All-you-can-eat buffets, steak dinner vs. salad check splitting, electric and water service meters, toll highways with trucks vs. Mini-Coopers….  The justifications for Internet Overcharging representing “fairness” in broadband pricing have involved just about every analogy the broadband industry can come up with, all designed to make you think sticking a bigger bill to someone else down the street will somehow make your broadband bill smaller.

To convince sucker people into “billing fairness” that doesn’t actually reduce your pricing but could dramatically increase it is a tricky proposition.  To make it work, they have to convince you of a broadband boogeyman up the street who is using up all your Internet and making you pay for it.

As the Re-Education effort continues among the astroturfer and industry PR crowd, the one service broadband providers strenuously avoid comparing themselves to is your local telephone or cell phone provider.  That’s ironic, considering telephone companies move your calls around much the same way Internet traffic moves from point to point.  It’s the closest comparative service around, but your Internet provider doesn’t dare use it in their analogies, because the entire argument for Internet Overcharging schemes falls apart when they do.

While some in the broadband industry want to take your flat rate pricing away, the telephone and cell phone industry is working harder and harder to move to flat rate pricing. Many traditional phone companies now peddle their own unlimited nationwide calling phone plan for $20-40 a month.  Even some of the same broadband providers that want to take away your unlimited broadband service continue to mail blizzards of postcards and saturate the airwaves with marketing for their “talk all you want” unlimited phone plans.

In the mobile phone industry, an all-out price and feature war has erupted, as providers offer practically unlimited local and long distance calling.  No more buckets of minutes to count, no more overage penalties, no more worries about putting off calling until the evening or weekends to protect your minute allowance.

In the past week, major providers have fallen all over themselves with new unlimited calling plans.  Let’s take a look at today’s mobile calling landscape:

AT&T: Last Wednesday, AT&T launched A-List, primarily in response to Sprint’s new Any Mobile, Anytime (see below).  A-List lets customers add up to five numbers on an individual plan or up to 10 shared numbers on a FamilyTalk plan for unlimited calling to and from any phone number in the United States.  The new feature begins September 20, and customers can change their A-List members at any time.  Since customers often make the vast majority of their calls to a select group of people, it’s easy to get virtually unlimited calling that doesn’t exhaust your minute allowance.

Boost Mobile: Back in January, Boost Mobile, the prepaid mobile phone service using the Nextel system (certain areas also provide Boost on Sprint’s network), launched a $50 unlimited calling plan that also includes unlimited handset data use, unlimited text messaging, unlimited walkie-talkie use, no roaming, no hidden fees, no contract and no credit check.

Cricket: Cricket has always had a business plan catering to the prepaid user looking for generous or unlimited calling.  The company heavily emphasizes its package bundles, such as their $45 monthly plan that offers unlimited calling, unlimited text, video and picture messaging, unlimited mobile web browsing, and free 411 service.  The downside is their more limited coverage area, operating primarily for customers in urban and adjacent suburban areas, and providing almost no rural coverage at all.

MetroPCS: Similar to Cricket, MetroPCS aggressively prices unlimited calling plans and bundles in its more limited service areas.  For $40 a month, customers enjoy unlimited long distance calling, unlimited text and picture messaging, and web access.  That pricing is comparable to many wired phone lines with a package of phone features without unlimited long distance.  MetroPCS operates with a similar approach to Cricket – provide good coverage in the urban and suburban areas they focus service on, but usually ignores rural or more distant suburban areas.

PlatinumTel: Operating on the Sprint network, PlatinumTel is another prepaid provider offering unlimited calling, but with some important differences.  For $50 a month, customers enjoy unlimited calling to any domestic phone numbers, unlimited text messaging, etc.  But the service also provides unlimited roaming off their network, so if you get outside of Sprint’s coverage area, but are able to get a signal from another provider, you can still make and receive calls without incurring huge roaming fees.  You also get 100MB of included data (a small additional fee adds more data).

Straight Talk (from TracFone): If you’ve been to Walmart, you have probably seen TracFone phones and prepaid top-up cards at their stores.  TracFone is another provider that operates on someone else’s cellular network.  Their Straight Talk service operates on the robust Verizon Wireless network, providing excellent coverage in most areas except most of Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Mississippi and western Texas.  A $45 monthly fee brings unlimited minutes and text messages, but only 30 megabytes of data for data-enabled phones.

Sprint Nextel: Already offering unlimited calling to other Sprint mobile customers, the third largest national mobile phone company last week introduced Sprint Any Mobile, Anytime. It allows you to call and receive calls from any cell phone on any network in the USA unlimited for free. You’re not limited to just one network or one calling circle. The feature is now automatically added to the Sprint Everything Data plans starting at either the $69.99. The plan also comes with unlimited text messaging and data. The new Any Mobile, Anytime will be especially popular with younger people who have already abandoned traditional landline telephone service and rely exclusively on mobile phones.  You literally cannot exhaust your minute allowance calling these people.  In fact, the only way to burn your minutes under this plan is to roam outside of Sprint’s network or call people on traditional wired phone lines.

T-Mobile: T-Mobile offers the myFaves Minutes plan, which gives customers unlimited minutes to any five numbers of your choice on any network, mobile or landline (excludes toll-free/900 numbers).  It’s easy to use T-Mobile as an unlimited wireless phone provider assuming the majority of your minutes are spent talking to up to five numbers every month.

Verizon Wireless: Already offering unlimited free calling to other Verizon Wireless customers (there are a ton of those), the company also introduced Friends & Family in February. With an eligible plan, customers have unlimited calling to a select group of numbers outside their standard mobile-to-mobile calling group, including landlines. This gives single line accounts up to 5 numbers to choose from on plans with 900 or more minutes, and family plan accounts up to 10 numbers to choose from on plans with 1,400 or more minutes.

Virgin Mobile: Virgin Mobile relies on Sprint’s network, and with Sprint Nextel’s planned purchase of Virgin Mobile, which the company hopes to complete this November, it may soon become Sprint Nextel’s in-house prepaid service.  Virgin Mobile introduced its Totally Unlimited calling plan on April 15.  For $50 a month, customers get unlimited calling.  For an additional fee, unlimited texting is added, along with mobile data options.

It’s difficult, at best, to make the kind of analogy the broadband industry wants to regarding “paying for what you use” when one of their closest cousins is competing hard to give you “all that you want for one price.”

Update: 9/15 — Jayne Wallace, a representative for Sprint Nextel, wrote to clarify “Sprint Nextel has not yet purchased Virgin Mobile…we do expect the deal to close in November. As of now, we are publicly held. Also since you mention broadband, we’ve also applied the pay as you go pricing here with Broadband2Go, the only nationwide prepaid broadband product available.”  The article text under Virgin Mobile has been adjusted to reflect the planned purchase.

Astroturfers like Scott Cleland got all excited yesterday about another misinformed piece about broadband usage caps from George Ou, a technology blogger who previously gained infamy from his strident opposition to Net Neutrality and his ridicule of the “scare-mongers” who predicted throttled speeds, multi-tiered broadband service, penalties and blocks for using Voice Over IP services, and providers trying to control what you see on the net.

Back in 2006, he wrote a three-pager on ZDNet lambasting Save The Internet, MoveOn, and other Net Neutrality proponents who didn’t agree with Ou’s position that this was simply a technology issue.  He accused the groups of hysteria at a fever pitch over their concerns Net Neutrality opposition was much more about politics, profit, and protection of the providers’ business models.

With positions like that, Ou need not ever worry about job security because his rhetorical stars are in perfect alignment with big telecommunications companies.  I’m sure as long as he joins the broadband tug of war on the side of AT&T and other big providers, some policy institute, astroturf group, or other industry-friendly job would always be there for him to take.

Oh wait.  He has.  But more on that later.

These days, Ou has been pondering broadband usage caps, our bread and butter issue on Stop the Cap!

You do not get a cookie if you guessed he’s all for them, because that would be too easy.

Ou decided that the recent comparison between broadband usage caps in Japan and the United States by Chiehyu Li and James Losey of the New America Foundation, was… problematic.  That usually means we are about to get a technological-jargon-cannon barrage in an effort to suggest those folks at the New America Foundation ‘just don’t understand how the Internet works.’

You decide:

Li and Losey point out that while Japanese ISPs caps the upstream; they are generous with unlimited downstream while American ISPs are beginning to cap both the upstream and downstream.  But this is a flawed analysis because capping the upstream effectively cuts to total downstream peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic to the same levels.  And because P2P is one of the most heavily used application on the Internet accounting for the vast majority of Japanese Internet traffic, cutting upstream usage greatly reduce all P2P traffic and all Internet usage which was necessary because their Internet backbones were severely congested.  I’ve argued that it is far more efficient to manage the network but until then the caps are needed.

Another problem with Li and Losey’s analysis is that it only looks at the usage cap without an analysis of the duty cycle and its ramifications.  When we compare the usable duty cycle between ISPs in Japan compared to ISPs in the U.S. derived from Li and Losey’s data, we see a completely different picture.  By splitting the U.S. ISP usage caps (some of these caps are only in proposal phase) into an upstream and downstream cap proportional to the upstream/downstream connection speeds, I was able to generate Figure 1 below.  What it actually shows is that U.S. broadband providers have usage caps that allow users to use their Internet connection far more frequently than users in Japan.  So while a user in Japan is capped to 40 minutes a day of upstream Internet usage, which indirectly caps download speed because it severely trims the number and generosity of P2P seeders.  AT&T’s proposed DSL usage caps (similar to other DSL providers) allow for 1111 minutes of usage per day on the upstream and 97 minutes on the downstream per day.  So broadband consumers who are dissatisfied with their tiny Time Warner usage caps can simply switch to their DSL provider.

I guess that wraps that up.  Or not.

Ou wants us to assume quite a bit in his own analysis.  His contention that the “vast majority” of Japanese Internet traffic is peer-to-peer is “proven” by linking to an earlier article… written by him… saying just that.  But let’s grant Ou the premise that peer-to-peer is at the epicenter of bandwidth congestion in Japan.  Ou defends Japanese providers for specifically targeting the upstream traffic, pointing out stingy torrent users that don’t give as much as they get will automatically be speed limited during downloads (Bit Torrent’s way of equal sharing).  But he never extends the upstream cap argument to the United States, where he implies a similar traffic overload is occurring.  Instead, he merely acknowledges that domestic providers are experimenting with caps that limit both uploading and downloading, impacting every broadband user, not just those “problem” peer to peer users.

Caps.  The necessary evil?

Ou is okay with the equivalent of dealing with a pesky fly in the kitchen by setting the house on fire.  Doing that might solve the fly problem, but makes living there unpleasant at best in the future.

In fact, the impetus for dealing with the peer to peer “problem” in Japan turns out to be as much about copyright politics as bandwidth management.¹

I also have no idea why Ou would spend time developing a “duty cycle” formula in an effort to try and convince Americans that those generous looking caps in Japan are actually worse for you than the paltry ones tested in the United States.  His formula is dependent on the speed levels offered by Japanese vs. American providers to work.  But then Ou tries to debunk the speeds on offer in Japan as more fiction than reality, and throws his own “duty cycle” formula under the bus as a result:

Li and Losey also paint a dire picture that Japan has 10 or more times the connectivity speed as the US, but the most accurate real-world measurement of Internet throughput in Japan according to the Q1-2009 results from Akamai’s State of the Internet report indicates that Japanese broadband customers only average about 8 Mbps.

Ou then exposes he is completely clueless about the state of broadband in some of the communities that actually cope with usage caps, or were threatened with them.  Ou’s suggestion that unhappy Time Warner Cable customers could simply leave a capped Road Runner for DSL service from the phone company leaves residents in Rochester, New York cold.  For them, that means coping with an Acceptable Use Policy from Frontier that defines 5GB per month as appropriate for their DSL customers.  In Beaumont, Texas, the limbo dance of caps last left residents picking between a cap as low as 20GB with AT&T or a 40GB “standard plan” from Time Warner Cable, before Time Warner dropped the “experiment” for now.

Ou should have just suggested customers in western New York and the Golden Triangle just pick up and move to another city.  It would have been more realistic than his “if you don’t like them, switch” solution.  It also presumes there is a viable DSL service to switch to, as well as whether or not the service can provide a sufficiently speedy connection to take advantage of today’s broadband applications.

And here is where you can draw lines between the special interests, astroturfers, industry-connected folks and actual real, live, consumers.

Ou brings out the shiny keys, waving them in consumers’ faces telling them to look somewhere else for answers:

So the reality is that usage caps isn’t what Americans should be focusing on and the priority should be to encourage more next generation broadband deployment.

Internet Overcharging schemes that charge consumers up to 300% more for their broadband service, with no corresponding improvement in service, is not the problem for Ou, but it certainly was for Time Warner Cable customers in several cities chosen for their Overcharging experiment.  The need to encourage more broadband deployment is fine, but American broadband customers will be broke long before that ever happens without some other pro-consumer solutions.

Ou has a problem though.  He has a new employer.

A corporate restructuring at ZDNet in the spring of 2008 meant Ou was free to pursue other professional interests, and wouldn’t you know, he turned up as Policy Director of “pro-commerce” Digital Society.  That’s a “free market think tank” website whose domain name is administered by one Jon Henke in… you guessed it, suburban Washington, DC (Arlington, Virginia to be exact).

The sharks are in the water.

Henke, Executive Director of Digital Society, and presumably Ou’s boss, has quite the agenda of his own, and it’s not consumer driven.  He has a long history of involvement in conservative politics, which brings new questions about how Henke would approach “encouraging next generation broadband deployment.”  Does he favor broadband stimulus money?  How about municipal broadband competition?

In addition to his work with Digital Society, Henke also runs something called the DC Signal Team.  What’s that?  Let’s see:

DC Signal is a strategic intelligence and communications firm specializing in new media consulting. Based in the Washington, DC area, we work with a range of clients — corporations, trade associations, campaigns, and individuals — to craft and execute an effective online strategy.  We provide timely intelligence and analysis, as well as communications that can reach and resonate with key opinion makers, policy experts, and elected officials.

Our expertise in new media communications sets DC Signal apart, allowing us to filter out the background noise on the Internet to deliver just the most relevant information, make creative, appropriate recommendations based on that information, and target communications directly to the most influential audiences.

I love the smell of plastic grass in the morning.

That’s right, folks.  DC Signal is a classic PR firm that uses targeted communications to reach the most appropriate audience for their campaigns.  Need to reach consumers and sell them on a pro-industry position?  Set up a “grassroots” group to do it.  Need to baffle the media, lawmakers and opinion leaders with industry BS?  Set up “authoritative” websites to deliver carefully filtered “relevant information.”  What better way to do that than with a blog like Digital Society?

But wait, there’s more.

Henke is also working for an innocuously named group called Arts+Labs, which starts its mission statement out innocently enough:

Arts+Labs is a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today’s rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products and services to consumers. From the early development of motion picture technology, voice recordings and radio to today’s 3D computer graphics, streaming digital movies, “on-demand” entertainment,  online games, news and information, innovative technologies and creativity have always gone hand in hand to enrich our understanding and appreciation of arts, entertainment and culture.

Then things become more ominous.

At the same time, Arts+Labs is working to educate consumers about how net pollution – spam, malware, computer viruses and illegal file trafficking – threatens to transform the Internet from an essential catalyst to safely deliver this content to consumers, into a viral distribution mechanism that will choke off the Internet for consumers and future innovators and creators alike.

I can understand the threats from spam, malware, and computer viruses — what groups out there actually advocate for these? — but the “illegal file trafficking” thrown in at the end had me wondering.

I smell industry money, probably from providers who oppose Net Neutrality and want to throttle peer to peer applications, from Hollywood content producers who want to keep their content off The Pirate Bay, the music industry who is always paranoid about piracy, and of course equipment manufacturers who sell the hardware that does the bandwidth management.

So who “partners” with Arts+Labs?

• Viacom
• NBC Universal
• AT&T
• Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)
• Verizon
• Microsoft
• Songwriters Guild of America
• Cisco
• American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)

There you go.

Arts+Labs tries to be clever about its agenda, not so much with strident opposition to Net Neutrality, but instead promoting “consumer interests” by insisting that providers fully disclose the abuse about to be heaped on their customers.  In a press release in June, the group advocated its own national broadband strategy recommendations to the FCC:

A Safe Internet and Smart Management Will Boost Digital Society

It also said that a safe Internet must be a core part of a national broadband strategy and that the failure to protect online data and crack down on net pollution such as malware, spam, phishing and other Internet crime will erode the value of the Internet and discourage broadband adoption.

“To drive adoption and build a successful digital society that reaches every American, all of us must accept responsibility for minimizing online risks, protecting users’ privacy, and ensuring data security against malicious online activity and cybercrime,” A+L said.

It also urged the Commission to embrace “smart management tools and techniques.”

“Used effectively, smart management of our networks will stimulate broadband adoption by expanding the scope of activities available to consumers, by addressing network congestion, and by defending against hacking, phishing, identity theft and other forms of cybercrime,” the filing added.

But it said network operators must not abuse management tools to interfere with competitors or consumers rights and noted:  “In a digital society, network managers owe their customers transparency about their network management practices, including proactive disclosure of new policies or innovations that may affect users’ experiences.”

A+L Urges Collaborative Effort, Says Pragmatism Should Trump Ideology

It also urged the Commission to avoid unnecessary regulatory constraints that would interfere with the ability of content providers, network operators and other Internet-related businesses to experiment with new business models and to offer innovative new services and options to consumers.

Finally, A+L urged every Internet industry and every individual who uses the Internet to work together to achieve the nation’s broadband goals.

“Building an inclusive digital society and achieving our broadband goals will require all of us to think outside of silos, to choose pragmatic and effective policies over ideology, and to drive broadband adoption by encouraging the creation of exciting content, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring that the Internet is a safe place to be.  And, the guiding principle on every issue should be to find the solution that moves broadband forward,” A+L concluded.

Broadband throttles and Internet Overcharging aren’t anti-consumer — they are “new policies or innovations.”  As long as the provider discloses them, all is well.

The ideology reference in the press release is remarkable, considering the people who involve themselves in Arts+Media represent a veritable hackathon of the DC political elite, from Mike McCurry, former Clinton Administration press secretary, Mark McKinnon, who advised President George W. Bush, to the aforementioned Jon Henke, who was hired originally to do “new media” damage control for former Virginia senator George “Macaca” Allen and then went to work for the presidential campaign of Fred Thompson.

As usual, the only people not on Arts+Labs’ People page are actual consumers.

To wrap up this party of special interests, which consumers aren’t invited to, we wind our way back to the home page of Digital Society, which features a familiar roster of recommended blogs and websites to visit.  Among them:

• Arts & Labs blog (Henke works with them)
• Broadband Politics (run by Richard Bennett, who forgot he worked for a K Street Lobbyist, actually on K Street (read the comments at the bottom of the linked article)
• Cisco Policy Blog (also a partner with Arts+Labs, has a direct interest in selling the bandwidth management hardware)
• Verizon Policy Blog (also a partner with Arts+Labs, and an interested provider in this issue)

In the beginning of this piece, I recited some of the “scare mongering” Ou accused groups of engaging in on the Net Neutrality debate back in 1996.  The first major Net Neutrality battle was with Comcast over bandwidth throttles.  The barely-conscious FCC under Kevin Martin spanked Comcast (who sued, of course) and we’ve been in a holding pattern ever since.  But the predictions have become remarkably true north of the American border, where Canada endures all of the things Ou swore up and down in 1996 would never happen.

• Most major broadband providers in Canada throttle the speeds of peer to peer applications, reducing speeds to a fraction promised in their marketing materials.
• Most major broadband providers in Canada not only charge customers based on broadband speed, but also by the volume of data consumed, causing spikes in customer bills and a reduction in usage allowances in some cases.  Customers now face overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding the Internet usage ration they are granted each month.
• In 2006, Shaw Communications in Canada tried sticking a $10 monthly fee on broadband customers wanting to use Voice Over IP telephone service.  Vonage Canada complained loudly at the time.
• As far as controlling what you see online, that’s already in the cards in the States, if the cable industry has any say in the matter.

With a pliable FCC, what exists in Canada today will exist in the United States tomorrow without Net Neutrality protections enacted into law.

(footnoted material appears below the break)

… Continue Reading

Schoharie County has the dubious distinction of being one of the New York counties least well-served with high speed broadband service.  In fact, according to the Schoharie County Telecommunications Task Force, our county is ranked last in the Capital Region, located in and around the state’s capital city Albany.

Last fall the Task Force concluded that almost half of the county’s residents had no access to broadband service at all, a point since disputed by one of the local telephone companies providing service to parts of the county, but regardless of who has access, residents are accustomed to taking whatever broadband service they can get.

Schoharie County has just over 31,000 residents across its 622 square miles.  It’s a beautiful place to live, especially along the southern parts of the county which lie within the Catskill Mountains.  Several small towns, villages and hamlets dot the county, providing a rural lifestyle but within easy reach of Schenectady and Albany.  Unfortunately, part of living in rural upstate New York is recognizing the reality of the digital divide.

To our east, our bigger city neighbors enjoy access to Verizon fiber-based networks and Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner broadband service.  Broadband is fast, plentiful and relatively inexpensive.  But once pastures replace strip malls, it’s an entirely different story.

In much of Schoharie County, broadband service is provided by locally owned Middleburgh Telephone Company, which has been serving most of our area for over 100 years.  A few dozen employees cover everything from billing to repair and installation, and not just for telephone and broadband service, but also for cable television.  Midtel Cable TV, owned by the telephone company, serves many areas the bigger cable companies forgot.

Unfortunately, Middleburgh Telephone controls broadband, which means instead of providing cable broadband over Midtel, customers in much of Schoharie County are stuck with old-fashioned DSL service delivered by telephone lines.

While the hometown feel of the local phone company makes you feel like a valued customer when you deal with them, the broadband products they offer leave a bitter taste in your mouth.  MIDTEL.NET customers can look forward to an either/or proposition.  Either endure painfully slow DSL service or pay an exorbitant amount of money for the kind of broadband service speeds commonly available in larger communities.

MIDTEL.NET Price Chart
DSL – mSPEED Lite: $29.95/month — 384kbps download, 128kbps upload
DSL – mSPEED: $43.95/month — 3Mbps download, 500kbps upload (Prepay discount: 6 months – $250.00 or 12 months – $495.00)
DSL – mSPEED Plus: $59.95/month — 5Mbps download, 1Mbps upload (Prepay discount: 6 months – $340.00 or 12 months – $670.00)
DSL – mSPEED Premium: $164.95/month — 10Mbps download, 1.5Mbps upload (Prepay discount: 6 months – $940.00 or 12 months – $1,850.00)

While most residents are grateful for the optional higher speed services our friends and neighbors in other rural communities simply don’t have, the pricing makes it unaffordable for the vast majority of residents, who typically make due with the mSPEED $43.95/month service.

Of course, those speeds are not guaranteed.  Because I reside more than 10,000 feet from the local telephone company central office, I cannot really access any service plan above 3Mbps.  The higher speeds simply would not work.

To our north, Frontier Communications provides telephone and broadband service to residents in Fulton, Herkimer, Clinton and Essex counties, as well as the western part of Montgomery County and parts of northern Saratoga County.  Frontier has taken ownership of several formerly independent telephone companies in eastern New York, as well as a few formerly owned by Rochester Telephone.  Frontier actually does a better job than Verizon in rural parts of upstate New York in providing at least some type of broadband service.  Large sections of the state still served by Verizon have no DSL or any other kind of broadband service.  Frontier does seem to pride itself with providing residents with broadband service, but not always consistently.

Stratford, Lassellsville, and Oppenheim, all within Fulton County are three communities with significant gaps.  All are within or adjacent to the Adirondack Park, which covers a section of the Adirondack Mountains.  At one point, several bypassed residents in Fulton County signed a petition and presented it to local Frontier officials, convincing them enough customers were willing to purchase the service to make it available to that neighborhood.

Frontier and Middleburgh Telephone both share an attitude of  requiring a “critical mass” of potential customers to make it worth their while to provide DSL service. Unfortunately, that cannot come fast enough for many underserved communities, whose local governments receive a steady stream of calls from residents wondering when broadband service will become available in their area.

Where Frontier does provide DSL service in rural upstate communities, it’s slow and expensive.

Frontier’s website for most of Fulton County shows two service plans available:

Frontier Communications DSL Price Chart
Frontier High-Speed Internet Lite – 768kbps  $39.99 per month
Frontier High-Speed Internet Max — up to 3Mbps  $49.99 per month

That pricing is before a $5 a month “modem rental fee,” and as least as much for taxes and surcharges.  Add at least $10 to the quoted price to cover all of these fees.  Frontier also likes to commit its customers to term commitments.  My friends in Frontier service areas are strongly pushed towards one, two, or even three year “price protection plans”, as well as a backup and support service called “Peace of Mind” which can add another $13 a month to your bill. Certain promotional bundle pricing can lower some of these costs, but not enough to erase the disparity in pricing between rural broadband service, and that provided in larger cities within easy driving distance.

The impact of unavailable or unaffordable broadband service can be severe, subjecting rural communities to economic disadvantages including:

• an inability for local small businesses to operate and/or maintain online websites to market products and services to customers;
• educational institutions are unable to effectively teach our children how to navigate the critically important online world;
• the impossibility of attracting high technology business and industry into underserved communities;
• a reduction in the quality of information and service available in rural public libraries;
• making life difficult for home-based teleworkers or telecommuters who conduct some/all of their employer’s work from home;
• a reduction in property values by reducing competition for available properties rejected by potential buyers because of lack of broadband access;
• a loss of potential innovation and online business start-ups because of lack of access;
• information disparity for residents unable to access online information the rest of the wired nation takes for granted.

So why do providers not provide universal access?  It’s a good question for some opinion leaders in this part of the state.

Anne Myers, the provost at SUNY Cobleskill, a state university, told the local newspaper that “Broadband is like rural electrification — it’s necessary for areas to move forward. There are things you can’t do if you don’t have broadband.”

Myers advocates for the same guarantee of access to broadband that Americans were given for electricity from the Roosevelt Administration’s electrification programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Rural Electric Administration.  Indeed, she could benefit from it, because her home in Summit, in Schoharie County, has no access to broadband either.

Unfortunately, the New York State Public Service Commission (NY PSC) has been less than aggressive in advocating for such an approach.  In fact, it has adopted a “free market” strategy and has become complacent and tolerant of the results: slow and expensive rural broadband, if it’s available at all.

The Public Utility Law Project of New York, a group advocating for universal access, has heavily criticized the NY PSC for what it calls, “in essence [arguments] for continued reliance on failing market-based policies, policies which exacerbate the digital divide and have left millions of households without broadband. A review of other comments filed with the FCC reveals that New York is behind the times and out of step with every other state that submitted comments [to the Federal Communications Commission].”

Lou Manuta, who writes for the PULP Blog, went much further:

Essentially, the PSC seems to be saying that policy makers elected by the people who see the importance of universal affordable broadband to the future of the economy and society should not disturb the results of the broadband “market” – which in most localities is a duopoly of landline and cable providers. Such blind faith in the market, however, has already left New York far behind countries that have been proactive with policies to lower the cost of broadband, increase speed and bandwidth, and increase its deployment and actual use by citizens. The PSC even questioned the need to bring broadband to every citizen today:

A broadband plan seeking to bring broadband immediately to 100 percent of the country may be ill-advised. A goal of 100 percent broadband deployment may not be economically rational with traditional, wired service. However, the evolution of technology, like third generation wireless, could provide more efficient and cost effective alternatives for ubiquitous broadband.

This is a familiar refrain to defend market power of existing providers: someday the market will bring providers with a new technology that magically would bring affordable service to unserved or underserved areas, so therefore regulators and government should do nothing.

Groups that provided comments similar to those of the PSC were free-market think tanks, such as Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks Foundation, and Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). ATR, founded by anti-tax radical Grover Norquist. The PSC’s positions closely resonate with the comments of ATR, which glossed over the market failure and reduced competitive position of the United States in comparison to other countries, and wrote:

We are on the right track; the free market is working. Consumers are enjoying an ever-expanding array of choices and performance. . . . In order for free-market models to provide for the further development of broadband access, however, it is absolutely critical that government intrusion not prevent private capital from recouping its investment. If private capital becomes convinced that its ability to recoup its investments is less likely, it will be less likely to make the significant investments in broadband that is the very goal of this FCC inquiry.”

Both the PSC and ATR take these “hands off” positions when it comes to the price and deployment decisions of the cable and phone company duopoly, even though

• millions of people who in theory have “access” to broadband cannot afford it,
• the U.S. has some of the world’s slowest, most costly broadband (per megabit per second),
• the U.S. subscribership rate has sunk from 4th to 15th in the world in recent years, even as other countries with more affirmative broadband policies surge ahead.

So what precisely keeps broadband providers from providing universal access and wiring all of their customers?  Profit and return.  The costs to construct extensions of their networks to reach even the most isolated customers isn’t worth the potential return, say most providers.

Before the Obama Administration turns on the broadband stimulus faucet, the emergency federal economic stimulus package provided more than seven billion dollars for “shovel-ready” construction projects across the nation.  More than $175 million is targeted for New York state.  Despite Albany’s usual circus-like chaos, dysfunction, and a recent state Senate coup d’etat, Governor Paterson, the Senate and Assembly managed to identify 32 broadband projects that could be eligible for grants from the federal fund.  Competition for “free money” from everyone from educational groups to telephone companies to local municipalities is fierce, and will only grow more so when the federal broadband stimulus money begins to flow.

Both Frontier and Middleburgh Telephone believe federal stimulus funding may help improve the viability of reaching their most rural communities.

Middleburgh Telephone is even willing to partner with municipalities to provide service to areas it does not reach today, such as in Carlisle and Esperance.

But just as important as availability, according to Lou Manuta with PULP, is affordability.  Even where broadband is plentiful and less expensive than in rural areas, it’s still out of reach for many of New York’s poorest residents.  Manuta advocates providing special “Lifeline”-type broadband packages to disadvantaged state residents, which offer very basic broadband service for a very low price.

For residents in rural New York, change cannot come soon enough.  Without it, even big states like New York will leave hundreds of thousands of residents behind, stuck with slow broadband at unaffordable prices.

Jenny Pirro comes to Stop the Cap! as a consumer concerned about broadband service in rural communities.  She is a lifelong resident of upstate New York, recently retired from a career in banking.   She has been a customer of both Middleburgh Telephone and Frontier Communications.  For privacy, Jenny chooses to write under her maiden name.

One of the arguments used by those who want to engage in Internet Overcharging is that people already “pay for what they use” for gas and electric service, so why shouldn’t they adopt the same attitude towards Internet service.

Historically, people did used to pay for their usage of online services, before there was a World Wide Web.  CompuServe, QuantumLink, PeopleLink, Delphi, GEnie, AOL, among many others used to provide access to dial-up users for a fee which varied depending on the amount of time spent accessing the service.  Rates during business hours were outrageous (CompuServe charged upwards of $12-16 per hour in the 1980s), but more reasonable during the evenings.

But as costs to provide the service declined, providers rapidly abandoned that type of pricing for flat rate, unlimited access for one monthly price.  Internet Service Providers worked the same way, with customers first using dial-up modems to connect for one monthly price.  Nobody worried about watching the clock or meters.  It has worked that way ever since, with highly profitable results for broadband providers.

Now, some of these companies hunger for more of your dollars, and they are attempting to convince you their pricing should be similar to utilities like gas, electricity, and water (while conveniently not allowing themselves to be regulated like those providers).  They scrupulously avoid comparing their service with telephone companies, which are really the closest cousins to broadband service.

Now we know why.  While some broadband providers want to move away from flat rate pricing, telephone companies are moving toward flat rate pricing.

In addition to unlimited local, statewide, and nationwide flat rate long distance plans, MetroPCS, a regional prepaid mobile telephone provider, has announced a new unlimited international flat rate calling plan for just $5 per month.

To be eligible for $5 Unlimited International Calling,  customers must choose an unlimited calling plan starting at $40 per month.  For an additional $5, customers get unlimited calling to 100 countries.

MetroPCS sees this new international flat rate plan as a “game changer” in the industry, drawing large numbers of new subscribers who love to call overseas.  The company may even attract tourists who sign up with a “throwaway” basic mobile phone just for the duration of their visit.  The costs for the service are dramatically lower than roaming rates, especially for international calls, even with the price of the phone.

The only downside?  MetroPCS operates in only a limited number of cities, although they maintain roaming agreements with Leap Wireless (Cricket) to extend their coverage.  Once one company offers flat rate international calling, others will certainly follow, potentially establishing a new paradigm for truly unlimited mobile phone calling, regardless of where you call.

Cogeco, following in the footsteps of Rogers, Canada’s largest cable operator, has mailed letters home to residential subscribers informing them that their new Internet Overcharging scheme and fees are real and will apply to broadband accounts that exceed their arbitrary usage allowances.  Since the spring, Cogeco has been showing the Internet Overcharges on subscriber’s bills, but not actually billing them.  That is set to change, however, and many residents in Ontario and Quebec are quite upset.

“Cogeco can bite me. As soon as I manage to scrounge up a second DSL modem I’m gone.”

“I’m waiting for the Cogeco trolls to come out of the woodwork so they can claim how competitive and affordable that plan is.”

“I am starting to hate Cogeco very much, I am tempted to cancel my internet and my digital TV service for spite.”

“Vote with your wallets guys, I did. And now with the increase I’m going to cancel my HD access and return the receiver — enough is enough. I’ll be down to Basic Digital Cable and if they keep increasing prices, that will go too.”

“Ditto! Price increase is THE LAST STRAW for this 10 year + customer!”

Cogeco’s limits also come with overlimit fees that are particularly harsh on casual and power users.  In Canada, many overlimit fees are currently capped at a maximum amount, and do not continue to increase beyond that maximum.  Lite users face a $2.50/GB overlimit fee (maximum $30), despite representing almost no usage impact on Cogeco’s network, and “Pro” users face a $1/GB overlimit fee, but face a maximum of $50 in overlimit penalties, despite paying a much higher up-front monthly subscription fee.

In a nutshell,

• Lite – 10GB/mo bitcap – $2.50 per GB over to a maximum of $30
• Lite Plus – 20GB/mo bitcap – $2.00 per GB over to a maximum of $30
• Standard – 60GB/mo bitcap – $1.50 per GB over to a maximum of $30
• Pro – 100GB/mo bitcap – $1.00 per GB over to a maximum of $50

Broadband providers in the United States always promise that if they are permitted to introduce Internet Overcharging schemes, it will be “fairer” for all customers, because “heavy users should pay more for what lighter users don’t do.” Providers also typically allude to network improvements and no widespread price increases.

But as Canadians have already discovered, big telecommunications firms operating with virtual duopolies can have their cake and eat it too.

Cogeco customers now face the prospects of classic Internet Overcharging — usage allowances, overlimit fees and penalties, and “fair pricing,” but after the company implemented these schemes, consumers got a reminder of what cable operators like Cogeco are also capable of — widespread rate hiking.

New Rates: We’re improving our services so you’ll continue the best today and in the future (effective July 17, 2009):

Internet Pricing

Standard – With TV or Phone…..current rate: $44.95……new rate: $45.95

Standard – Standalone……..current rate: $52.95………..new rate: $54.95

Pro – With TV or Phone……..current rate: $69.95………..new rate: $76.95

Pro – Standalone……………..current rate: $74.95………..new rate: $81.95

Internet Overchargers like Cogeco consider “fair share” to mean giving an equal amount of dollars from yourself to them.  That’s fair, right?

It’s simply more evidence to this universal truth, a fact of life every North American should already know:

Cable bills never decrease, they only increase, unless you drop services.

When a cable company tells you they have a plan to guarantee “fairness,” be sure to remember what represents “fairness” to you may mean something entirely different to them.