift to a “required data plan” forces customers away from older service plans onto new ones.  The result is a much higher monthly bill.

All this and the same companies that have figured out how to effectively double your cell phone bill in five years are also contemplating taking away the “unlimited” part of the required data plan.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington Is It Legal to Require A Phone Data Plan 5-7-10.flv[/flv]

WTTG-TV’s “Ask Allison” feature recently answered a question from a viewer who just discovered the “mandatory data plan” as an unwelcome part of her new phone purchase.  The Washington, D.C. viewer wants to know if that’s legal.  Allison educates viewers in the nation’s capital that isn’t the only trick or trap cell phone companies have in store for you.  Bottom line: maybe you don’t want that new phone after all.  (3 minutes)