The primary backers of the ABC Plan

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is scheduled to deliver a major announcement on reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF) — a federal program designed to subsidize the costs of delivering telecommunications services to rural America.

The reform, long overdue, would transition a significant percentage of USF fees every telephone customer pays towards broadband deployment — a noble endeavor.  For years, Americans have paid more than $5 billion annually to phone companies large and small to maintain rural landline service.  Small co-op phone companies depend on the income to deliver affordable service in places like rural Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska.  But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also collect a significant share (around $800 million annually) to reduce their costs of service in the rural communities they serve.

That’s particularly ironic for AT&T, which time and time again has sought the right to abandon universal rural landline service altogether.

Genachowski’s idea would divert USF funding towards broadband construction projects.  The argument goes that even low speed DSL requires a well-maintained landline network, so phone companies that want to deploy rural broadband will have to spend the money on necessary upgrades to provide just enough service to earn their USF subsidies.  The lower the speed, the lower the cost to upgrade networks and provide the service.  Some may choose wireless technology instead.  Since the telephone companies have fought long and hard to define “broadband” as anything approaching 3-4Mbps, that will likely be the kind of speed rural Americans will receive.

At first glance, USF reform seems like a good idea, but as with everything at the FCC these days, the devil is always in the details.

Dampier: Another day, another self-serving plan from the phone companies that will cost you more.

While headline skimmers are likely to walk away with the idea that the FCC is doing something good for rural broadband, in fact, the Commission may simply end up rubber stamping an industry-written and supported plan that will substantially raise phone bills and divert your money into projects and services the industry was planning to sell you anyway.

Stop the Cap! wrote about the ABC Plan a few weeks ago when we discovered almost all of the support for the phone-company-written proposal comes from the phone companies who back it, as well as various third party organizations that receive substantial financial support from those companies.  It’s a dollar-a-holler astroturf movement in the making, and if the ABC Plan is enacted, you will pay for it.

[Read Universal Service Reform Proposal from Big Telcos Would Rocket Phone Bills Higher and Astroturf and Industry-Backed, Dollar-a-Holler Friends Support Telco’s USF Reform Plan.]

Here is what you probably won’t hear at today’s event.

At the core of the ABC Plan is a proposal to slash the per-minute rates rural phone companies can charge big city phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to connect calls to rural areas.  You win a gold star if you correctly guessed this proposal originated with AT&T and Verizon, who together will save literally billions in call connection costs under their plan.

With a proposal like this, you would assume most rural phone companies are howling in protest.  It turns out some are, especially some of the smallest, family-run and co-op based providers.  But a bunch of phone companies that consider rural America their target area — Frontier, CenturyLink, FairPoint and Windstream, are all on board with AT&T and Verizon.  Why?

Because these phone companies have a way to cover that lost revenue — by jacking up your phone bill’s USF surcharge to as much as $11 a month per line to make up the difference.  In the first year of implementation, your rates could increase up to $4.50 per line (and that fee also extends to cell phones).  Critics have been widely publicizing the increased phone bills guaranteed under the ABC Plan.  In response, advocates for the industry are rushing out the results of a new study released yesterday from the Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George S. Ford that claims the exact opposite.  Dr. Ford claims each customer could pay approximately $14 less per year in access charges if the industry’s ABC Plan is fully implemented.

Genachowski

Who is right?  State regulators suggest rate increases, not decreases, will result.  The “Phoenix Center,” unsurprisingly, has not disclosed who paid for the study, but there is a long record of a close working relationship between that research group and both AT&T and Verizon.

But it gets even worse.

This shell game allows your local phone company to raise rates and blame it on the government, despite the fact those companies will directly benefit from that revenue in many cases.  It’s a real win-win for AT&T and Verizon, who watch their costs plummet while also sticking you with a higher phone bill.

The USF program was designed to provide for the neediest rural phone companies, but under the new industry-written rules being considered by the FCC, just about everyone can get a piece, as long as “everyone” is defined as “the phone company.”  There is a reason this plan does not win the hearts and minds of the cable industry, independent Wireless ISPs, municipalities, or other competing upstarts.  As written, the USF reform plan guarantees virtually all of the financial support stays in the Bell family.  Under the arcane rules of participation, only telephone companies are a natural fit to receive USF money.

Genachowski will likely suggest this plan will provide for rural broadband in areas where it is unavailable today.  He just won’t say what kind of broadband rural America will get.  He can’t, because the industry wrote their own rules in their plan to keep accountability and oversight as far away as possible.

For example, let’s assume you are a frustrated customer of Frontier Communications in West Virginia who lives three blocks away from the nearest neighbor who pays $50 a month for 3Mbps DSL broadband.  You can’t buy the service at any price because Frontier doesn’t offer it.  You have called them a dozen times and they keep promising it’s on the way, but they cannot say when.  You may have even seen them running new cable in the neighborhood.

Frontier has made it clear they intend to wire a significantly greater percentage of the Mountain State than Verizon ever did when it ran things.  Let’s take them at their word for this example.

The telephone companies have helpfully written their own rules for the FCC to adopt.

Frontier’s decision to provide broadband service in West Virginia does not come out of the goodness of their heart.  At a time when landline customers are increasingly disconnecting service, Frontier’s long-term business plan is to keep customers connected by selling packages of phone, broadband, and satellite TV in rural markets.  Investment in DSL broadband deployment has been underway with or without the assistance of the Universal Service Fund because it makes financial sense.  Our customer in West Virginia might disconnect his landline and use a cell phone instead, costing Frontier any potential broadband, TV and telephone service revenue.

Under the ABC Plan, Frontier can be subsidized by ratepayers nationwide to deliver the service they were planning to provide anyway.  And what kind of service?  The same 3Mbps DSL the neighbors have.

If your county government, a cable operator, or wireless competitor decided they could deliver 10-20Mbps broadband for the same $50 a month, could they receive the USF subsidy to build a better network instead?  Under the phone company plan, the answer would be almost certainly no.

Simon Fitch, the consumer advocate of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, which advises the FCC on universal service matters, says the ABC Plan is a consumer disaster.

“Although a stated goal of the FCC’s reform effort is to refocus universal-service funding to support broadband, the industry’s ABC plan requires no real commitment to make broadband available to unserved and underserved communities,” Fitch writes. “Companies would receive funds to provide broadband with upload and download speeds that are already obsolete. States would be given no real enforcement power.”

Fitch is certain companies like AT&T and Verizon will receive enormous ratepayer-financed subsidies they don’t actually need to provide service.

Back to AT&T.

In several states, AT&T is seeking the right to terminate its universal service obligation altogether, which would allow the same company fiercely backing the ABC Plan to entirely walk away from its landline network.  Why?  Because AT&T sees its future profits in wireless.  Under the ABC Plan, AT&T could build rural cell towers with your money to provide “replacement service” over a wireless network with or without great coverage, and with a 2GB usage cap.

At the press conference, Genachowski could still declare victory because rural America would, in fact, get broadband.  Somehow, the parts about who is actually paying for it, the fact it comes with no speed, coverage, or quality guarantees, and starts with a 2GB usage cap on the wireless side will all be left out.

Fortunately, not everyone is as enamored with the ABC Plan as the groups cashing checks written by AT&T.

In addition to state regulators, Consumers Union, the AARP, Free Press, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates are all opposed to the plan, which delivers all of the benefits to giant phone companies while sticking you with the bill.

There is a better way.  State regulators and consumer groups have their own plans which accomplish the same noble goal of delivering subsidies to broadband providers of all kinds without increasing your telephone bill.  It’s up to the FCC to demonstrate it’s not simply a rubber stamp for the schemes being pushed by AT&T and Verizon.

South Africa’s largest Internet Service Provider, the former state-owned telephone company Telkom, has introduced uncapped broadband service across the country.

Telkom’s Do Uncapped offering removes usage limits after “intensive market research” and “data usage trials” concluded South African consumers absolutely despise usage limits on their Internet access.

In fact, in overwhelming numbers, consumers preferred unlimited access over faster broadband speed packages.  Even throttled “fair use” policies which slightly reduce speeds during peak usage periods are more tolerable than restricted usage allowances, overlimit fees, and punishing “dial-up” speeds when customers exceed their usage limit.

“To feed the hunger for data, Telkom has tailored its Do Uncapped range according to consumer usage patterns derived from findings of the Company’s broadband trials on higher cap trials conducted earlier this year,” the company said in a statement.

Inexpensive, lower speed offerings are available at 384kbps and 1Mbps, but do come with certain daytime speed restrictions, especially on peer to peer traffic.  The premium 4Mbps package is truly unlimited.

South Africa’s challenged telephone network has resulted in relatively low broadband speeds when compared against Asia, North America, and Europe, but the unlimited offerings are being welcomed by Telkom customers across the country.

Because DSL service from the phone company has traditionally been slow and, until recently, expensive, many South Africans rely primarily on wireless mobile services, which can be more reliable in some parts of the country.  Some purchase wireless broadband service from providers like MTN instead of DSL from the phone company.

As a home broadband replacement, wireless mobile broadband has always meant compromising on usage, because most plans are heavily capped and some block access to certain web content.  But MTN is responding to Telkom’s move away from usage caps by removing them from its own wireless network, at least during a promotion.

MTN is kicking off the South African summer with its newest promotion, unlimited speed and uncapped wireless data access on the company’s HSPA+ network, effective Oct. 1.

The limits stay off until the end of summer — Jan 2012.

“We have seen a significant number of our customers taking up latest smartphones, tablet PCs, wireless routers and laptop deals that MTN is offering,” said Serame Taukobong, MTN South Africa Chief Marketing Officer. “This promotion is a response to the increased data appetite that comes with the usage of these devices.”

That’s an attitude foreign to North American mobile operators, who see those devices as enemies of their wireless network (or the basis for future profits).  In South Africa, consumers adopting new wireless devices and increased usage has triggered a marketplace response that eases or ends usage caps.  In North America, the opposite is happening.

MTN has slashed its mobile broadband prices over the course of 2011 for the highest speed, unlimited access package from a budget-busting $248 a month to $111 a month.  A slower speed unlimited package now sells for $37 a month.  That becomes very affordable for Internet users who use their mobile devices exclusively for access.  Even a package selling over $100 a month may be comparably affordable to an American who is required to maintain a home broadband and mobile broadband account.

MTN even allows wireless peer to peer traffic, but the company asks subscribers to be reasonable and not leave it running 24/7.

Suddenlink will introduce an Internet Overcharging scheme beginning with their customers in Amarillo, Tex. Oct. 3rd, according to a company document obtained by Stop the Cap!  But the new usage cap and overlimit fee scheme will not be limited to Texas.  The company’s internal memo notes the new limits will eventually be imposed on customers nationwide, and incredibly, the cable operator claims it will make their Internet service better:

Early next month, October 2011, Suddenlink will notify residential (non-business) Internet customers in Amarillo, Texas, of a new usage allowance plan (AP) that is designed to further enhance their Internet experience.

This allowance plan will be introduced to other residential Internet customers, in other Suddenlink communities, in the following weeks and months.

An introductory letter will be mailed to Suddenlink residential Internet customers, when our allowance plan goes into effect in their community. The introductory letter to Amarillo customers will be mailed on or about October 3, 2011.

In addition to the introductory letter noted above, we will launch a new Web page on or about October 3, 2011, at suddenlink.com/allowanceplan.

This new page will provide additional information about the allowance plan in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs).

Suddenlink's national service area

On the first instance of exceeding the limit, the customer’s Internet service will be suspended until the customer reads and agrees to a web notification message that includes an understanding that on the fourth instance of going over their usage cap, customers will be billed $10 for every 50GB increment that exceeds their allowance, whether it is by 1MB or 40GB.  That pricing is identical to AT&T’s usage cap overlimit fee.

Amarillo residents already pay $55 a month for 15Mbps standalone broadband service from Suddenlink.

Stop the Cap! reached out twice today to Suddenlink officials to get their reasons for implementing the usage allowance program, what the specific allowances might be, and when the usage caps will reach markets beyond Amarillo.  We have still not heard back from them as we “go to press” but will update the piece if and when we do receive their comments.

Suddenlink’s employees are being trained on how to handle the inevitable complaints when customers discover their bills have suddenly increased.  Their employee FAQ:

Q. I only went over my allowance by 1 gigabyte, but I was still charged $10. I thought I would not be charged $10 until I was 50 gigabytes over my allowance. What happened?

Of the very few customers who go over their monthly allowance, we have found that most go over by a significant amount. Accordingly, to make this process as fair and simple as possible on all customers, we do not start charging until the third time someone goes over the allowance – and, once that happens, we automatically assign additional allowances to the account, in standard 50-gigabyte installments, at a standard price of $10 for each installment.

Customers can use all or some of that additional allowance, depending on their individual situations. What’s more, if they exceed the additional allowance of 50 gigabytes, another 50-gig allowance is automatically applied, again at the standard price of $10.

To help customers manage their Internet accounts, we have provided a way for them to monitor their monthly usage at Suddenlink.net.
• If you’re already registered at Suddenlink.net, log on, go to “My Account,” and then click the link for “My Internet Usage Summary.”
• If you’re not already registered at Suddenlink.net, visit that site, look toward the upper right corner for the log-in box and the link that reads “Don’t have an account? Sign up now!” Follow that link to a set of instructions on how to register your account, and then, when you’re finished, click the link for “My Internet Usage Summary.”

Kent: The days of system upgrades are over.

Finally, we offer some tips at suddenlink.com/allowanceplan, about ways to keep usage within the monthly allowances we’ve established.

Q. Can I have fewer than 50 gigabytes or less than $10.00 applied to my account the next time I go over?

Not at this time. The 50-gigabyte installments and $10 per installment charges have been standardized in all areas where we’ve rolled out this allowance plan, to make the process as fair and simple as possible on all customers.

Q. I don’t recall being notified that this was starting in my area. When did that happen?

We mailed letters announcing this change to all customers in your area several weeks before the allowance plan was put into place. I’m sorry if you missed that letter, but rest assured, very few customers – less than 1 out of every 100 – go over their allowance. And for the very few customers who do go over their allowances, charges are waived the first couple of times.

Q. What gives Suddenlink the right to do this?

We occasionally make changes to our Internet services, consistent with our Residential Services Agreement, which is published on our website. This allowance plan is one of those changes.

If asked: To view our Residential Services Agreement, go to Suddenlink.com, and look for a link near the bottom of the page titled, “Terms & Policies.” Click on that link and then look for another link titled, “Residential Services Agreement.” Click on that link and then scroll down the page until you see the sections related to Internet service, such as Section 46.

Suddenlink’s new Internet Overcharging website is not yet active, so we are unsure exactly what plan limits will be, but Suddenlink has been no stranger to usage caps.  The company introduced a usage meter in several markets in the summer of 2009, and used to claim usage limits were partly to handle traffic loads on a limited number of cable systems that were in the process of upgrading.  Once the upgrades were complete, the caps were supposed to be relaxed or retired.

Then, Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent appeared on CNBC last September to announce that people don’t realize the days of system upgrades are over and it was time to rake in the profits:

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Suddenlink’s journey to usage caps includes all the hallmarks we foretold in an article published on Stop the Cap! in 2009:

1. Establish a foundation for usage caps.  In their 2009 FAQ, Suddenlink conflated broadband usage with electricity: “What is “Internet usage”?  Much like electric usage is measured in kilowatts, and water usage is measured in gallons, Internet usage is measured in gigabytes (GB).”
2. Establish a ‘pulled from the air’ number of gigabytes (which often conveniently later becomes your usage allowance) and then tell subscribers what they can do with that.  In Humboldt County, Calif., in March 2011, Suddenlink began telling “heavy users” what other customers were doing with what the company deemed a more appropriate, average amount of Internet service.  Suddenlink also told customers the Internet service they were providing was for “entertainment only.”
3. Tell customers such tools are actually for their benefit.  See above.
   
4. Lie to customers when a usage meter suddenly shows up or terms and conditions are quietly changed to support an Internet Overcharging scheme.  In 2009, Suddenlink introduced a usage meter but tried to reassure customers, telling them: “Does Suddenlink plan to set a maximum usage allowance for its Internet customers, like other companies are doing? Do you plan to charge extra if a customer’s usage is too high?  Those steps are not part of our current plan. Our only goal at this time is to help the few customers whose usage is well above (two to three times higher than) the typical range to identify the reasons for that high usage and take steps to protect and secure their computers and accounts.”

You used too much. Look what you can do with an "average" amount of usage instead.

Now usage caps will protect and enhance Suddenlink’s profits on Internet service.  Remarkably, Suddenlink put itself in the “predicament” of facing increased customer demand of the Internet through its own marketing.  The company’s website heavily promotes its bandwidth-heavy Suddenlink2GO™ service to “watch TV online anytime, anywhere in the U.S. on any computer for FREE when you subscribe!”

But “free” becomes $10 for every 50GB if you watch too much.

How to Get Unlimited Back: If you are a Suddenlink residential customer who does not want to face restricted-use Internet, you can avoid the limits by switching to Business Class service, which will not have caps.  Unfortunately, pricing information was not immediately available to us.  One customer in Lubbock noted he paid $69 a month for 6Mbps Business Class service and $107 a month for 107Mbps residential service, so expect to pay comparatively more for lower speed service.

Some of Clearwire’s very first, and most loyal customers in the Pacific Northwest are receiving an unwelcome message of thanks for their years of service with the company: a massive rate increase.

The company is nearly doubling rates for customers who were promised special “lifetime” discounts for agreeing to remain with the wireless 4G broadband service, which has been experiencing financial problems recently.

D.B. in Seattle has been a Clearwire customer for years, even before the company upgraded to WiMax speeds.  In 2009, Clearwire sent him an offer he couldn’t refuse: stay with Clear and pay just $22 a month (plus $5 modem rental fee) for life.

“Of course I accepted immediately,” D.B. writes. “Then Clear [sent me a letter recently] telling me my monthly fee was going up to approximately $47 a month with the modem fee.”

D.B. has been calling and e-mailing Clearwire asking what happened to the $22-for-life promotion he has in writing from the company, but “nobody knows anything.”

Clearwire says they have improved their service recently in Seattle, but D.B. isn’t impressed.

“I’m here to tell the world that is not true,” he says. “Plus the times I’ve had this thing freeze up has greatly increased, and usually I have to unplug the modem for five minutes [to get service back].”

Mireille in Seattle managed to get an even lower “lifetime” rate from Clearwire two years ago.

“They offered me a monthly rate of $19.95 for as long as I maintained uninterrupted Clearwire service. That means forever and ever until I cancel.,” she says.  “Last week they sent me an email letting me know that they were raising my rate to $35.95 a month (that includes a $10 a month ‘long time customer discount’) and since I was such a good customer I was being offered that rate for the life of my uninterrupted Clearwire service. Sound familiar?”

Mireille calls it something else: breach of contract.

“I spoke to three different people and no one had anything to say besides that they were sorry but they were not able offer me that rate anymore.”

Customers in the Portland, Ore. area are getting similar e-mails, and The Oregonian took note:

Clearwire Corp., a wireless Internet provider that operates as Clear, is raising prices for 30,000 customers who signed up for the service soon after its 2009 launch.

The Kirkland, Wash.-based company didn’t provide details of the rate hikes, but e-mails to customers show that monthly rates for some home Internet plans will rise from $35 to $45 beginning in October.

Clearwire said the rate hike affects both home and mobile customers who subscribed when the service was first available, at a time when rates were lower or promotional prices were available.

Clearwire still offers a home Internet plan for $35 a month, but it limits download speeds to 1.5 megabits per second — one-eighth the speed of Comcast’s standard plan. Clear’s standard plan, which now costs $45, promises downloads between 3 and 6 megabits per second.

Konrad Von Finckenstein

Konrad von Finckenstein, the head of Canada’s telecommunications regulator who initially rubber-stamped a Bell proposal to force Internet providers in Canada to charge usage-based pricing will not be back for a second term.

Von Finckenstein broke the news himself in a memo sent to staff at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, stating he would end his leadership of the CRTC when his five-year term concludes in January.

The CRTC has made uncomfortable headlines for Canada’s Conservative government, primarily by approving an Internet pricing plan submitted by Bell that would require virtually every Internet provider in Canada to end unlimited, flat rate pricing for broadband service.

The CRTC is hardly a hotbed of headline news for most Canadians.  The sleepy agency regulates telephone, broadband, television, and radio in the country with an increasingly light touch.  Ten years ago, the CRTC was regularly accused by some broadcasters of meddling in their private business.  These days the Commission, packed with members who formerly worked for the companies they now oversee, has gotten considerably more friendly with those they regulate.

That policy blew up in their faces when Bell got most of what it wanted in a wholesale pricing change that was so wide-reaching, it would potentially impact every Canadian Internet user.  Nearly a half-million of them registered their displeasure in a petition sponsored by Openmedia.ca.

Von Finckenstein’s resolute attitude towards the correctness of that decision was soon tempered when Industry Minister Tony Clement found himself overruling the CRTC in a Twitter message, telling Canadians the decision to impose usage-based billing “would not be allowed to stand.”

Opposition members in Parliament had a field day over Clement’s repeated distancing of the government from CRTC policies, particularly the one involving Internet pricing.

Liberal MP Marc Garneau seized on the fact Clement tweeted his intentions to the public at large before sharing them with von Finckenstein himself.  That, Garneau claimed, was the latest example of the government’s lack of clear policy on issues such as usage-based billing that has left the CRTC in what he called a “giant policy vacuum.”

The announcement by the CRTC chairman comes at the same time the Commission is finalizing a re-evaluation of its earlier decision on usage-based billing.

While hundreds of thousands of Canadians upset with the CRTC may be glad to see the back of von Finckenstein, his colleagues were considerably more generous with their praise:

Former CRTC executive Richard French credits Von Finckenstein, saying he sped up the commission’s decisions, improved the atmosphere around the offices and rarely left anyone guessing what he thought, “which I think is a virtue in a regulator.”

“He balanced the desire for more market forces with a recognition that for most of the industries in question, the Canadian market is sub-economic, it’s just not big enough to sustain enough players in this capital intensive business to create real competition so regulation is required,” French said Monday.

“He’s done an excellent job and he deserves the respect and appreciation of the industry and of the population,” French said.

Heritage Minister James Moore’s office issued a statement thanking von Finckenstein for his service as CRTC chair and said a process to select a new chair would be announced in the coming weeks.