Remember when Bell’s head of government affairs Mirko Bibic told Parliament usage-based billing was necessary because he didn’t think it fair that all Canadians should pay for “heavy users” of the company’s Internet service?  That was a few months ago.  This is April — time for a rate increase that will jack Bell broadband service rates up an additional $3 a month, effective in May.  That’s a rate increase every customer will pay, and comes with Bell’s everyday Internet Overcharging scheme — usage caps and overlimit fees.

Stop the Cap! reader Alex in Quebec sent a copy of his bill showing Bell’s “Price Update.”  They don’t even want to call it a rate increase.

Bell's notification to customers in Quebec their bills are going up.

“Bell Canada will increase their Internet rates by as much as 15% (for Québec ”Essential” users),” Alex says. “Although $3 may seem like a negligible charge, it especially affects those with budget Internet plans, such as Essential, E Plus, and Performance ‘Fibe’ 6.”

Bell’s website cannot even get the story straight, originally telling customers their overlimit fees would now be rounded to the nearest gigabyte, instead of megabyte.  A Bell spokesperson tells Stop the Cap! that is a typo — they really still mean megabyte.

Bell is one of the few phone companies out there actually increasing their long distance calling rates as well, Alex tells us.  The original announcement came around the same time as the earthquake in Japan, underlining how essential long distance can be during natural disasters.  Many cable companies have waived long distance fees to Japan altogether.  Not Bell.

The rate increases mean customers like ‘Jackorama’ in Hamilton will pay $56.90 for “up to 7Mbps” ‘Performance DSL’ service.  After HST fees, he’ll pay $64.30 just for broadband service, with a 60GB monthly usage limit.  If he exceeds that, he’ll pay even more — $2.50 per gigabyte, or, if he knows he’ll exceed the cap in advance: $5/month for 40 GB, $10/month for 80 GB, or $15/month for 120 GB.

That also assumes Bell can count usage correctly, and there is every indication they cannot.  The company has admitted its usage meter is prone to errors — misreads they are still prepared to bill their customers.

Bell's Broadband Shell Game (image: Dave Blume)

The digital equivalent of a Trojan Horse was laid at the feet of Canadian telecom regulators Monday when officials from Bell, Canada’s largest phone company, announced they were withdrawing their controversial proposal to mandate usage-based billing on all wholesale broadband accounts.

The original proposal would have mandated that independent Internet Service Providers bill each of their individual customers a monthly fee based on their Internet usage in addition to the wholesale access rates paid to Bell all along.  The pricing proposal would have forced every ISP in Canada to abandon flat rate Internet service, raise prices, reduce usage allowances, and increase overlimit penalties.

Now Bell has told the Globe & Mail newspaper it wants to introduce something called “Aggregated Volume Pricing” instead — a plan Bell claims will shift financial penalties for “high usage” away from individual customers and onto the ISPs themselves. Bell also slashed the proposed overlimit fee from a heavily-defended-as-fair $2.50 per gigabyte to a more modest $0.30/GB, perhaps echoing AT&T’s forthcoming overlimit fee.

In fact, Bell’s revised plan is the same Internet Overcharging scheme under a new name.

The radical reduction in overlimit fees only further illustrates the “phoney-baloney” of providers attempting to monetize broadband usage under the guise of “fairness” and “congestion relief.”  Last week’s ’eminently fair’ $2.50 is this week’s ‘more than reasonable’ $0.30.

Bell exposed their hand — showing they have been bluffing about congestion all along.  An analysis of the proposed rates shows the company is still trying to target “heavy users.”  But instead of penalizing them into reducing their consumption, Bell is now seeking to monetize that usage, not control it.  By shifting aggregate usage costs to the wholesale market, Bell hopes individual customers will blame independent ISP’s for higher bills, not them.  Independent providers have to pass along their wholesale costs as part of the retail price of their service.  It’s a high tech shell game, one that consumers will always lose.

Despite this, Bell assumes the revised plan will take the bipartisan heat off its backside since it first proposed doing away with flat rate Internet service in Canada.

“With our filing today, we are officially withdrawing our UBB proposal,” said Mirko Bibic, Bell’s head of regulatory affairs. “Let’s move on, in my view, and use the CRTC hearing as an opportunity to approve those principles and get the implementation details right.”

"We don't like (Bell's proposal)."

Several Canadian officials were not impressed and one — Industry Minister Tony Clement — said exactly that.

Canada’s consumer groups and politicians have the giant telecom company on the run after using Bell CEO George Cope’s own words against him.  Cope openly admitted in conference calls with investors UBB had everything to do with monetizing broadband usage for profit.

Bell’s attempt to serve warmed-over Internet Overcharging from a new recipe isn’t flying among consumer groups either, who recognize it as more of the same leftovers, just under a new name.

Bill Sandiford, who heads a coalition of wholesale ISPs called the Canadian Network Operators Consortium, told the Globe & Mail Bell was simply presenting its usage-based pricing model in a more acceptable guise.

“We don’t think this is an about-face. It’s the same thing, just dressed up differently,” Mr. Sandiford said. “We don’t like it. It’s still wholesale UBB.”

Openmedia.ca, an online activist group, said Bell’s new proposal shows consumers are having an impact, but the fight is by no means over.

“We’re pleased that Canadians will now have the option to use indie ISPs like Teksavvy and Acanac to access the unlimited Internet,” said OpenMedia.ca’s Executive Director Steve Anderson. “This is a giant step forward for the Stop The Meter campaign, and a victory for those who support competition and choice in Canada’s Internet service market.”

“While this is a positive move, it is only a Band-Aid solution to a much larger problem. We at OpenMedia.ca hope the CRTC takes Bell’s submission as a sign that widespread usage-based billing is not an acceptable model for Internet pricing, and that it creates policy to support the affordable Internet.”

Cope

In another example of providers telling the public (and lawmakers) one thing, while saying something very different to their own shareholders, Bell Canada’s CEO made a remarkable admission about why the company imposes Internet Overcharging schemes on its customers:

“As we see a growth in video usage on the Internet, making sure we’re monetizing that for our shareholders through the bandwidth usage charges,” CEO George Cope told listeners in a financial conference call last autumn.

That is a far cry from the story Mirko Bibic, Bell’s government affairs representative tells to anyone who will listen. Michael Geist, a Canadian syndicated columnist on technology law issues notes Bibic has told a different tale while appearing before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Industry to answer questions on usage based billing held in February.

For Bibic, usage-based billing is about “fairness” and solving alleged congestion issues.

“As for small businesses, which are generally on the same network as residential users, what you have is really a case where the congestion during peak periods is largely a residential phenomenon. It’s in that area that we’ve addressed the usage-based billing issue, and all we’re asking the CRTC for is to follow a fundamental principle of fairness,” Bibic told MPs. “If we asked 97% or 98% of Canadians if they would be prepared to pay more so that the 2% of heaviest users pay less, I’m pretty sure of what the answer would be.”

Bibic

Bibic’s argument has been repeatedly undercut by his own bosses, Geist notes.

In August, Cope told shareholders “our data revenue growth was 3.8% for our Residential Services business, particularly driven through an increase in Internet ARPU of 3.3%. And interesting, almost all that increase now coming from usage based billing as the demand for Internet use explodes through the use of video services, and we’re continuing to see an increase in the revenue per customer.”

By November, Cope was turning Bibic’s bandwidth “fairness and congestion” lemons into lemonade, celebrating data revenue growth of 5 percent, “driven principally by the bandwidth usage revenue being up 83% year-over-year.”

Cope not only decapitates his company’s arguments for usage-based billing, he also shines the light on who they will impact: if providers are to be believed that usage caps will only affect a tiny percentage of customers, how can data revenue be up a whopping 83 percent year-over-year. Are a handful of Canada’s “heavy” broadband users responsible for this growth, or are an increasing number of Canadian consumers finding themselves over the “generous” limits Bell has established because they used their broadband connections to stream movies and television shows.

As Geist notes, “no one should be under the illusion that UBB is anything other than a revenue maximization strategy in a market with limited competition, not one premised on fairness or network congestion.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/UBB is Nonsense.flv[/flv]

François Caron produced this video succinctly smashing the myth that “usage-based billing” and “usage caps” are about fairness or fight congestion.  In this case, Caron refers to Canadian providers, but the story is much the same south of the border.  These Internet Overcharging schemes are nothing more than an effort to control what you can do with your broadband connection.  AT&T wants a 150-250GB usage cap on broadband, but has limitless capacity for television and telephone service.  They also have $39 billion to buy T-Mobile, but need to overcharge you for broadband service.  Bell in Canada wants -every- broadband user in Canada to pay this ripoff pricing.  Share with anyone who thinks paying for usage is anything like paying for water, gas, or electricity.  It’s not!  (6 minutes)

Jenkins

The Wall Street Journal attempted to attach its own conventional wisdom in an opinion piece about cloud-based streaming that suggests Canada “is just ahead of the U.S. in introducing usage-based pricing [and] has bloggers and politicians accusing Bell Canada of unconscionable ‘profiteering’ from usage caps. The company, they rage, is reaping huge fees for additional units of bandwidth that cost Bell Canada virtually nothing to provide.”

The author, Holman Jenkins, is a regular on the ultra-business friendly editorial page of the Journal, and has been raging against Net Neutrality and for higher Internet pricing for several years now.

Jenkins’ latest argument, just like his earlier ones on this subject, falls apart almost immediately:

This critique, which is common, could not more comprehensively miss the point. Another car on the roadway poses no additional cost on the road builder; it imposes a cost on other road users. Likewise, network operators don’t use overage penalties to collect their marginal costs but to shape user behavior so a shared resource won’t be overtaxed.

Jenkins needs to spend less time supporting his friends at companies like AT&T and Bell and more time exploring road construction costs.  If you are going to try and make an analogy about traffic, at least get your premise straight.

Before debunking his usage-based billing meme, let’s talk about road construction for a moment.  In fact, the kind of traffic volume on a roadway has everything to do with what kind of road is constructed.  In the appropriately named “Idiots’ Guide to Highway Maintenance,” C.J.Summers explores different types of road surfaces for different kinds of traffic.  Light duty roads in rural areas can get results with oil and stone.  Medium duty side streets and avenues are frequently paved with asphalt, and heavy duty interstates routinely use concrete.  Traffic studies are performed routinely to assist engineers in choosing the right material to get the job done.

Digital information doesn’t wear down cables or airwaves.  If broadband traffic occupies 5 or 95 percent of a digital pipeline, it makes no difference to the pipeline.  Jenkins is right when he says Internet Overcharging schemes are all about shaping user behavior, but for the wrong reasons.

Jenkins thinks Netflix and other high bandwidth applications face usage-based pricing to allow providers to keep their broadband pipes from getting overcongested:

Netflix is one of the companies most threatened by usage-based pricing, and it has quickly geared up a lobbying team in Washington. In a recent letter to shareholders, CEO Reed Hastings downplayed the challenge to Netflix’s video-streaming business. In the long run, he’s probably right—the market will settle on flat-rate pricing once the video-intensive user has become the average user.

In the meantime, however, Netflix shareholders had better look out.

In fact, providers are reaping the rewards of their popular broadband services, but almost uniformly are less interested in investing in them to match capacity.  It is as if the AT&Ts of this world assumed broadband users would consume    T H I S    M U C H   and that’s it — time to collect profits.  When upgrade investments don’t even keep up as a percentage of revenue earned over past years, the inevitable result will be a custom-made excuse to impose usage limits and consumption billing to manage the “data tsunami.”

Canadian providers did not slap usage caps on broadband users because Netflix arrived — they lowered them. Telling users they cannot consume the same amount of bandwidth they used a month earlier has nothing to do with managing traffic, it’s about protecting their video businesses by discouraging consumers from even contemplating using the competition.  Jenkins works for a company that understands that perfectly well.  News Corp., has a major interest in Hulu as well as satellite television services in Europe and Oceania.

The rest of Jenkins’ piece is as smug as it is wrong.  In attacking Net Neutrality supporters as “crazies” trying to defend their “hobby horse,” Jenkins claims public interest groups are pouting about usage-based billing, too:

All along, what the net neut crazies have lacked in intellectual consistency they’ve made up in fealty to the business interests of companies that fear their services would become unattractive if users had one eye on a bandwidth meter. That’s why opposition to “Internet censorship” morphed into opposition to anything that might price or allocate broadband capacity rationally. But such a stance is rapidly becoming untenable, whether the beneficiary is Google, with its advertising-based business model, or Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others who hope to capitalize on the entertainment-streaming opportunity.

All are betting heavily on the cloud. All need to start dealing realistically with the question of how the necessary bandwidth will be paid for.

Part of Jenkins’ theory calls back on his usual Google bashing — he perceives the company as a parasite stealing the resources bandwidth providers paid for, while forgetting the success of their businesses ultimately depends on content producers (who indeed pay billions for their own bandwidth) making the service interesting enough for consumers to buy.

But there is nothing rational about Jenkins’ support for Internet Overcharging.  North Americans already pay some of the highest prices in the world for the slowest service.  While providers attempt to lick the last drop of profits out of increasingly outdated networks (hello DSL!), their future strategy is less about expanding those networks and more about constraining the use of them.

Jenkins is ignorant of the fact several of Net Neutrality’s strongest proponents, Public Knowledge being a classic example, have not historically opposed usage-based pricing, much to my personal consternation.  As we’ve argued (and I submit proved), Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging go hand in hand for revenue hungry providers.  If they cannot discriminate, throttle, or block traffic they consider to be costly to their networks, they can simply cap demand on the customer side with usage limits or confiscatory pricing designed to discourage use.  That is precisely what Canadians are fighting against.

It’s all made possible by a broken free market.  Instead of hearty competition, most North Americans endure a duopoly — a phone company and a cable company.  Both, particularly in Canada, have vested interests in video entertainment, television and cable networks, and other entertainment properties.  As long as these interests exist, companies will always resist challenges to their core business models, such as cable TV cord cutting.  It’s as simple as that.

The “realistic” way bandwidth will be paid for escapes Jenkins because his quest for condescension takes precedence over actual facts.  Content producers already pay enormous sums to bandwidth providers like Akamai, Amazon, and other cloud-based distribution centers.  Consumers pay handsomely for their broadband connections, part of which covers the costs of delivering that content to their homes and businesses.  AT&T and other providers don’t deserve to get paid twice for the same content.  Indeed, they should be investing some of their enormous profits in building a new generation of fiber-based broadband pipelines to keep their customers happy.  Because no matter how much data you cram down a glass fiber, the ‘data friction’ will never cause those cables to go down in flames, unlike Jenkins’ lapsed-from-reality arguments.