Bell has announced it will boost broadband speeds for selected residents of Ontario and Quebec as high as 100/20Mbps service through a fiber service upgrade it will begin this year.

While Canada’s largest phone company is providing a “fiber to the neighborhood” service that still relies in part on traditional copper phone wiring in other parts of Ontario, Bell promises to install true fiber to the home connections starting in Quebec City, and in new housing developments elsewhere in both provinces.

Quebec City was chosen because most of the city’s telecommunications wiring is installed above ground on traditional telephone poles.  Upgrading above-ground service costs considerably less than coping with buried cables.  It will take the company three years to complete the upgrade.

Bell claims the upgrades are part of a natural evolution of telecommunications service in Canada.

“Investment in broadband networks and services is a core strategic imperative at Bell,” said chief executive George Cope in a statement. “We’re actively building the communications platforms that support the growth of competitive new internet, video and other digital services now and into the future.”

Competition may be the key factor in Bell’s decision to upgrade service, particularly in Quebec.  Incumbent cable provider Videotron has effectively called out Bell for its slower broadband DSL service, which offers “up to” 7Mbps DSL service.  Videotron already provides speed tiers up to 50Mbps for just under $80 a month, and is capable of expanding service to 100Mbps in the future.

In Ontario, Bell faces competition from Rogers Cable, which itself has boosted speeds after a DOCSIS 3 upgrade.  The cable operator offers residents in the Greater Toronto Area 50Mbps for $100 per month.

But two things that will come along for the ride are Bell’s notoriously low usage allowances and throttled speeds when using bandwidth-intensive applications like file swapping software.

The company did not release what usage limits are anticipated for their fiber optic offerings, but consumers acquainted with Bell service are skeptical the upgrade will be worth the price.

“Who cares what Bell’s speeds are when you cannot use the service at promised speeds,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Noelle.  “Besides, if Bell’s usual stingy limits remain in place, if you did maximize your connection, you could blow through their usage limit in an hour or so.  As usual, we get to pay for what most others get for free as part of their subscription price.”

Some other online reactions:

“Sure we’ll all have faster speeds, but Bell will make us pay through our teeth for it. Faster speeds mean less time to reach the bit-cap limit = more profit for Bell. Also everyone with an independent ISP will continue to use whatever crumbs of service Bell wishes to dole out as part of it’s non-monopoly obligations. Having a hyper-fast internet with Bell is like having a Ferrari and having to drive the speed limit everywhere. I know it can do 200mph, but Ma Bell limits me to 50. Its like throwing your money away.”

“Bell’s theoretical DSL download speed of 7Mbps is a joke.  Most people barely break 1Mbps, and after they’re done throttling you to death, you’d beg for that speed if you could get it.  I dumped the Bell nightmare years ago.”

“I can’t wait to find out what my bill will be after they charge me another arm and a leg to pay for all these upgrades.  Who cares about speed upgrades when their usage-based limits mean you cannot use them.  Instead of upgrading speed, how about upgrading your network capacity and do away with the usage limits and throttled broadband speeds?”

Phillip Dampier

Verizon Wireless’s next generation LTE wireless broadband network threatens to bring expensive “usage-based billing” to millions of Americans using technology products that depend on wireless networking to communicate  — from the handheld tablet you use to enjoy USA Today over morning coffee, the car that delivers news, weather and traffic reports to and from work, to the portable television you use to catch up with the game while running around town.

At the Consumer Electronics Show, Verizon chief technology officer Dick Lynch warned that Verizon is likely to abandon any notion of flat rate usage pricing, particularly when Verizon doesn’t get a piece of the action from the sale of the devices that connect to their network.

Instead, Verizon Wireless will adopt a wireless version of Internet Overcharging — usage-based billing that isn’t entirely “usage-based.”

A true consumption billing system charges consumers only for what they use — don’t use the service that month and customers would pay little or nothing for service that billing period.  Instead, providers maximize revenue with arbitrary “usage allowances” which are part of the steep monthly service fee.  The unused portion of the allowance typically does not roll over, in effect lost at the end of the month.  That means you pay for not using their network.  Imagine if your electric company charged you for leaving the lights on 24/7, but you were out of town that month.  If you exceed your allowance, the overlimit penalty kicks in, and most providers set those prices high enough to sting you while rewarding them.

“The problem we have today with flat-based usage is that you are trying to encourage customers to be efficient in use and applications but you are getting some people who are bandwidth hogs using gigabytes a month and they are paying something like megabytes a month,” Lynch said. “That isn’t long-term sustainable. Why should customers using an average amount of bandwidth be subsidizing bandwidth hogs?”

Lynch

The first step to broadband pricing enlightenment is to recognize the only true “hog” here is the broadband provider with an endless appetite for your money.  Usage-based pricing schemes carry the one-two punch for consumers, with no pain for providers:

1. They discourage usage, as consumers fear using up their monthly allowance and getting socked with an enormous bill filled with penalties and overlimit fees;
2. The corresponding reduction in usage lowers the providers’ capital spending requirements to meet consumer demand, and increase profits dramatically from those who find allowances too limiting and are willing to pay the exorbitant pricing providers charge those who exceed them.

Does Verizon actually believe that $60 a month for their wireless broadband service represents a fair price for someone using “something like megabytes a month?”  Can Verizon show it is losing money on its wireless broadband service?  I think not.

Predictably, Lynch provides a “between-the-lines” slap at government intervention to force open wireless networks to additional competition in the equipment marketplace:

“The whole paradigm of how we sell devices into the public is changing,” Lynch said. “At the same time that we announced LTE, we announced an open development initiative where we encouraged third-party developers to deploy devices on our network.”

That initiative was hardly the result of a sudden change of heart from Verizon.  It came from pressure Washington applied over the “closed network” practices the American wireless industry has followed for years.  Handsets and the applications that run on them have traditionally been closely controlled by providers.  Features built into smartphones and other handsets were disabled or limited by providers before the phones were sold to the public.  Usually, this forced customers to use the services either provided directly by their wireless company, or one of their “affiliated partners.”

Verizon Wireless is signaling the consequence of a more competitive, open market for wireless products and services: usage limits and a higher bill. That’s because you didn’t buy that device at a Verizon store at their asking price, and you’ve been using it too much.

Consumers would make a grave mistake in blaming a more activist watchdog role by the federal government to force open the wireless industry to competition and innovation by third parties.  Despite Verizon’s hints that those pesky regulators in Washington are to blame for your usage being limited and your bill being higher, the blame really belongs with the carriers pocketing those proceeds.

Since regulators will get the blame regardless, isn’t it time to go all out for American consumers by transforming the wireless provider marketplace?  Here are our suggestions:

1. An end to the ongoing consolidation of existing wireless players into a shrinking number of what will soon be two or three “too big to fail” national providers;
2. Insistence on additional competition coming from new, independent players, not simply those directly affiliated with the dominant four carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile);
3. Justification for confiscatory data pricing made possible from the highly concentrated wireless marketplace, particularly in smaller cities and communities.

Verizon and AT&T have both engaged in a lot of scare talk about usage and their costs to manage it.  We’d believe them, except we read their financial reports and neither company is hurting.  We’d even be willing to meet them halfway and advocate additional allocations of spectrum to provide the bandwidth an increasingly wireless world will demand, but not at their asking price with those pesky terms and conditions that ration service to consumers at top dollar prices.

Just like the credit card companies, once a broadband provider wedges its foot in the door with Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption billing and usage allowances, they can push it open further and further, allowing your money to fly out the door into their pocket.

Rogers Communications, the dominant cable broadband provider in eastern Canada has quietly planned to double the maximum overlimit penalty customers pay for exceeding their usage allowance.  Effective this March, Rogers will confiscate up to $50 from you for daring to cross their arbitrary allowances, which range from a piddly 2GB on their “Ultra-Lite” plan to 175GB on their $100 “Ultimate” plan.  That’s double the old maximum penalty of $25 a month.

It appears many Canadian broadband customers simply took it for granted that unlimited broadband, regardless of the tier they selected, would cost an additional $25 a month.  Many begrudgingly paid it, knowing in many areas all of the alternatives had Internet Overcharging schemes of their own.

Broadband Providers Limbo Dance: Lowering Your Value With Internet Overcharging Schemes

As Stop the Cap! has warned repeatedly, once broadband providers establish such schemes, they can begin a limbo dance with their customers, reducing the value of the service they receive by either increasing the penalties for exceeding usage limits, or simply reducing usage allowances to expose more customers to profit-padding fees and surcharges.

Rogers is taking a page from companies like Time Warner Cable that wanted to implement their own Internet Overcharging scheme in April 2009 with a maximum overlimit penalty of $100.  For broadband providers in Canada like Rogers who double such fees, there is plenty of room to grow them further.

Rogers charges customers trying to keep to a broadband budget some stunning overlimit fees as it is.  Their Ultra-Lite plan exposes customers to a future bill up to $76.00 a month, all for 500kbps service, and that’s before taxes and surcharges.  That’s because Rogers charges customers exceeding 2GB per month a whopping $5 for each additional gigabyte of usage.

Most Rogers customers end up on plans like “Express” which charges $46.99 a month for 10Mbps/512kbps service, with a 60GB usage allowance.  But with Rogers’ new overlimit penalty fee, customers opening their bills could find that service costing them $97 a month instead.  That’s a bill only a credit card company could love.

All this, when Rogers’ costs to provide broadband service continue to decline.  Rationing broadband is profitable and and shareholders love it.  Considering the  regulatory agency that is supposed to watch out for Canadians, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), more closely resembles a cable and telephone industry lobbying group, there is nothing to stand in the way of even greater fee increases in the future.

Oh, and they get to throttle your broadband speed down… way down, for any online application they feel consumes too many resources on their network, so customers can’t even use the service they pay good money to receive.

Nadir Mohamed, president and chief operating officer of Rogers Communications Inc., admits it’s all about the money.  In June 2008, he told the Canadian Telecom Summit, “Usage-based billing is a reality for wired and wireless network,” he said. “The capacity is exploding, and we need to be able to monetize some of that.”

A person representing themselves as a Rogers social networking rep, “RogersMary” told customers Rogers had increased the value of their broadband service:

We always want to offer our customers great quality of service for the best value. In the last year, we have made network and technology investments that include improvements in download speeds, expanding our network in other parts of Canada and launching Rogers On Demand Online free to all customers that subscribe to any Rogers product. In terms of pricing, we have reduced higher tier services such as Extreme Plus ($69.99 from $99.95) and Ultimate ($99.99 from $149.99). Based on our research, the vast majority (90%) of Rogers Internet customers do not go over their usage limits each month and will not be impacted by changes to overage charges. If you do, I would suggest calling Care to discuss which plan best suits your Internet use.

If you call, ask Rogers which plan doesn’t include an Internet Overcharging scheme.

Comcast blocks C-SPAN programming for those who are not Comcast customers

Public interest groups today began an offensive against the cable industry’s attempts to stave off potential online video competition with an industry dominated and controlled online video platform that guarantees consumers won’t cut cable’s cord.

Free Press, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge and Consumers Union are sending letters to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission calling for a probe into the industry’s “TV Everywhere” project, designed to weed out non-cable subscribers from accessing online video programming.

The undertaking, which the industry claims will eventually rival Hulu in size and scope, seeks to provide their broadband customers with on-demand access to as much programming as possible, as long as they subscribe to a corresponding video programming and broadband service package.

Known in the industry as a “pay wall,” the system would assure pay television companies affiliated with the project that they will not lose subscribers from customers cutting the cord to watch programming online for free.  Consumer groups call that collusion, and accuse the industry of secretly meeting to outline the TV Everywhere concept and may be violating anti-trust laws in the process.

“The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves,” said Marvin Ammori, a law professor at the University of Nebraska and senior adviser to Free Press. Ammori’s report: TV Competition Nowhere: How the Cable Industry Is Colluding to Kill Online TV, is included in the mailing to the federal agencies.

Ammori says the industry has a long history of controlling behavior.

“Over the past decade, they have locked down and controlled TV set-top boxes to limit competing programming sources; they have considered imposing fees for high-capacity Internet use in ways that would discourage online TV viewing; and they have pressured programmers to keep their best content off the Internet,” Ammori writes.

In addition, these companies, which already dominate the Internet access market, have threatened to discriminate against certain online applications or have already been caught violating Network Neutrality. Indeed, the FCC issued an order in 2008 against Comcast for blocking technologies used to deliver online TV, noting the anti-competitive effect of this blocking. While it may be economically rational for cable, phone and satellite companies to squash online competitors, the use of anti-competitive tactics is bad for American consumers and the future of a competitive media industry.

The latest method of attack aimed at online TV, however, may be the most threatening — and is also likely illegal. Competition laws aim to ensure that incumbent companies fight to prevail by providing better services and changing with the times, not by using their existing dominant position and agreements to prevent new competitors from emerging.

TV Everywhere has a simple business plan, under which TV programmers like TNT, TBS and CBS will not make content available to a user via the Internet unless the user is also a pay TV subscriber through a cable, satellite or phone company. The obvious goal is to ensure that consumers do not cancel their cable TV subscriptions. But this plan also eliminates potential competition among existing distributors. Instead of being offered to all Americans, including those living in Cox, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable regions, Fancast Xfinity is only available in Comcast regions. The other distributors will follow Comcast’s lead, meaning that the incumbent distributors will not compete with one another outside of their “traditional” regions.

In addition, new online-only TV distributors are excluded from TV Everywhere. The “principles” of the plan, which were published by Comcast and Time Warner (a content company distinct from Time Warner Cable), clearly state that TV Everywhere is meant only for cable operators, satellite companies and phone companies. By design, this plan will exclude disruptive new entrants and result in fewer choices and higher prices for consumers.

This business plan, which transposes the existing cable TV model onto the online TV market, can only exist with collusion among competitors. As a result, TV Everywhere appears to violate several serious antitrust laws. Stripped of slick marketing, TV Everywhere consists of agreements among competitors to divide markets, raise prices, exclude new competitors, and tie products. According to published reports and the evident circumstances, TV Everywhere appears to be a textbook example of collusion. Only an immediate investigation by federal antitrust authorities and Congress can prevent incumbents from smothering nascent new competitors while giving consumers sham “benefits” that are a poor substitute for the fruits of real competition.

Ammori

The benefits of controlling the marketplace of video and online entertainment is a lucrative one, earning players billions in profits each year.  Losing control of the business model risks the industry repeating the mistakes of the music industry, which overpriced its product and alienated consumers with annoying digital rights management technology and lawsuits.  It also risks a repeat of the newspaper industry which many in the cable industry believe made the critical mistake of giving away all of their content for free.

With online video services like Hulu generating enormous online traffic from its free video programming, the cable industry fears they might already be headed down the road newspapers paved.  TV Everywhere is part of a multi-pronged defense plan according to Ammori.

Indeed, what the industry cannot control themselves, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and “consumption billing” can handily manage.

Ammoni notes:

Cable and phone companies have proposed cap-and-metered pricing for Internet service that appears to target online TV. Unlike the current all-you-can-eat monthly fee-plans, cap-and-metered pricing would charge users based on the capacity used. As a result, downloading or streaming large files will be more expensive than smaller files. In March 2009, Time Warner Cable announced metered pricing trials in four cities that would have made watching online TV cost prohibitive.

AT&T is testing a metering plan on its wireline U-verse service with hopes for national expansion. Even under generous allowances for bandwidth, users could not watch high-definition programming for many hours a day.

In response to trials by Time Warner Cable, a House bill was introduced in Congress, and Time Warner Cable dropped its immediate plans under consumer pressure. The company stated the plans would be reintroduced following a “customer education process.”

“Online TV is this nation’s best shot at breaking up the cable TV industry oligopolies and cartels. Permitting online distributors to compete vigorously on the merits for computer screens and TV screens will result in increased user choice, more rapid innovation, lower prices and a more robust digital democracy,” Ammoni concludes.

OnLive puts the processing power to render and play games on their end, and streams the result to you over your broadband connection (click to enlarge)

OnLive, the cloud-based videogame streaming service, was on display during a live dem0 of the service at Columbia University.  The service, which literally streams game play across fast broadband networks, could seriously challenge the videogame console marketplace.  Instead of using an expensive piece of hardware at home to play videogames such as w88, OnLive puts the hardware at their end and streams the results to any computer or television.  If it works, it means consumers won’t need the highest performance videocards or latest new CPU.  They’ll just need a fast broadband connection to let OnLive’s own servers do all of the processing.

The founder and CEO of OnLive, Steve Perlman, shows considerable enthusiasm for the concept, and several major investors including AT&T and Time Warner have backed the venture, which could help guarantee smooth passage on their broadband networks.

Still, a product that requires a minimum of a 5Mbps broadband connection for HD-quality streamed game play could consume an enormous amount of data — up to 2.25 GB per hour of gaming.  Although cable and fiber-based broadband connections will suffice, many DSL customers don’t have service fast enough to support OnLive.  Among those that do, any usage caps or allowances will significantly reduce the value of the service to potential subscribers.  Frontier Communications’ infamous 5GB “acceptable use” per month, for instance, would allow just over two hours of use per month, assuming you did nothing else with your DSL service.

Even Comcast’s 250GB usage allowance cuts game play to a little over 100 hours per month.  That’s a ludicrous amount of gaming for most of us, but not for some gaming addicts who may have tried games like 핑카지노.  Besides, it also assumes you don’t use your Comcast broadband service to watch video or other bandwidth-intensive online services.

Time Warner Cable’s proposed 40GB usage limit, shelved indefinitely in April after consumer protests, would permit less than an hour of play per day, assuming your Road Runner service was for nothing but OnLive.

In short, assuming OnLive works as promoted, its biggest threat to success will come from external factors mostly outside of its control — namely cap-happy ISPs that could quickly make streamed cloud computing untenable for all but the wealthiest among us.

What could OnLive do to reduce its risk from caps?  Partner with ISPs in a non-Net Neutral broadband world, of course.  That investment from AT&T, for example, could theoretically pave the way for AT&T to exempt OnLive from any usage limits that come from its own Internet Overcharging experiments in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.  That would be a clear violation of Net Neutrality, if enacted into law.

Scenarios like this should drive consumers to support Net Neutrality policies.  ISPs forming “preferred partnerships” with innovative services like OnLive might seem consumer-friendly at first, but not in the long-term because it spells the death of would-be “non-preferred” start-ups, and helps pave the way even faster to Internet Overcharging schemes letting broadband providers pick the winners and losers of the future.

[flv width=”484″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/OnLive Columbia University Demo.flv[/flv]

OnLive founder and CEO Steve Perlman demonstrates OnLive and talks about cloud-based, streaming game play at this gathering at Columbia University in New York. (49 minutes)
(If stream stops for buffering, pause it for a few minutes to let a significant amount of the file pre-load, which should reduce re-buffering problems.)