If you want better Canadian broadband with fewer tricks and traps and live in Ontario or Quebec: put the house up for sale, pack up your things, and head west.

Canada’s heavily metered and capped broadband is ubiquitous in the country’s two most-populated provinces where a convenient duopoly of Bell and Rogers in Ontario and Bell and Videotron in Quebec control the vast majority of the broadband market.  But cross west into Saskatchewan and things start to look a lot better.

Canadians telecommunications consultancy The Seaboard Group praised SaskTel, the provincial phone company, for refusing to slap usage caps on its customers.  SaskTel does not deliver the cheapest Internet access by any means, but the company is investing heavily in fiber optic upgrades to turn the page on aging copper wire infrastructure.  Stringing fiber through Regina, Saskatoon and beyond may seem counterintuitive to other providers.  Saskatchewan, one of Canada’s “prairie provinces,” is hardly packed with people.  With more than 20 million Canadians living in Ontario and Quebec, Saskatchewan gives its 1 million residents a lot of open space.  Sparser populations usually translate into higher costs per customer for upgrades, but SaskTel persists.

SaskTel has historically relied on traditional DSL and has competition in larger communities from Shaw Cable, western Canada’s largest cable operator.  Although SaskTel’s DSL delivers lower speeds than Shaw can provide, it does so with no usage limits.

Shaw’s decision to provide considerably more generous usage allowances has kept the pressure on SaskTel to upgrade its infrastructure to compete.

SaskTel CEO Ron Styles told the Leader-Post its fiber optic network will give cable a run for its money, and until then, it is satisfied undercutting cable pricing for broadband, delivering a far better experience than either Rogers or Bell provides eastern Canadians, Styles says.

Seaboard president Iain Grant found that what customers are willing to pay for service can also influence what prices providers charge.

“The price is more based on what you’re prepared to pay,” Grant said.

People in western Canada evidently are not willing to hand over as much money as their friends in Ontario and Quebec.

West of Saskatchewan lies Alberta and British Columbia — Telus territory.  Telus is western Canada’s largest phone company and also principally competes with Shaw Cable.

Shaw has forced Telus to back down on fueling enhanced revenue with usage caps of its own, and has been aggressively upgrading its network with additional fiber optics and DOCSIS 3 technology, forcing Telus to embark on its own upgrade effort.

Macleans reports western Canada’s more-competitive broadband market has been good for consumers, but has also exposed a difference in priorities for providers.

With Shaw breathing down its neck, Telus has committed to a $3 billion fiber optic network expansion in B.C., improved wireless coverage, and more IPTV service.  Macleans notes Telus is the only major telecom or cable company in Canada that hasn’t purchased a television asset, focusing instead on its core businesses of connecting customers.

In eastern Canada, Bell faces Rogers and Videotron.  Critics contend Bell sees no imminent threats there, and the phone giant is spending its money elsewhere, announcing a $3.4 billion acquisition of Astral Media — an entertainment company owning 24 specialty cable channels and pay-TV networks, including the Movie Network and HBO Canada.

Bell’s latest “investment” follows its 2010 $1.3 billion buyout of CTV and last year’s $1.32 billion co-purchase of Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment (the other buyer was their ‘arch-competitor’ Rogers Communications).

While Telus spends money on upgrading its broadband and video services to customers, Bell is positioning itself to control 34% of Canada’s TV universe.  Bell is also the same company that advocated slapping nationwide usage-based pricing on Canadian broadband consumers to pay for the “network upgrades” it contends were needed to handle increasing demand.

Samsung has a problem selling Internet-enabled televisions in South Africa because of the pervasive impact of Internet Overcharging schemes like data caps and metered billing.  Now the company is taking its case directly to telecommunications providers, negotiating larger usage allowances for customers who buy new Samsung “Smart TVs.”

Samsung South Africa says streamed video-on-demand is impossible in the country with current data caps, often as low as 2GB per month, and even lower on wireless.

“If you download one movie on [wireless], your data is gone in one movie,” Matthew Thackrah, business leader of consumer electronics at Samsung South Africa told MyBroadband. “If you then go over your data cap and you download a few movies, you don’t know what bill you’re going to get – but it’s going to be expensive.”

Thackrah said the average high quality streamed movie consumes around 1.6GB, far too much for heavily-capped broadband in countries like South Africa.

Samsung is now approaching providers about bundling special, larger data allowances for customers buying their televisions.  Instead of 2-5GB per month, customers would get 20-30GB per month — still small by comparison to North America, Europe, and Asia, but perhaps tolerable in southern Africa.

Samsung is reportedly negotiating with wireless providers Vodacom and MTN, and Telkom (the former state-owned phone company) to offer the enhanced data packages.

So far, Samsung has been successful with Telkom, according to a press release sent last week:

This partnership will see Samsung and Telkom cooperate in the marketing of Samsung Smart TVs and fixed-line broadband solutions as bundled packages, thereby ensuring that consumers have access to affordable broadband while enabling Smart viewing experiences through Samsung’s latest Smart TV line-up.

Our good friends at Broadband Reports reported they discovered a new usage meter for Cox Cable customers that implied overlimit fees were on the way for those who exceeded the company’s arbitrary usage caps.

Now Cox Cable’s director of media relations is calling the appearance of the new glitzy usage gauge, and references to “overages” all a ‘big mistake‘:

“Thanks for bringing this to our attention,” Cox Director of Media Relations Todd Smith tells Broadband Reports. “This is an error and the language is being removed from the site. Our policy remains the same, we do not currently charge customers for exceeding bandwidth allowances.”

Cox did not make it clear how exactly the language was included in the meter by accident, and their statement does not preclude the possibility that they’re interested in moving this direction eventually.

Cox's New Meter (Courtesy: Broadband Reports)

Cox Cable customers upset the cable company has a usage meter and caps should first thank them for backing down on charging broadband users overlimit fees for “excessive use.”

After that, it is time to take Cox on and tell them you don’t want your broadband usage metered at all, especially at the prices they are charging for broadband service.

Just last June, Cox Communications President Pat Esser told an audience at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association Cable Show that the industry must keep asking customers what they want and find ways to satisfy those demands.

‘Cable must accept that fact that a robust broadband platform means the ‘industry won’t control everything,’ Esser told fellow cable executives.

Stop the Cap! thinks Esser needs help understanding Cox Cable customers do not want their Internet access limited with caps and additional fees.

You don’t want to check a usage meter and cannot understand why a company that earns incredible profits from broadband that costs less and less to deliver needs to cap your access.

Cable operators don’t unveil new usage meters and mentions of overlimit fees by mistake. It is likely their new usage meter “jumped the gun” and the company temporarily withdrew it.

This is your opportunity to deliver a death blow to Cox Cable’s Internet Overcharging.

Get Involved and Send Cox Executives the Message!

Call Cox Corporate Relations at (888) 566-7751 or e-mail them at [email protected]

Better yet, you can write directly to Cox’s top executive.  We have provided a sample, but you can be most effective writing it in your own words:

Mr. Pat Esser
President, Cox Communications
1400 Lake Hearn Drive
Atlanta, GA 30319

Dear Mr. Esser,

Last June, you told attendees at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association annual meeting that the cable industry needs to keep asking customers what they want and then find ways to satisfy those demands.  As a loyal Cox customer, I am taking advantage of that opportunity to write and express my profound concern Cox Cable has started to limit my Internet usage.  I cannot understand why Cox needs usage caps at a time when broadband revenue is skyrocketing and the costs to deliver the service are actually in decline. There is simply no justification for these limits, particularly after Cox upgraded its network to DOCSIS 3, which supports a considerably larger data pipeline.

Cox and other cable operators are introducing new, faster speeds for customers to earn more revenue.  But with usage caps, there is little incentive to pay more for faster service that remains constrained with a usage limit.  Would you buy a race car you could only drive around the block?

As competition for my telecommunications dollar continues to increase, I am willing to cancel my Cox service over this issue and take my business to another provider.  Some have shown a willingness to waive usage caps in order to win my  business, and I am happy to oblige. I’d prefer to stay with Cox, but not if your company keeps refusing to listen to its customers on this issue.

If you were serious in your remarks last summer in Chicago, then you should follow the lead of companies like Verizon, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable which have all avoided imposing usage limits on customers. Time Warner Cable believes unlimited broadband should always be available to customers. Cox has imposed limits on everyone, and that has to change.

Very truly yours,

// Your signature here

Comcast Monday announced it was exempting its new Xbox streaming video service from the company’s long standing 250GB monthly usage cap, claiming since the network doesn’t exist on the public Internet, there is no reason to cap its usage.

Net Neutrality advocates immediately denounced the cable operator for violating Net Neutrality, giving favorable treatment to its own video service while leaving Netflix, Amazon, and others under its usage cap regime.

Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn:

“The Xbox 360 provides a number of video services to compete for customer dollars, yet only one service is not counted against the data cap—the one provided by Comcast.” Sohn said. “This is nothing less than a wake-up call to the Commission to show it is serious about protecting the Open Internet.”

Stop the Cap! believes Comcast also inadvertently undercut its prime argument for the company’s 250GB usage cap — that it assures “heavy users” don’t negatively impact the online experience of other customers:

We work hard to manage our network resources effectively and fairly to ensure a high-quality online experience for all of our customers. But XFINITY Internet service runs on a shared network, so every user’s experience is potentially affected by his or her neighbors’ Internet usage.

Our number one priority is to ensure that every customer has a superior Internet service experience. Consistent with that goal, the threshold is intended to protect the online experience of the vast majority of our customers whose Internet speeds could be degraded because one or more of their neighbors engages in consistent high-volume Internet downloads and uploads.

The threshold also addresses potential problems that can be caused by the exceedingly small percentage of subscribers who may engage in very high-volume data consumption (over 250 GB in a calendar month). By applying a very high threshold on monthly consumption, we can help preserve a good online experience for everyone.

Comcast argues around the exemption of the Xbox service by reclassifying it as somehow separate from the public Internet.  The company then tries to claim the Xbox app functions more like an extra set top box, not as a data service.  But, in fact, it –is– a data service delivered over the same cable lines as Comcast’s broadband service, subject to the same “last-mile congestion problem” Comcast dubiously uses as the primary justification for placing limits on customers.

Cable providers who limit broadband use routinely use the “shared network experience” excuse as a justification for usage control measures.  Since cable broadband delivers a fixed amount of bandwidth into individual neighborhoods which everyone shares, a single user or small group of users can theoretically create congestion-related slowdowns during peak usage times.  Cable operators have successfully addressed this problem with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which supports a considerably larger pipeline unlikely to be congested by a few “heavy users.”

Comcast’s argument the Xbox service doesn’t deserve to be capped because it is delivered over Comcast’s own internal network misses the point.  That content reaches customers over the same infrastructure Comcast uses to reach every customer.  If too many customers access the service at the same time, it is subject to precisely the same congestion-related slowdowns as their broadband service.  Data is data — only the cable company decides whether to treat it equally with its other services or give it special, privileged attention.

Even if Comcast argues the Xbox streaming service exists on its own segregated, exclusive “data channel,” that represents part of a broader data pipeline that could have been dedicated to general Internet use.  The fact that special pipeline is available exclusively for Comcast’s chosen favorites, while keeping usage limits on immediate competitors, is discriminatory.

Comcast customers who have lived under an inflexible 250GB usage limit since 2008 should be wondering why the company can suddenly open unlimited access to some services while refusing to adjust its own usage limits on general broadband service.

Stop the Cap! believes Comcast has forfeit its own justification for usage caps and network management techniques that can slow customer Internet speeds.  We have no problem with the company offering unlimited access to the Xbox streaming service. But the company must treat general Internet access with equal generosity, removing the unjustified and arbitrary usage cap it imposed on customers in 2008.  After all, if the company can find vast, unlimited resources for a service it launched only this year, it should be able to find equal resources for a service it has sold customers (at a remarkable profit) for more than a decade.

Anything less makes us believe Comcast’s usage caps are more about giving some services an unfair advantage — violating the very Net Neutrality guidelines Comcast claimed it would voluntarily honor.

Stop the Cap! strongly believes usage caps are increasingly less about good network management and more about controlling and monetizing the online experience, seeking marketplace advantages and new revenue streams from consumers who already pay some of the world’s highest prices for broadband service.  As we’ve argued since 2008, Internet Overcharging through usage caps and usage based billing is also an end run around Net Neutrality.  The evidence is now apparent for all to see.

[Thanks to our readers Scott and Yannio for sharing developments.]

Phillip "The Mayans Never Met AT&T" Dampier

AT&T has used the specter of a nationwide wireless bandwidth crisis to pressure Washington to adopt its agenda for additional mobile spectrum.  But talk of a looming “data tsunami” has done nothing to stop AT&T from heavily marketing their most data-hungry devices — smartphones and tablets to customers.

In fact, the “broadband shortage business” has become enormously profitable for the former Ma Bell.

Switch to a Smartphone

Wireless carriers like AT&T aggressively market smartphones because they drive the highest average monthly revenue earned from customers.  So far, the marketing push has been an unparalleled success.  PricewaterhouseCoopers reported smartphones accounted for 48% of all wireless phone sales in 2011, up from 30% in 2010.  More than half of customers upgrading their old phones chose smartphones to replace them — an enormous increase over just 36% of upgrades in 2010.  Because smartphones are designed for an online experience, most companies mandate customers subscribe to a data plan, often adding $30 or more per phone, per month to a wireless phone bill.

AT&T’s 4th quarter results told the story, and it was all smiles.  AT&T celebrated customer enthusiasm for smartphones and the data they consume with no worries about “data tsunamis” or “bandwidth crises”:

• In 2011, AT&T’s growth engines — wireless, wireline data and managed services — represented 76 percent of total revenues and grew 7.5 percent versus 2010, led in the fourth quarter by:
  • 10.0 percent growth in wireless revenues
  • 19.4 percent growth in wireless data revenues, up $956 million versus the year-earlier quarter
• 9.4 million smartphone sales, best-ever quarter and 50 percent more than previous quarterly record and nearly double 3Q11 sales; 82 percent of postpaid sales were smartphones
• Best-ever quarter for Android and Apple smartphones, including 7.6 million iPhone activations

Double-Digit Growth for Wireless Revenues. Total wireless revenues, which include equipment sales, were up 10.0 percent year over year to $16.7 billion. Wireless service revenues increased 4.0 percent, to $14.3 billion, in the fourth quarter.

Wireless Data Revenues Increase 19.4 Percent. Wireless data revenues — driven by Internet access, access to applications, messaging and related services — increased by $956 million, or 19.4 percent, from the year-earlier quarter to $5.9 billion. AT&T’s postpaid wireless subscribers on monthly data plans increased by 16.4 percent over the past year. The number of subscribers on tiered data plans also continues to increase. About 22 million, or 56 percent, of all smartphone subscribers are on tiered data plans, and about 70 percent have chosen the higher-tier plans.

Wireless Margins Reflect Record Sales. Fourth-quarter wireless margins reflect record-setting smartphone sales and customer upgrade levels. This was offset in part by improved operating efficiencies and further revenue gains from the company’s growing base of high-quality smartphone subscribers.

Forcing Customers to Upgrade… Or Else

AT&T's 2G Exit Strategy Started in 2009 (Courtesy: Blackberry News)

Back in 2009, AT&T decided it was inventory clearance time, released a memo entitled “2G Exit Strategy,” and slashed prices on 2G “feature” or “messaging phones” to attract customers looking for a bargain.  A few years later, the company is now sending letters to some of them strongly recommending they upgrade to a new, potentially more expensive phone.  If they don’t, AT&T writes, “your current, older-model 2G phone might not be able to make or receive calls and you may experience degradation of your wireless service in certain areas.”

AT&T hopes many customers will adopt smartphones, because the plans that accompany them are far more expensive than the 2G “messaging” plans they replace. AT&T wants to repurpose 1900MHz 2G spectrum for other services, but sometimes customers are left holding the bag if they don’t want the designated replacement phone(s) AT&T is willing to provide.

In Grand Valley, Col. last fall, AT&T created lines outside its stores as customers were compelled to upgrade phones and service plans to continue reliable AT&T service:

AT&T isn’t actually discontinuing the 2G network — it is moving 2G service to less-favorable spectrum it owns in order to make room for improved 3G coverage.  That might work fine in areas less expansive and rugged than western Colorado, but in the Grand Valley, it means many customers will find they no longer have data service at all.

The ongoing tower upgrades have also disrupted cell service generally, and when customers arrive at AT&T’s stores to complain, the employees on hand attempt to upsell them more expensive phones to “fix” the problem.

“There is significant pressure on carriers to migrate to the most efficient networks while needing to address the issue of spectrum scarcity,” explains PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Dan Hays. “We are beginning to see carriers shut off legacy networks and force customers to migrate to new technologies.”

Internet Overcharging for Profit Without Raising Company Costs

AT&T has no worries about data tsunamis and "exafloods" when app makers or consumers are willing to pay more.

With customers seeking to get the most out of expensive wireless data plans, data usage naturally goes up. But so do prices, meaning the “data tsunami” carriers warn about is not bad for their bottom line at all.

In 2011, consumer research group Validas found average data consumption was up 34.7% for all users, from 448.8MB in January to 604.8MB by December.  AT&T responded with a price increase and an allowance boost that will benefit only a tiny minority of customers.  The most popular data plans now cost $5 a month more: $30 for 3 gigabytes, up from $25 for 2GB and $50 for 5GB, up from $45 for 4GB.  But Validas found only 5% of wireless customers use more than 2GB of data per month, with only 2.7% using more than 3GB.

That translates into higher AT&T bills for the 97% of customers who don’t come close to using even 2GB a month.  Although the price hike delivers no tangible benefit to the overwhelming majority of customers, it does deliver an extra $5 a month from their bank account to AT&T’s.

The “Anyone Pays But Us” Model for “Heavy Traffic”

With online video “clogging” the wireless airwaves, companies like AT&T should be interested in offloading as much video to wired or Wi-Fi service. But late last month, the company suggested a way customers could bypass its stringent data caps by allowing content companies to pay for the wireless traffic their customers generate.

“A feature that we’re hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivalent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage,” said John Donovan, who oversees AT&T’s network and technology. “What they’re saying is, why don’t we go create new revenue streams that don’t exist today and find a way to split them … “It’d be like freight included.”

Only wasn’t the railroad already overburdened with traffic, threatened with a nationwide slowdown?  If one is willing to flash enough money, it’s remarkable how quickly the tidal wave of wireless congestion and despair can be pushed back out to sea.  Just don’t tell Washington lawmakers.  This is a crisis of epic proportions after all.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Carriers Facing Data Tsunami 3-21-12.mp4[/flv]

Derek Kerton, principal analyst at Kerton Group, talks about increased demand for data and the impact on wireless carriers. Kerton compares it to today’s gasoline prices. Demand=higher prices.  Wall Street folks like Kerton thinks more spectrum isn’t the total answer.  Smaller cell sites and more Wi-Fi might be.  Otherwise, prepare for bill shock.  (4 minutes)