Unless Canada deregulates the media industry further, a “technological storm” by “audiovisual Wal-Marts” will harm or destroy Canada’s media companies.  No doubt looking directly at Netflix, those were the views of Quebecor CEO Pierre Karl Peladeau at the outset of hearings held this week by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on media ownership and vertical integration issues.

Canada’s media landscape is rapidly consolidating at a rate that will allow even ordinary Canadians with a passing interest in the issue to recognize the handful of remaining media moguls and identify them by name.  Phone companies that own major Canadian television networks, cable operators that own cell phone companies, and mergers among the dwindling pack have left consumers soaking in Shaw, Rogers, Bell, and Quebecor — whether they flip on their televisions, make a cell phone call, read a newspaper, or download something from the Internet.  Talk about vertical integration!  Now the supersized are back for more deregulation so they can trade programming rights between themselves, fend off the devil — Netflix, and of course continue to buy each other out.

There is one exception, of course.  Allowing party crashers.  While all of the incumbent players want the rules loosened up on their respective media and telecommunications operations, they are hellbent on keeping foreign competition out of Canada — the only real deep pockets sufficient to break up a convenient cartel of phone and cable companies.  Rogers and Shaw stay on their respective sides of a line dividing eastern Canada’s turf for Rogers and western Canada’s territory for Shaw.  Bell and Telus do much the same.  Quebecor provides cable for Quebec, and a handful of much smaller players fight for any remaining crumbs.

For Americans, it would be the equivalent of turning over your telephone, broadband, cable, television, newspapers, magazines, and radio stations to Rupert Murdoch or ex-media baron Ted Turner.

For Canadians, these hearings come just a tad too late.  Shaw Communications is absorbing their latest buyout — Canwest Media’s TV assets, which are hardly meager.  Shaw will run more than two dozen local broadcast TV outlets, 30 cable and satellite networks, and Global — a major broadcast network.  Bell is still popping Rolaids over its digestion of the enormous CTV and smaller upstart A-Channel network.  When it’s finished, “A” will become “CTV Two.”

The Globe and Mail notes between them, Bell, Shaw, Rogers and Quebecor control:

• 86 per cent of cable and satellite distribution;
• 70 per cent of wireless revenues;
• 63 per cent of the wired telephone market;
• 49 per cent of Internet Service Provider revenues;
• 42 per cent of radio;
• 40 per cent of the television universe;
• 19 per cent of the newspaper and magazine markets;
• 60 per cent of total revenues from all of the above media sectors combined.

As far as growth goes, as Alan Keyes used to proclaim, “that’s geometric!”

But it’s still not enough now that Netflix has arrived in Canada.  Despite the fact the operation has been challenged by punitive usage caps restricting viewing (or lowering its video quality), Netflix and new technology companies like it are the 21st century boogeymen for these multi-billion dollar media corporations.  The only way to defend against it?  Deregulate to allow them to trade viewing rights, grow larger, and charge whatever they like.  Somehow that seems to miss the point: Netflix is popular because it costs less, allows people to stream the shows they actually want to watch at a time of their choosing, and let’s families drop some overpriced premium channels and video rental fees along the way.

Bell’s dollar-a-holler researcher expanded on why large media conglomerates miss the point, even if he did so unintentionally.

According to University of Alberta economics professor, Jeffrey Church, “vertical integration is beneficial for consumers.” Sit down as you read why:

• it reflects efficiencies, spurs competitive innovation and is a global trend;
• telecom, media and Internet markets in Canada are “highly competitive;”
• our ‘small media economy’ needs a few deep-pocketed national champions to compete globally and invest heavily in innovation at home;
• instances of harm are mostly imaginary and few and far between;
• it helps keep “consumers . . . within the regulated system” (Shaw’s submission, p. 4).

Like cattle.

As political pressure over Usage Based Billing continues to keep providers from gravitating towards more stringent Internet Overcharging schemes, western Canadians are enjoying significant victories as providers relax usage caps and increase speeds for broadband service.

Weeks after Shaw Communications announced new packages with increased usage allowances and a few unlimited use plans, Telus has now followed Shaw’s lead and doubled usage caps on many of its Internet plans, slashed overlimit fees by more than half for some, and plans to increase upload speeds for one of its premium plans:

Among the major changes are dramatically increased usage allowances and the reduction of overlimit fees.

Telus customers receive their service from the phone company in various flavors of DSL.  Some older suburban and rural areas still receive speeds averaging 3Mbps, but those lucky enough to be served by VDSL can comfortably achieve the company’s fastest broadband speeds.  The increased usage allowances are welcome news, even if Telus has never strictly enforced any of them:

• High Speed Turbo 25 increased to 500GB, was 250GB;
• High Speed Turbo increased to 250GB, was 125GB;
• High Speed increased to 150GB, was 75GB;
• High Speed Lite increased to 30GB, was 13GB;
• The overlimit fee for High Speed Lite has been reduced from $5/GB to $2/GB;
• Unofficial reports suggest upload speed for Turbo 25 is being increased from 2Mbps to 3Mbps, to be rolled out gradually.

Is Telus following Shaw's lead?

The reduction in the overlimit fee for High Speed Lite was predictable in light of recent political events.  It is difficult to sustain the argument that overlimit fees and usage caps are priced to control network congestion when the lightest users face the most draconian limits and penalty fees.

But unlike their cable competitor Shaw Communications, Telus has not seen fit to offer customers a truly unlimited plan, which presents a problem for some.

“Telus needs to remember they cannot win a speed race with Shaw so they should be lowering prices, taking the usage caps off, and competing with something they can actually win — delivering customers the unlimited service they want at a reasonable price,” says Stop the Cap! reader Abel from Burnaby, B.C.

Separately, Telus also quietly introduced a rate increase for basic home telephone service.  What used to be $21 a month is now $25, an increase of four dollars.

The dramatic plan changes underway in western Canada come in response to political pressure and consumer ire against Usage Based Billing (UBB).  Bell, which provides much of Canada with wholesale broadband access, was seeking to force independent providers to abandon unlimited, flat rate pricing in favor of ubiquitous UBB.  The provocation brought a half million Canadians to sign a petition against metering broadband.

For eastern Canada, thus far little has changed as Bell, Rogers, and Videotron continue with business as usual.

Anthony Lacavera

Large Canadian telecommunications companies like Rogers, Telus, and Bell are loudly protesting a proposal to cap the maximum number of wireless licenses they can beg, borrow, or buy.

The proposal, from Wind Mobile and Quebecor Inc.’s Vidéotron Ltée, would tell some of Canada’s largest telecom companies they cannot buy up every available wireless license that becomes available in the future in an effort to lock out would-be competitors.  Both companies fear that without such a license cap, the deep pockets of larger providers could sustain a wireless cartel to keep mobile competition at bay.

“Competition doesn’t just ‘happen’,” said Wind Mobile’s Anthony Lacavera. “True competition and the long term benefits of competition for Canadians will occur when, and if, our regulatory framework is improved, our access to foreign capital is unhindered and the playing field is leveled to the benefit of Canadians.”

Lacavera’s upstart Wind Mobile has faced incumbent provider-fueled scrutiny over claims of foreign ownership violations in an effort to keep Wind’s discount service out of Canada.  In addition to fending off regulatory challenges, Lacavera is wary of Conservative Party policy towards wireless competition, which he suspects is too shallow and lacks important protections against further marketplace concentration.

The idea of a license limit met with predictable hostility from the three larger incumbents.

On Wednesday, Telus’ chief financial officer rejected the idea out of hand, telling the government they should not be giving advantages to discount carriers and foreign entities over Telus, which he said was more focused on “innovation.”

Wind Mobile

Rogers called a license cap “a slap in the face” to millions of their customers, and Bell pulled an AT&T — without allowing companies like Bell to have the chance to outbid everyone else, Canada will run the “risk of lagging” behind the United States, harm innovation, and deprive the government of much needed auction revenue.

Bell CEO George Cope also warned letting foreign companies into the Canadian market could leave rural Canada with older technology.  At the risk of shooting down his own earlier argument, Cope specifically targeted his remarks at U.S. carriers, who presumably could be among Canada’s future wireless players.  In Cope’s mind, U.S. providers like AT&T would treat Canada as an afterthought.

“If you really believe that if a U.S. carrier had owned Bell at the time we launched HSPA+ (an advanced iteration of 3G), do you really believe Prince Edward Island, that province, would have had HSPA+ before Chicago?” Cope asked. “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Large incumbent carriers also accused the smaller competing upstarts of simply trying to boost their own value before they sell out.  Telus and Rogers should know — they fought over buying that competition, like Microcell’s Fido, which Rogers eventually acquired in 2004.

An artist rendering of Don River Park, part of the mixed-use spaces that hallmark the Toronto Waterfront revitalization project.

About seven years ago, Rochester’s Fast Ferry offered daily service between Rochester, N.Y. and Toronto’s Waterfront.  Tens of millions of dollars later, the Rochester Ferry Company discovered that nobody in southern Ontario was that interested in a shortcut to Rochester, many locals found driving to Canada’s largest city faster, more convenient, and cheaper, and the point of arrival on the Canadian side was hardly a draw — situated in a rundown, seedy industrial wasteland.

By the end of 2006, the ferry was sold and sent on its way to Morocco, the CBC got a barely used International Marine Passenger Terminal (built for the Rochester ferry) to use as a set location for its TV crime drama The Border, and the rundown waterfront was well-embarked on a major reconstruction effort.

This week, Toronto’s Waterfront learned it was getting a broadband makeover as well, with the forthcoming launch of insanely fast 10/10Gbps fiber broadband for business and 100/100Mbps for condo dwellers along the East Bayfront and West Don Lands.

Best of all, Beanfield Metroconnect, the parent company responsible for constructing the network, promises no Internet Overcharging schemes for residents and businesses… forever.  No usage caps, no throttled broadband speeds, no overlimit fees.  Pricing is more than attractive — it’s downright cheap for Toronto:  $60 a month for unlimited 100/100Mbps broadband, $30 a month for television service, and as low as $14.95 for phone service.  Bundle all three and knock another 15 percent off the price.  The provider is even throwing in free Wi-Fi, which promises to be ubiquitous across the Waterfront.

The project will leapfrog this Toronto neighborhood into one of the fastest broadband communities in the world.

Toronto Waterfront Fiber Broadband Coverage Map

“Having this sort of capacity available to residents will allow for a whole new world of applications we haven’t even conceived of yet,” said chief executive Dan Armstrong.

The rest of Toronto, in comparison, will be stuck in a broadband swamp courtesy of Rogers Cable and Bell, where average speeds hover around 5Mbps, with nasty usage caps and overlimit fee schemes from both providers.  DSL service in the city is notoriously slow and expensive, as Bell milks decades-old copper wire infrastructure long in need of replacement.

The public-private broadband project is a welcome addition for an urban renewal effort that has been criticized at times for overspending. Created in 2001, Waterfront Toronto has a 25-year mandate to transform 800 hectares (2,000 acres) of brownfield lands on the waterfront into a combination of business and residential mixed-use communities and public spaces.  At least $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been earmarked for the renewal project, although project managers say no taxpayer dollars will be spent on the broadband project.

Waterfront Toronto’s efforts have been recognized as bringing Toronto’s first “Intelligent Community” to the city with the construction of the open access fiber network.

Still, the public corporation has its critics.  Earlier this spring Toronto city councilman Doug Ford called the urban renewal project a boondoggle.  Other conflicts rage with the Toronto Transit Commission and the mayor’s office over other redevelopment projects.  But the revitalization project’s broadband initiative has significant support, especially among knowledge workers that could eventually become residents… and paying customers.

The 21st century broadband project is also likely to bring broadband envy across the entire GTA, who will wonder why service from the cable and phone companies is so much slower and more expensive.

For broadband enthusiasts, Toronto’s broadband future looks much brighter than yesterday’s failed ferry service, which proves once again that regardless of the technology — slow, expensive, and inconvenient service will never attract much interest from the value-conscious public.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TVO The Need for High Speed 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Canada’s digital networks are some of the slowest in the world, running between one hundred to a thousand times slower than other countries in the developed world. In this episode of “Our Digital Future – The Need for High-Speed,” Bill Hutchison, Executive Director of Intelligent Communities for Waterfront Toronto describes the sorry state of Canada’s digital infrastructure, stressing the need for major investments in advanced broadband networks.  (4 minutes)

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)