Among the public interest groups that have historically steered clear of the fight against usage caps and usage based billing is Public Knowledge.

Stop the Cap! took them to task more than a year ago for defending the implementation of these unjustified hidden rate hikes and usage limits.  Since then, we welcome the fact the group has increasingly been trending towards the pro-consumer, anti-cap position, but they still have some road to travel.

Public Knowledge, joined by New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern over AT&T’s implementation of usage caps and asking for an investigation:

[…] Public Knowledge and New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative urge the Bureau to exercise its statutory authority to fully investigate the nature, purpose, impact of those caps upon consumers. The need to fully understand the nature of broadband caps is made all the more urgent by the recent decision by AT&T to break with past industry practice and convert its data cap into a revenue source.

[…] Caps on broadband usage imposed by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can undermine the very goals that the Commission has committed itself to championing. While broadband caps are not inherently problematic, they carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive and monopolistic ways. Unless they are clearly and transparently justified to address legitimate network capacity concerns, caps can work directly against the promise of broadband access.

The groups call out AT&T for its usage cap and overlimit fee model, and ponder whether these are more about revenue enhancement than network management.  The answer to that question has been clear for more than two years now: it’s all about the money.

The two groups are to be commended for raising the issue with the FCC, but they are dead wrong about caps not being inherently problematic.  Usage caps have no place in the North American wired broadband market.  Even in Canada, providers like Bell have failed to make a case justifying their implementation.  What began as an argument about congestion has evolved into one about charging heavy users more to invest in upgrades that are simply not happening on a widespread basis.  The specific argument used is tailored to the audience: complaints about congestion to government officials, denials of congestion issues to shareholders coupled with promotion of usage pricing as a revenue enhancer.

If Bell can’t sell the Canadian government on its arguments for usage caps in a country that has a far lower population density and a much larger rural expanse to wire, AT&T certainly isn’t going to have a case in the United States, and they don’t.

The history of these schemes is clear:

1. Providers historically conflate their wireless broadband platforms with wired broadband when arguing for Internet Overcharging schemes.  When regulators agree to arguments that wireless capacity problems justify usage limits, extending those limits to wired broadband gets carried along for the ride.  Dollar-a-holler groups supporting the industry love to use charts showing wireless data growth, and claim a similar problem afflicts wired broadband, even though the costs to cope with congestion are very different on the two platforms.
2. Providers argue one thing while implementing another.  Most make the claim pricing changes allow them to introduce discounted “light user” plans.  But few save because true “pay only for what you use” usage-based billing is not on offer.  Instead, worry-free flat use plans are taken off the menu, replaced with tiered plans that force subscribers to guess their usage.  If they guess too little, a stiff overlimit fee applies.  If they guess too much, they overpay.  Heads AT&T wins, tails you lose.  That’s a clear warning providers are addressing revenue enhancement, not network enhancement.
3. Claims of network congestion backed up with raw data, average usage per user, and the costs to address it are all labeled proprietary business information and are not available for independent inspection.

There are a few other issues:

In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by AT&T are particularly aggressive. Unlike competitors whose caps appear to be at least nominally linked to congestions during peak-use periods, AT&T seeks to convert caps into a profit center by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap. In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands.

In North America, only a handful of providers use peak-usage pricing for wired broadband.  Cable One, America’s 10th largest cable operator is among the largest, and they serve fewer than one million customers.  Virtually all providers with usage caps count both upstream and downstream data traffic 24 hours a day against a fixed usage allowance.  The largest — Comcast — does not charge an excessive usage fee.  AT&T does.

Furthermore, it remains unclear why AT&T’s recently announced caps are, at best, equal to those imposed by Comcast over two years ago.  The caps for residential DSL customers are a full 100GB lower than those Comcast saw fit to offer in mid-2008. The lower caps for DSL customers is especially worrying because one of the traditional selling points of DSL networks is that their dedicated circuit design helps to mitigate the impacts of heavy users on the rest of the network. Together, these caps suggest either that AT&T’s current network compares poorly to that of a major competitor circa 2008 or that there are non-network management motivations behind their creation.

AT&T has managed to create the first Internet version of the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, combining Comcast's 'tolerated' 250GB cap with AT&T's style of slapping overlimit fees on data plans from their wireless business.

As Stop the Cap! has always argued, usage caps are highly arbitrary.  Providers always believe their usage caps are the best and most fair around, whether it was Frontier’s 5GB usage limit or Comcast’s 250GB limit.

AT&T experimented with usage limits in Reno, Nevada and Beaumont, Texas and found customers loathed them.  Comcast’s customers tolerate the cable company’s 250GB usage cap because it is not strictly enforced — only the top few violators are issued warning letters.  AT&T has established America’s first Internet pricing version of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup: getting Comcast’s tolerated usage cap into AT&T’s wireless-side overlimit fee.  The bitter aftertaste arrives in the mail at the end of the month.

Why establish different usage caps for DSL and U-verse?  Marketing, of course.  This is about money, remember?

AT&T DSL delivers far less average revenue per customer than its triple-play U-verse service.  To give U-verse a higher value proposition, AT&T supplies a more generous usage allowance.  Message: upgrade from DSL for a better broadband experience.

Technically, there is no reason to enforce either usage allowance, as AT&T DSL offers a dedicated connection to the central office or D-SLAM, from where fiber traditionally carries the signal to AT&T’s enormous backbone connection.  U-verse delivers fiber to the neighborhood and a much fatter dedicated pipeline into individual subscriber homes to deliver its phone, Internet, and video services.

A usage cap on U-verse makes as much sense as putting a coin meter on the television or charging for every phone call, something AT&T abandoned with their flat rate local and long distance plans.

Before partly granting AT&T’s premise that usage limits are a prophylactic for congestion and then advocate they be administered with oversight, why not demand proof that such pricing and usage schemes are necessary in the first place.  With independent verification of the raw data, providers like AT&T will find that an insurmountable challenge, especially if they have to open their books.

[flv width=”640″ height=”368″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell’s Arguments for UBB 2-2011.flv[/flv]

Canada’s experience with Usage-Based Billing has all of the hallmarks of the kind of consumer ripoff AT&T wants Americans to endure:

• A provider (Bell), whose spokesman argues for these pricing schemes to address congestion and “fairness,” even as that same spokesman admits there is no congestion problem;
• Would-be competitors being priced out of the marketplace because they lack the infrastructure, access, or fair pricing to compete;
• Big bankers and investors who applaud price gouging and are appalled at government checks and balances.

Watch Mirko Bibic try to rationalize why Bell’s Fibe TV (equivalent to AT&T U-verse) needs Internet Overcharging schemes for broadband, but suffers no capacity issues delivering video and phone calls over the exact same line.  Then watch the company try and spin this pricing as an issue of fairness, even as an investor applauds the company: “I love this policy because I am a shareholder.  That’s all I care about.  If you can suck every last cent out of users, I’m happy for you.”  Finally, watch a company buying wholesale access from Bell let the cat out of the bag — broadband usage costs pennies per gigabyte, not the several dollars many providers want to charge.  (11 minutes)

Some AT&T customers unhappy about the company’s forthcoming implementation of usage caps are being offered an uncapped alternative from Comcast — Business Class service.

More than a few customers facing AT&T’s imminent 150/250GB usage caps who live in a Comcast service area are informally being pitched cap-free Business Class service as an alternative.  Jim, a Stop the Cap! reader near Chicago, tells us Comcast sales representatives are rushing to sign up customers coming back to the cable company.  Although he is not served by U-verse, he points us to messages on AT&T’s own message boards from customers sharing their experiences as they pull the plug on the phone company.

“Comcast is offering us unlimited access at 12/2Mbps speeds for $59.95 per month, which is more expensive than the company’s residential broadband service, but potentially cheaper than getting a bill from AT&T with overlimit fees on it,” Jim says.

For now, Jim is heading back to Comcast residential service because he doesn’t use more than the cable company’s current limit – 250GB per month.  But he appreciates there is an alternative service available that comes without a usage limit, something he’ll keep in mind for the future.

“I feel sorry for AT&T customers stuck with them as their only broadband provider, and I think customers should continue to call and complain about the unjustified limits,” Jim offers.  “The best way AT&T customers can tell the company it has gone too far is to take their business somewhere else.”

Comcast does not normally market business products to residential customers, but many sales representatives will offer the service if a consumer expresses concern about the residential service’s usage limit.

Commercial providers and their pals in the legislature will go to any length — even lie — to protect their cozy duopoly, charging high rates for poor quality service.

That fact of life has been proven once again in the state of Tennessee, where an effort to expand EPB Fiber — a community owned fiber network — to nearby communities outside of Chattanooga, was killed thanks to a lobbying blitzkrieg by Big Telecom interests.

The “Broadband Infrastructure for Regional Economic Development Act of 2011,” supported by chief sponsor House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, (R-Chattanooga), is dead after telecom industry lobbyists unleashed a full court press to stop the legislation from passing into Tennessee law.

The bill would have permitted EPB and five other municipal electric services that have or are developing broadband infrastructure to expand service up to 30 miles outside of their service area, where appropriate, to meet the needs of businesses or consumers.

With the legislation, EPB could bring its 1 gigabit fiber broadband service to Bradley County, home to a future Amazon.com distribution center.  Amazon already operates a huge warehouse in Hamilton County, where it was able to obtain EPB’s super-fast broadband service.  According to Harold DePriest, EPB President and CEO, Chattanooga’s fiber network is helping sell the city as a high-tech mecca for business, where broadband connectivity is never a problem.

DePriest says EPB’s network has been a proven job-creator, and Amazon.com’s ongoing expansion in the region is just one example.

Chattanooga residents and businesses now have the fastest broadband service in the southern United States, at prices often far less than what the competition charges.  Expanding EPB’s success to other parts of Tennessee represents a major threat to the likes of Comcast and AT&T, the state’s dominant telecom companies.

EPB provides municipal power, broadband, television, and telephone service for residents in Chattanooga, Tennessee

Lobbyists fought the bill off with some whopper tall tales about the “horrors” of community broadband.

Some Republican lawmakers friendly to Comcast and AT&T’s point of view have bent their philosophical positions on government and regulation into logic pretzels.  One has even called for EPB to be regulated by Tennessee’s Regulatory Authority, a body many state Republicans feel is about as helpful as a tax increase.

Despite that, there was Rep. Curry Todd (R-Collierville) at a recent hearing telling fellow lawmakers EPB and other community providers should be regulated by the TRA to protect ratepayers from the “loss of tremendous amounts of money coming out of taxpayers’ pockets.”

Does Todd think Comcast and AT&T should also be regulated?  Of course not.  Nobody should protect consumers from AT&T’s and Comcast’s relentless rate hikes.  Todd cannot even get his facts straight.

After 19 months, EPB has 25,500 customers — far ahead of its projections, and is well ahead of its financial plan, according to DePriest.  So much for being a “financial failure.”

Rep. Curry Todd has trouble with the facts, but has no problem counting campaign contributions amounting to more than $12,000 from Comcast, AT&T, the state cable lobby and other telecom companies

On cue, the same cable industry that tried to sue EPB Fiber out of existence is now comparing the Chattanooga fiber network to Memphis Networx, a disastrous effort by that city to build a public-private wholesale fiber optic network only business and institutions could directly access.  It’s hard to earn critical revenue from consumers when you run a wholesale network.  Even harder when you build it just before the dot.com crash.

EPB sells its service directly to business and consumers, so it gets to keep the revenue it earns, paying back bondholders and delivering earning power.

Stop the Cap! reader John Lenoir notes some of the local tea party groups are also being encouraged to oppose EPB’s efforts to expand.

“Just as Americans for (Corporate) Prosperity is lying about North Carolina’s community broadband, these corporate front groups are also engaged in demagoguery over EPB in Tennessee,” Lenoir says.  “In addition to the usual claims EPB represents ‘socialism,’ the locals are also being told EPB wants to use their fiber network to run smart meters, which some of these people suspect are spying on them or will tell people when they can and can’t use their electric appliances.”

Lenoir in unimpressed with the telecom industry arguments.

“AT&T’s opposition is downright laughable, considering this company raised its rates on U-verse and will slap usage limits on every broadband customer in a few weeks,” Lenoir adds.  “We thank God EPB is here because it means we can tell AT&T to stick their usage limits and Comcast can take their overpriced (and usage limited) broadband somewhere else.”

Lenoir thinks EPB should embarrass both AT&T and Comcast, but since neither company feels any shame in his view, it’s more about business reality.

“Why do business with AT&T or Comcast and their gouging ways when you can sign up for something far better and support the local community,” Lenoir asks.

AT&T spokesman Chris Walker complains that the phone company is somehow faced with an unlevel playing field in Tennessee, despite the legislature’s repeated acquiescence to nearly every AT&T-sponsored deregulatory initiative brought before it.  The company wants a “level playing-field” statute like the very-provider-friendly (it should be — it was written by them) one currently before the North Carolina state Senate.

Comcast questions whether anyone needs 1 gigabit service, but the cable company’s Chattanooga vice president and general manager Jim Weigert told the Times Free Press it could deliver 1 gigabit service… to business customers… assuming any asked.

DePriest questions that, noting Comcast tops out its broadband service at 105Mbps, and only for downstream speeds.  Comcast upload speeds top out at 5Mbps.  EPB can deliver the same upstream and downstream speeds to customers and do it today.

In the 1980s and early 90s, independent cable companies were hot properties for speculators and investors looking to buy low and sell high.  But as the marketplace has become increasingly concentrated, the days of flipping cable companies for big profits are long gone.

But a few independent holdouts remain.  Bresnan Communications, the 17th largest cable company was sold last year to Cablevision Industries (8th largest).  Now Insight Communications, the 9th largest operator, is up for sale by its private equity owners Carlyle Group, MidOcean Partners and Crestview Partners.

Insight serves just over 760,000 customers in Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio.  Originally, the company operated as Insight Midwest, a partnership between co-owners Comcast and Insight.  When the partnership between the two companies ended, Comcast took most of Insight’s customers in Indiana and Illinois and converted them to Comcast service.  The remainder have been served by Insight.

The deal to sell Insight is being managed by Bank of America-Merrill Lynch and UBS AG and is being pitched to much larger cable operators with a price tag of $3.5 billion to $4 billion.

That’s too rich for Time Warner Cable’s blood.  The nation’s second largest cable operator was interested in acquiring Insight, but not at those prices.  Another potential buyer could be Comcast, which has a significant part of the midwestern market, especially in Illinois.

Insight has been on the sales block before — the last time in 2007 when Carlyle Group found no buyer interested in the systems at their asking price.

Resort communities like Wildwood, N.J. become near ghost-towns when the lucrative summer season comes to an end.  But Comcast expects motel owners to keep paying for cable service even after they lock their doors and shut down during the winter.

Now more than three dozen area independent hotel owners have told Comcast to take a hike — they are switching to satellite.

For owners, Comcast has added insult to financial injury with higher rates and new requirements for year-round service that nobody watches from October-April.

It wasn’t always this way.  Comcast formerly grandfathered seasonal service into contracts for area resorts.  No converter boxes were required either, making it easy to install in hotel rooms.

But no more.

The cable company claims it needed “rate consistency” in the region and raised prices.  Plus, Comcast has notified hotel owners they’ll need to accommodate digital set top boxes — one to a television, something owners considered the final straw.

James “Jimmy” Johnson, owner of the 48-room Imperial 500 told the Philadelphia Inquirer he invested almost $60,000 for flat panel televisions in his rooms that Comcast now wants to slap cable boxes on.  Johnson is not happy about that, because guests could walk off with them and their accompanying remote controls.

“I go through remotes like you go through underwear,” Johnson told the newspaper.  Comcast charges substantial fees for lost or stolen cable equipment.

Comcast also sought pricing changes that would charge motel owners for service per-television, instead of per-room.  Several motels have multiple televisions in each room, substantially raising prices.

As a result of the rate increases and what many owners have called the cable operator’s intransigence, they are kicking Comcast out, installing satellite television from DirecTV instead.

After an initial investment of $6,400 for the satellite equipment, many owners expect significant savings from DirecTV’s seasonal service contracts, although some guests may find regional sporting events exclusive to Comcast unavailable in their satellite-TV equipped rooms.

But for Johnson, the savings are worth it.

“I’m renting rooms; I’m not running a sports bar. . . . With computers now, you can get a lot of games on your computer, or your phone,” Johnson told the Inquirer.