Bell's Broadband Shell Game (image: Dave Blume)

The digital equivalent of a Trojan Horse was laid at the feet of Canadian telecom regulators Monday when officials from Bell, Canada’s largest phone company, announced they were withdrawing their controversial proposal to mandate usage-based billing on all wholesale broadband accounts.

The original proposal would have mandated that independent Internet Service Providers bill each of their individual customers a monthly fee based on their Internet usage in addition to the wholesale access rates paid to Bell all along.  The pricing proposal would have forced every ISP in Canada to abandon flat rate Internet service, raise prices, reduce usage allowances, and increase overlimit penalties.

Now Bell has told the Globe & Mail newspaper it wants to introduce something called “Aggregated Volume Pricing” instead — a plan Bell claims will shift financial penalties for “high usage” away from individual customers and onto the ISPs themselves. Bell also slashed the proposed overlimit fee from a heavily-defended-as-fair $2.50 per gigabyte to a more modest $0.30/GB, perhaps echoing AT&T’s forthcoming overlimit fee.

In fact, Bell’s revised plan is the same Internet Overcharging scheme under a new name.

The radical reduction in overlimit fees only further illustrates the “phoney-baloney” of providers attempting to monetize broadband usage under the guise of “fairness” and “congestion relief.”  Last week’s ’eminently fair’ $2.50 is this week’s ‘more than reasonable’ $0.30.

Bell exposed their hand — showing they have been bluffing about congestion all along.  An analysis of the proposed rates shows the company is still trying to target “heavy users.”  But instead of penalizing them into reducing their consumption, Bell is now seeking to monetize that usage, not control it.  By shifting aggregate usage costs to the wholesale market, Bell hopes individual customers will blame independent ISP’s for higher bills, not them.  Independent providers have to pass along their wholesale costs as part of the retail price of their service.  It’s a high tech shell game, one that consumers will always lose.

Despite this, Bell assumes the revised plan will take the bipartisan heat off its backside since it first proposed doing away with flat rate Internet service in Canada.

“With our filing today, we are officially withdrawing our UBB proposal,” said Mirko Bibic, Bell’s head of regulatory affairs. “Let’s move on, in my view, and use the CRTC hearing as an opportunity to approve those principles and get the implementation details right.”

"We don't like (Bell's proposal)."

Several Canadian officials were not impressed and one — Industry Minister Tony Clement — said exactly that.

Canada’s consumer groups and politicians have the giant telecom company on the run after using Bell CEO George Cope’s own words against him.  Cope openly admitted in conference calls with investors UBB had everything to do with monetizing broadband usage for profit.

Bell’s attempt to serve warmed-over Internet Overcharging from a new recipe isn’t flying among consumer groups either, who recognize it as more of the same leftovers, just under a new name.

Bill Sandiford, who heads a coalition of wholesale ISPs called the Canadian Network Operators Consortium, told the Globe & Mail Bell was simply presenting its usage-based pricing model in a more acceptable guise.

“We don’t think this is an about-face. It’s the same thing, just dressed up differently,” Mr. Sandiford said. “We don’t like it. It’s still wholesale UBB.”

Openmedia.ca, an online activist group, said Bell’s new proposal shows consumers are having an impact, but the fight is by no means over.

“We’re pleased that Canadians will now have the option to use indie ISPs like Teksavvy and Acanac to access the unlimited Internet,” said OpenMedia.ca’s Executive Director Steve Anderson. “This is a giant step forward for the Stop The Meter campaign, and a victory for those who support competition and choice in Canada’s Internet service market.”

“While this is a positive move, it is only a Band-Aid solution to a much larger problem. We at OpenMedia.ca hope the CRTC takes Bell’s submission as a sign that widespread usage-based billing is not an acceptable model for Internet pricing, and that it creates policy to support the affordable Internet.”

AT&T’s forthcoming changes to their broadband service include more than just an Internet Overcharging scheme.

As the Los Angeles Times reporter David Lazarus discovered, AT&T now reserves the right to terminate your service if you excessively annoy the company’s employees, perhaps while calling to complain about the company’s new 150-250GB usage limits.

Lazarus reports AT&T’s contract now stipulates the company can cancel your service “if you engage in conduct that is threatening, abusive or harassing” to the company’s workers, or for “frequent use of profane or vulgar language” when dealing with service reps.  At least they won’t wallop you with an early termination fee if they pull the plug on you.

But that’s not all.  AT&T also followed Verizon’s lead telling their existing DSL customers once something better arrives from the company, they can stop selling DSL. For AT&T, this means they can switch your standalone DSL service to U-verse with or without your permission, billing you for a potentially more expensive broadband service.

While U-verse delivers a much improved broadband experience over traditional DSL, some budget-minded AT&T customers tough it out with DSL because it often carries a lower price and does not require an expensive bundle of video and phone service to win substantial discounts.  U-verse does.

AT&T spokesman John Britton told the newspaper he couldn’t imagine the company actually doing this to customers, but he acknowledged that this is what the new contract says.  More than a few AT&T customers couldn’t image the nation’s largest phone company would need to cap broadband usage of their customers because of alleged “congestion” problems either.

Q.  What moves faster than North Carolina’s cable and DSL service?

A.  Legislation to make sure the state’s telecom companies can continue to provide slow, expensive, and hit or miss service for years to come.

Big Telecom money has greased the process as H.129, the Telecom Monopoly Preservation and Protection Act is rushed to the House floor before North Carolina consumers know what is happening.

Residents have until Monday evening at 7pm to make their feelings known on this anti-consumer nightmare for cities and small towns:

• H.129 will shut down the digital economies of small cities like Wilson and Salisbury just as they are primed to sell themselves as a great home for high-tech, high-paying jobs.
• H.129 guarantees rural North Carolina will resemble the 21st century equivalent of Oliver Twist — begging for whatever limited broadband the state’s phone companies refuse to deliver.

The appalling truth is that the companies pushing for this bill only want broadband service on their watch, under their control, with their high prices and virtually no competition or choice.  And now AT&T is prepared to limit your broadband usage as well, establishing usage caps and overcharging customers who exceed them.

Do you want your broadband choices limited to these phone and cable companies?  Considering North Carolina broadband is ranked 41st out of the 50 states, it’s clear they don’t consider the state a priority.

But it does not have to be this way.  Where providers drop the ball, communities should have the choice to pick it up and run with it.  That is what Wilson and Salisbury did, and the result is the best broadband service in the state.  That’s a threat Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink can’t afford to ignore, which is why they want these networks stopped at all costs.

Defeating H.129 is critical to the state’s broadband future.  As written, it delivers no new broadband connections, does not promote or provide any competition, or help any individual or community.  It was written by the state’s telecom companies to benefit them, and them alone.  It guarantees you will be stuck paying ever-increasing bills for limited service indefinitely.

Tell House members they must do what is right for the voters, not what is right for the cable and phone companies.  Tell them to VOTE NO ON H.129.  The broadband saved may be your own.

You can find your individual representative and their contact information below the jump.  Please get writing and calling today!

… Continue Reading

Joe Brown was obviously not the right person for G4TV’s Attack of the Show to talk to about the issue of Internet Overcharging.

As AT&T begins notifying their DSL and U-verse customers they are about to face usage limits on their broadband service, G4TV sought out reaction from the features editor of Gizmodo.com, who was wholly unprepared to inform viewers about the facts behind AT&T’s usage caps and their implications for customers.

While Brown and G4TV were joking about users having to curtail game downloads, for millions of AT&T customers, it’s no laughing matter.

AT&T’s announced 150-250GB limits will eventually cost customers $10 or more for each extra 50GB allotment, on top of their already-expensive broadband service package.

“It really had to happen eventually I think,” Brown told viewers.  “People are using a lot of bandwidth.”

Gizmodo's Joe Brown talks with G4TV's Attack of the Show

But Brown’s observation conflicts with AT&T’s own claim “only a tiny minority of customers” will use more than the company wants to allow, with the average AT&T customer consuming 18GB per month.  AT&T isn’t telling the full story about that either.

For those “heavy users” AT&T wants to restrict first, the implications go well beyond curtailing Netflix and playing online games.

“As a software developer who works under a Linux environment and is forced to telecommute from home one week per month, these caps would absolutely kill me,” writes Joe Stein from Sparks, Nev.  “If you are a retired person using your computer to check e-mail and browse the headlines, you will obviously never exceed AT&T’s caps, but for technology innovators and those like me in the software development field, 150GB is nothing.”

Stein downloads regular updates for Linux, exchanges software back and forth with the office several times a day, and uses video conferencing regularly when he works from home.

“Not all online video is about adult entertainment or downloading movies,” Stein says.  “Usage caps hurt anyone who has to work with large files or business-related video, and after the events this week, AT&T can afford to leave off the caps.”

Brown claims AT&T conducted “a study” in two cities which found that 98 percent of their customers used far less than the usage caps would allow.  What Brown does not know is that those two cities are Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada — hardly superstars in the tech revolution.

“Nobody moves to greater Reno to be a software superstar, which is why I am in San Jose, Calif., all the time,” Stein says.  “But there is more to this area than casinos.”

Stop the Cap! has been helping consumers in both cities avoid AT&T because the company’s “study” came at the same time it was experimenting with an Internet Overcharging scheme that limited customers to as little as 20GB of usage per month — a strong incentive for customers to avoid high bandwidth services,  or better yet AT&T.  So it’s no surprise broadband users who know better chose an alternative provider, including Stein.

“I first became aware of the usage cap debacle a few years ago when AT&T tested usage caps in the Reno area, which covers Sparks,” Stein says.  “I saw the impact first hand when customers started getting notified they would have to pay substantially more for basic Internet service.”

AT&T first limited their broadband customers to as little as 20GB of usage per month, then claimed the average customer only uses 18GB, making their 150GB DSL cap "generous."

Stein left for the cable company — Charter Communications, and they have usage caps too, but they are rarely enforced and much higher than what AT&T offers DSL customers, Stein says.

Brown claims AT&T is trying to “get out ahead of people using too much,” a point in conflict with the fact AT&T is willing to sell consumers additional bandwidth on its “overcongested” network.

Brown’s suggestion that “bandwidth costs money” is partially true, but not in the context of AT&T’s usage limits.  The company that can afford fiber optic upgrades to deliver limitless television and telephone service apparently cannot afford the pennies in bandwidth costs customers consume as part of their broadband service, which can run $50 a month or more.

Pondering broadband usage “fairness” is a losing proposition for consumers… and reporters, too.

Once someone blindly accepts the premise AT&T needs data caps, with no evidence usage presents a technical or financial challenge for the company, the debate is quickly reduced into a numbers game about “how much usage is fair.”

Clearly for Brown and his friends, who admit they are dangerously close to reaching or exceeding AT&T’s limits, the answer to Brown wondering aloud if the caps would “do it for him” should be no.

Stop the Cap! believes no cap is worth living with, especially on AT&T’s enormous-sized broadband network, now increasingly designed to handle the multimedia rich Internet and their U-verse platform.

It is doubtful many will be assuaged by Brown’s comments that “AT&T sounded pretty cool” about how they will deal with those who exceed their arbitrary usage limits.  Why?  Because after the “fair warnings” AT&T will provide customers on its artificially limited network, they will drop the sledgehammer of higher bills on top of customers’ heads.

Brown should know better, especially after finding AT&T unwilling to discuss how often it intends to revisit its usage cap levels.  AT&T’s counterparts in Canada have already foreshadowed the answer.  Once the cap regime is in place, several companies lowered them, sometimes repeatedly, to further monetize broadband usage.  They also raised the prices of overlimit fees, often substantially.

AT&T depends on uninformed consumers and reporters not understanding the true facts about Internet Overcharging schemes.  It’s not too late for reporters like Joe Brown to undo the damage, however.

Stop the Cap! strongly encourages everyone to examine the evidence we have compiled here over the past two and a half years.  It’s not hard to discover AT&T’s usage caps have nothing to do with fairness, are arbitrary and unnecessary, and come as a result of providers seeking higher profits in an undercompetitive marketplace.

If we do not uniformly and loudly oppose usage limits, America’s broadband rankings, digital economy innovation, and high technology jobs are all at risk, just to satisfy AT&T’s insatiable appetite for higher profits.

(P.S. – Joe: How did you miss Comcast has been capping their customers at 250GB for two years now.  Say it ain’t so, Joe!)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/G4TV Attack of the Show ATT Caps Their Data Usage 3-15-11.flv[/flv]

G4TV’s ‘Attack of the Show’ misses the boat on AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme.  They did better covering Time Warner Cable’s attempt at Internet Overcharging in 2009.  It’s time to revisit this issue and get involved in the fight that could hurt the very audience watching this show.  (6 minutes)

In a stretch even the most accomplished Yoga master would never attempt, an industry-funded dollar-a-holler group has told Congress that Internet Overcharging is a useful tool to combat online piracy.

On Tuesday, Daniel Castro, an analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of combating “rogue sites [that] operate in a low risk, high reward environment.”

In December 2009, ITIF proposed a number of policies to help reduce online copyright infringement, especially in countries that turn a blind eye to copyright enforcement. The purpose of these policies is to establish a robust enforcement mechanism to combat IP theft online. These recommendations include the following:

• Create a process by which the federal government, with the help of third parties, can identify websites around the world that are systemically engaged in piracy;
• Enlist ISPs to combat piracy by blocking websites that offer pirated content, allowing pricing structures and usage caps that discourage online piracy, and implementing notice and response systems;
• Enlist search engines to combat piracy by removing websites that link to infringing content from their search results;
• Require ad networks and financial service providers to stop doing business with websites providing access to pirated content;
• Create a process so that the private sector can consult with government regulators on proposed uses of anti-piracy technology;
• Fund anti-piracy technology research, such as content identification technology;
• Pursue international frameworks to protect intellectual property and impose significant pressure and penalties on countries that flout copyright law.

Castro’s idea of allowing providers to establish “pricing structures and usage caps” stands out like a sore thumb in the context of battling piracy because it is the only recommendation on the list that targets every broadband user with the same broad brush, punishing every customer whether they are engaged in piracy or not.

It would be like setting up roadblocks and searching every vehicle in a city to search for a shoplifter.  Every individual is found guilty before being proved innocent, and will be forced to pay higher prices regardless of the outcome.

The ITIF proposal runs contrary to years of efforts by Internet Service Providers to avoid being involved in the personal business of their customers.  In 2009, major ISPs wanted no part of enforcing a proposal from the record industry for a “three strikes, you’re out” plan.  Verizon, among others, made clear copyright enforcement was not their responsibility to police, although many ISPs are willing to forward copyright infringement notices to individual customers.

Castro’s testimony goes over the top when he blames his own suggested pricing antidote for “hurting law-abiding consumers who must […] pay higher prices for Internet access to compensate for the costs of piracy.”

Of course, no ISP has ever suggested they would use the extra revenue earned from Internet Overcharging to combat another industry’s piracy problem.

His sweeping indictment against consumers extends beyond nipping at their bank accounts on behalf of telecommunications companies who help fund the group he represents.  He also suggests those who oppose his piracy prescriptions are either in league with, or defenders of piracy — or other offenders ranging from criminal enterprises to kiddie porn peddlers.

Castro’s support for usage caps to control illicit online activities leaves collateral damage as far as the eye can see.  It also simply won’t work for many forms of piracy Castro complains about.  ISPs with usage caps go out of their way to note even the most draconian limits still allow thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of songs to be downloaded — legal or otherwise.  Castro testified e-published books are now increasingly vulnerable to piracy, content compact and easy to obtain even with usage limits.  Combating websites dealing in counterfeit goods with usage limits isn’t even worth trying.

What Castro’s proposal will do is limit access to the growing amount of legitimate online video traffic.  While the author cites statistics that “one in four bits of traffic traveling on the Internet today is infringing content,” (taken from a report commissioned by NBC-Universal, who has a major interest in this battle) he ignores other facts.  Namely, more than three-quarters of all broadband traffic is legal and legitimate.  Nearly 20 percent of primetime broadband traffic is coming from companies like Netflix who are in the business of providing a legal alternative to video piracy.

Castro’s argument on usage caps simply falls apart: ISPs, who have never been particularly interested in being the enforcement divisions for Hollywood studios, should be given the right to limit broadband usage and raise prices to combat piracy even when most of that traffic heads for legitimate websites?

Public Enemy #1 for Content Theft circa 1981: The $1,400 VCR

Online piracy enforcement should not involve Internet Overcharging schemes, and arguments that it should only illustrate why so many consumers and public interest groups get nervous about industry-proposed enforcement mechanisms.  Too often, they ignore presumption of innocence before guilt, browbeat alleged offenders into settlements to avoid costly litigation — guilty or not, and turn over policing to an industry with a long track record of overreach to protect their business interests. The record speaks for itself:

• Demands to ban videotape recorders in the 1970s and early 1980s for “piracy reasons”;
• Tax cassettes and video tapes to cover alleged piracy losses in the 1980s;
• Tax blank digital media in the 1990s because of “rampant piracy”;
• Impose monthly “piracy recovery surcharges” on broadband users in the 2000s;

Now the industry wants to police the piracy problem on its own terms.  As before, the proposed solutions are worse than the problem.

Back to the future.  In 1981, ABC’s Nightline ran this report on the entertainment industry suing a VCR owner, retailers, and manufacturers for piracy over taping a television station with a videocassette recorder.  The concern in 1981 — technology was moving faster than copyright law could keep up.  Many of the yesterday’s players are part of today’s debate, including Universal, the company that purchased research indicting 20 percent of all Internet traffic as “illegal.” (Part 1 of 3 – 9 minutes – Courtesy WEWS-TV Cleveland, ABC News, and ‘videoholic1980s’)

Today’s piracy debate rehashes the same accusations of content theft, only the technology has changed.  One executive tells the Nightline audience he’s offended at being told the industry already earns enough.  The movie and television industry predicted calamity over the VCR more than 30 years ago, saying it would cost them billions in lost profits.  Hollywood eventually lost the argument against the VCR and their businesses turned out fine, earning billions in revenue selling videotapes of movies and television shows to consumers they were willing to sue just a few years earlier. (Part 2 of 3 – 9 minutes)

Before Washington is asked to join the panic-frenzy over online piracy, perhaps they should recall the same predictions of doom and gloom made by many of the same companies — predictions that were overstated.  Imagine if they had succeeded in banning the VCR?  Indeed, just as before, Hollywood stands to earn billions online when they make their content available for easy, legal viewing at a reasonable price.  Slapping usage limits on broadband consumers is the worst idea ever to promote legal viewing of digital content because it discourages customers from shopping for it.  (Part 3 of 3 – 4 minutes)