Comcast Implements 250GB Usage Cap Effective October 1, 2008.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts likes his new high-tech toys, even if using them on his own cable system is now pointless.   At the January Consumer Electronics Show, Roberts demonstrated the next generation of broadband Comcast is poised to begin rolling out to consumers in the next several months.

Dubbed “wideband,” Roberts downloaded a High Definition copy of Batman Begins in less than four minutes.   Comcast’s DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade, which bonds multiple channels together to deliver broadband speeds up to  160 Megabits per second, will be able to bring Comcast customers the latest high bandwidth applications, particularly including very high quality video, in just a matter of minutes.

Designed to compete with Verizon’s FIOS fiber to the home network, Comcast’s “wideband” service will create a new paradigm for high quality video services entering the home.

Except for one thing.

A 250GB monthly usage cap.

Using Comcast’s wideband service, customers downloading movies could easily exceed the 250GB cap in less than five hours.

Even the cable industry’s trade publications like Multichannel News are now posing questions about how exactly Comcast can promote customers upgrading to wideband service when a cap of 250GB stops the fun in a matter of hours.   What MN didn’t add to the equation is the fact Verizon FIOS does not have a usage cap and has no current plans to implement one.

So exactly why would any consumer choose Comcast wideband, with a usage cap over Verizon FIOS, which leaves you alone and doesn’t threaten to terminate your service if you use more than the cable company deems appropriate?

Another issue MN touched on, but didn’t bother extending to the real issue – stifling competition:

Imagine if all your TV were delivered via the Internet. High-quality  1080i HD video at (conservatively) an average of  5 Mbps would chew up plenty of bandwidth: roughly 286 Gigabytes in a 30-day period, given that Americans watch an average of 127 hours and 15 minutes of TV per month, according to Nielsen.  Cap busted!

Imagine indeed.   Imagine virtual “cable companies” delivering cable networks and broadcast TV over the Internet.   Pay your monthly bill for data from the cable company, but watch your video programming from another provider.   A 250GB cap puts an end to that business plan quite nicely, thank you.

Comcast CEO Demonstrates Wideband At Cable Show In May

By the way, a quick note to Frontier, which still thinks 5GB a month is just plenty. Pay attention to the file sizes in this video and then get back to us about why you think your customers will never come close to using 5GB a month in the coming year or two.

BREAKING NEWS: Frontier Communications has modified their position on the 5GB usage cap yet again.   Your pushback on this unjustified 5GB monthly usage cap has continued to make a real difference in getting company officials to listen to reason.

Frontier’s website has been changed again, now deleting the portions of their DSL sales pitch which used to reference “5GB” of included access per month.   Additional changes have been made to their terms and conditions pages.   Still present in Frontier’s Residential Acceptable Use Policy is the language which defines their usage cap at 5GB per month, although they don’t formally call it that.   Instead, they consider 5GB to be a “reasonable” amount of usage, and reserve the right to terminate accounts that exceed it.   However, some other language has been introduced as Frontier backs off from implementing their cap formally:

The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Company officials have repeatedly said they will not penalize customers who exceed the 5GB “reasonable” level they define in their Acceptable Use Policy, which is to be commended.   But as Frontier Communications has been continually modifying their position on the cap issue in general, both in comments to reporters and on their website, customers have no guarantees what they insist today won’t be much different tomorrow.

StopTheCap! calls on Frontier to do the right thing and remove this entire “5GB” section of their Residential Acceptable Use Policy altogether.   It is this language upon which the entire 5GB usage cap debacle was built, and Frontier can show its good faith by eliminating it from their website  if they truly want to put customers at ease.

We have also learned that Frontier has taken another piece of our advice: to launch a campaign to better educate and inform their customers about how bandwidth is utilized, and ways they can reduce their usage voluntarily.

StopTheCap! strongly believes that consumers are willing to review what they are doing with their Internet connections and will reduce usage voluntarily if they understood how certain applications can consume bandwidth even if they don’t seem to be running.   And it’s a win-win for customers who wonder why their Internet connection seems so slow without realizing someone in the house is running a torrent server 24/7, or has a computer infected with a virus that is churning out millions of spam e-mails without the owner even realizing it.

Treating your customers right means allowing them to  take advantage of the myriad of new applications and features a broadband experience can provide, without a draconian limit on that usage.   And customers have a responsibility to better understand what they are running on their computers.

There are several additional developments about Frontier’s 5GB usage cap, and we’ll be publishing a roundup of the latest news, including your comments and what company representatives have been telling you, shortly.

This remains a developing story.

Beaumont, Texas

Beaumont, on the eastern border of Texas with Louisiana,  is one of America’s mid-sized cities of just over 100,000 people, best known for the Texas Wildcatters,  a smattering of oil and gas companies, and the first advance by Time Warner, America’s second largest cable television company, into this year’s issue of bandwidth usage caps.

Company officials first announced the market test  in January, impacting only new customers in Road Runner’s Golden Triangle Division with usage caps ranging from 5GB  for the Lite Tier plan to 40GB for the Turbo Tier.   The charge for exceeding your plan’s cap is $1 per gigabyte.

Like other companies talking about usage caps, everyone likes to use their own internal definitions of what 1GB of usage represents.   Time Warner’s is:

1GB gets you about 70,000 e-mails, 34 hours of gaming or 1,344 hours of Web browsing; or, it’s the approximate equivalent of downloading 569 photos, 277 music files, 7 hours of low-resolution video (YouTube), 3 hours of standard definition streaming video or 45 minutes of high-definition streaming video.

Again, my own calculations bring some different numbers to the table, and, honestly, does anyone really worry about going over a usage cap from reading e-mail and web browsing alone?

Randomly grabbing 277 MP3 music files consumed 1.56GB of usage.   Downloading 569 photos assumes your collection consists of pictures averaging 1.75MB apiece.   I grabbed some digital photos I took to Walgreens for printing and looked at the files I uploaded to their server.   My pictures, at high resolution (but not extremely high) come closer to 8MB apiece.   One  episode of Law & Order (around 42 minutes without the commercials and dropping the stream before the end credits rolled) consumed 360MB at standard definition rates.   As noted earlier, a movie delivered by Akamai can consume 6-9GB for just one 720p high definition film, nearly double that if you choose the 1080 version.

Taking each of these activities into consideration individually, usage caps of 20GB a month (or 40GB) don’t immediately sound alarming.   But people do not use their Internet connections for a single activity, and the more people you bring to the table, such as in a four person household, the easier it is to see just how quickly a family, especially with teenagers, will quickly exceed even these kinds of caps.

Beaumont residents were the first to participate in a Road Runner trial with usage capped.

There are users out there who use their connections for little more than basic e-mail and occasional web browsing, and Time Warner offering a plan at a discount for those users is not a problem, assuming they actually promote such plans to potential customers.   The greater issue  comes from a service provider charges the same price (or more) for a plan that is now seriously limited by a cap.  And to date, there has been no proposal for retaining an “unlimited” tier in addition to offering a range of capped tiers for those who figure they will use considerably less.

Wireless telephone companies, which historically sold usage in plans with buckets of minutes, are now moving towards offering flat rate options – pay one price, talk all you like, while the broadband industry, which marketed “unlimited, always on” connections for a variety of content they include in their advertising are now headed in the other direction, limiting consumer choice and access.

Time Warner has been complaining about broadband growth as both a content distributor and as a bandwidth provider, which adds an interesting twist to the rationale companies have to implement caps.

Saul Hansell, a reporter and blogger for The NY Times, noted company officials are growing tired of basic cable networks making them pay license fees for content, and then seeing that content being given away on the web.

Speculation that bandwidth caps may also have to do with limiting the amount of streaming video that consumers watch have also been offered as a reason for providers adding caps to their Internet service.

Time Warner’s rationale for bandwidth capping was, according to the company itself, to control what they felt was excessive use of their network.

“This is not targeted at people who download movies from Apple,”  Time Warner spokesman Alex Dudley told the NY Times. “This is aimed at people who use peer-to-peer networks and download terabytes.”

And again that brings up the question of how a 20-40GB cap is the most effective way to control a minority of users running a torrent client or server 24/7 and consuming terabytes over an entire month.   That is the equivalent of dropping a nuclear weapon on a pesty moth.   The weapon does get the moth, but it also impacts on a far larger circle of customers that don’t come close to consuming that level of data.   Every ISP has language in their contracts with customers that allow them to cut off the 24/7 torrent addict today.   Some, including Comcast, have enforced these kinds of provisions before without a usage cap.

To date, consumer reaction in Beaumont has been mixed.   Many are convinced the caps are unjustified, too low, or simply too expensive for what you get.   Others object to the excessive rate of $1 per gigabyte for overage fees.   Some don’t like the idea of having to measure everything they do online in fear of exceeding a usage cap.   There are also some that like the idea of paying for what they use, and are willing to consider different plans based on what they actually consume if it also means they get the speeds they were promised in advertising.

Dudley argues that the usage cap issue is not a foregone conclusion at Time Warner.   Dudley told GigaOm that TWC’s experiment in Texas was just that “a test.”

“If consumers don’t want it, the company is going to back away from it.  I think this is a trial and we are going to learn from this trial,” he said.

StoptheCap! wants the company to learn as well.   If you ask customers if they’d prefer paying the same amount they do today for unlimited access or capped access, there will be little surprise as to the outcome.

Free Press, a media reform group, issued a damning report (Adobe Reader required)  Friday about efforts by the broadband industry to introduce metered or capped Internet access plans, accusing the industry of engaging in scare tactics and making an end run around the Net Neutrality debate.

“Consumers should not have to choose between secret and arbitrary blocking and the very unreasonable practice of metering,” said S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press and author of the policy brief. “That is a false choice, one most providers don’t even consider necessary or practical. These scare tactics shouldn’t deter anyone from pursuing the policies we need to preserve a free and open Internet.”

Among the conclusions of the brief:

• It is a false choice to suggest that since Internet service providers cannot arbitrarily block online content, they will be forced to meter. There are a whole host of other non-discriminatory options available to providers that are more effective at managing congestion.
• Talk of metering is not new and has nothing to do with the FCC’s laudable decision to prohibit providers from blocking applications. Cox has had bandwidth caps in place since 2003 but was still caught blocking applications. Time Warner floated plans to meter as early as 2002.
• Metering is the wrong solution for Internet users. History shows that consumers strongly prefer simple, flat-rate pricing to metering. They do not want to look over their shoulder and face surprise higher monthly bills. This is likely to encourage all subscribers — not just high-bandwidth users — to curb their Internet use.
• Metering is bad business for Internet service providers. Not only does it decrease Internet use, it discourages the development of and demand for new and innovative applications that give the Internet its value. ISPs that meter are likely to see a subscription drop that hurts their bottom line.
• Congestion should be treated as a short-term problem, while continued investments are made to keep pace with demand. Offering simplicity and abundance is the best outcome for users, providers and the future of the Internet.

Stop the Cap! applauds Free Press for joining an increasing number of industry watchdog groups and consumers vehemently opposed to price-gouging usage caps and highly arbitrary caps on Internet access.   In the United States, broadband providers attempting to drum up attention for a so-called “bandwidth crisis” have proposed usage limitations ranging from 5GB per month to 250GB per month, with each proposal considered “effective” at controlling usage.

One of the nation’s top authorities on global Internet traffic growth says his latest data show no reason to fear network capacity shortages, as traffic growth may even be slightly decelerating.

An article published Tuesday in Telephony Online carries new evidence that the so-called “bandwidth crisis” may be based more on fear than reality.

Professor Andrew Odlyzko, director of the University of Minnesota’s Interdisciplinary Digital Technology Center, released a report last week charting the growth in Internet traffic.   Odlyzko concluded that growth continues at predicted levels between 50-60% per year, which is unchanged for at least the past three years.

Odlyzko introduced his research remarking that the “threatened deluge that was supposed to clog the Internet” still has not made any appearance.   In fact, he said, bandwidth rates may in fact be trending downwards.

Proponents of the Network Bandwidth Congestion Crisis theory usually argue that the apocalyptic end of the Internet as we know it will occur either from capacity shortages on the Internet backbone, or because of congestion at the local “last mile” level, between the broadband provider and your home.

But the raw data suggests neither is an impending threat, particularly assuming that broadband providers do not attempt to shortchange stable investment in their networks to meet the demands of their growing customer base.

Broadband providers could engineer a self-fulfilling prophecy of a bandwidth crisis if they reduce their investment in their networks, preferring to take additional profits from the broadband business while cutting costs in order to prop up shareholder return or profitability.   But such moves, which are often uncovered by carefully reviewing required public filings made for shareholder review, would quickly expose the fallacy of the position taken by several bandwidth providers that usage caps are necessary to reduce demand, which could have been met by responsible company practices to maintain and expand their networks to the same historic degree they have done for the last several years.