Almost two years to the day Frontier Communications quietly introduced language in its customer agreements providing a monthly broadband usage allowance of just 5GB per month, the company has quietly removed that language from its terms and conditions.

The 5GB usage allowance was deemed generous by Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter.  Frontier claimed most of its 559,300 broadband subscribers (2008 numbers) consumed less than 1.5 gigabytes per month.  But news of the cap angered customers anyway, particularly in their biggest service area — Rochester, N.Y.  In fact, Frontier’s usage cap was what sparked the launch of Stop the Cap! in the summer of 2008.

While never universally enforced against the company’s DSL customers, Frontier has used that portion of its acceptable use policy to demand up to $250 a month from some “heavy users” in Mound, Minn.

Frontier’s usage limit language also played a role in a major controversy in April, 2009 when Time Warner Cable planned usage limits of their own for western New York customers already faced with Frontier’s 5GB usage limit.

The phone company used Time Warner’s planned usage cap as a marketing tool to switch to Frontier DSL service.

Frontier used Time Warner Cable's usage cap experiment against them in this ad to attract new customers in the spring of 2009.

This website has pounded Frontier for two years over its continued use of the 5GB language as part of its broadband policies.  We raised the issue with several state regulatory bodies as part of Frontier’s purchase of Verizon landlines in several states.  Several state utility commissions raised the usage cap issue with Frontier as a result, deeming it negative for rural broadband customers who would effectively endure rationed broadband service from a de facto monopoly provider.

We also criticized Frontier for promoting its MyFitv service, little more than a website containing Google ads and embedded videos already available on Hulu, while not bothering to tell its customers use of that service on a regular basis would put them perilously close to their 5GB allowance.

In the end, Frontier itself denied they would strictly enforce the 5GB limit, making its continued presence in the company’s terms and conditions illogical.

Now, the company has returned to the earlier language it formerly used, reserving the right to shut you off if you use the service excessively or abusively.  This resembles similar language from most broadband providers.  While not absolute in defining those terms, Frontier doesn’t commit to a specific number either.  Today’s “generous usage allowance” is tomorrow’s “rationing.”

If Frontier cuts off customers for using only a handful of gigabytes a month, deeming it excessive, we want to know about it.

Stop the Cap! opposes all Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, speed throttles, and so-called “consumption billing.”  We believe such limits retard the growth and potential of broadband service and are unwarranted when considering the ongoing decline in costs to provide the service.  We do not oppose providers dealing with customers who create major problems on their networks, but believe those issues are best settled privately between the company and the individual customer.

Providers must also be honest in recognizing that broadband is a dynamic medium.  They have a responsibility to grow their networks to meet demand, especially at current pricing which provides major financial returns for those offering the service.  We also believe broadband tiers should be limited to speed, not consumption.  Customers with higher data demands will naturally gravitate towards higher-priced, faster-speed tiers, providing higher revenue to offset the minimal costs of moving data back and forth.

Broadband customers will be loyal to the providers that treat them right.  We applaud Frontier Communications for finally removing the last vestiges of its infamous 5GB usage allowance.  Hopefully, going forward, Frontier will spend its time, energy and money improving its broadband service instead of trying to convince customers to use less of it.

Despite some denials last week that Verizon and Google were not married and cohabitating their political agendas, the two giants announced a shared vision of the Internet’s future — one that does not “purposely throttle or block content,” but reserves for themselves a new, super speed Internet for the two companies and their closest corporate friends that will make blocked websites the least of America’s broadband problems.

For Internet enthusiasts, the deal is nothing less than a complete sellout of one of the founding visions of the Internet – content judged on its merits, not on the deep pockets backing it.  It’s a complete betrayal of Net Neutrality and broadband reform by Google, which has some of the deepest pockets around and has apparently forgotten the story of its own founding — a story that would likely be impossible on an Internet envisioned by Big V & G. Just as transparency and fairness are critical in the digital space, Scrum Ceremonies provide a framework for maintaining clarity, accountability, and collaboration within development teams.

The Five Biggest Lies About Google and Verizon’s Net Neutrality Proposal

Big Lie #1: “For the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.”

That is a distinction no longer worth the difference should the two providers succeed in developing a special fast lane for their content partners.  If you don’t have the admission price or a favored pass to belong to the golden magic superhighway, not being purposely blocked or throttled on a clogged free lane offers little comfort when your start-up cannot compete with the bully boys that can outspend you into submission.

Both companies seek to invest millions in what is essentially a toll highway, incentivized by the potential returns offered by deep pocketed content producers willing to pay the toll.  With Wall Street following that money, those left behind on the slow lanes will find providers increasingly uninterested in throwing good money into necessary upgrades to keep the “free lane” humming.  The Internet that results will resemble the difference between a Chicago public housing project and the Ritz-Carlton.

Big Lie #2: “Reasonable” Network Management

The partnership’s declaration of support for its definition of  “reasonable” traffic management has more loopholes than Lorraine Swiss cheese.  For instance, “reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network to ensure quality service” for consumers already exists.  It’s called “upgrading your network.”  Now, it could also mean classic Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits, speed throttles applied to all “free lane” content, or billing schemes that “mitigate” congestion by charging extortionist pricing for broadband usage.  Using vague notions of “accepted standards” could be defined by any group deemed by Google and Verizon to be “recognized.”  Both have enough money to influence the very definition of “accepted standards.”

You don’t need a policy that reads like a credit card agreement to manage traffic on a well-managed, consistently upgraded broadband network.  Nothing prevents either company from providing such a network, but with no oversight and pro-consumer reform, nothing compels them to provide it either.

Big Lie #3: This preserves the open Internet.*

(*- excluding wireless broadband access to the Internet.)  As an increasing number of consumers seek to migrate some of their Internet usage to wireless networks, it’s more than a little unsettling Google and Verizon would exempt these networks from most of the “consumer protections” they have on offer.

Big Lie #4: The FCC gets its coveted authority to oversee the Internet.

Not really.  In fact, this agreement shares more in common with corporate interests that want less regulation and oversight, not more.  The suggested framework graciously grants the FCC the right to sit and listen to complaints, but strips away… permanently… any authority to pass judgment on the cases they hear and write regulations to stop abuses.

Clauses like “parties would be encouraged to use non-governmental dispute resolution processes” must give the arbitration industry new hope.  Already out of favor in many quarters, this proposal is tailor-made to bring a new Renaissance for “out of court arbitration” that heavily favors the companies that bind consumers and other aggrieved parties to using it.  The arbitration industry is no stranger to contributing to the right people to make them the only reasonable choice for dispute resolution.

Verizon and Google want nothing less than the right to define how their Internet will work — from the applications you can effectively use, the speed throttle you are forced to endure on the free lane, to the enormous bill you’ll receive for using those non-favored websites.

Big Lie #5: Google in 2006 — “Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.”

Google has come a long way, baby — in the wrong direction.  Demanding Google “not be evil,” something hundreds of thousands of Americans have already said today, is becoming so commonplace as to be cliché.  Still, being for Net Neutrality one day and throwing that concept overboard the next is the ultimate flip-flop.  When money talks louder than doing right by the millions of users who made both companies what they are today represents the ultimate betrayal.  Let’s make sure they realize it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg West Sees Tiered Web Pricing From Google-Verizon Plan 8-9-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports consumers will be stuck with higher broadband bills, especially if they dare to watch online video, on a broadband platform envisioned to saddle Americans with toll highways for Internet content.  (4 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Google Joint Internet Policy 8-9-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC echoed concerns about the Verizon-Google deal and its implications for the future of Internet applications.  (4 minutes)

Read the Verizon-Google Proposed Framework below the jump…

… Continue Reading

Knology, a West Point, Georgia-based cable overbuilder, has acquired Sunflower Broadband in Lawrence (Douglas County), Kansas for $165 million cash.

Knology has been buying small, independent cable operators across the south and midwest to build its footprint and become a larger player in the heavily integrated cable television and broadband marketplace.

The company expects to acquire Sunflower partly from its own cash reserves and the balance from low interest loans.

Knology praised Sunflower Broadband’s advanced infrastructure — it has already deployed DOCSIS 3 broadband upgrades and uses a modernized hybrid fiber-coaxial cable network.  Sunflower spends between $8-9 million annually in capital expansion, a level comparable to Knology.

The purchase of Sunflower opens additional potential purchasing opportunities for Knology in the region to add other cable companies to its portfolio.

Lawrence residents were treated to gushing, emotional coverage of the sale in the pages of the Lawrence Journal-World this morning.  A sample:

In the beginning there was the vision. Forty-five years later, it was a spectacular reality. Today, the baton is being passed to a new owner.

One reader said the newspaper had a Messiah Complex.

Employees were informed this morning, but most will not know what impact, if any, will come from the sale until it closes in the fourth quarter of 2010.

The impact of the sale is drawing mixed reviews from Lawrence residents, some concerned about the loss of another locally-owned and operated business to an out-of-state “conglomerate,” while others believe the sale offers the potential for better service without irritating usage limits.

A Lawrence computer repair expert, “Dr. Dave” recognized the impact of Internet Overcharging schemes on Lawrence residents in a thorough analysis of the then-potential sale:

Sunflower stands apart from most Internet Service providers with its bandwidth caps. Knology and other suitors of Sunflower do not have these artificial limits. We’ll be free to use the internet at whatever speed we choose to pay for without fear of limits and overages. Online backups, security updates, and videos will be accessible without the worry of nasty additional fees.

Additionally, because our newspaper and television providers will be separated, the Journal World will be able to more accurately and fairly report news in Lawrence. No longer will they be limited by their vested interest in the cable company. Media consolidation is generally against FCC rules, but the loophole is that Sunflower is not seen as a “media” company. The loophole will be closed and growth of both companies will be natural and organic and both companies will be made stronger. We as citizens will trust the newspaper to accurately report the news and the Journal World will be restored to its role as watchdog for the citizens it serves. If the cable company isn’t acting in our best interest, I would trust the Journal World to report on it. Knology won’t be able to slack off and reduce the quality we’ve come to expect from Sunflower–the newspaper will see to that.

Knology claims it will get $5 million in “synergies” from the merger, much coming from volume discount programming purchases, a switch to Knology’s billing systems, and potential layoffs.  However, since Sunflower Broadband’s operating area does not overlap existing Knology service areas, the impact on jobs may prove limited.

One impact subscribers may not miss is the end of Sunflower’s Internet Overcharging schemes.  Sunflower is one of a handful of cable operators placing arbitrary limits on their customers’ broadband usage.  Usage caps, speed throttles, and overlimit fees are all imposed on Sunflower’s customers.

Knology has never imposed similar schemes on their customers.  Now may be a good time for Sunflower customers to let Knology management know they want an end to Sunflower’s profit-padding usage limits, especially considering AT&T U-verse, increasing competition in Lawrence, does not limit usage either.

The Internet video revolution will increasingly be blocked by Internet Service Providers who will leverage their duopoly markets with restrictive usage limits to keep would-be video competitors from ever getting their business plans off the ground.

William Kidd, industry forecaster for iSuppli, an industry analyst group, sees a future of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overpriced pay-per-use pricing, and other limitations designed to erect roadblocks for online video content, which increasingly threatens the cable-TV products of both cable and phone companies.

The latest scheme to limit usage of streaming media come not from concerns about bandwidth costs but rather the “unknown risks” online video could have for cable and phone companies’ other products.

Such risks, Kidd believes, will compel broadband providers to increasingly implement caps in order to mitigate any long-term gambles that providers might have to take to make streaming media available to home and mobile environments.

At present, content can be streamed over TV from online service offerings such as Hulu and Netflix, or accessed through a device such as the PlayStation from Sony Corp. In addition, new-media business models continue to emerge with the introduction of new platforms that circumvent services currently provided by traditional cable or satellite pay-TV providers.

The caps planned for implementation will sink virtually all of the video streaming services that are not partnered with cable and phone companies.  Kidd notes the caps he’s seen offer limited viewing — as little as three hours for wireless 200kbps video streams or standard definition video streamed on wired networks for up to 25 hours per month.  True HD viewing is simply not going to happen with caps on many providers planned to cut off viewing after only seven hours.

Business plans and would-be investors must take notice of what providers have in store for would be competitors, Kidd argues.  Since the phone and cable companies maintain a near-monopoly on broadband, they ultimately control what Americans can do (and see) on their broadband accounts.

Rogers reduced usage allowances on several of its broadband plans days after Netflix announced a streaming service for Canadians.

One need only look to Rogers Communications in Canada for a timely example.  Rogers promptly lowered usage limits on some of its broadband plans just days after Netflix announced a video streaming service for Canadians that could directly compete with the cable giant’s video rental stores and cable pay per view services.

“These new-media business models imagine that they don’t have to pay the network through which their data traverse,” he said. “However, such a theory is directly at odds with the ambitions of cable and satellite-TV operators, which increasingly are unwilling to provide heavy data access through their networks for free—especially if a way can be found to monetize ongoing data traffic into viable revenue streams.”

In addition, new Internet-born content providers wrongfully take for granted that the way their largely free content has been consumed now also will apply in the future to premium services. The assumption is a bad one, Kidd observed, because in order for consumers to consider the Internet as a true substitute for their big-screen TV, content would need to be comparable in both technical quality and entertainment value. And to achieve the same level of value, such content necessarily would be extremely bandwidth intensive.

As a result, for any number of these emerging TV-substitute models to work someday, one has to assume that the picture quality being proffered is acceptable for viewing on large-screen TVs.

But providers have a trick up their sleeves by implementing seemingly tolerable usage caps as high as 250GB per month, which seem generous by today’s usage standards.  But they will be downright paltry tomorrow, especially if they do not increase over time, as online video increases in quality and size.

“By implementing caps now that don’t impinge on the way subscribers use the Internet today, cable and telco operators are able to create for themselves an advantageous situation,” Kidd said. “Under these circumstances, emerging media competitors must work more directly with the network owners before getting their services off the ground—as opposed to around them, as they may have previously hoped.”

That means giving them exactly what they want — a piece of the action and control over the content that crosses over their wires to broadband consumers.

A snake in the grass… defective water meters can result in customers paying hundreds of dollars for water they never used.

“Paying for what you use” is an idea some broadband providers want to adopt to re-price broadband service in an effort to capture additional revenue and profits from “high usage” customers.  But when the provider reads the meter without any independent oversight, customers can be billed for any amount of usage — accurate or not — and have little recourse to prove their case if overbilled.

At least water customers in Charlotte, N.C., are getting an independent audit of their water meters after Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities began sending some customers bills in the hundreds of dollars for a single month’s usage.

Broadband providers who bill consumers based on their usage answer to no one.  Completely deregulated, providers need not submit to independent verification of their measurement tools.

“There is no Bureau of Weights and Measures verifying broadband usage meters anywhere in North America that I’m aware of,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Mitch.  In fact, in several countries the telecommunications industry is specifically excluded from oversight by such accountability agencies.

In Australia, large businesses are often the first to discover overbilling because of their accounting practices which track usage over time.  Australian telecommunications companies are exempt from monitoring by weights and measurement oversight.  Canadians have complained about metered charge accuracy for several years now, especially when usage doesn’t appear on web-based “usage gauges” for days.  Nobody verifies those meters, either.

In late June, the Charlotte Observer reported a sampling audit of 9,000 out of 250,000 water meters found a significant error rate of at least 1.4 percent.  While that’s a small percentage, the numbers add up — more than 3,000 area customers would be billed erroneously at that error rate, some for hundreds of dollars more than they actually owe.

The audit is continuing, but early findings show that the utility has a significant problem in how it bills customers.

The audit so far has found 78 residential accounts where there was a mismatch of more than 1 CCF (100 cubic feet) of water usage. The mismatch was between the mechanical water meter, which is considered reliable, and the more error-prone electronic transmitters that send water usage data to the utility. While this raises concerns, individuals requiring professional assistance to address such issues can check out Sarkinen Plumbing here!

Some of the mismatches suggested that the customer was billed too much, while others showed the customer was billed too little.

“Some (of the accounts) were for only a few dollars, said Barry Gullet, CMU director. “Some were several hundred dollars.”

CMU calls the results thus far “not unexpected and within industry norms.”  But when customers called to complain about suddenly higher bills, CMU feigned ignorance, telling several customers the meters were accurate — perhaps they had a leak or washed their cars too many times.  One customer reporting a bill four times higher than average was told to hire a plumber at his expense to repair the problem.  It later turned out to be an erroneous meter.  Now that customer is also out the cost of the plumber visit.  CMU inflamed matters further in early June when it blamed the news media for “hyping” a non-existent problem, despite a finding from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Advisory Committee showing an electronic equipment failure rate three times the national average.

That CMU is being held accountable by an independent audit was an important part of the process that eventually led them to admit there may be a problem with meter accuracy, say city officials.

“It is a breath of fresh air to have some acknowledgment that there is a problem and a sense about what to do about how to move forward with it,” Mayor Anthony Foxx told WCNC-TV.

CMU’s final report will be out in September.  By then a third party auditor will have looked at 9,000 meters.

The question for broadband consumers is whether you trust your cable or phone company to read your usage and bill you fairly if they know nobody is watching them do it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCNC Charlotte Water Meter Debacle.flv[/flv]

WCNC-TV in Charlotte ran three reports on the water meter controversy, starting in December 2009 when some enormous water bills arrived as unwelcome Christmas gifts from the local water provider.  (6 minutes)