Shaw's flyer distributed to Novus customers (click to enlarge)

Letting Shaw get away with this will let them buy up competitors like Novus for a pocket full of Toonies.

[Update 10:16am EDT 7/29] — Brion, one of our loyal readers, had a chance to visit Novus’ website and discovered that Novus has usage allowances on its own broadband service.  That’s naughty.  They are far more generous than Shaw’s, which start at 10GB and are more commonly in the 60GB range for average customers, but that’s besides the point.  The Comments section is where the discussion about the usage allowances are taking place.  We call on Novus to explain their limit policy, and more importantly, consider dropping it altogether and using that as a competitive tool against Shaw, which has far lower limits.  If the vast majority of customers are unlikely to hit them, why have them at all?  Write an Acceptable Use Policy that allows for informal communication with the extreme users consuming terabytes of bandwidth a month and offers them a commercial plan for them to consider.  Don’t be a part of the Internet Overcharging crowd.  We celebrate the kind of competition Novus can provide residents of Vancouver and Burnaby, but we’d like to make sure the competition is worth fighting for.

[Update 6:12pm EDT] — Welcome to Novus customers who discovered this site through Novus’ campaign website. Stop the Cap! is an all-consumer website designed to promote and defend the competitive broadband marketplace in both the United States and Canada.  Paul-Andre Dechêne is our Canadian editor. We are unalterably opposed to Internet Overcharging schemes, which include bit/usage caps, consumption-based pricing, and fees or penalties imposed by providers for exceeding them.  We are pro-competition, pro-Net Neutrality, and opposed to throttles.  Companies like Novus which provide needed competition in the cable television, telephone, and broadband marketplace are essential for a healthy marketplace with rational pricing.  Shaw’s obvious predatory pricing tactics are designed to drive away Novus’ customers, making the company ripe for takeover, by Shaw of course, for a pocketful of Toonies.  While those Shaw prices sound good today, driving away competition guarantees much, much higher pricing tomorrow in a monopoly environment.  Novus is installing fiber optic-based service, which means they are already kilometers ahead of Bell and the usual assortment of the Shaw/Rogers/Vidéotron old school cable companies.

We welcome your views.  Just leave your public comments in the editor box at the bottom of the page (or click the comments link just below the headline).  You can explore more than 400 articles on our issues from the menu bar at the top.  Drop down menus will let you read about the issues that are most relevant to you.  Thanks for joining us.  The fight for affordable broadband continues across Canada, and we welcome your participation.  Bookmark us and drop by regularly. — Phillip M. Dampier, Editor]

Imagine paying $9.95 a month for a digital cable package with two free high-definition set-top boxes with personal video recorders, more than 200 digital channels, more than 25 high-definition channels, and a movie channel package.  Not convinced?  How about also getting two free months thrown in.

Need telephone service?  How about free nationwide/U.S. calling, free installation, and a whole mess of phone features for $9.95 a month?  Don’t forget broadband.  That’s just $9.95 a month as well for 15Mbps service with free Powerboost.  To sweeten the deal to diabetic coma proportions, Shaw will throw in two free months of service for each of those packages, too.

What’s the catch?  You have to live in an area currently served by Novus Entertainment, Inc., an upstart independent fiber-based competitor wiring metro Vancouver, British Columbia.  Novus has aggressively wired high rise condominiums and other densely populated neighborhoods and buildings in Vancouver.  Novus is a tiny company compared to Canada’s national cable companies.  Shaw provides cable television service to 2.1 million customers in several Canadian provinces.  Novus has 9,000 subscribers in 220 buildings in Downtown Vancouver and Burnaby and is planning an expansion into Richmond. Those buildings are being peppered with marketing from Shaw, including this special pricing offer.

Existing Shaw customers, and those who live outside of Novus’ service area, cannot obtain the special pricing.  That is the heart of a complaint lodged by Novus against Shaw at the Competition Bureau of Canada and in the British Columbia Supreme Court, charging Shaw is engaged in predatory pricing designed to put Novus out of business.

“Shaw is abusing its dominant position in the market by offering services – which it normally makes nearly 50 per cent margins on – at a sizeable loss as a means to destroy a local competitor,” said Donna Robertson, Co-President and Chief Legal Officer of Novus Entertainment Inc. “The millions of existing Shaw customers paying full price should be outraged because they’re unwittingly subsidizing the costs that customers with a competitive alternate pay, which is unethical and unfair. If they don’t make the offer available to everyone, current customers should call Shaw and demand the same deal.”

Novus points out Shaw has been “on a buying spree” picking up smaller cable operators and independent providers, but has “been unsuccessful in getting traction with Novus,” company officials suggest.

Stop the Cap! has discovered Shaw’s discount offer is a remarkable one, compared with the regular pricing Shaw customers pay elsewhere:

Shaw Deal for Novus Cable TV Customers

$9.95 digital cable with two personal video recorders, movie channel package, digital channel package
Two free months service

Shaw Deal for Other Canadians

$67.85 HD package
$16.00 Movie Central/HBO or Super Channel premium movie network
$26.95 digital cable “specialty channel” package
$ 3.95 time shifting option
$30.00 Shaw HD personal video recorder set-top box

The grand total: $144.75 per month, with no free months.

“Shaw enjoys increasing cable margins of nearly 50 per cent, which it boasts to investors is ‘best-in-class’ compared to other North American cable companies,” said Robertson. “We believe that Shaw’s targeted campaign is an attempt to eliminate Novus from the competition, which would allow Shaw to maintain its near monopoly status and raise prices for all customers whenever it sees fit”

“Based on Shaw’s actions, we can only assume that they are trying to buy our customers by gouging their own prices,” said Robertson. “They’re offering these services at an enormous loss, while forcing the rest of their customers to make up the difference. We aren’t big enough to compete with Shaw’s predatory pricing, but we are faster and more reliable, and our service is actually less expensive over the long term.”

Novus has launched a website and is busy on Twitter asking Shaw customers across Canada to demand the same special offer they are making available in Novus’ service area.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Do you want the 10 Bucks Offer too? Sign our Petition and call Shaw to request this special rate.

Greater Vancouver – 604-629-8888
Kelowna – 250-762-4433
Prince George – 250-562-1345
Fort St John – 250-785-3039
Victoria – 250-475-5655
Edmonton – 780-490-3555
Calgary – 403-716-6000

Bell's Usage Allowance and Speed Chart (click to enlarge)

Broadband Providers: How Low Can They Go?

When a broadband provider insists on the need to implement Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers to control costs and “manage their network,” it’s a safe bet they’ll also manage to find a way to increase your bill.  Bell, one of Canada’s largest Internet service providers, has reduced usage allowances on some of their popular Internet service plans, in some cases substantially.

Usage Allowances

Essential Plus:  2GB usage allowance (was 20GB)
Performance: 25GB usage allowance (was 60GB) (Bell’s most popular plan) 

Customers can now purchase “Usage Insurance” policies from Bell for “peace of mind” in case they go over plan limits starting at $5/month, which provide additional allowances.

Bell claims the reduction in usage allowances comes with reduced pricing for broadband service, but many customers who forget to purchase “insurance” could be subjected to overlimit penalties of $2-2.50/GB, with a maximum penalty of $30 per month.

Bell customers looking for a place to complain have one less place to do so: Bell pulled the plug Friday on their support forum, popular with thousands of Bell customers looking for support or to share their feelings about Bell service.  The company has remained silent on the reasons for doing so.  No warning or advance notice was given.

Here comes the Astroturf

Deborah Taylor Tate, a Bush-appointed ex-commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission is now earning her paycheck regurgitating telecommunications industry talking points of behalf of the astroturf group, the Free State Foundation.

In an editorial in today’s Washington Times (thanks to reader Mitchell for alerting us about it), Tate perfectly falls in line with the talking points Stop the Cap! readers can repeat in their sleep, right down to ripping off AT&T’s “grandmother” analogy from several weeks ago.  Her employer, the Free State Foundation, has a long history of advocating pro-industry positions in opposition to consumer interests.  Having a former credentialed FCC official doing the industry talk is designed to impress.

Tate, who was never impressive as an FCC commissioner and maintains her ongoing unimpressive credentials at FSF, phones it in with a fact-free piece entitled, “Paying for Use is Fair,” in which she directly advocates for Internet Overcharging schemes, attempting to convince readers it will somehow save them money on their broadband service.

Her efforts to tell the story of “paying for what you use” will be comical to those in the communities where such “experiments” were conducted, because Tate either doesn’t know or care about the details of the market experiments she writes about.

Most broadband consumers would be astounded that some members of Congress want to block our ability to pay for broadband Internet use in precisely the same way we now pay for other commodities: Pay more if you use more; pay less if you use less.

Most consumers would be astounded an ex-FCC commissioner got the basic facts wrong about the basis of such pricing schemes.  No broadband provider has ever offered a “pay for what you use” pricing scheme.  They have only offered “pay MORE for what you use, and a lot more if you use more than you thought.”

This comes on the heels of Time Warner’s rapid retreat from a pilot test of pay-for-use broadband pricing, bowing to congressional pressure and protests from consumer groups. Studies have indicated the top 25 percent of users have consumed 100 times more bandwidth than the bottom 25 percent. So, what is fair about one-price-fits-all if someone uses 100 times more than you do?

At least Tate barely acknowledges another basic truth about these pricing schemes: the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want this kind of pricing model, and more than half would leave their existing provider if they tried to force them into one.

The “studies” Tate writes about do not exist.  They are claims by the providers themselves, which have never allowed for an independent review of the raw data the companies claim to base their findings on.  Nor does it account for the industry’s “need” to increase every consumer’s broadband bill with overcharging schemes based on limited consumption allowances and credit card-like overlimit penalties and fees.  Indeed, this is an industry with profits well into the billions of dollars whose costs are actually declining, along with their willingness to invest in growing their networks.  One need only review quarterly and annual financial reports issued by the providers’ themselves to learn the truth.  These companies are not hurting for profits.

Even where monopolies exist, pricing has generally been based on the notion that customers are charged more if they consume more and less if they use less. Obviously, beyond basic necessity, they could exercise some self-control, and could even save money through metering that measured consumption. This is especially true in an environment where consumers have options for providers of broadband, cell phones and now, in many cases, electricity.

Broadband pricing has been flat rate since the service was launched by phone companies providing DSL and cable operators launched cable modem service in most areas of this country.  That’s because broadband has been cheap, capacity plentiful, and profits high.  Absolutely nothing has changed in that equation, except a desire by broadband providers to dramatically grab additional profits, reduce demand with threats of overlimit fees or service being cut off for overuse, and attempts to invest less in their networks.  Controlling online video is critical for most of the providers who find that a competitive threat to their television service business model.

Tate doesn’t bother to contemplate increased competition, seeming happy enough to acknowledge monopolies do exist and then moving on to something else.  That mimics the FCC’s position over the past eight years, so that comes as no surprise either.

Whether run by local co-ops, governments or profit-making firms, any network has substantial capital costs to build out infrastructure, provide service, expand capacity and meet higher demand, particularly at peak periods. The same network cost issues also apply to Internet service providers. Expanding bandwidth and capacity for the exponential growth of Internet traffic is expensive. Updating security applications to prevent cybercrime are increasingly necessary for government, business and individuals, driving up costs even further. The supply of fiber optic cable and computer servers is not infinite, and we are already facing network constraints. We have all experienced the network being slowed by periods of heavy usage. Broadband providers — just like wireless providers — should be allowed to use a consumption model without government interference as long as consumers know and understand what they are paying for.

To date, there has been a surprising uniformity in billing for broadband Internet service. But why should a grandmother who checks e-mail once a day or makes an occasional purchase online be charged the same monthly rate as a researcher downloading massive data files or teenagers watching full-length movies every day? Why not provide consumers the freedom to monitor and control their own use — and to benefit from volume-based rate packages?

AT&T should consider legal action against Tate for plagiarizing their talking points.  In fact, her entire argument is part of the grand Re-education campaign we’ve written about since Time Warner Cable temporarily shelved their overcharging scheme back in April.  The “exaflood” nonsense, the “it’s expensive to spend money to upgrade our networks” whining, and the hissyfit over consumers using their service just as these same providers marketed them are all in there.

Deborah Taylor Tate: The Marie Antoinette of Internet Pricing

At least Tate is consistent — she never cared about consumers like you and I during her stay on the FCC, and she still doesn’t care about consumers by doing the bidding of groups like the Free State Foundation.

What do Washington Times readers think?  Not much of Tate or her positions.  Among them:

“Wow, did you just pull a page out of the telecom’s lobbyist manual to come up with this article?  They are doing this to prevent new technologies from making them an antiquated model, and they are doing it to get more money out of the customer. I promise it has nothing and I mean nothing to do with saving your grandma a single cent.”

“Are you being paid by the cable co? Seriously. Do you even realize with the utter lack of competition and the fact that the cable company enjoys a monopoly in most all of their markets, pricing for use is utterly bad for consumers.”

“Bill is right, you’re just reading talking points at this point, and not looking at the actual economics or technology behind it.”

“Deborah, Please take a moment to think for yourself instead of shilling for an industry. Metered billing has nothing to do with customer choice, please don’t pretend that it does. This is about making more money off of existing usage, while avoiding upgrading of networks and services.”

“So for instance, using the same logic and same company, when I call for traditional phone service, they are quick to sell me an “Unlimited” minute plan for $40.00/month.”

“Metered usage is nothing more than a money grab by the content providers. Their current business model is being threaten by media content being available via streaming services.”

In the end, consumers like you and I pay part of our monthly broadband bill to providers that are cutting checks to astroturf groups to advocate against consumer interests.  Imagine if they spent some of that money on their network upgrades, and a little less funneled to inside-the-beltway hackery written by underwhelming ex-officials-turned-insider-special-interests.

Cable operators have been looking for a way to expand their broadband service to outside the home, and Comcast, Bright House, and Time Warner Cable have found their answer: WiMax technology from Clearwire.  They’ve joined Intel and Google as minority investors, collectively owning 25% of Clearwire, after investing more than $3 billion dollars in the wireless broadband service.  What do they get for the buy-in?  The chance to market Clearwire services to their cable broadband customers for “on-the-go” broadband.

Comcast High-Speed 2go Metro service launched Tuesday in Portland, Oregon providing consumers with portable speed up to 4Mbps in Clearwire’s own 4G network service area.  Comcast customers can sign up for a promotion for $49.95 a month for one year, which includes their wired cable modem service, a Wi-Fi router, and Clearwire wireless service (regular price after the promotion is $72.95 monthly).  Customers can access the service in any Clearwire 4G service area nationwide.  Where Clearwire doesn’t offer service, customers can “roam” on Sprint’s 3G data network nationwide for an additional $20 a month more.  There are no known usage limits at this time.  Existing Comcast broadband customers in Portland can add the Clearwire-based service starting at $30 a month.

The service will work for laptops, but not mobile data devices.  Comcast’s investment in Clearwire made such a venture possible, and is expected to compete with mobile phone broadband data plans, which typically offer 5GB of service for $50 a month.

Comcast will sell service in Atlanta, Chicago and Philadelphia by the end of 2009.

While the service will be useful for Comcast customers who travel or who want more reliable, fast wireless data access, Clearwire’s ability to serve as a true competitor to Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House may be compromised by those partnerships.

Could Clearwire effectively create promotions and plans that could lead to customers cutting the cord on their cable broadband provider?  Should cable companies increase their investments and ownership interest in Clearwire, would it ultimately matter to them where you obtained service?

This represents another consumer victory, and comes thanks to the hard work of Free Press, which has been a strong advocate for creating robust, equitable access to broadband services throughout the United States, available to those in rural locations as well as economically disadvantaged inner city neighborhoods.  This assures that no grant applicant can take public tax dollars and build discriminatory networks that violate Net Neutrality.

The National Telecommunications Information Administration, along with the Rural Utilities Service, today unveiled grant guidelines for the $7.2 billion allocated for broadband deployment in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama in February.

The criteria, or “Notice of Funds Availability,” create a detailed system for prioritizing grant applications and outline how the agencies will distribute $4.7 billion in broadband money for the NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program and $2.5 billion for RUS loans and grants. Under the rules announced today for the BTOP programs, applicants that provide wholesale access to their networks at reasonable rates will be given preference for funds. Preference will also be given to networks that offer affordable services and community partnerships, among other public service goals. All recipients will have to operate their networks in a manner consistent with the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement as well as agree to “not favor any lawful Internet applications and content over others.”

In March, Free Press released a broadband stimulus grant scorecard that outlined criteria policymakers should use to score potential broadband deployment projects. Many of the factors identified by Free Press in March, such as Net Neutrality, broadband adoption, affordability, speed and job creation, are reflected in the criteria released today.

“Today, the Obama administration reaffirmed its commitment to Net Neutrality by ensuring that public funds will not be used to build closed and discriminatory networks,” said S. Derek Turner, research director for Free Press and author of the scorecard. “These broadband programs are first class examples of public policy serving the public interest. They will use public dollars to build out Internet access as a public service infrastructure.”

“To those large corporations that say public interest requirements are too restrictive, we say step aside and make way for the thousands of other companies, non-profits and municipalities that are eager to bring the transformative benefits of the open Internet to the millions of Americans left on the wrong side of the digital divide,” said Turner.

Along with the release of grant guidelines, leaders from the three federal agencies charged with collaborating and overseeing the national broadband plan were joined by Vice President Joe Biden in Erie, Pa., this morning to discuss funding. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and newly appointed FCC chair Julius Genachowski discussed broadband stimulus plans and the importance of providing high-speed Internet to rural America.

“These agencies have set the bar for our nation’s digital future,” said Turner. “The success of the national broadband plan hangs heavily on how these federal dollars are doled out and these guidelines will help ensure that funds are allocated in a fair and efficient manner consistent with the priorities set forth by Congress and the president.”

The RUS and NTIA will begin accepting applications and reviewing them over the coming months. The first round of grant awards are expected to be issued in December.