Today marks the first anniversary of news that Time Warner Cable planned to expand an Internet Overcharging scheme being tested in one Texas city to four additional cities within its service area.

Residents of Rochester, New York, the Triad Region surrounding Greensboro, North Carolina, as well as Austin and San Antonio, Texas first learned of the planned expansion of so-called “metered broadband” from a Business Week article dated March 31st, which has since accumulated more than 450 comments to date:

Web users, the meter is running. In a strategy that’s likely to rankle consumers but be copied by competitors, Time Warner Cable is pressing ahead with a plan to charge Internet customers based on how much Web data they consume. Starting next month, the company will introduce tiered pricing in several markets.

In April, Time Warner Cable will begin collecting information on its customers’ Internet use in the Texas cities of Austin and San Antonio and in Rochester, N.Y. Consumption billing will begin in those cities later this summer. In Greensboro, N.C., the billing changes will begin sooner. Spun off from Time Warner this month, Time Warner Cable had been testing a plan to meter Internet usage in Beaumont, Tex., since last year.

Proposed pricing models created by Time Warner Cable would have tripled broadband bills to an unprecedented $150 a month for consumers seeking the same level of broadband service they enjoyed a month earlier.  For a cable industry that was used to pushing through rate increases well above the annual rate of inflation, such an enormous rate increase was unprecedented, even for them.

For consumers willing to ration their broadband use, the news was slightly better — you’d still pay more for less service, and be exposed to overlimit fees and penalties should you exceed your monthly allowance, which was as low as a 1 GB per month for one proposed plan.

While residents of Beaumont, Texas had to endure these prices for several months prior to the announced expansion of experimental Overcharging, once news hit tech-savvy cities in Texas, New York, and North Carolina, an all-out consumer rebellion began.  Residents in Austin met with city officials to discuss alternatives to a cable company that threatened Austin’s high tech status.  For residents in Rochester, already coping with a 5 GB usage allowance for Frontier Communication’s DSL service, it was a clear-cut case of monopolistic greed.  In North Carolina, working to transition its way towards a digital economic future, an Internet rationing plan would hurt the economy of the entire Triad region.  San Antonio residents were equally unimpressed with the cable operator as well, demanding alternative providers.

Former Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY)

Consumers banded together on Stop the Cap! and other consumer-oriented websites to coordinate the pushback effort.  Protests were held, the media was engaged, and at least in New York, the politicians were not going to sit back in Time Warner Cable’s favor.  Former Rep. Eric Massa expressed outrage at the company for its new pricing plan and Senator Chuck Schumer personally called Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt.

A few lapdogs in the trade press and “dollar a holler” astroturf groups praised Time Warner Cable’s price gouging plans.  One even went as far as to suggest Time Warner Cable “took one for the team” — referring to a cable industry just waiting to test some Internet Overcharging of their own.

Time Warner Cable dispatched some of their social media minions to try and explain away the outrageous price increases, offering to “listen” to consumers with suggestions about how to “improve the plan.”  One, like TWCAlex offered “proof” consumers wanted this kind of pricing.  The disingenuousness of the effort rivaled Lord Haw Haw’s Germany Calling propaganda broadcasts on the Reichssender Hamburg.  Company officials ignored the overwhelming consensus that consumers didn’t want metered or capped service and then weeks later those who did submit comments were notified they were “deleted without being read.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Massa’s office began drafting legislation to ban the unprecedented pricing schemes, culminating in a bill introduced in 2009 to ban unjustified usage caps and metered billing.

On April 9th, Landel Hobbs, Chief Operating Officer of Time Warner Cable, issued a recitation of the reasons why Time Warner Cable felt justified in exposing customers to up to 150 percent rate hikes — reasons we’ve managed to debunk over the past year’s coverage:

With the ever-increasing flood of content on the Internet, bandwidth consumption is growing exponentially. That’s a good thing; however, there are costs associated with this increased Internet usage. Here at Time Warner Cable, consumption among our high-speed Internet subscribers is increasing by about 40% a year. As a facilities based provider, we’ve built a network that must be maintained and upgraded. We have increasing variable costs and we have to continue to invest in the network itself.

As we’ve since proven, Hobbs statements to the public obscure the facts in his own company’s financial reports which are remarkably consistent quarter after quarter: revenues for broadband service are increasing while the costs to provide it are falling.  In fact, broadband is rapidly becoming the most important element of the cable industry’s quest for fat profits.  Time Warner Cable, as well as others, have plenty of financial resources from the billions in profits they earn from broadband every year to provide cost-effective upgrades that benefit them as well as consumers at today’s flat rate prices.

Just a few weeks ago, Hobbs told investors consumers are so devoted to their broadband service, the company could raise broadband prices anytime they like.  Funny how “increasing costs” never came into the discussion there.

This is a common problem that all network providers are experiencing and must address. Several other providers have instituted consumption based billing, including all major network providers in Canada and others in the U.K., New Zealand and elsewhere. In the U.S., AT&T has begun two consumption based billing trials and other providers including Comcast, Charter and Cox are using varying methods of monitoring and managing bandwidth consumption.

As Stop the Cap! has illustrated repeatedly, such consumption billing schemes are despised by consumers -and- most countries see them as hampering their digital economy.  Australia and New Zealand have government initiatives to improve broadband service to the point where consumption billing and usage caps are a distant memory.  Canada’s usage based billing schemes come from market concentration, particularly from Bell which is by far the largest wholesale supplier of bandwidth in the country.  Their quest for profits, along with a compliant regulatory body (the CRTC) has made such ripoff pricing commonplace.  The result on Canada’s broadband rankings are clear as the country continues to fall further behind other OECD nations.  Canadians do not want such pricing, but when a duopoly is allowed to exist unfettered by appropriate oversight, the end result is always the same – higher prices for poorer service.  In the United Kingdom, several flat rate plans are available, with more on the way as the UK embarks on its own Digital Economy plan.

There are other reasons why such consumption billing schemes are in place in other countries – namely insufficient international capacity to move traffic back and forth outside of the region.  That too is being addressed.

That other cable operators are overcharging consumers or limiting their usage is hardly a surprise considering insufficient competition in the marketplace makes that possible.  However, Comcast’s 250 GB limit is far more generous than anything Time Warner Cable proposed, Cox rarely enforces their limits, and Charter recently announced it had abandoned theirs.

For good reason. Internet demand is rising at a rate that could outpace capacity within a few years. According to industry analysts, the infrastructure may not be able to accommodate the explosion of online content by 2012. This could result in Internet brownouts. It will take a lot of money to fix the problem. Rather than raising prices on all customers or limiting usage, we think the fairest approach is to move to a tiered model in which users pay more if they use more.

Hobbs’ reliance on the “exaflood” or the “zettabyte” theory of Internet brownouts comes courtesy of the prostituting, industry-backed Discovery Institute — the people who will cough up bought and paid for “research studies” that say anything the buyer wants them to say and Cisco, which makes a handsome buck off selling broadband network equipment to providers they panic with stories of Internet data tsunamis and brownouts.

Hobbs

Two weeks after the Business Week article, Senator Schumer flew to Rochester and joined a few of our local Stop the Cap! members and myself to announce the end of the nightmare — no more Internet Overcharging consumers in any of the three states. Even Beaumont was soon freed from the ripoff pricing experiment.

But Time Warner Cable promised that one day, they could be back with the same schemes, after “educating their customers.”  Stop the Cap! has spent the last year assembling an extensive record of just how unjustified these pricing schemes really are, and we’ve been educating consumers about how an duopolistic broadband industry is seeking to monetize and control as many aspects of America’s online experience as possible.

We’ve exposed dozens of astroturf and other industry-backed groups trying to peddle the broadband industry agenda, often trying to hide who is paying the bills.  Whether it’s scare stories about broadband brownouts, fear that oversight and regulation will drive away investment and reduce service, or the need to stop Net Neutrality — it’s all designed to protect provider profits, not help consumers.

There is nothing fair about Internet Overcharging schemes.  There has never been a true consumption billing scheme that charged consumers nothing if they didn’t use the service, and the prices being charged for consumption above one’s allowance are often several thousand percent above actual cost.  Indeed the CEO of Crown Fibre Holdings CEO Graham Mitchell, admitted the truth about such pricing schemes when he told Techday that where ISP’s engage in such pricing schemes, they don’t make their money in providing access to broadband; they make it out of data caps.

We have no illusion providers won’t be back for a second bite at your wallets, which is why the education effort continues.  Over the last year, we’ve expanded our coverage to promote better broadband, and to expose bad actors among the broadband cable, telephone, wireless, and satellite industry.  We’ll continue to expose lobbying efforts to legislate away oversight, consumer protection, and limit potential competition.  Stop the Cap! also continues to fight for improved rural broadband that moves beyond today’s satellite fraudband that delivers woefully slow, heavily limited and expensive service.  We’ll also coordinate efforts to push back whenever Internet Overcharging schemes appear on the horizon, and we won’t let go until such language is banished from customer agreements and Acceptable Use Policies, whether they are formally enforced or not.

One year later, America’s broadband users are safer from such schemes, but not yet safe.  Thanks to all of our readers for staying engaged.

Governor Jay Nixon has announced support for 12 different proposals from across Missouri that would expand broadband Internet access in rural and underserved parts of the state for health care, business, education and consumers.

As part of the MoBroadbandNow initiative, Missouri is coordinating efforts among private companies, local governments and rural electric cooperatives to extend broadband access to 95 percent of Missouri residents over the next five years.  Much of the funding to support rural broadband expansion would come through federal stimulus money from the Recovery Act, and those backing the Missouri effort hope a coordinated approach improves the state’s chances to secure funding.

“These proposals were closely reviewed, and we identified the ones we believe are most likely to receive federal funding and most closely aligned with the vision of MoBroadbandNow,” said Governor Nixon.

Five of the applications supported by the State of Missouri are for developing middle-mile infrastructure for broadband, which would help extend existing broadband service to additional homes previously deemed too rural; six are for developing last-mile projects which directly reach customers; and one is for developing public computing centers, which will provide broadband access in public locations, often targeting a specific vulnerable population such as low-income, minority, disabled or unemployed Missourians.

Gov. Nixon

The middle-mile proposals that received letters of support from the Governor included:

• BlueBird Media, of Columbia, which plans to build a middle-mile network in northern Missouri;
• Boycom Cablevision, of Poplar Bluff, which plans to build a middle-mile network along the U.S. Highway 60 corridor in southern Missouri and into the Bootheel;
• Sho-Me Technologies, of Marshfield, which plans to build a middle-mile network in central and south central Missouri;
• SpringNet, a division of City Utilities of Springfield, which would provide broadband to customers in the metropolitan Springfield area; and
• American Fiber Systems, of Rochester, N.Y., which plans to provide connections to several Metropolitan Community College facilities in Jackson County.

The last-mile proposals that received letters of support from the Governor included:

• Big River Telephone Company, of Cape Girardeau, which would provide broadband to households and businesses in southeast Missouri;
• Cass County, which would provide broadband to households and businesses in western Missouri;
• Co-Mo Electric Cooperative, of Tipton, which would provide broadband to households and businesses in west-central Missouri;
• Finally Broadband, of Seymour, which would provide broadband to households and businesses in south central Missouri;
• Socket, of Columbia, which would provide broadband to households in central Missouri; and
• United Electric Cooperative, of Savannah, which would provide broadband to households and businesses in northwest Missouri.

The public computing center proposal supported by the governor is being submitted by YourTel America, which would create eight public computing centers at retail centers, including five in the Kansas City area, two in the St. Louis area, and one in St. Joseph. These public computing centers also will focus on bringing broadband access to vulnerable populations of Missourians.

Currently, 77 percent of Missouri residents can obtain broadband from DSL service from AT&T and smaller independent phone companies, cable modem service from providers like Charter, Mediacom, and Cable One, and mobile broadband provided by several carriers.  Most the remaining residents have little/no access to broadband service except through satellite fraudband, which promises far more than it delivers.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KYTV Springfield KOLR Springfield Rural Broadband Initiative 8-12-09 3-31-10.flv[/flv]

We have two reports – the first from KYTV-TV in Springfield which comes from August 12, 2009 exploring the state of Missouri broadband and the launch of the MoBroadbandNow coordinated stimulus funding effort and the second from KOLR-TV in Springfield discussing Governor Nixon’s announcement yesterday.  (4 minutes)

The United States has a goal of 100Mbps ubiquitous broadband service by 2020.  Hong Kong residents already have access to speeds up to 1Gbps, leaving many unimpressed with the American broadband goals established in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.

City Telecom CEO William Yeung called out the current state of American broadband, noting many Americans are still stuck with megabit speeds in the single digits, while 100+ megabit access is widely available across most of Hong Kong from fiber optic networks.

Yeung thinks 100Mbps service will be considered slow by the time 2020 rolls around, noting an insatiable demand for enhanced broadband speeds.

Google’s Think Big With a Gig project underlines Yeung’s beliefs as hundreds of American communities clamor to be among those chosen for a demonstration project that will deliver up to 1Gbps speed to homes and businesses on an all-fiber network.

Yeung rejects the notion that wiring Hong Kong was a natural for super-fast fiber optic broadband just because of its dense population, reducing potential costs.

“I think it’s a matter of short term vs. long term thinking,” Yeung told Bloomberg News.

According to Yeung, American broadband providers are afraid constructing super-fast broadband lanes threaten to cannibalize their existing revenue streams, especially from cable television.  That’s because Americans could end up dropping their cable packages in favor of watching everything online.  Yeung also thinks Wall Street is preoccupied with short-term Return on Investment, making it difficult to upgrade to fiber service despite the enormous potential long term revenue, even in rural areas.

For Yeung, it’s all about marketing the benefits of fiber.  His company, City Telecom, is busily signing new subscribers despite the fact the island already enjoys near-universal broadband access.  Offering faster speeds and better service will drive customers to switch providers, Yeung believes.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Yeung Says Hong Kong Broadband 10 Years Ahead of U.S 3-19-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News talked with City Telecom CEO William Yeung about fiber-optic broadband and the fact Hong Kong is well ahead of the United States on broadband speed and service.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”600″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/City Telecom Promo.flv[/flv]

City Telecom’s HKBN service has a history of running bizarre advertising.  One recent example is included here, along with a short promotional video touting the company’s accomplishments in constructing an all-fiber network.  (4 minutes)

The long awaited National Broadband Plan (NBP) for the United States is here.  Unveiled yesterday by the Federal Communications Commission, the 376-page plan calls itself a mandate for improved broadband service for 200 million Americans, bringing access to those who don’t have it, and better speeds and lower prices for those that do.

The report’s authors consider the broadband revolution a transformational change for the country, just as railroads opened the door to coast-to-coast transportation, electricity changed the American household, and phone service opened the door to a new era of Americans reaching out to communicate with one another.

Today, high-speed Internet is transforming the landscape of America more rapidly and more pervasively than earlier infrastructure networks. Like railroads and highways, broadband accelerates the velocity of commerce, reducing the costs of distance. Like electricity, it creates a platform for America’s creativity to lead in developing better ways to solve old problems. Like telephony and broadcasting, it expands our ability to communicate, inform and entertain.

Broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of the early 21st century.

To meet the challenge, the FCC was commissioned to develop a national blueprint for improving broadband service in the United States.  A sense of urgency over statistics showing the United States ranking in the bottom half of nations — losing ground on speed, affordability, and access to both Europe and Asia meant the NBP must deliver concrete answers to improve the country’s competitive broadband standing.

This is a broad mandate. It calls for broadband networks that reach higher and farther, filling the troubling gaps we face in the deployment of broadband networks, in the adoption of broadband by people and businesses and in the use of broadband to further our national priorities.

Nearly 100 million Americans do not have broadband today. Fourteen million Americans do not have access to broadband infrastructure that can support today’s and tomorrow’s applications. More than 10 million school-age children do not have home access to this primary research tool used by most students for homework. Jobs increasingly require Internet skills; the share of Americans using high-speed Internet at work grew by 50% between 2003 and 2007, and the number of jobs in information and communications technology is growing 50% faster than in other sectors. Yet millions of Americans lack the skills necessary to use the Internet.

The NBP goes out of its way to recognize private enterprise’s influence on broadband development in the country, acknowledging America’s for-profit, largely unregulated broadband industry has successfully cherry-picked the most profitable customers for often excellent broadband service.  For others deemed less profitable, a lesser amount of service, or no service at all is available.  The distinction between America’s free market approach and government-run universal service is noted in the report.  For America, the private approach has created a “digital divide” — the broadband have’s and have-not’s.  The reasons for bypassing certain areas varies from the expenses to reach rural homes to affordability issues in the inner city.  Sometimes, it’s a matter of being lucky enough to have a decent provider who is aggressive about deploying service.

The NBP seeks to build upon the private free market approach to broadband and fill in the gaps in service for those left behind.

The FCC’s plan envisions broadband evolution, not a broadband revolution.  The report recommends maintaining a limited government role for broadband, and limited regulations along with it.

Instead of choosing a specific path for broadband in America, this plan describes actions government should take to encourage more private innovation and investment. The policies and actions recommended in this plan fall into three categories: fostering innovation and competition in networks, devices and applications; redirecting assets that government controls or influences in order to spur investment and inclusion; and optimizing the use of broadband to help achieve national priorities.

The NBP sets minimum actual broadband speeds Americans should expect to receive at 4/1Mbps. ADSL providers like Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyLink are already in trouble if this standard gets enforced. They routinely fail to meet these speeds in many areas today.

Among the core goals of the NBP:

• Connect 100 million households to affordable, 100Mbps service within 10 years, permitting high end video streaming and medical diagnostics;
• Define broadband as at least 4/1Mbps service, which automatically disqualifies a number of rural DSL providers and satellite fraudband;
• Pole attachment reform, which would remove obstacles providers encounter when trying to hang wiring on poles, bury it underground, or access rights-of-way;
• Improve rural broadband service and low-income access through Universal Service Fund reform, shifting up to $15.5 billion towards broadband construction and subsidies;
• Target a 90 percent broadband adoption rate among American households;
• Rely on mobile broadband to be an important competitor in the broadband industry by doubling available spectrum for wireless data and expand reach beyond today’s 60 percent coverage;
• Provide $16 billion in funding for a federal interoperable mobile broadband network exclusively for public safety agencies.

The plan is a marked departure from the FCC under former president George W. Bush.  Just two years ago, the Commission suggested there were few problems with the broadband industry as-is.  Michael Powell, who served under Bush’s first term as Chairman of the FCC, advocated free market deregulation, and dismissed concerns about the digital divide, calling it a “Mercedes divide,” suggesting broadband was like an expensive car he’d like to own but can’t afford.

Perhaps Powell can afford that car today, as honorary co-chair of industry front group Broadband for America, which has made its presence known through Powell on several national cable news channels in interviews about the broadband plan.  The BfA’s role as an industry-backed player is not disclosed in interviews.

Opposition to parts of the NBP is likely to come from:

• Broadcasters, concerned about the further loss of the UHF TV dial for wireless broadband service expansion;
• Utility pole owners who will likely oppose changes in compensation formulas for pole attachment fees;
• Incumbent broadband providers who fear the NBP may lead to government-backed competition in their service areas;
• Consumers who may balk if Universal Service Fund reform adds an additional five or more dollars a month in fees to broadband bills without price reductions from real competition.

Some of the greatest concerns about the plan come from consumer groups, who recognize the plan has many good points, but relies too much on working with the same companies that got the United States into this position in the first place.

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, March 23 at 2:30 p.m. to review the plan. The House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet will hold its own hearing on the plan next Thursday, March 25.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg National Broadband Plan Released – Controversies 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg Business News carried extensive coverage about the National Broadband Plan, its winners and losers, and other implications of a coordinated plan to improve service across America. (14 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC National Broadband Plan Implications 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC aired more skeptical coverage about the National Broadband Plan.  Clueless Michelle Caruso-Cabrera is also back still insisting 99 percent of America already has access to broadband, but she speaks in terms of zip codes, not actual broadband coverage, and it’s unclear if she includes satellite “fraudband,” which promises broadband speeds but doesn’t deliver.  Caruso-Cabrera also bashes Net Neutrality along the way. (13 minutes)

[flv width=”448″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NBC News Channel FCC Seeks to Expand Access 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

From a less “business news” standpoint, the NBC News Channel explained the National Broadband Plan to ordinary consumers yesterday in terms of how the plan would affect them. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington High-Speed Broadband Access for All 3-16-10.flv[/flv]

Local Washington, DC Fox affiliate WTTG-TV also explains the National Broadband Plan, suggesting it will bring “high speed access for all.” (3 minutes)

Stimulus funds are helping bridge the digital divide by bringing high speed Internet to rural areas in southeastern New Mexico.

Thursday, Rep. Ben Ray Luján applauded investments in rural broadband in New Mexico made through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“Broadband technology connects communities, helps businesses grow, and provides students with the opportunity to learn new skills. As we expand broadband technology, we must ensure that our rural communities have access,” said Luján. “It is encouraging that the Recovery Act is making this important investment in broadband technology, especially in our rural and tribal communities.”

Penasco Valley Telecommunications in Artesia has been awarded $10 million in federal stimulus money to string miles of fiber optic cable to rural towns like Hondo, Mayhill and Hope.

The fiber optic cable will be a vital link for the area’s homes, businesses, schools and emergency services.

“It’s important for the rural parts to have access to the Internet, otherwise the digital divide they talk about will just get wider,” said Glenn Lovelace of Penasco Valley Telecommunications.

The project is scheduled for completion some time next year.

Since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 began distributing stimulus funds, it has provided roughly $250 million in funding for projects and programs in New Mexico.

The two New Mexico broadband projects that will receive funding:

Pueblo de San Ildefonso: TewaCom Broadband Initiative (TBI), Phase 1-Upper Rio Grande Valley Project; $632,225 loan and $632,225 grant. The funding will enable the Pueblo to expand service to 2,405 households.

Penasco Valley Telephone Cooperative Inc.: The Penasco Valley Telephone (PVT) Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) Project; $4,818,607 loan and $4,770,660 grant. The funding will provide high-speed broadband to unserved areas in the ILEC territory through fiber and wireless technology.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOB Albuquerque High-speed cable slated for southeast New Mexico 3-10-10.flv[/flv]

KOB-TV in Albuquerque reports the high speed broadband projects made possible from stimulus funding resemble the kind of public works projects that were common during the Great Depression. (2 minutes)