Bright House Networks, a cable company primarily serving Florida and other southeastern states says it has no plans to implement Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps or consumption billing.  But a company spokesperson went even farther, telling Tampa Bay Online the cable company was not even considering them.

Bright House, which relies on Time Warner Cable’s programming negotiators and sells broadband under the Road Runner brand, was among the only companies in Florida that was willing to go on record stating they were not considering limiting broadband customers.

Other providers were unwilling to follow Bright House’s lead:

• AT&T: “2 percent of our customers were using 20 percent of our bandwidth,” said an AT&T spokesman, so the company slapped 150GB usage limits on DSL customers, 250GB on U-verse customers.  The overlimit fee is $10 for every 50GB extra.
• Verizon Florida: “At this point, we’ve not implemented any usage controls or broadband caps.  We’ll continue to evaluate what’s best to ensure our customers get the highest quality broadband service for the best value,” the company said.  But it also added: “We’re continuing to evaluate usage-based pricing for our wireline broadband customers.”

“Bandwidth caps stifle consumer choice,” said Parul Desai, public policy counsel for Consumer’s Union.  Desai notes customers do not sign up for pricey high-speed FiOS broadband service from companies like Verizon just to read e-mail.  Customers who are willing to pay premium prices for super high speeds certainly don’t want a usage cap devaluing their broadband package.

Comcast, for example, uniformly limits consumption to 250GB per month, even on high speed plans delivering over 50Mbps service.

“It’s like building a rocket that you blow up after it reaches 250 feet into the air,” says Stop the Cap! reader Will in Tampa, who shared the article with us.  “What is the point of having 50 or 100Mbps service from any provider if they slap a limit on it like that.”

Will thinks customers will abandon higher speed packages in droves once they realize they really can’t use them.

“With some of these companies talking about caps around 40GB per month, you can’t even take your connection for a test drive,” he says.  “You might as well stick with basic speeds, just to remind and discourage you from putting yourself over their stupid limits.”

Desai suspects broadband companies will try limiting their customers, if only because they face few competitors consumers can use instead and they have video services to protect.  But she suspects some consumers will either abandon or seriously downgrade their broadband service and find other ways to trade large files and content.

“It’s not inevitable they’re going to succeed,” she told TBO. “People only find value in broadband because of what they can access with it. If more people feel constrained, they’ll start looking for another way.”

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt says the cable company is once again testing technology to allow it to implement the same type of Internet Overcharging system consumers immediately rejected in 2009.

Speaking at the Cable Show in Chicago Thursday, Britt said the company has not yet decided whether it will actually introduce the system, but will have the technology in place to quickly implement it.

Unlike some other cable companies with a fixed bandwidth limit, once again Time Warner is considering a combination cap and tier system with fixed allowances for different levels of service.  In 2009, Time Warner Cable proposed a usage allowance of just 40-60GB per month for their Standard Service customers.  Customers seeking unlimited use service faced broadband bills as high as $150 a month.

Customers overwhelmingly rejected the pricing scheme in test markets in 2009, and political pressure only hastened the shelving of the test.  But Britt remains undeterred, telling Wall Street investors he remains a true believer in usage-based billing

Wall Street analysts told Bloomberg News they didn’t have a problem with it.  Bloomberg also quoted Netflix CFO David Wells as saying he had no objection to Internet providers covering the cost of increasing bandwidth capacity.  But Bloomberg quoted Wells speaking on a June 1 conference call, not in reaction to Britt’s specific announcement yesterday.  Further, Wells clarified his comments were directed towards network optimization and traffic shaping, not broadband usage caps.

Netflix is among the most likely online services that would expose broadband customers to potential overlimit fees, especially if Time Warner Cable brings back the same usage allowances it proposed in 2009.

Get government subsidized satellite "broadband" at speeds up to 1Mbps, as long as you honor strict usage limitations.

With much fanfare, ViaSat’s WildBlue has unveiled a special discounted satellite “broadband” offer that comes courtesy of United States government taxpayer funding:

WildBlue’s same great service at an ultra-low price, courtesy of the U.S. government.

WildBlue, through the U.S. Recovery Act brings a special offer for high-speed Internet to areas unserved by wireline providers. It’s the most affordable deal we’ve ever offered, and the monthly price for this special package is guaranteed for as long as you remain a WildBlue customer. Take advantage of government funds to get High Speed Internet at discounted rates.

For $39.95 per month, WildBlue will provide the satellite equipment to deliver qualified subscribers up to 1Mbps service, subject to a monthly download limit as low as 7.5GB per month for downloads, 2.3GB per month for uploads.  Customers who exceed the limits will have their 1Mbps service throttled to near-dial-up speed until usage falls below the company’s “fair access policy.”

WildBlue explains the limited-time offer is made possible by funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  Through a grant from the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS), certain rural customers might qualify for the discounted pricing.

WildBlue only received authorization to deliver the discounted service to locations west of the Mississippi — specifically those not within an existing RUS project zone, are located in a defined rural area, and cannot receive service from a telephone, cable, or fiber provider.  Current WildBlue customers also do not qualify.

The grant funding covers installation and equipment charges, the client only pays for the service itself.  But would-be customers are required to commit to at least one year of service or face an early termination penalty and must pass a credit check.

WildBlue customers, as well as those of other satellite providers, have given satellite Internet access low satisfaction scores, primarily because of speed and usage limitation issues.  But for some without any other choice, it is a service they live with for basic web access.

Among the public interest groups that have historically steered clear of the fight against usage caps and usage based billing is Public Knowledge.

Stop the Cap! took them to task more than a year ago for defending the implementation of these unjustified hidden rate hikes and usage limits.  Since then, we welcome the fact the group has increasingly been trending towards the pro-consumer, anti-cap position, but they still have some road to travel.

Public Knowledge, joined by New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern over AT&T’s implementation of usage caps and asking for an investigation:

[…] Public Knowledge and New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative urge the Bureau to exercise its statutory authority to fully investigate the nature, purpose, impact of those caps upon consumers. The need to fully understand the nature of broadband caps is made all the more urgent by the recent decision by AT&T to break with past industry practice and convert its data cap into a revenue source.

[…] Caps on broadband usage imposed by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can undermine the very goals that the Commission has committed itself to championing. While broadband caps are not inherently problematic, they carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive and monopolistic ways. Unless they are clearly and transparently justified to address legitimate network capacity concerns, caps can work directly against the promise of broadband access.

The groups call out AT&T for its usage cap and overlimit fee model, and ponder whether these are more about revenue enhancement than network management.  The answer to that question has been clear for more than two years now: it’s all about the money.

The two groups are to be commended for raising the issue with the FCC, but they are dead wrong about caps not being inherently problematic.  Usage caps have no place in the North American wired broadband market.  Even in Canada, providers like Bell have failed to make a case justifying their implementation.  What began as an argument about congestion has evolved into one about charging heavy users more to invest in upgrades that are simply not happening on a widespread basis.  The specific argument used is tailored to the audience: complaints about congestion to government officials, denials of congestion issues to shareholders coupled with promotion of usage pricing as a revenue enhancer.

If Bell can’t sell the Canadian government on its arguments for usage caps in a country that has a far lower population density and a much larger rural expanse to wire, AT&T certainly isn’t going to have a case in the United States, and they don’t.

The history of these schemes is clear:

1. Providers historically conflate their wireless broadband platforms with wired broadband when arguing for Internet Overcharging schemes.  When regulators agree to arguments that wireless capacity problems justify usage limits, extending those limits to wired broadband gets carried along for the ride.  Dollar-a-holler groups supporting the industry love to use charts showing wireless data growth, and claim a similar problem afflicts wired broadband, even though the costs to cope with congestion are very different on the two platforms.
2. Providers argue one thing while implementing another.  Most make the claim pricing changes allow them to introduce discounted “light user” plans.  But few save because true “pay only for what you use” usage-based billing is not on offer.  Instead, worry-free flat use plans are taken off the menu, replaced with tiered plans that force subscribers to guess their usage.  If they guess too little, a stiff overlimit fee applies.  If they guess too much, they overpay.  Heads AT&T wins, tails you lose.  That’s a clear warning providers are addressing revenue enhancement, not network enhancement.
3. Claims of network congestion backed up with raw data, average usage per user, and the costs to address it are all labeled proprietary business information and are not available for independent inspection.

There are a few other issues:

In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by AT&T are particularly aggressive. Unlike competitors whose caps appear to be at least nominally linked to congestions during peak-use periods, AT&T seeks to convert caps into a profit center by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap. In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands.

In North America, only a handful of providers use peak-usage pricing for wired broadband.  Cable One, America’s 10th largest cable operator is among the largest, and they serve fewer than one million customers.  Virtually all providers with usage caps count both upstream and downstream data traffic 24 hours a day against a fixed usage allowance.  The largest — Comcast — does not charge an excessive usage fee.  AT&T does.

Furthermore, it remains unclear why AT&T’s recently announced caps are, at best, equal to those imposed by Comcast over two years ago.  The caps for residential DSL customers are a full 100GB lower than those Comcast saw fit to offer in mid-2008. The lower caps for DSL customers is especially worrying because one of the traditional selling points of DSL networks is that their dedicated circuit design helps to mitigate the impacts of heavy users on the rest of the network. Together, these caps suggest either that AT&T’s current network compares poorly to that of a major competitor circa 2008 or that there are non-network management motivations behind their creation.

AT&T has managed to create the first Internet version of the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, combining Comcast's 'tolerated' 250GB cap with AT&T's style of slapping overlimit fees on data plans from their wireless business.

As Stop the Cap! has always argued, usage caps are highly arbitrary.  Providers always believe their usage caps are the best and most fair around, whether it was Frontier’s 5GB usage limit or Comcast’s 250GB limit.

AT&T experimented with usage limits in Reno, Nevada and Beaumont, Texas and found customers loathed them.  Comcast’s customers tolerate the cable company’s 250GB usage cap because it is not strictly enforced — only the top few violators are issued warning letters.  AT&T has established America’s first Internet pricing version of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup: getting Comcast’s tolerated usage cap into AT&T’s wireless-side overlimit fee.  The bitter aftertaste arrives in the mail at the end of the month.

Why establish different usage caps for DSL and U-verse?  Marketing, of course.  This is about money, remember?

AT&T DSL delivers far less average revenue per customer than its triple-play U-verse service.  To give U-verse a higher value proposition, AT&T supplies a more generous usage allowance.  Message: upgrade from DSL for a better broadband experience.

Technically, there is no reason to enforce either usage allowance, as AT&T DSL offers a dedicated connection to the central office or D-SLAM, from where fiber traditionally carries the signal to AT&T’s enormous backbone connection.  U-verse delivers fiber to the neighborhood and a much fatter dedicated pipeline into individual subscriber homes to deliver its phone, Internet, and video services.

A usage cap on U-verse makes as much sense as putting a coin meter on the television or charging for every phone call, something AT&T abandoned with their flat rate local and long distance plans.

Before partly granting AT&T’s premise that usage limits are a prophylactic for congestion and then advocate they be administered with oversight, why not demand proof that such pricing and usage schemes are necessary in the first place.  With independent verification of the raw data, providers like AT&T will find that an insurmountable challenge, especially if they have to open their books.

[flv width=”640″ height=”368″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell’s Arguments for UBB 2-2011.flv[/flv]

Canada’s experience with Usage-Based Billing has all of the hallmarks of the kind of consumer ripoff AT&T wants Americans to endure:

• A provider (Bell), whose spokesman argues for these pricing schemes to address congestion and “fairness,” even as that same spokesman admits there is no congestion problem;
• Would-be competitors being priced out of the marketplace because they lack the infrastructure, access, or fair pricing to compete;
• Big bankers and investors who applaud price gouging and are appalled at government checks and balances.

Watch Mirko Bibic try to rationalize why Bell’s Fibe TV (equivalent to AT&T U-verse) needs Internet Overcharging schemes for broadband, but suffers no capacity issues delivering video and phone calls over the exact same line.  Then watch the company try and spin this pricing as an issue of fairness, even as an investor applauds the company: “I love this policy because I am a shareholder.  That’s all I care about.  If you can suck every last cent out of users, I’m happy for you.”  Finally, watch a company buying wholesale access from Bell let the cat out of the bag — broadband usage costs pennies per gigabyte, not the several dollars many providers want to charge.  (11 minutes)

Shaw Communications today announced they are boosting speeds on one of their popular broadband tiers — Shaw Extreme, from 15/1Mbps to 25/2.5Mbps.  The current price for the Extreme plan remains the same.  So does the monthly usage limit of 100GB.

Customers appreciate the faster speed, but are not impressed Shaw has continued to limit customers to how much service they can use.

“Now I can hit my 100GB usage cap that much faster,” shares Shaw customer Dan Peek, who lives in Calgary.  “Shaw just completed dozens of listening tours, but they are obviously not listening at all.  What good are the faster speeds when you are effectively limited from using your broadband account to full advantage?”

Shaw claims the new broadband speeds are part of an effort to unveil new Internet packaging anticipated for early summer.

“It’s an exciting time at Shaw as we begin to create a world-class Internet product, giving our customers the ultimate experience in connectivity and entertainment,” said Peter Bissonnette, President, Shaw Communications Inc. “The Shaw Extreme speed upgrade is just the first spark of a whole new world of entertainment and offerings to come. We’re building the network of the future and our customers are at the very heart of it.”

Shaw also plans to introduce new equipment options, including a new box that will allow customers to access files stored on personal computers on their television set.  Shaw’s efforts suggest the company recognizes customers are increasingly interested in accessing multimedia content with their broadband connections.  Unfortunately, the company’s usage caps preclude customers from doing more than dabbling.

“It’s a PR effort made for the Canadian government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission,” offers Peek.  “This summer they will be in Ottawa promoting their new broadband speeds as evidence the Canadian ISPs are not the backwater players they’ve always been, all while hoping their usage-based billing schemes will get a pass.”

Peek suggests broadband speed is not Canada’s biggest broadband challenge — the usage caps are.

“If you asked most Canadians if they would prefer 10Mbps service with no cap or 20Mbps service with caps starting at 40GB per month, people will take the slower speed,” Peek says.  “Shaw doesn’t seem to understand that basic message.”

Shaw's usage billing shark is still circling western Canada. The company may have increased speeds, but their 100GB usage cap on the Extreme tier remains.

Shaw’s listening tour across western Canada brought “summaries” from company officials that are being criticized by several Shaw customers who were at the meetings.

“I was at one of the Calgary meetings and the “summary” that showed up after the fact was the work of one of Shaw’s marketing hacks,” says Steve, a Stop the Cap! reader.  “The one thing they left out of the summary is the fact we do not want these caps and that they are not justified by the facts.”

Steve claims Shaw left customer demands for the end of usage caps out of their summaries, even though many customers brought up how much they hated usage-based billing and caps.  But there was plenty of room for customers who asked, “why should low usage customers pay for usage,” something Shaw’s customers in fact don’t do.  Another frequent meme from Shaw — “[customers] rejected the idea of subsidizing high bandwidth consumers.”

“That’s Shaw propaganda designed to fix a pre-determined conclusion around their distorted facts,” Steve says.  “The company presented charts and graphs with their world view and asked customers to comment on them in a focus group-like setting.  If you didn’t know those ‘facts’ were actually company ‘positions,’ you end up debating their numbers on their terms.”

Steve thinks Shaw’s version of “fair” is unique to Canada and would never be accepted in the United States.

“When you have media types parroting Shaw’s claim that practically nobody exceeds their usage limits, it quickly allows the cable company to claim heavy users are abusing the system, necessitating the caps,” Steve says.  “Now that Netflix is here, we’re all going to be heavy users now.”

Marie from Burnaby, B.C. confirmed Shaw’s new Extreme speeds were active as of this evening, noting speed test results of 20Mbps downstream and just over 2Mbps upstream once she reset her cable modem.  But she considers it of little value because of the usage cap.

“This will help our family when we’re all sharing the connection after school and at night, but since the 100GB cap remains unchanged, those faster speeds invite more usage, which will also eventually bring a higher bill,” she writes.