HP's Snowjob: The company that brought you the $70 ink cartridge supports an end to flat rate Internet service to "save" you money.

HP’s Joe Weinman argues consumers are behind the drive to abandon flat rate, “all you can eat” broadband pricing.

Weinman, whose company sells products and services to some of America’s largest broadband providers, has taken up their position that flat-rate Internet service is bad for you, claiming many are paying too much for Internet service they use too little.

In an essay posted on GigaOM, Weinman brings back the all-y0u-can-eat buffet metaphor:

For the record, I like unlimited Internet access just as much as anyone else. However, such plans appear to be on their way out, and here’s why. As I’ve explored in ”The Market for Melons” (PDF), pay-per-use is not an evil plot by greedy robber barons, but a natural outcome of independent, rational consumer choice. Consider a town with an all-you-can-eat (flat rate) buffet and an a la carte (pay-per-use) restaurant. Smart shoppers on diets will save money by patronizing the a la carte restaurant, whereas heavy eaters will save money by visiting the buffet. As patrons switch, the average consumption of the buffet will increase, driving price increases for the luncheon special, causing even more users to switch to pay-per-use.

Bottom line: it is not the proprietors driving this dynamic, but the customers themselves acting out of pure, rational self-interest—light users, by deciding not to subsidize the heavy ones, foster the vitality of the pay-per-use model.

Unfortunately for Weinman, most American broadband customers don’t believe a word of this, and even he was forced to admit as much when he noted consumers “often prefer to overpay for flat-rate rather than save money but risk bill shock.”

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports wasn’t suckered for a moment either, noting:

[…]Cable industry lobbyists would like the public to believe that such a shift isn’t about making more money, it’s about helping the poor. Not only is the metered billing push absolutely about making money, it’s about artificially constricting the pipe to protect uncompetitive carriers and TV revenues from Internet video. But instead, there’s a very concerted effort afoot to portray this shift as necessary, inevitable, and even altruistic.

Most consumers prefer the simplicity of flat rate pricing, and understand that ISPs are perfectly profitable under the flat-rate pricing model. They also understand that this is a pipe dream forged by never-satisfied investors, and once implemented ends with ever soaring per gig fees and ever shrinking usage caps.

Weinman’s essay completely ignores the reality his preferred pricing model already delivers to those who live under it in Canada.  Canadian broadband rankings continue to decline as customers there pay higher prices for a lower level of service, with usage caps that actually decline when new competitive threats from online video emerge.

Just what the doctor ordered: HP's Rx for American Broadband

We had to take time out to respond directly to Weinman and his cheerleading friends (see the comments section), some who wrote comments below the piece and couldn’t be bothered to disclose they owe their day jobs to industry-backed dollar-a-holler groups that are committed to delivering on behalf of their provider benefactors:

When Big Telecom comes ringing with promises of savings from metered or capped broadband, hang up immediately.

These plans save almost nobody money and expose dramatic overlimit fees to consumers, creating the kind of bill shock wireless phone users endure.

The OPEC-like Internet price-fixing on offer from big players delivers broadband rationing and sky high prices, while retarding Internet innovations that providers don’t own or control.

Consumers are forced to double check their usage and think twice about everything they do online out of fear of being exposed to huge overlimit fees up to $10 a gigabyte for exceeding an arbitrary limit ranging from 5-250GB.

Americans already pay too much for Internet service and now the providers want more of your money. The rest of the world is moving AWAY from the pricing schemes Weinman would have us embrace. It’s such a serious issue in the South Pacific, the governments of Australia and New Zealand are working to address the problem themselves.

Providers are already earning BILLIONS in profits every quarter from their lucrative broadband businesses. Now the wallet biters are back for more, with the convenient side benefit that limiting consumption is a great way to prevent Internet-delivered TV from causing cord-cutting of cable TV packages.

As far as consumers are concerned, and Weinman admits as much, people are happy with today’s unlimited price models. When Big Telecom complains people are overpaying for broadband, wouldn’t their shareholders be telling them to shut up and take the money? There is more to this story.

Weinman defends the extortion proposition Big Telecom would visit on us: either give us limited use pricing or we’ll raise all of your prices.

But as consumers have already figured out, these providers never reduce prices for anyone. When was the last time your cable bill went down unless you dropped services?

Don’t be a sucker to Big Telecom’s “broadband shortage” or pricing myths. Broadband is not comparable to water, gas, or electric. The closest comparison (and the one they always leave out) is to telephone service, and as we’ve seen, that business is increasingly moving TOWARDS flat race, unlimited pricing.

Want to know what metered pricing does to the wallets of consumers? Just ask Time Warner Cable customers in Rochester, Greensboro, San Antonio, and Austin what they thought about the cable company’s “innovative” pricing experiment that tripled the price for the same level of broadband customers used to get for $50 a month. After the torches and pitchforks were raised over $150 a month broadband service, Time Warner backed down.

Either with or without metered pricing, the cable company raised its prices three times last year alone.

The industry’s meme that “usage-based pricing” in inevitable is only true if consumers allow it to happen.  The parade of Internet Overcharging advocates all share one thing in common — they earn a living from the providers that dream about these pricing schemes.  Always follow the money.  As we’ve exposed repeatedly, the vast majority of defenders of these kinds of pricing schemes are not consumers.  They are:

• The providers themselves;
• Wall Street banks, investors, and the business media catering to them;
• Non-profit groups receiving substantial contributions from providers;
• Industry-funded “think tanks” and research that can carry the industry’s public policy agenda, hoping the media that quotes them are too lazy to follow the money;
• Equipment and service vendors, unions, and other groups who depend on the business or jobs they get from providers.

While some American broadband providers continue to dream of Internet Overcharging schemes for American customers, one of the world’s most usage-capped countries continues its march forward to abolish them.  Australia’s Optus, a major broadband provider, today announced it was dramatically increasing usage allowances on customers, effective immediately.

The Fusion 99 plan, which bundles telephone and broadband service, sees its data allowance increased from just 15GB of usage per month to 500GB (twice that of American cable giant Comcast).  Ditto for the Fusion 109 plan, which originally doubled the 15GB limit to 30.  Now it offers a 500GB allowance of usage.

If 500GB isn’t enough, Optus has announced its Fusion 129 plan includes 1000GB — a terabyte — of usage per month, which includes unlimited long distance calling and calls to Australia’s mobile phone customers (most countries outside of North America require the calling party to pay mobile rates when calling a mobile customer).  Even customers on Optus’ budget-minded standard and “naked” (standalone) broadband plans will benefit from new 500GB allowances.  Those who manage to exceed their allowance will find broadband speeds reduced to 250kbps until the end of the billing cycle.

Some Australian ISP’s take all limits off during off-peak usage hours.  The country has traditionally suffered from usage caps because of international undersea cable capacity problems which restrict how much traffic can be sent and received between the South Pacific and North America and Europe.  Increased undersea fiber capacity is tempering those traffic restrictions, and momentum towards unlimited use plans (or those with ridiculously high allowances) is the result.

Lifehacker produced a broadband plan breakdown showing the dramatically increasing usage allowances for Australian broadband customers. Traffic shaping continues to be an issue, however. Such speed control measures traditionally target peer-to-peer traffic. Total cost is the total price of the service over the length of the term contract. This chart represents high end plans, typically offering the highest speed tiers. All dollar amounts are in Australian dollars.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC The Gruen Transfer Telco Ads 11-2010.flv[/flv]

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s ‘The Gruen Transfer’ takes a humorous look at how phone companies Down Under advertise their services, including a reference about how “capped” services represent revenue gold to service providers.  (15 minutes)

When the FCC delivers for Big Telecom's agenda, stocks soar. Comcast shares exploded on news the company could largely do as it pleases with its broadband service. (CNBC)

Comcast’s stock price soared today as Wall Street was cheered by news America’s largest cable operator would likely face little regulatory restraint from consumer protection policies designed to keep broadband providers from meddling with Internet traffic.  But investors were also excited by the green light signaled by Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski that launching Internet Overcharging schemes like “usage-based” billing, speed throttles and hard usage caps on broadband consumers was also acceptable marketplace behavior.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst with Sanford Bernstein said Genachowski’s remarks left the marketplace with little doubt it can get away with price increases and new limits on broadband consumption.

“The FCC here is expressly acknowledging the need to ration broadband, and that’s a really big deal,” said Moffett, appearing on CNBC this afternoon.  “I think you are going to start to see usage-based pricing plans from the broadband providers pretty quickly.”

Moffett also acknowledged his firm’s own research showing consumers despise such pricing schemes and admits the impact on America’s broadband landscape is likely to include a dramatic shift in how customers use their Internet accounts.

“When customers think they are going to be charged when they click on that link and watch a movie, they are going to be inclined to watch fewer movies,” Moffett said.  “You can’t expect linear progression of online video because there are going to be feedback loops like usage-based pricing that are going to limit usage.”

Moffett says cable operators are benefiting from Chairman Genachowski’s new approach because it opens the door to repricing wired broadband accounts to limit broadband consumption.  Since most analysts guessed regulators would allow usage-based pricing to remain on wireless broadband, the unexpected green light for similar rationing plans on cable broadband, DSL, and other wired services was welcome news, at least for providers and Wall Street.

Consumers that don’t deliver a resounding negative response to elected officials, the FCC, and the White House better start thinking twice about clicking that YouTube video, because that few minutes could cost plenty if providers slap higher prices and limits on broadband service in the coming year.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC The Fight for Your Right to Surf the Web 12-1-10.flv[/flv]

A Wall Street telecom analyst predicts the end of unlimited home broadband accounts is going to come quickly, now that the FCC has capitulated on Net Neutrality policies.  (3 minutes)

Studies find few surprises for cable and phone companies that pay for them.

Internet plans with term contracts, usage limits, and other pricing tricks are good for consumers and save them money over comparable unlimited usage plans.

That is the conclusion of a new study from the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten and James Riso’s “study,”Residential and Business Broadband Prices, Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants,” claims to have taken a comprehensive look at 25,000 plans offered across North America, Europe and the Pacific to make their case that a residential service plan with a 10GB monthly usage cap would save consumers 27 percent over the price of a comparable unlimited plan, as long as data use stays below the cap.  They also suggest additional savings can be had if consumers lock themselves into term contracts with service providers (most of which carry hefty fees to exit early.)

These results suggest that the unlimited data plans typically offered by most U.S. wireline broadband providers may not be optimal for many consumers. The details of capped plans matter, and how an individual user is affected depends on the base price, allowed data usage, and consequences for exceeding the cap. Nevertheless, because capped plans are—all else equal—cheaper than unlimited plans, many consumers, particularly the low-volume users, are likely to pay less for broadband with data caps than they would for plans offering unlimited data transfer.

Wallsten and Riso make much of AT&T’s recent decision to end unlimited usage for wireless broadband, suggesting that consumers are saving money with new, low-use plans over the company’s old unlimited pricing.  The authors claim close to 70 percent of iPhone users consume less than 200 MB per month, which is the cap for AT&T’s cheaper data plan.

But the authors concede that usage is growing — rapidly in the case of online video, which sets the stage for consumers saving money today, but facing serious overlimit charges on their bills tomorrow:

Some analysts, however, remain concerned that these plans make video streaming impractical given the bandwidth it consumes, could eventually cost consumers more as they use their wireless devices more intensively, and generally make it less likely for wireless to become a viable substitute for wireline broadband. To be sure, while Figure 3 shows that the vast majority of users consume small amounts of data today, it also shows per user mobile data consumption growing quickly, so the number of people who exceed the caps could increase significantly in a relatively short period of time.

Major U.S. wireline providers have not yet introduced metered pricing successfully, though, as shown above, it is common in other countries. An experimental metered pricing plan by Time Warner Cable garnered strong reaction, prompting one group to demand that Congress ―investigate ongoing metered pricing practices to determine the impact on consumers. Some in Congress did, in fact, hold hearings on the plans. In response to this backlash, Time Warner Cable canceled its experiment.

Despite the political reaction, all consumers are not inherently worse off or better off with metered pricing. Low-volume users are likely to be better off under metered plans and high volume users worse off. The net effect on any given consumer depends on his data use, the base price, how much data the base price allows, the price of data when exceeding the cap, and how much he would have paid for an unlimited plan.

Wallsten and Riso also admit several parts of their study are “incomplete,” and “lack data.” We would also include the facts they ignored whether consumers prefer unlimited plans, how customers would feel about a bill with overlimit fees attached, or whether the usage cap levels the authors note in their study are adequate.  They also completely ignore the critical issue of bandwidth cost trends and their relationship to consumer pricing.

But of course they would, considering the same providers who want these pricing schemes are paying the costs for the study.

Welcome to the world of Hired Gun Research.

Wallsten, in particular, has been singing the same cap-happy tune for several years now, churning out the same industry-financed conclusions about broadband.  Back in 2007, he delivered a piece trumpeted by the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute — two groups notorious for parroting corporate-friendly talking points.  Back then it was about Internet overloads and supporting Internet toll booths for “congestion pricing” after Comcast got caught secretly throttling broadband customer speeds.

Dave Burstein of DSL Prime notes most consumers don’t like caps, lock-in contracts, or speed throttles.

“Policymakers should normally assume that imposing caps generally results in negative consumer welfare. The small efficiency gains don’t come close to making up for a second rate Internet,” Burstein writes. “Everyone is better off with a robust, unthrottled Internet. It allows for an important form of video competition and market access for innovative new net offerings. It’s a better experience for the user and hence more people will be connected, a good thing.”

In this latest study, the two authors completely ignore some very important facts:

• Who sets the pricing for unlimited and usage-capped broadband?  Providers.  Do consumers save money from usage limited plans because of decreased provider costs passed along to consumers or pricing schemes that artificially inflate unlimited broadband pricing to drive customers to “money-saving” limited plans that teach usage restraint or expose consumers to dramatic overlimit fees?

• What are the trends for wholesale bandwidth costs and how does that trend comport with industry pricing schemes that have increased broadband pricing in the United States?  An honest study would reflect these costs are dropping… dramatically, and would introduce the very real question of whether unlimited broadband is a problem in search of a revenue-generating solution that would come from further monetizing broadband with so-called “consumption pricing.”

• What is the consumer perception of usage-limited broadband?  An important part of this equation is whether consumers want unlimited broadband service to be discontinued.  Every study to date not paid for by the providers themselves shows consumers are willing to pay today’s prices for the peace of mind they receive in not being exposed to limits or overlimit fees.  Wallsten and Riso touched on the consumer backlash, to a considerable part coordinated by Stop the Cap!, over Time Warner’s pricing scheme which would have tripled broadband pricing for an equivalent level of service.  But the authors charge on with their pro-cap conclusions regardless.

• Wallsten and Riso’s study only casually mentions the dramatically different paradigms of wireless and wireline broadband.  The former is delivered using technology that is recognized to have limitations that can only be seriously addressed with additional spectrum allocation that could take years to address.  The latter is already being mitigated by cable broadband technology upgrades, fiber optics, and improved backbone connections that often deliver much better access at a fraction of the price providers paid just a few years earlier.  Drawing comparisons between AT&T’s wireless broadband pricing and wireline broadband is dubious at best, especially since two companies largely control pricing and service for the majority of wireless customers in the United States.

• To prove its contention limited broadband service is “common in other countries,” the authors cite a Frequently Asked Questions article by Comcast trying to justify that company’s own usage cap to its customers.  So because Comcast’s PR department says it, it must be true.  In fact, in countries where usage capped broadband has been a traditional problem, consumer demand and public policy efforts have moved providers towards offering unlimited service plans to meet popular demand.  In fact, in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, governments have cited usage caps as a serious disadvantage to growth of the digital economy.  Consumers certainly agree.

Burstein adds:

Caps or other throttling measures are almost never imposed because of actual congestion problems (on large, wired networks.)  The caps would be at far higher levels if they were, like Comcast’s 250 gigabytes. The usual explanation is bogus. The typical consumer advocate believes the caps are about preventing competition to the carriers’ own video package. That’s certainly common, but so is price discrimination to yield increased potential revenues. As Scott notes, price discrimination in a strongly competitive market can work out well for all concerned. With strong competition, the benefits flow through to consumers. Since competition in broadband is typically weak, I believe it far more often has little consumer benefit but is good for company profits.

The authors conclude that despite limitations on data available, “The policy implications, however, are clear.  Policymakers should not immediately conclude that data caps and other pricing schemes that differ from traditional unlimited plans are necessarily bad.”  Instead, the authors suggest pricing trends should be evaluated over time to identify the effects on prices, investment and usage.

Although that’s a point Burstein agrees with, we feel there is substantial evidence this debate is based not on experimental pricing to find new customers, but rather a defensive position to respond to an inevitable public backlash against Internet Overcharging schemes.  Providers are desperately looking for excuses to further monetize broadband, cut costs, and deliver an effective impediment to online video competitors using broadband networks to deliver alternative, less expensive services to consumers.

Policymakers should listen to their constituents, who are more than comfortable with today’s unlimited broadband experience.  Nobody objects to experimental low usage plans with discount pricing, but not at the expense of ending or repricing existing unlimited service into the stratosphere.  Today’s broadband industry earns billions in annual profits, even as their costs decline.  Providers have done considerable profit-taking in the last few years from their broadband divisions, slashing upgrades and other investments to keep pace with traffic demands.

Netflix accounts for 20 percent of all broadband activity in the United States during prime time evening hours.  As expected, “Internet experts” that are really little more than paid lobbyists for the broadband industry have started to feed the media scare stories about the great Internet traffic crisis soon to befall the Internet.

Just a few years ago, it was peer-to-peer traffic responsible for Internet “brownouts,” but now Netflix offers an even better, more convenient scapegoat — especially for the broadband providers that compete with it.

Fortune magazine provides a handy dandy needle to pop the balloon of BS from the broadband industry bully boys:

Just for fun, try to guess the year in which the following warnings about the Internet’s impending meltdown were issued:

No. 1: “Over the coming six to 12 months, computer users around the planet are likely to experience the Internet equivalent of the Great Blackout, or at least frequent brownouts, as our information infrastructure staggers and struggles under the heavy onslaught of new users and new demands.”

No. 2: “Internet access infrastructure, specifically in North America, will likely cease to be adequate for supporting demand within the next three to five years.”

No. 3: “Will Netflix Destroy the Internet?  American broadband capacity might not be able to keep up.”

The answers: 1997, 2007 and this week—and that’s just a small sampling from the past 20 years. Such predictions of the Internet’s breakdown are always premised on  the arrival of a scary new device or application that will send lots of digital bits over the Net.  Back in 1995, when Internet sage Bob Metcalfe tried to explain why he foresaw “the Internet’s catastrophic collapse,” he cited a wave of new “Internet appliances,” in particular the dangerous Sony Playstation, which for the first time had Internet access!

[…]What the chicken littles often miss are the clever ways in which Netflix movies and other content get delivered.  Like most major companies that move lots of Internet traffic, Netflix contracts with companies whose job it is to deliver lots of bits, fast and cheap.  Netflix relies mainly on industry giant Akamai, which runs 77,000 servers with big hard drives that it has placed in every nook and cranny of the Internet.  When a college student downloads “Dexter Season 1” from Netflix there’s a good chance the show is already stored on campus on an Akamai box.

“That video is growing rapidly and going to be huge is true,”  says Akamai co-founder Tom Leighton. “But there’s tons of capacity out at the edges of the network….plenty of capacity in the last mile to your house.”  That capacity, he says, combined with smart delivery of Netflix content from nearby servers, means the Internet can handle Netflix just fine.  If all that traffic had to travel closer to the center of the Internet then many larger peering points would be overwhelmed, Leighton adds. (There’s reason to trust Leighton’s numbers on both counts: he’s also a professor of applied mathematics at MIT.)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOCO Oklahoma City Netflix Crashing The Internet 11-4-10.flv[/flv]

Check out KOCO-TV Oklahoma City’s “Internet Panic” story, delivering the broadband industry’s talking points about Internet traffic jams in just 30 seconds.  (1 minute)