New Zealand Telecom

New Zealand’s Telecom is the latest company caught with a defective broadband usage meter that overbilled 150,000 of their 500,000 customers for Internet usage never utilized.  The problem was tracked to a “technical problem” involving the company’s network upgrade in preparation for the introduction of TiVo.  Telecom’s engineering partner Juniper was held responsible for introducing the error which resulted in more than one hundred thousand customers finding their broadband speeds reduced for “excessive usage” to near-dial-up or billed steep overlimit penalties for the months of November and December.

On December 23, Telecom sent out letters to around 150,000 customers informing them of the error.

“Our reports show us that you will have experienced slowed internet speeds earlier than expected in your billing months,” said the letter, signed by Telecom’s general manager of broadband, Ralph Brayham.

Telecom spokeswoman Emma-Kate Greer told the New Zealand Herald all customers who had been affected by over-charging or slowed internet speeds had been identified.

They had been refunded and credits had been given to “customers who may have been incorrectly slowed.”

Customers shocked by their November and December bills were initially stuck taking Telecom’s word for the overbilling, resulting in lots of finger-pointing in New Zealand households.  The Herald reported:

Sarah Broughton, from Herne Bay in Auckland, said she had been frustrated by the slow broadband, and had accused one of her flatmates of downloading too many movies.

“There are six people living in our house. We all suspected everyone else was downloading heaps,” she said.

“We were blaming other people.

“I never suspected it was Telecom. You think when you give them money they are going to use it properly.

“It’s just been so annoying.”

Usage meters, a vital component of Internet Service Providers seeking an enhanced payday from Internet Overcharging schemes that bill customers based on how much data they consume, have been controversial because of questions regarding the accuracy of their measurements.  Most providers do not permit independent verification of the accuracy of their meters, despite their accounting for a significant portion of a customer’s monthly broadband bill.

It took a concerted, organized effort by members of the Geekzone website to “out” Telecom’s erroneous billing practices and get the company to issue compensation to impacted customers.

Comcast blocks C-SPAN programming for those who are not Comcast customers

Public interest groups today began an offensive against the cable industry’s attempts to stave off potential online video competition with an industry dominated and controlled online video platform that guarantees consumers won’t cut cable’s cord.

Free Press, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge and Consumers Union are sending letters to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission calling for a probe into the industry’s “TV Everywhere” project, designed to weed out non-cable subscribers from accessing online video programming.

The undertaking, which the industry claims will eventually rival Hulu in size and scope, seeks to provide their broadband customers with on-demand access to as much programming as possible, as long as they subscribe to a corresponding video programming and broadband service package.

Known in the industry as a “pay wall,” the system would assure pay television companies affiliated with the project that they will not lose subscribers from customers cutting the cord to watch programming online for free.  Consumer groups call that collusion, and accuse the industry of secretly meeting to outline the TV Everywhere concept and may be violating anti-trust laws in the process.

“The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves,” said Marvin Ammori, a law professor at the University of Nebraska and senior adviser to Free Press. Ammori’s report: TV Competition Nowhere: How the Cable Industry Is Colluding to Kill Online TV, is included in the mailing to the federal agencies.

Ammori says the industry has a long history of controlling behavior.

“Over the past decade, they have locked down and controlled TV set-top boxes to limit competing programming sources; they have considered imposing fees for high-capacity Internet use in ways that would discourage online TV viewing; and they have pressured programmers to keep their best content off the Internet,” Ammori writes.

In addition, these companies, which already dominate the Internet access market, have threatened to discriminate against certain online applications or have already been caught violating Network Neutrality. Indeed, the FCC issued an order in 2008 against Comcast for blocking technologies used to deliver online TV, noting the anti-competitive effect of this blocking. While it may be economically rational for cable, phone and satellite companies to squash online competitors, the use of anti-competitive tactics is bad for American consumers and the future of a competitive media industry.

The latest method of attack aimed at online TV, however, may be the most threatening — and is also likely illegal. Competition laws aim to ensure that incumbent companies fight to prevail by providing better services and changing with the times, not by using their existing dominant position and agreements to prevent new competitors from emerging.

TV Everywhere has a simple business plan, under which TV programmers like TNT, TBS and CBS will not make content available to a user via the Internet unless the user is also a pay TV subscriber through a cable, satellite or phone company. The obvious goal is to ensure that consumers do not cancel their cable TV subscriptions. But this plan also eliminates potential competition among existing distributors. Instead of being offered to all Americans, including those living in Cox, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable regions, Fancast Xfinity is only available in Comcast regions. The other distributors will follow Comcast’s lead, meaning that the incumbent distributors will not compete with one another outside of their “traditional” regions.

In addition, new online-only TV distributors are excluded from TV Everywhere. The “principles” of the plan, which were published by Comcast and Time Warner (a content company distinct from Time Warner Cable), clearly state that TV Everywhere is meant only for cable operators, satellite companies and phone companies. By design, this plan will exclude disruptive new entrants and result in fewer choices and higher prices for consumers.

This business plan, which transposes the existing cable TV model onto the online TV market, can only exist with collusion among competitors. As a result, TV Everywhere appears to violate several serious antitrust laws. Stripped of slick marketing, TV Everywhere consists of agreements among competitors to divide markets, raise prices, exclude new competitors, and tie products. According to published reports and the evident circumstances, TV Everywhere appears to be a textbook example of collusion. Only an immediate investigation by federal antitrust authorities and Congress can prevent incumbents from smothering nascent new competitors while giving consumers sham “benefits” that are a poor substitute for the fruits of real competition.

Ammori

The benefits of controlling the marketplace of video and online entertainment is a lucrative one, earning players billions in profits each year.  Losing control of the business model risks the industry repeating the mistakes of the music industry, which overpriced its product and alienated consumers with annoying digital rights management technology and lawsuits.  It also risks a repeat of the newspaper industry which many in the cable industry believe made the critical mistake of giving away all of their content for free.

With online video services like Hulu generating enormous online traffic from its free video programming, the cable industry fears they might already be headed down the road newspapers paved.  TV Everywhere is part of a multi-pronged defense plan according to Ammori.

Indeed, what the industry cannot control themselves, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and “consumption billing” can handily manage.

Ammoni notes:

Cable and phone companies have proposed cap-and-metered pricing for Internet service that appears to target online TV. Unlike the current all-you-can-eat monthly fee-plans, cap-and-metered pricing would charge users based on the capacity used. As a result, downloading or streaming large files will be more expensive than smaller files. In March 2009, Time Warner Cable announced metered pricing trials in four cities that would have made watching online TV cost prohibitive.

AT&T is testing a metering plan on its wireline U-verse service with hopes for national expansion. Even under generous allowances for bandwidth, users could not watch high-definition programming for many hours a day.

In response to trials by Time Warner Cable, a House bill was introduced in Congress, and Time Warner Cable dropped its immediate plans under consumer pressure. The company stated the plans would be reintroduced following a “customer education process.”

“Online TV is this nation’s best shot at breaking up the cable TV industry oligopolies and cartels. Permitting online distributors to compete vigorously on the merits for computer screens and TV screens will result in increased user choice, more rapid innovation, lower prices and a more robust digital democracy,” Ammoni concludes.

Broadband Reports has obtained documents accidentally publicly posted outlining some significant changes to how Verizon markets and prices its fiber optic to the home FiOS service.

Most customers can “look forward to” price hikes of $10-20 for their FiOS bundled service package January 17th, if the leaked documents are accurate.  The company will also replace its “TV Essentials” package and bring back symmetrical broadband service options (same upload and download speeds), according to Broadband Reports.

More concerning is the introduction of a uniform $360 early termination fee for customers who sign up for broadband or television service from Verizon and decide to switch providers.  Although the fee will not apply if customers agree to stay with Verizon for their home phone service, the justification for such a high charge will be open for debate.  The company promises to pro-rate the fee for every month a customer does stay with FiOS, but according to the report will impose it against a consumer that finds themselves having to relocate to a non-Verizon service area.  For someone in western New York between Buffalo and Rochester, a move just down the street into Frontier Communications territory could result in a final Verizon bill several hundred dollars more than expected.

Currently, Verizon charges broadband customers on an annual contract a $99 early termination fee.  Television customers pay a $179 fee if they cancel before the year is up.

Some customers reacting to the cancellation fee suggest opting for the month-to-month service plan for an additional $20 a month if a move is imminent or if a customer isn’t sure they’ll keep the service.

Early termination fees are designed to capture and hold customers in place and are common in competitive markets where consumers bounce back and forth between new customer promotions.  Locking a customer in with a multi-year service agreement makes promotion-bouncing expensive, and gets customers to think twice before switching providers.

Verizon’s pricey exit charge could also reflect the company’s desire to recoup wiring expenses to bring fiber to and inside customer homes.

Most Verizon FiOS promotions we’ve seen lately expire January 16th.  That would suggest promotions starting the 17th will carry higher pricing.

A late December 2009 Verizon promotion. Note the expiration date.

Karl Bode notes the price hikes come even though costs are declining for major providers.

Keep in mind of course that these broadband hikes come as the cost of wholesale bandwidth and network hardware continues to drop. The television hikes, meanwhile, come despite the fact that Verizon and AT&T lobbied state lawmakers in dozens of states promising lower TV prices — if they were willing to reconfigure the video franchise system to make life easier on the baby bells.

It also appears that Verizon will be further expanding their free Wi-Fi offer to include customers on 15 Mbps tiers. The service previously was restricted to FiOS customers that subscribed to 20 Mbps service or faster. Like speed? It looks like Verizon’s symmetrical 35 Mbps tier, which is only available in select markets, will be showing up in all Verizon markets next year. The company’s 25/15 Mbps tier will officially become 25/25 (most customers report those speeds already).

AT&T last week announced it has increased its quarterly dividend by 2.40% to 42 cents per share, the 26th year the company has increased dividends quarter after quarter.

On February 1st, something else will increase by up to 10 percent: their U-verse rates.

Depending on the package selected, rates will increase $3-5 dollars a month for most cable-TV packages, $5 for many slower speed broadband products, and $5 a month for its unlimited calling package.  New customers will find some savings to offset the increases if they opt for faster broadband products: Max (12 Mbps) and Max Plus (18 Mbps) both decrease $10 per month, to $45 and $55 respectively, and the new 24Mbps Max Turbo service drops from $75 to $65.  Existing customers will not see price increases on broadband service, but they won’t enjoy any price decreases either.

Standard retail pricing as of February 1, 2010 will be: U-Basic- $19/mo., U-family-$54/mo., U-100-$54/mo., U200-$67/mo., U200 Latino-$77/mo., U300-$82/mo., U450-$112/mo.

New U-verse TV customers will now face a one-time service activation fee of $29.

AT&T said that the “modest price adjustments that we’re making are far outweighed by the additional value we’ve added to U-verse TV in the last year alone.”

Customers have expressed mixed reactions to the price increases and decreases on AT&T’s U-verse forums.  A far bigger problem for many of them are the company’s “bait and switch” tactics, alleged by several angry customers.  From rate quotes $30 less than what actually shows up on customer bills to referral rewards that never materialize to rebate nightmares, AT&T customers in several parts of the country report ongoing problems getting what they were promised.

Mark A. Jamison

Stop the Cap! reader Joe sends along news of another one of those guest opinion hit pieces on Net Neutrality that pop up regularly in the media.  This one, The Internet is Never Neutral, printed in today’s Sun-Sentinel in south Florida, comes from Mark A. Jamison and Janice Hauge, a dynamic duo who have co-written several papers that always manage to turn up favorable conclusions for big telecommunications companies, including these page-turners:

• “Bureaucrats as Entrepreneurs: Do Municipal Telecom Providers Hinder Private Entrepreneurs?”
• “Subsidies and Distorted Markets: Do Telecom Subsidies Affect Competition?”
• “Dumbing Down the Net: A Further Look at the Net Neutrality Debate.”

The two are also working on other papers purporting to study regulatory policy and competition issues.  Let me illustrate my psychic powers by guessing they’ll find regulatory authorities to be obstacles to the well-oiled telecommunications machine and competition will be most hearty if there are no pesky regulations to hamper it.  We’ve seen how well that has worked so far for consumers in North America.

Remember Al Gore calling the Internet the information superhighway? The metaphor wasn’t and isn’t perfect, but it is instructive. Suppose we applied net neutrality to our transportation system — there would be no high-occupancy vehicle lanes during rush hour, no car-only lanes on interstates, and no toll road as an alternative to I-95 in South Florida. Transportation would be more costly and provide less value.

Forcing net neutrality would have similar results. Time-sensitive information, such as stock market transactions, would wait in line behind football game highlights.

Jamison, who is a former manager at Sprint Communications, and Hauge miss the entire point of the Internet’s biggest strength: its equal treatment of traffic from the smallest blog to Amazon.com.  Assuming providers, earning billions in profits even as their costs decline, invested appropriately in those networks, there would be no need for high-occupancy vehicle lanes and toll roads.  These kinds of “traffic management” techniques are proposed because provider dollars don’t keep up with consumer demand.  Social engineering tries to throttle traffic downwards by discouraging it with toll fees or manage it with special high cost lanes reserved only for those willing to pay or follow arbitrary rules governing their use.  More often than not, those premium lanes go underutilized while the rest of us remain stuck in the slow lane.

Net Neutrality would not impede network management that enhances the efficiency of traffic, except when it comes at the expense of someone else’s traffic. Net Neutrality also throws up a roadblock against providers who would plan to cash in with enhanced connectivity services that cannot exist unless  a market is created to sell them.  It’s similar to providers in Canada limiting your access to broadband, then throwing a penalty fee on your bill… unless you sign up and pay for their “insurance” plan to protect you from those charges.

Want to run a video streaming application on the Internet?  Pay for a broadband provider’s deluxe delivery insurance, and customers will be able to watch that video without buffering.  The alternative is to be stuck waiting because your video is being delivered on an artificial “slow lane.”

If you are thinking that it sounds like net neutrality restricts innovation and hurts customers, you’re right. Our research has shown that net neutrality limits innovation, contrary to the claims of the net neutrality proponents. How can this be? Imagine a one dimensional network — one that does nothing but carry information from point to point, which is how the old Internet has worked. What kinds of content providers flourish in that context? Those big enough to distribute their software across the net and those whose software takes advantage of the great bandwidth that they don’t have to pay for.

Their research makes numerous assumptions that might prove accurate in a laboratory environment, but simply discounts provider mischief in their efforts to maximize profits and minimize costs.  Providers have earned countless billions providing this “one dimensional network” to consumers.  It’s the one bright spot in a lackluster telecommunications sector.  Those who innovate new broadband applications have flourished.  Some providers who have not want to innovate in a different way – by inventing new Internet Overcharging schemes to profit from the service without actually improving it.  When their interests are at stake in owning and managing their own content services, bandwidth suddenly becomes plentiful.  The TV Everywhere project will potentially provide a value-added service to cable and telco TV providers, all made possible in marked contrast to their argument that other producers’ video content is clogging their networks.

Another naked fallacy in the authors’ argument is that content providers don’t pay for the bandwidth to host and distribute their content.  They do — to the companies that host their content and provide connectivity to the Internet.  That’s the job of web hosting companies.  Internet service providers simply want to be paid extra for doing their job – providing connectivity to consumers who pay $4o or more a month Free Press found costs about $8 to provide, and then also charging content creators a second time to facilitate delivery of that content.  That’s akin to charging a phone customer for placing a long distance call and also demanding to bill the person who answers.

Now, suppose that the network can offer enhancements that improve customers’ experiences. Content providers whose sites would not benefit from such enhancements could ignore the offering. But there will be some content providers who could improve their services by buying the enhancements, such as priority packet delivery. These sites become better without net neutrality and offer customers more service. In other words, there is more innovation and greater customer welfare without net neutrality than with it.

Promises, promises.  Just getting these providers to upgrade broadband speeds to consumers has been a never-ending quest.  Many consumers are willing to pay for “improved service” in the form of faster connections to the Internet.  Consumers are not willing to pay more for artificially limited service, be it through throttled speeds or usage caps.

At the conclusion of their study, which assumes providers will not leverage their duopoly in most American markets to increase pricing/revenue and reduce costs by limiting demand on their networks, they readily admit they did not take into account several possible scenarios:

One issue is how the offering of premium transmission might affect the network provider’s incentive to change the standard transmission speed. At least AT&T has committed to not degrade service for any network user, but it is unclear how such a commitment would be enforced.

Secondly, we do not analyze the effects of peer-to-peer communication, which is growing in importance on the Internet.

Thirdly, we do not consider the effects of vertical integration by the network provider and whether this would provide an incentive for foreclosure.

The PURC is part of the University of Florida, but also receives private corporate funding

Because the broadband industry fights any attempt to regulate their service, it is unlikely any such promise from AT&T would be enforced.  What AT&T defines as “degraded” service is open to interpretation as well.  As broadband demand is dynamic and growing, should AT&T leave standard transmission speeds exactly as they are today, that non-premium service would be degraded through inattention to broadband growth.  Peer to peer communication is largely a story from the first round of the Net Neutrality debate in 2006-7.  A more significant amount of traffic is now attributed to online video.  Finally, not considering vertical integration in the cable and telephone industry is a fatal flaw.  The history of telecommunications regulation has largely been written during periods when the cable and telephone industry abused their market position to overcharge consumers for service, lock up content distribution channels, and forestall competition wherever and whenever possible.

Frankly, Jamison and Hauge’s world view only innovates new, even fatter profits for providers like AT&T.  Perhaps some of those profits can go towards even greater funding for the Public Utility Research Center, where Jamison serves as director and Hauge as a Senior Research Associate.  The PURC, part of the University of Florida, just happens to have, among others, AT&T and Embarq Florida as sponsors, and both companies have seats on the PURC Executive Committee.

Sun-Sentinel readers don’t have that information because it’s not included in the disclosure at the bottom of the piece.  Following the money would shed a lot more sun on this important debate.