Broadband providers love to tout their Internet services as “unlimited, always on access at blazing fast speeds.”  Increasingly, their service isn’t unlimited, it’s not always working, and those blazing fast speeds are doused in a shower of asterisks leading to fine print indicating “speeds are not guaranteed.”

Take Comcast, for example.

The Consumerist‘s reader Matt received a brochure from America’s largest cable operator filled with inaccuracies, falsehoods, and fine print.  In order of appearance, let’s fact check:

Source: The Consumerist

Fiber Fiction: “Comcast High Speed Internet is delivered to your computer through the same fiber-optic network that delivers all those great channels to your television.”

Fiber Fact: Comcast does not operate an all-fiber network.  Their distribution system uses a mix of fiber and standard copper coaxial cable.  The fiber network is only a backbone, which connects to the same coaxial cable companies like Comcast have used since the 1970s.  If you want a true fiber-optic network, you’ll need to sign up with Verizon FiOS or a municipally-run fiber provider.  No national cable operator runs one.  It’s part of their marketing rhetoric to try and capitalize on the benefits of fiber without actually spending the money to actually build a fiber system.

Speed Trap: “Download speeds up to 100 times faster than a 56K phone modem.”

Autobahn: This one has one of those asterisks attached — “actual speeds may vary.”  Comcast doesn’t guarantee speed, and relies on the familiar “up to” disclaimer that phone companies love to use with their DSL service.  If your neighborhood is clogged with users, the websites you visit run slowly, or Comcast has a problem somewhere, your speed will suffer.

Unlimited That Isn’t: “Unlimited usage for a flat, monthly fee.”

Unlimited Reality: Comcast has a usage limit of 250 GB per month.  Exceed it and you potentially will get a call from Comcast lecturing you about your usage.  Ignore them and you may be without your broadband service for a year.

Consumerist reader Matt was a victim of Comcast’s marketing doublespeak when he exceeded the limit and got a phone call from the company.  Instead of being browbeaten by Comcast customer service, he was ready and armed with the brochure the company sent him:

I was told I used more data than they allow (250GB). I do not argue that I used over 250GB, in fact I went quite a bit over. Though I did want to ask for proof that affected their network, I figured it wasn’t the nicest way to start the interaction. I informed them that I used this because it was sold as “Unlimited usage for a flat, monthly rate.” He then told me it said “access.”

I had the brochure right next to me and quoted, “Unlimited usage for a flat, monthly rate.” He told me their website says something different, and my local franchise overstepped its bounds, and their website overrules the “Important Information about our services, Charleston SC” sales brochure sent to me. If I went over again (It goes by calender month, not billing cycle) I would be disconnected for 1 year without giving me a call.

I asked if Comcast had a tool to help me monitor bandwidth. “Not in your market” he told me. “Download something from Google that will do it for you.”

As consumers continue to expand their broadband usage to take advantage of services like online video and file backup, services Comcast itself offers, more and more will run up against Comcast’s monthly usage limit.  Although your Comcast bill increases year after year, their usage limit has not.  It was 250 GB in 2008 and remains the same in 2010. Thanks to Stop the Cap! readers Dave and Michael who sent word our way.

Mark Cuban

Mark Cuban has once again entered the debate over online video, Internet Overcharging schemes, and giant corporate mergers… and mangled it.

Cuban, who owns HD Net as well as the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, occasionally presents cable industry talking points on his blog, but quickly gets into trouble when he strays from them.

This time, Cuban is annoyed with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) over remarks the senator made about the proposed Comcast-NBC merger.  Cuban seized on comments by Franken that Comcast should put all of its television programming online.  Doing that, Cuban insists, would lead to higher prices for broadband and usage caps on it.

Where has Cuban been?  I realize the man is too wealthy to worry about the relentless rate increases Comcast and other companies force on consumers every year, but he also forgot Comcast already has a usage cap on its service, even before the feared video tidal wave arrives.

I get that no one really cares if Comcast has to spend money on capital improvements to add bandwidth to the home.  They should. Its pretty damn stupid to push consumption in a direction that will raise internet rates  to receive the same content for which there is already a phenomenal digital network in place to deliver that content.

Think about it for a minute Senator Franken. Comcast, and every large TV Provider has a digital network in place that can and does deliver gigabits of tv content perfectly,  every second of every day, to any TV set in any  home that is connected to their network. It works. Well.  What you are asking Sen Franken, is that Comcast duplicate the delivery of theirs and NBCUniversals shows on a network, the internet,  that is not, and has never been designed to handle the delivery of huge volumes of video and tv shows.

Cuban should be arguing that point with the cable industry.  TV Everywhere, the online video platform that will offer consumers access to “hundreds of TV shows and cable programming,” is their invention.  If Cuban’s fears are correct, why would the nation’s largest cable operators launch such an ambitious online video platform?

Cuban has bought into industry propaganda justifying usage caps.  There is always an excuse for rationing broadband service to boost profits.  First it was file sharing, now it’s online video causing the “serious problem” of customers using broadband service for more than just e-mail and web browsing.  Their solution – monetize it.  Usage caps and usage based billing are about preserving high profits, not protecting or increasing network capacity.  TV Everywhere proves that.

Franken does not advocate usage caps, as Cuban suggests.  The senator simply wants to be certain Comcast cannot act as a gatekeeper, determining who gets access to Comcast-NBC programming, and who does not.

Cuban should be welcome to such measures as a victim of Gatekeeper Abuse himself.  Mark, how many subscribers did you lose nationwide when Time Warner Cable unilaterally pulled the plug on your channels?

Broadband Reports this morning heard from a trusted source who says America’s largest cable operator is considering offering 250Mbps service to customers, perhaps as early as 2011.

While some cable operators (Time Warner Cable) have dragged their feet on DOCSIS 3 upgrades, Comcast has not — it is expected to have 100 percent of its cable systems upgraded this year.

DOCSIS 3 provides vastly increased speeds across a more robust network.  Older standards provided neighborhoods with a single 6 Mhz channel, with a 36Mbps downstream pipeline.  While that may be fine for a neighborhood browsing web pages and checking e-mail, it doesn’t take much too much high bandwidth activity to start slowing speeds down.  DOCSIS 3 “bonds” multiple channels together to create one fat pipeline.  Newer chipsets support eight combined 6Mhz channels, capable of providing that same neighborhood with 320Mbps of capacity.  Using schemes like PowerBoost, or with few others online, Comcast can deliver occasional bursts of speed at 250Mbps to customers without further upgrades, notes Dave Burstein of DSL Prime.

The bigger question is will customers pay the premium price for 250Mbps if Comcast maintains its 250GB usage limit on it?  Super speed tiers like this are useful to customers using high bandwidth applications.  It doesn’t make sense to upgrade to premium speeds if they’re accompanied by a usage governor.

America’s established cable and telephone companies are pulling out every stop to impede the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program.

Comcast alone, the nation’s largest cable company, has filed thousands of objections to proposed broadband projects in communities large and small, claiming those projects have the potential of introducing competition in their service areas, whether or not actual broadband service is being provided to residents in those communities.

Most large providers like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and many national phone companies have steered clear of applying for broadband stimulus money.  They don’t like requirements that could force them to adhere to Net Neutrality provisions, sharing equal access to their networks.  But they don’t want anyone else on their turf getting funding either, and they’re spending enormous amounts of time and money objecting to anything and everything that seeks funding in their respective service areas.

It’s nothing short of a Broadband Blockade, and it is dramatically slowing the government’s ability to pour over thousands of applications.

Settles

Dan Hays, from consulting firm PRTM, told USA Today as a result of the delays, there’s significant doubt as to whether the monies can be awarded before the end of September when the funding authorization expires.

Could that be part of the plan all along?

“They aren’t leading, they aren’t following, and they won’t get out of the way,” said Craig Settles, a municipal broadband expert. “They’re not going to put proposals on the table because they don’t like the rules. Yet they’re not going to cooperate with the entities that are going after the money.”

“There are 11,000 public comments (about the funding applications), and I’m willing to bet that 9,000, at least, were a challenge or protest of one sort or another,” says Settles.

“We’re at a point where it’s the general public’s interest vs. the entrenched incumbents,” Settles added.

When giant telecommunications providers are threatened, they run to lawmakers for special protection, and they’re getting it.

National Public Radio ran this report about the problems awarding broadband stimulus grants. (5 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Coming next…

FairPoint – Bankrupt And Soaking in Failure – But Still Has Enough for Lobbyists, Attorneys to Fight Broadband Projects On Its Turf

Providing computers in income-challenged neighborhoods and free access to wireless Internet for Philadelphia’s poorest neighborhoods simply won’t do in Comcast’s home city. The cable giant has filed objections to a proposal to bring access to those who would never be able to afford Comcast’s asking price for broadband.

Comcast Center in Philadelphia

Comcast executive vice president David Cohen made it all too clear in a story from Bloomberg News:

“Those applications don’t qualify for funding primarily because they are applications to provide service in areas where there is already broadband service,” Cohen said. He didn’t provide an estimate of how many applications would be implicated, and said Comcast would point out only applications that would serve areas where it provides Internet service.

“We would mostly care if it goes to an area where we’re the broadband provider,” Cohen said.

Comcast has concerns about tax dollars and other benefits going to projects that could compete with Comcast’s offerings. But Comcast’s rank hypocrisy is on full display when one considers public funding is a-okay when it is directed towards Comcast:

Comcast executives lobbied the state government for financial assistance to build their new Center City headquarters. The firm unsuccessfully sought a Keystone Opportunity Zone (KOZ) designation for its building, which would have provided local and state tax relief. Despite the fact that KOZs are intended to spur development in areas of blight, not prosperous Center City locations, the $30 billion company almost succeeded with the help of Gov. Rendell. Had the Comcast effort prevailed, the company would have been exempt from state and local business taxes until 2015.

The Pennsylvania Legislature defeated Comcast’s and the governor’s efforts. The governor then made an end-run around the legislature, funneling nearly $43 million in taxpayer money to aid Comcast and pay for infrastructure near the Comcast building, prompting outrage from many. Comcast’s direct incentives were nearly $13 million. The economic development funds equated to roughly 10 percent of the building’s cost.

Rival office landlords complained bitterly about the public subsidies, fearing that Comcast Center will lead to a glut of downtown office space and lure away their corporate tenants.

Isn’t that a familiar argument. The state of Pennsylvania didn’t help matters when it didn’t include the project on a list of “recommended projects” it sent to federal officials.

Coming up…

American Cable Association Complains Their Lobbying Wasn’t As Effective as the Telephone Companies