AT&T's Fairy Tales of Broadband Congestion

Just a few days after Broadband Reports broke the news AT&T was imposing an Internet Overcharging scheme on its broadband customers, evidence continues to arrive illustrating the company’s planned usage limits are more about protecting their U-verse video business than actually controlling “heavy users.”

Dave Burstein, a well-known industry analyst who has tracked the broadband universe for years was so miffed about the nonsense he was reading in the Wall Street Journal, he picked up the phone and called the AT&T spokesperson who claimed the company was overburdened by heavy users:

Mark Siegal, AT&T’s top flack, hung up the phone on me when I said his comment to the Wall Street Journal was apparently a lie. It’s prohibitively unlikely their DSL cap “is to ensure the quality of the customer experience” necessary to solve “congestion in certain points of the network and interfering with other people’s access.” I’m certain that far less than 1% of the time do AT&T DSL customers have any impact from congestion. I’m pretty confident it’s less than 1/10th of 1% and probably less than 1/100th of 1%. My sources that wireline congestion on AT&T is minimal include statements from two CTOs of the company. Cheng, now a veteran in D.C., knew the comment was misleading at best. A mantra in D.C. is “wireline may not have congestion but wireless is different.” It was Sunday and perhaps hard to factcheck, but he’ll easily confirm the problem on Monday.

AT&T has long maintained they have a more robust network and cable is the one with “bandwidth hog” problems. But Comcast’s cap was 60% higher than AT&T and Comcast has said they will raise it. AT&T has gone 13 years without caps on their DSL network because they said they didn’t need them. Traffic growth is actually down slightly (Cisco, Odlyzko) so there’s only one reason to impose caps now: their video service, U-Verse, has become a $5B business. They don’t want people to be able to cut the cord and watch all their video over the net. 150 gigabytes is 40-80 hours of U-Verse quality TV, far less than the average U-Verse user watches.

In fact, AT&T is one of America’s largest Internet Service Providers, and maintains an important role in America’s Internet backbone.  As one of the largest providers, AT&T doesn’t worry about broadband traffic like a small wireless ISP does.  Its broadband pipes from the middle-mile to their nationwide network offers near limitless capacity thanks to fiber optic technology.  In fact, AT&T’s theoretical “bottlenecks” occur in the “last mile” of the network, from the phone company’s central switching offices or its interface between a fiber connection and the plain old copper wires that work their way into your home or business.

But first, a word about costs.

Dave Burstein

We have new evidence from both Burstein and the Internet Overcharging drama unfolding in Canada that providers literally pay pennies per gigabyte of traffic.  In fact, the broadband traffic customers generate represents only 2%-5% of what we pay for broadband in both countries.  Burstein uses some of Craig Moffett’s prolific comments in the media against his own argument for Internet Overcharging.  Moffett, a Wall Street analyst, is not alone when he reports broadband margins are as high as 90%, according to official company filings.  John Hodulik from UBS joins him.

Burstein gives providers’ argued need for increased investment to keep up with demand the benefit of the doubt and is willing to suggest profit margins at a reduced 75%.  In either case, running a large broadband network is a veritable license to print money in North America.  The costs to provide the service keep dropping, and providers keep on raising prices.

Burstein was generous with Comcast when he called their 250GB usage limit imposed in 2008 “fair.”  But as Stop the Cap! has argued, Comcast — like other Internet Overchargers — has not grown the cap over time, even as their costs decline.  In fact, customers are probably lucky the country’s largest cable operator hasn’t reduced it, as providers in Canada have done repeatedly. Burstein calls on Comcast to honor their promise and raise their cap.

Burstein also notes the rest of the world enjoys lower prices, more competition, and often faster service — with providers across the board still enjoying considerable profits.

But why not here?

America’s broadband market is a monopoly or duopoly in virtually every American city.  One cable operator and one telephone company deliver service to the vast majority of American broadband users.  Wireless providers are largely owned by legacy phone companies and strictly limit usage.  Without significant competition, providers can raise prices at will and milk profits to sustain their balance sheets even as other business divisions suffer from a downturned economy or shifting cultural changes.  The “landline” is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and cable television provided by cable and phone companies could face cord cutting from consumers watching their favorite shows over their broadband connections.

Broadband service carries up to a 90 percent profit margin

Burstein tracks the business model:

15 gigabytes/month: The average (mean) user in the U.S., per Cisco’s respected VNI survey and numerous comments from the major companies.

Going Down: Bandwidth usage growth per customer. The rate has been about 30% per year, with the rate slightly falling the last few years. The growth in average usage is actually going down slightly, per Cisco VNI and the MINTS data of Professor Andrew Odlyzko.

Going Down: Capital investment required. In 2009, AT&T cut U-Verse by 1/3rd. In 2010, Verizon cut FiOS by 2/3rds. John Stankey of AT&T has said they will cut U-Verse much further after this year. Fran Shammo of Verizon says “Wireline will continue to come down year over year.” Cablecos have been dropping capex as a % of sales and often in absolute dollars. According to a recent survey by Heavy Reading, 70% of the cable networks have been upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 already. There’s no significant capital spending beyond that at least until mid-decade. The Columbia University CITI report to the broadband plan aggregated analysts forecast and predicted a drop in overall capital spending on broadband, particularly in wireline. The primary capital spending for wired broadband is behind us, with few significant network buildouts in the next five years or longer.

Going Up: Profit Margins. Prices for broadband have generally been going up in the U.S. since 2007 while costs drop. Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and most others have raised their broadband prices and ARPU. They also have (modestly) raised the prices of triple play including broadband, according to Dave Barden of Bank of America. Capex is dropping pretty dramatically while other operating costs are also falling. Customer support costs have gone down as few new customers (who need more support) are added. Modems and other gear continue dropping in price. Costs down, prices up = higher profits. Both Stankey and Shammo pointed to improved margins.

AT&T DSL (left) vs. AT&T U-verse (right): Hunting season on customers of both is now open.

AT&T argues their usage caps are less about the money and more about dealing with network congestion.  But does that play out?

AT&T has a convenient argument to use, which several journalists have come to believe gives the company a track record of being victimized by “heavy users.”  Namely, their network congestion brought about by the flood of iPhone users on AT&T Mobility’s cellular network.  Even if a reporter does not understand the profound differences between a wired and wireless broadband network, they have heard about AT&T’s problems coping with their wireless traffic.

In short, the company underestimated demand from its exclusive deal with Apple for the wildly popular phone, and refused to invest adequately to mitigate overcongested cities.  Instead, it spent millions lobbying for permission to “manage” the traffic with artificially-slowed speeds, usage limits, confiscatory overlimit penalties, and even some equipment to offload wireless users onto home broadband connections (for which AT&T still deducts airtime and data usage from your wireless allowance.)  Robust Wi-Fi also tries to drive customers off of AT&T’s inadequate 3G network.

For home broadband users who will be affected by AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme, let’s break them into two separate categories: DSL customers who face a 150GB cap and U-verse customers who will get a 250GB allowance.

AT&T DSL is a legacy product dependent on traditional copper wire phone lines.  Available in many areas unserved by U-verse, this technology typically provides up to 6Mbps service — often slower, sometimes higher.  The distance between the phone company office and one’s home usually determines what speeds customers receive.  In rural areas, 1-3Mbps is often typical.  In some urban areas, higher speeds are sometimes possible.  DSL is not a “shared” technology like cable broadband.  Each DSL customer has their own line between their home and central office (or remote repeater).  From there, a connection from the central office to AT&T’s backbone is made over a middle mile network.

AT&T U-verse VRADs (a/k/a 'lawn refrigerators') in Houston, Tex. (Courtesy: Swapdisk)

But AT&T’s DSL customers are already constrained by the reduced speeds DSL provides them.  It is unlikely a customer with 3Mbps DSL service is going to present much of a traffic challenge to a multi-billion dollar company unless they purposely under-invest in network upgrades.

Where congestion does exist, it occurs at the central office — usually because the company inadequately provisioned a sufficiently large data pipe to handle the traffic.  Since these circuits are increasingly fiber-based, congestion issues disappear when AT&T uses technology from this century instead of the last.

AT&T argues heavy users are overburdening their DSL lines, but their prescription makes no sense.  The company says, despite the alleged traffic jam, it is more than willing to sell users additional capacity for $10 per 50GB increment.  If AT&T’s aim was to cut congestion, they would be unwilling to sell additional capacity they don’t have to customers who need it.

A usage cap on AT&T’s new U-verse platform makes even less sense and opens a political minefield.

When one pushes away the promotional and marketing glitz AT&T provides when pitching U-verse, you are left looking at just one thing — a high speed broadband connection.  AT&T’s entire platform of television, phone, and broadband all resides on that single, super-speed broadband pipeline.

AT&T has built this super fast pipe with a combination of fiber optic cables and copper phone wires.  It uses fiber, which doesn’t degrade with distance the way copper wire connections do, to reduce the amount of copper phone wiring between your home and AT&T.  With this “fiber to the neighborhood” approach, AT&T can create a robust pipeline which can accommodate multiple television channels, a phone line, and your broadband connection all running concurrently.

AT&T only seeks to limit one part of that connection, however: the broadband service you could theoretically use to bypass AT&T’s television and phone service in favor of another provider.  It’s the same platform — only the services are different.

AT&T claims network congestion is a problem for U-verse as well, which is a controversial claim to make considering AT&T designed U-verse with excess capacity that goes unused to this day.

What does AT&T’s U-verse network look like?

AT&T’s regional offices maintain watch over their U-verse network of TV, Internet, and phone services.  This portion of the network is entirely fiber-based.  From there, fiber extends to individual central offices, part of the company’s middle-mile network.  AT&T’s fiber journey typically ends at large metal cabinets strategically placed in different neighborhoods.  These “Video Ready Access Devices” (VRADs) are probably familiar to you if you live in an AT&T area.  Sometimes derided as “lawn refrigerators,” the huge metal cabinets contain the interface between the fiber optic network and the copper wire telephone lines running to your home.

It’s this “choke point” AT&T tries to claim as a point of congestion.  If enough customers use their connection at the same time, it can “overburden” the network.  But can it, really?

Early adopters of U-verse pestered AT&T engineers about the network as it was constructed and learned a lot about it.

Phil Karn has been a U-verse customer since November 2009 and has become an expert on how his U-verse service works, and importantly how it holds back a considerable amount of available bandwidth.

An AT&T engineer “tried to tell me that the network equipment was like the engine in a sports car. You don’t want to drive it at the red line all the time because that will wear it out. I don’t know if he was told to use that analogy or if he came up with it on his own, but needless to say it’s a pretty silly one. And completely inapplicable,” Karn shares on his website.

He then claimed, rather weakly, that backhaul capacity considerations from the VRAD limit how much can be offered to each individual subscriber. This argument might even have begun to hold water except for the numbers he then provided. The VRADs, he said, are connected by 10 gigabit Ethernet over fiber, and each VRAD serves upwards of 200 homes. Let’s see…10 gigabits over 200 homes is 50 megabits per home. My [U-Verse] link runs at 32.2Mbps.

The whole point is that it doesn’t really matter how fast or slow the backhaul from the VRAD may be. With modern Internet routers and priority [Quality of Service] mechanisms, there is no reason to force capacity to remain idle when a user could be using it. Not unless, of course, you’re trying to maintain the public impression that broadband capacity is really scarce and expensive.

Karn

In fact, because few Internet users fully drive their broadband connections on a continuous basis, it can be argued that continuous video streams delivered to television sets left on in the homes of U-verse customers for hours at a time present a bigger “congestion” problem for AT&T, at least at this point in their network.  But the company has no plans to limit television viewing — only their broadband Internet service.

U-verse is AT&T’s answer to slow speed DSL, and part of how the company intends to stay relevant as landline customers depart.  But the company’s business plan depends on a certain percentage of customers subscribing to their pricey television service.  Should AT&T’s broadband customers decide to stop paying for television service, watching everything online instead, that threatens a $5 billion dollar business.

Burstein predicted this scenario when he discussed it with former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

“In 2005, Kevin Martin discussed with me the issue of what he would do if AT&T favored U-verse. I believe he felt he would have to act, but at that point hoped competition would prevent him from facing that decision. Now AT&T’s multi-million dollar über-lobbyist Jim Cicconi has presumably told them [current FCC Chairman] Julius Genachowski is sufficiently under control he won’t do anything about this.”

In the end, many of AT&T’s arguments simply are incoherent.  If only a small handful of AT&T customers are creating such a dilemma for the company it has to inconvenience every customer with a usage limit, AT&T has a much larger problem to contend with.  Furthermore, the company’s existing acceptable use policy already includes provisions for dealing with users that create problems on their network, all without bothering everyone else.

For the first time, a state has announced it is returning stimulus funding made available by the Obama Administration to improve broadband service.

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker said thanks, but no thanks to the U.S. Department of Congress, returning $23 million in broadband stimulus funds allocated to build a fiber-optic “middle mile” network to 380 Wisconsin communities — including 385 libraries. 82 schools, and numerous public safety offices in rural areas.

The decision to reject the money came in concert with a public relations push by Republicans in Washington this week calling on governors to curtail “wasteful spending” and reject stimulus projects.  Walker’s timing of the rejection has political watchers suspicious of an orchestrated campaign by state and national Republicans to call out the president’s economic programs.  Critics of the Walker administration are also accusing the governor of doing AT&T’s bidding in rejecting the public money.

AT&T has plenty of good friends in the state government, which has historically granted most of AT&T’s legislative checklist in the past ten years.  Wisconsin has taken a “hands-off” approach to cable and phone companies.  Statewide video franchising makes AT&T’s efforts to expand its U-verse IPTV system easy, without having to answer to local communities.  Rural commitments to landline phone service have also been eased for AT&T, thanks to a large lobbying effort.  Publicly-owned municipal broadband networks open to ordinary consumers are few and far between in the state, thanks to heavy opposition from the phone giant.

Walker’s track record of being extremely pro-business, and the fact he accepted more than $20,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T made it easy to claim Walker was delivering another favor to the state’s largest phone company.

But is Walker’s rejection of the state’s broadband stimulus money a help or a hindrance to AT&T?  Is Wisconsin’s governor correct when he says federal government bureaucracy was at fault?

Stop the Cap! decided to investigate.

BadgerNet: An Introduction

Governor Walker

Wisconsin’s institutional broadband network, which delivers broadband connections to large educational facilities, public libraries, and government users, is named BadgerNet — which makes perfect sense for the Badger State.  State law limits who can utilize the service — ordinary residential customers cannot — so the network is not well known outside of the circle of groups authorized to access it.

Currently BadgerNet largely exists as an extension of AT&T’s network in Wisconsin.  That is a critical point.  Had BadgerNet initially been created as an independent entity, today’s stimulus rejection might never have happened.  Wisconsin, no doubt at the behest of AT&T, built its network with a leasing arrangement, signing five-year term contracts to rent space on AT&T’s fiber-copper wire facilities.  That kept initial construction costs down, and allows the state to theoretically “walk away” from part of the network if something better comes along — a highly unlikely proposition in a state like Wisconsin.  It’s not an economic leader and has large numbers of rural counties competitors would be unlikely to serve.

Wisconsin Republicans call this arrangement with AT&T a “public-private partnership.”  Democrats call it a giveaway to AT&T, and BadgerNet officials call it one big fat headache.

Wisconsin's BadgerNet

Obama’s Broadband Stimulus

President Obama

When the Obama Administration unveiled its broadband stimulus program, it not only promised to deliver new broadband projects, but also the employment prospects for an army of consultants hired to navigate through the terms and conditions that always accompany money from Washington.

The control measures established by the Department of Commerce, which administers the money from the federal government, are designed to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse.  Unfortunately, they are often more impenetrable than software licensing agreements.  If you want the money, you must follow every requirement, or risk forfeiting it back to the government.

Wisconsin’s proposal to expand BadgerNet with broadband stimulus funding would mean discarding slower speed data connections for super-fast fiber optics.  Some 203 new miles of optical fiber were to be laid, serving 385 school districts, 74 libraries, and eight community colleges.

The federal government liked what it saw and awarded nearly $24 million in funds to launch the “middle-mile” project.  Along with the virtual check came pages of fine print — rules about how the money could and could not be spent.

As state officials and BadgerNet 2.0’s planners poured over the documents, they began reaching for the Tylenol.  AT&T’s ownership interests in the existing network turned out to be a major problem.

The ‘AT&T Problem’

“We, as a state, do not own our network. We purchase a managed service through the BadgerNet contract,” Diane Kohn, acting administrator for the Division of Enterprise Technology in the Department of Administration told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Most grant recipients either plan to build a new network from the ground up or build on an existing non-profit network.  Neither is the case in Wisconsin because of AT&T’s involvement.

“From a federal perspective, it was like we were some kind of unknown start-up firm with all of these risks attached to it,” said Robert Bocher, an information technology consultant for the Department of Public Instruction. “In fact, our network has been around since the mid-1990s.”

But it got even more difficult when BadgerNet discovered the federal government requires new fiber networks built with stimulus funds to be utilized for at least 20 years.  This important control measure protects taxpayers from fronting the costs to build state of the art fiber networks, only to be later sold off to private interests or discarded as a budget cutting move.

Wisconsin’s agreement with AT&T runs for five years, not 20.  Additionally, since AT&T largely administers the infrastructure, much of the $23 million could have ended up going straight to AT&T to cover construction costs.  BadgerNet lacks sufficient funding to completely sever ties with AT&T and build its own network, and Gov. Walker isn’t about the deliver the money required to start a new network from scratch.

BadgerNet learned a lesson most grant recipients discover after winning the money — spending it comes with plenty of wires attached, and none of them transport data.

The Davis-Bacon Act

A Depression-era law is also being blamed for supposedly creating major hurdles for broadband network construction.  The 1931 Davis-Bacon Act was enacted to require public works projects be built at local prevailing wages.  The Act became law after contractors began importing cheap labor (typically underpaid African-Americans from southern states) to work competitively bid public construction projects during the Roosevelt Administration.

Mikonowicz

Republicans currently suspect the Act of being little more than a union protection law, raising labor costs artificially and helping to bust budgets.  Wisconsin Republican senator Ron Johnson used complications in a Sauk County broadband project to bash the Act, accusing it of being responsible for wasting taxpayer dollars.

David Mikonowicz, the utility superintendent for Reedsburg, complained the Act would require him to pay more than double his anticipated labor costs for a fiber project in the community.  Mikonowicz claimed the Act didn’t provide a prevailing wage for fiber contractors, so he was forced to bid out the project at wages suitable for high voltage wiring projects — $40 an hour.

That false premise made it to the pages of the Journal Sentinel in an earlier piece — a bit of political theater to bash unions, the federal government, and play up local communities as the innocent victims of both.

Stop the Cap! had no problems finding a prevailing Davis-Bacon Act wage covering Sauk County fiber installers, so we are unsure why Mikonowicz could not:

Teledata System Installer/Technician $11.70-21.26/hr

Low voltage construction, installation, maintenance and removal of teledata facilities (voice, data, and video) including outside plant, telephone and data inside wire, interconnect, terminal equipment, central offices, PABX, fiber optic cable and equipment, micro waves, V-SAT, bypass, CATV, WAN (wide area networks), LAN (local area networks), and ISDN (integrated systems digital network)

The Loyal Opposition & Everyone Else

The loss of nearly two dozen million dollars in federal government money was catnip for the loyal opposition.

Rep. Pocan

State Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) said Walker’s broadband money giveback was hurting the state.

“Not only is he turning away construction jobs that would have come with the federal grant to expand broadband fiber to schools and libraries across Wisconsin, but he’s closing off potential to business growth that comes with bridging the digital divide,” Pocan said. “What’s worse, the root of his decision wasn’t what was in the best interest of Wisconsin, rather the best interest of his big telecommunications campaign donors.”

Gov. Walker used the occasion to blame the federal government for unnecessary bureaucracy. Mike Huebsch, appointed by the governor to serve as secretary of the state Department of Administration, issued a memo warning if they didn’t return the money, state taxpayers could be on the hook for the entire amount if the federal government found the state didn’t comply with grant requirements.

Ordinary Wisconsin residents would never see improved broadband in their homes from the middle mile project, so much of their reaction comes from a reflexive dislike of the governor, taxes and spending, AT&T, or a combination of all three.

AT&T has kept quiet through the entire affair, only stating it wasn’t interested in becoming a formal grant recipient stuck with the federal government’s rules.

Republicans and “tea party” members are thrilled Wisconsin is a leader in throwing federal money for broadband, railways, and other public works projects back to Washington, in hopes it will set an example for the federal government to follow.

What Happens Next

The state says it is negotiating an extension of the existing AT&T contract for another five years, and points to advances in copper wire-delivered bandwidth and the fact AT&T already provides fiber connectivity for certain parts of BadgerNet.

While AT&T has been labeled the ultimate culprit for the broadband stimulus debacle, it’s not as guilty as some might think for these reasons:

1. The initial failure of the state to own and operate its own network, instead of leasing access from AT&T;
2. AT&T gets the money whether Wisconsin leases another five years of service from AT&T, or stimulus funding gets diverted to AT&T to bolster BadgerNet’s existing network;
3. AT&T is sitting pretty whether it has a five year lease or a 20-year stimulus-mandated contract.  In fact, AT&T could set its rates at today’s relatively high prices for network connectivity that Wisconsin would still be paying two decades from now.

That doesn’t mean AT&T is a good actor in Wisconsin.  While the company has steered clear of this debate, its lobbyists continue to fight off any potential competition from community-owned networks that threaten to deliver service to residential and business customers.  Few Big Telecom providers complain about institutional networks like BadgerNet, because heavy lobbying on their part several years ago won state laws that forever prohibit ordinary consumers from ever buying service from them.

Shaw sets the bar lower.

Shaw Cable, western Canada’s largest cable company, has quietly lowered usage caps on virtually all of their broadband plans, while “forgetting” to change the date on their Terms of Service:

• Lite was 13GB, now increased to 15GB ($2/GB overages)
• High Speed was 75GB, now decreased to 60GB ($2/GB overages)
• Xtreme was 125GB, now decreased to 100GB ($1/GB overages)
• Warp was 250GB, now decreased to 175GB ($1/GB overages)
• Nitro was 500GB, now decreased to 350GB ($1/GB overages)

Shaw’s terms of service page documents changes implemented by the cable company and includes the revision date, changed whenever the terms change.  Not this time.  Blogger “Thewunderbar” documented Shaw left the revision date on the document unchanged, suggesting the cable company hadn’t made any adjustments to their service since July, 2010.  After publishing his piece, Shaw quietly updated their website to reflect the correct date.

Cable and phone companies in Canada have established a unique, unchecked duopoly.  They are systematically increasing prices while decreasing the amount of service provided to Canadian consumers.  Shaw’s decrease in usage limits comes with no corresponding price cut for Internet service.

At a time when Netflix streaming is attempting to make inroads into Canadian homes, broadband providers who also have interests in pay television (cable, phone or satellite) are working overtime to make sure no consumer believes they can safely cancel their cable-TV service and watch everything online.

Over the past four years, Canadian ISPs have embarked on a wide range of Internet Overcharging schemes:

• The elimination of flat rate, unlimited broadband service;
• The introduction of low usage allowances designed to trip up an increasing number of consumers leading to,
• The introduction of stinging overlimit fees for customers exceeding usage limits, at prices marked up from 500-5000 percent above wholesale;
• The introduction of speed throttles which artificially slow your broadband experience to speeds sometimes just above dial-up;
• The ongoing limbo dance of usage caps that decrease in size over time, exposing more consumers to overlimit fees, making them think twice about everything they do online.

Nobody has successfully monetized the broadband experience like Canadian ISPs have.  Even as their costs to deliver the service continue to rocket downwards, companies keep on increasing prices, exposing Canadian consumers to unwarranted bill shock from unjustified overlimit fees.  What does it cost Shaw per gigabyte?  An estimated 1-3 cents.  What do they charge you?  Up to $2.

It’s nothing short of a rip-off, and Stop the Cap! urges Canadian consumers to contact their member of Parliament and demand immediate action to ban these innovation-killing, job-retarding, unjustified overcharging schemes.

"If you have to ask how much, you can't afford it."

Knology, which bought out Sunflower Broadband last year, has elected to carry forward the old owner’s Internet Overcharging schemes, charging broadband customers penalty rates for exceeding their usage allowances.

The company’s explanation for their overpriced bandwidth comes with a tall tale about their competitors they simply made up out of thin air:

Data transfer allotments allow Knology to offer higher speed service with lower prices. Unlimited, open usage plans offered by other providers typically employ network controls to slow down the high usage customers.

That’s news to us, and to their nearest competitor AT&T.  They deny speed throttling any of their U-verse or DSL customers.

While the company’s download speeds are impressive — up to 50Mbps — their upload speeds are not, topping out at a paltry 1Mbps.

Knology's pricing is nearly identical to its predecessor Sunflower Broadband, except for the $5 rate hike for its most popular Silver plan.

Knology claims they expand usage allowances based not on network capacity, but by the percentage of customers they gouge with overlimit fees:

Data transfer allotments: Each level of internet above includes the amount of data transfer indicated measured in Gigabytes (GB). The data transfer allotments are increased regularly, based on usage patterns, to ensure the number of customers who go over their allotments remains under 10%. Additional GB of data transferred beyond the allotment is billed at $1.00 per GB if not purchased at a discount before the end of the billing period. The percentage of Knology customers charged for extra data transfer beyond their allotment was 6.1% in April 2009.

Paul Bunyon, Knology's new director of marketing

Bemusingly, customers with time machines who can travel into the future and determine they will exceed their allowance for the month can pre-purchase an increase in their usage allowance at a discount.

No time machine?  Then you either pay the standard overlimit rate, watch your usage like a hawk, or potentially over-buy excess usage that expires at the end of the month.

Customers tell Stop the Cap! the company’s single, unlimited use package is “the same piece of garbage it always was,” writes Larry who lives in Lawrence.  He had high hopes Knology would do the right thing and abandon Sunflower’s overcharging schemes.

“Apparently not, and after a month with their unlimited service, I have scheduled my U-verse installation with AT&T,” Larry writes. “Even on Knology’s limited packages, they don’t provide the speeds they promise.”

Larry also says the higher speed tiers Knology offers deliver diminishing returns.

“If their uplink is congested, or the web sites you visit are busy, it won’t matter if you have 10Mbps or 50Mbps — the speed is effectively the same,” he says. “Besides, upload speed is more important these days and 1Mbps is just plain lousy in 2011.”

“Bye, bye SunKnology.”

Sunflower's Old Broadband Plans & Pricing (February 2010)

"This will never end well."

Stop the Cap! and our allies Free Press teamed up to expose Frontier’s usage limits for what they are — a broadband ripoff.

KOVR-TV in Sacramento ran an excellent piece on Frontier’s latest embarrassing screw-up: driving their declining landline broadband customers away with unjustified and arbitrary usage caps.

One new piece of the story: Frontier could bring its usage rationing sideshow to a community near you.  As Stop the Cap! informed readers from the beginning, the company has quietly been tracking customers’ usage, looking for outliers they can suggest are using too much.  Now the company says it is ready to drop the hammer on heavy users.

Stephanie Beasly, Communications Manager — Frontier Communications:

“The company letters were sent to customers that are using an excessive amount of the network. Well beyond any reasonable amount for an average user and significant enough to negatively affect other customers’ user experience.

The letters are meant to communicate to these customers that their usage is in excess and we would like to work with them to adjust their plan or their usage. In most cases our customers were not aware of their usage patterns and are willing to work with us to adjust their plans to fit their lifestyles. We do not have a customer capacity on our network. We are looking to work with these customers to help prevent degradation on our network to ensure the customer experience.

The pricing structure was put in place to help us maintain the network experience for all customers. If you choose to use a significant amount of bandwidth we believe you should pay for the service accordingly.

The letters were sent to four markets across the company. We routinely review network usage patterns and these users jumped out as consuming an inordinate amount of bandwidth, enough to negatively affect other customers’ user experience.

All of Frontier markets are reviewed for usage patterns as the markets receiving the letters were reviewed. These specific markets were not targeted.

The customers using an excessive amount of data negatively impact the network for other users. Preventing us from providing adequate bandwidth to all of our users during peak and non-peak times.”

There is less and less to like about Frontier Communications, despite the fact they plan to deliver broadband service to rural Americans unlikely to see it from anyone else.  We’re glad someone is willing to provide the service, but 1-3Mbps broadband with arbitrary usage limits and potentially confiscatory pricing ($250 a month for residential customers), is a trade the devil might make.

Stop the Cap! will continue to organize opposition to Frontier’s foolish pricing schemes wherever they appear.  We will help customers find an alternate provider wherever possible, preferably one that remembers a customer should be treated like gold, not mined for it.

In suburban Sacramento, we highly recommend SureWest — a fiber-to-the-home service provider that not only has no Internet Overcharging scheme, but provides service at speeds that frankly embarrass Frontier’s last-century DSL.  They will even cover up to $200 of any early cancellation fee Frontier charges (and if Frontier tries, we want to know about it).

Our reader, Mr. Brown, was pleasantly surprised to find that SureWest’s speeds just blow Frontier out of the water.  He’s saying goodbye to his 6/0.5Mbps DSL line from Frontier and hello to 25/25Mbps service from SureWest that will also save him $10 a month!  He is also happy to see the back of Frontier’s Overcharging Nanny telling him to get off the Internet.

“[These caps] are a slippery slope and Internet providers need to know that action such as these will result in lost profits,” Mr. Brown wrote on KOVR’s website.  Departing customers typically drop -all- of their Frontier services, costing the company landline revenue as well.

Indeed, Frontier continues to lose more landline customers than its adds, and bungling policies like overcharging for Internet service will only accelerate the departure of angry customers.

Unfortunately, Frontier’s failures extend way beyond their broadband service.

The golden parachute for some, just not for you.

Frontier’s way of doing business has:

• given customers one more reason to cancel their landline service;
• ruined a fiber-to-the-home service that a child should be able to market successfully;
• irritated subscribers with “price protection agreements” that are little more than tricks and traps — delivering all of the protection to Frontier’s bottom line and making you pay the price;
• destroyed what few reasons remain for customers to waste their time with DSL broadband wherever cable or municipal providers exist;
• delivered big dividends and results only to shareholders, siphoning away important financial resources needed to upgrade their facilities.

In Everett, Washington Frontier cannot even manage the steady flow of customers canceling FiOS video service after news of a shocking $30 a month rate increase.  After telling customers they should “upgrade” their Frontier service to DirecTV satellite, those customers that tried encountered news that DirecTV never heard of the promotion Frontier was offering:

Two hours on the phone, six customer service people and a disconnected call — it wasn’t the introduction to DirecTV that one local man had hoped.

A FiOS television customer, Rick Wright sought to take advantage of an offer made last week by Frontier Communications and its partner, DirecTV.

[…]When Wright called initially, the Frontier customer service person was familiar with Frontier’s offer and transferred Wright to DirecTV to get an installation date before cancelling his FiOS TV service. At DirecTV, Wright spoke to six people over a two-hour span before being disconnected. Wright called back to DirecTV the following day only to be told that he was misinformed about the offer. Frontier spokeswoman Stephanie Beasly said Thursday that she was taking care of Wright’s problem.

On Friday, more than a week after Frontier first announced its new offer, Wright said his television service still remained up in the air. Several other FiOS television customers in Snohomish County reported difficulty in getting the free DirecTV offer.

Late last week, Frontier acknowledged some miscommunication between the company and its partner, DirecTV. On Thursday, Beasly said she believed those issues had been resolved. She did not return a request for further information Friday.

DirecTV spokeswoman Jade Ekstedt suggested in an e-mail that FiOS customers should contact Frontier directly for assistance.

“The offer … is a valid Frontier Communications promotion that includes DirecTV service, and DirecTV always works with its partners on valid offers that they introduce into market,” Ekstedt wrote, when asked whether DirecTV is honoring Frontier’s offer.

Complaints are arriving at a steady pace, reports the Washington State Attorney General’s office.

This is a story that never ends well.  But don’t worry — the executives responsible for the notorious bungling have their spots on the compensation lifeboats already reserved.  Too bad customers will likely go down with the ship.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOVR Sacramento Call Kurtis Bill May Triple For Excessive Internet Usage 1-13-11.mp4[/flv]

KOVR-TV in Sacramento worked with Stop the Cap! and Free Press to develop this story about Frontier’s unjustified Internet Overcharging schemes.  (4 minutes)