Phillip "No Data Tsunami Over Here" Dampier

As the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission enters into the second week of hearings on Internet Overcharging, there have really only been a few minor surprises.

First, and most importantly, when voting consumers pay attention, regulators start asking questions and get aggressive.  This is the same commission that only a year ago gave the green light to wholesale usage-based billing (UBB) — a practice that would guarantee every ISP in Canada dropped flat rate Internet service.  After a half-million Canadians signed Openmedia.ca’s petition opposing UBB, the Harper government (and the opposition parties) got interested, and the Commission got an earful from Industry Minister Tony Clement, who was simply appalled at this kind of Internet pricing.

Second, this round of CRTC hearings has found Bell — UBB’s biggest proponent — largely unrepentant.  It still supports charging people for their usage, even as the company’s foundation for that premise — bandwidth congestion — erodes away.  Providers can claim anything they like, but they cannot invent facts.  By Friday, most of the commissioners realized what consumer advocates had been saying all along — there is no great bandwidth crisis in Canada.  No data tsunami. No exaflood in the zettabyte era.  Growth is exponential to be sure, and Canadians have a passionate affair with their Internet connectivity, but one that remains easily managed when providers make regular, affordable investments in upgrading their networks.

Bell’s week-long contention that congestion pricing was paramount to managing Canada’s bandwidth finally fell apart when CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein noted Bell’s trinity of regional entities managed Internet usage completely differently, even though the traffic passed through the exact same network:

• 1) Bell Aliant, which provides service in the Atlantic provinces, has no usage caps at all.
• 2) Bell Quebec provides service with a considerably more generous usage allowance than given to those customers in Ontario, even those just on the other side of the border.
• 3) Bell Ontario’s usage cap is downright stingy compared with Quebec, most likely because it competes in Ontario with an equally stingy provider — Rogers Cable.

With these facts in evidence, Bell was finally forced to concede it was “competition” not “congestion” that brought three different treatments of Internet usage.  So much for “network congestion.”

Bell’s competitors also hung the telecom giant out to dry when it was their turn to testify.  Each in turn would claim that congestion presented no problems for their respective networks.  Telus, Rogers and Shaw all denied they shared Bell’s usage problems.  That is not to say any of them were in favor of restoring flat-rate Internet access.

Instead, they argued, UBB represented a combination of “stimulating investment” in broadband networks (already insanely profitable for all-comers) and “peak usage pricing,” a hybridized argument about congestion during peak usage periods.  Since some wholesale broadband services are priced at peak capacity requirements, some argue UBB helps keep that peak usage manageable during prime time.

Unfortunately, the peak usage pricing argument undermines itself because Canadian providers enforce usage limits 24/7, not only during peak usage periods.  This means there is no incentive for users to offload their heaviest usage to times when the network experiences low demand.  Independent providers continue to argue “peak usage pricing” may be defensible in certain circumstances, but it’s not even a possibility under Bell’s proposed wholesale UBB scheme.

The record being constructed from Canada’s hearings have direct implications for Americans, as the basic business models for cable and phone providers are similar in both countries.  The death rattle of the “congestion” myth is good news for North American broadband users who have long rolled their eyes at hysterical arguments about data floods and capacity crises.

The CRTC still needs to hear from some additional speakers, and we are under no illusion they will completely reverse themselves on Internet Overcharging schemes, but this represents a clear-cut case that consumers need not simply sit back and take abusive pricing.  Consumer activism can make a real difference in the broadband policies of both the United States and Canada.  It takes a concerted effort, but once a critical mass of consumers is achieved, the ability for providers to simply do as they please becomes a virtual impossibility.

That’s good news for all of us.

[flv width=”640″ height=”368″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC UBB 7-11-11.flv[/flv]

CBC News covers the start of the CRTC hearings and what UBB pricing is doing to Canada’s Internet experience.  (2 minutes)

Virgin Mobile, which last year excited a number of our readers with the introduction of its Broadband2Go unlimited mobile broadband plan, has continued to evolve the meaning of “unlimited,” to now mean just 2.5GB of usage per month before speeds are reduced to the very un-broadband level of 256kbps.

It’s just another in a series of limits Virgin Mobile has placed on its 3G “unlimited” pay-as-you-go service since last August.

Last summer, customers paid up to $100 to purchase the mobile broadband device used with the service, and promptly discovered a lot of people were doing the same thing, which promptly overloaded the network and drove speeds downward.  Within months, our readers reported Virgin had quietly implemented a “fair access policy” that began reducing customers’ speeds after as little as 200MB of use daily, usually to 256kbps or less.  By February 2011, Virgin announced a 5GB usage cap, after which speeds would be permanently throttled until customers either paid an additional $40 or waited out the end of their billing cycle.

Apparently, even 5GB of usage per month is considered too much, so now Virgin Mobile is slashing that in half to 2.5GB.  Despite the ongoing decreases, company officials insist whatever level they are, they are still generous.  The company said less than 3 percent of its customer base will be impacted by a 2.5GB limit on their supposedly “unlimited” plan.  Virgin Mobile, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sprint, gets around that pesky contradiction by calling their plan “unlimited access,” which means you can access it day or night at speeds that either might be fast, or heavily throttled.

What used to cost $40 a month for truly unlimited service today costs $50 for 2.5GB.

Virgin Mobile's Broadband2Go "Before" Pricing from August, 2010

Virgin Mobile's Broadband2Go "New and 'Improved'" Pricing

The days of "Sugar Mama" are long gone.

Virgin Mobile is also hiking rates for two budget handset plans that include data:

• 300 minutes, including unlimited texting and data up $10 to $35 a month
• 1,200 minutes, including unlimited texting and data up $5 to $45 a month

But competition does occasionally deliver some benefits to consumers as Virgin recognizes it is being killed by cheaper unlimited smartphone plans from MetroPCS and Cricket, so it has cut the price on its own unlimited calling, texting, and data smartphone plan by $5 to match its competitors’ $55 monthly price.

Virgin Mobile is in the process or repositioning itself away from being a prepaid budget-priced carrier towards a smartphone-oriented provider for customers who do not want to sign lengthy service contracts with Verizon, AT&T, or even parent company Sprint.

This certainly means the days of Virgin Mobile’s Sugar Mama are long gone. 

Thanks to Bones and several other Stop the Cap! readers for sharing this news with us.

Phillip Dampier: "Where is the actual innovation in The Spectrum Innovation Act?"

Republican members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on spectrum issues have circulated a draft bill — The Spectrum Innovation Act — which is breathtaking when you finish reading it.  For the first time I can recall, the United States Congress is proposing a way for business to bypass telecommunications laws by buying their way out.  The proposed bill would allow big spectrum holders like wireless phone companies, broadcasters, and others warehousing unused spectrum to win a “get out of regulation free”-card just by buying and selling the public airwaves.

A hearing on spectrum issues is scheduled for this Friday, and it promises to be fascinating if only to hear the reasoning behind Congress proposing to throw their own authority to the wind.

The bill’s contents are appalling for a variety of reasons:

• Public airwaves remain a private commodity that companies can buy, sell, or trade, with the not-so-fringe benefit of winning deregulation or being granted a legal free pass to ignore laws still in effect for others;
• The purchase of spectrum under this bill could allow wireless carriers to avoid even the pretense of today’s watered-down Net Neutrality policies;
• Unlicensed white space/spectrum which could be used for innovative new wireless applications could instead become warehoused by private companies for their own use (or more likely to keep others from using it.)

Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge, says the impact of the House measure should not be underestimated.

Feld

“Until now, communications law has never been publicly put up for sale,” Feld said.  “This draft bill would do that by allowing broadcasters to choose which rules they will follow and which rules they won’t if they sell their broadcast spectrum at auction.”

That is distressing enough, but the implications for wireless innovation are in peril if this bill ever becomes law, according to Feld.

“The innovation and experimentation we have seen through the use of unlicensed spectrum would screech to a grinding halt,” Feld believes. “Rather than have the FCC decide how much spectrum would be used for unlicensed uses, the draft bill would require a collective bid for unlicensed spectrum higher than bids for licensed uses.  Given that unlicensed uses like Wi-Fi come from small and new companies, the future of new uses would be very bleak.”

Feld points to several provisions in the bill to prove his points:

• Pages 18-19, line 19 (regulatory relief). If you are broadcast licensee, instead of taking money from an incentive auction for repacking or moving to a different spectrum band, you can ask FCC for a waiver of any commission rule or any provision of law.

• Pages 28-29, line 8 (administration of auctions).  If someone buys a license at auction, the spectrum is exempt from even the weak Net Neutrality rules that have been approved to guard against basic anticompetitive activity in wireless service such as barring competitive services.

• Page 29, line 3.  Prohibits spectrum cap, and also eliminates the ability of  the Commission to favor small business and minority, women-owned businesses in auctions.

• Page 26, line 10. Unlicensed spectrum is subject to auction.  A block of spectrum would be put up for auction, with bidders specifying whether use would be for licensed or unlicensed use.  Unlicensed has to be higher for bid to be accepted.

• Page 30 (section begins).  Gives public safety spectrum to the states, without an auction, with a nebulous plan and some unspecified grant money to coordinate the public safety network.

He’s more than proved the point.

While such legislation would no doubt be celebrated by incumbent providers to reinforce the status quo — their status quo — it is a nightmare for everyone else — another piece of irony from some Republican lawmakers who name their bills the diametric opposite of their end effect.  We can’t think of a better way to crush innovation and destroy the potential of competition by granting today’s players deregulation and easy access to unlicensed spectrum.  It’s as oxymoronic as a level playing field in the Rocky Mountains.  That’s why we need some actual innovation in The Spectrum Innovation Act.

Time Warner Cable just fought a battle in the state of North Carolina to keep public tax dollars from being spent on community-owned broadband networks, but the company has no objection to accepting corporate welfare for itself.

Charlotte’s News & Observer this week reports the nation’s second largest cable company will win $3 million in state incentives if it meets hiring and investment goals. The city of Charlotte is also providing $2 million of its own incentives.  That’s $5 million dollars from the pockets of North Carolina taxpayers.

Corporate welfare

For that, Time Warner Cable is promising to add 225 jobs and build a data center to deal with anticipated broadband growth in the area.  That’s $22,222 per job.

N&O notes this is the third handout the cable company has gotten from the state government since 2004 — all in return for committed expansion in Charlotte.  The newest grant requires Time Warner to retain at least 1,113 jobs in the Charlotte area.  The state government is apparently willing to help pay for the cable company to not lay off its workers, but is all for smothering much-needed competition from community providers, which it stepped on in a big way earlier this year.

Ironically, the corporate-backed groups that loudly oppose taxpayer funding for broadband and critics of community networks are mysteriously silent over $5 million in public funds being directly transferred to a multi-billion dollar cable corporation.

If this is a new way to attract customers, it’s sure stumping marketing experts who are questioning Hawaiian Telcom’s launch of its new cable TV service to compete with Time Warner Cable’s Oceanic Cable.  Nobody knows where exactly the service is available for sale, or for how much, and HawTel officials are not saying.

“If you call Hawaiian Telcom and ask them about the service, they essentially say ‘don’t call us, we’ll call you’ and they are the phone company!” says Oahu resident and Stop the Cap! reader Dan Ho, who first discovered HawTel was getting into the cable business from Stop the Cap!  “I realize we’re talking about another form of U-verse here, but that could still be a good thing for Hawaiians who cannot get Oceanic Cable and are stuck with HawTel’s awful DSL service.”

HawTel’s new fiber-copper hybrid network tested successfully for 250 mystery families who participated in a secretive beta-test.  The new service is expected to be sold mostly in a packaged bundle with extra high speed DSL (presumably up to 25Mbps), a central DVR terminal that can record up to four shows off the company’s digital cable TV package concurrently, and unlimited phone service.

Lester Chu, a HawTel spokesman, wouldn’t tell reporters the prices for the new service, instead offering to accept bills from competing providers and allowing HawTel to competitively bid for your business.  The company also wouldn’t say where the service was for sale, “for competitive reasons,” added Chu.

But HawTel has been licensed to provide service on the island of Oahu, and intends to rollout the service in contiguous service areas, so once the first new customers do go public, we’ll be able to ascertain where the service is slated to be delivered next.

HawTel says they will begin targeted advertising to alert residents when the service will be available.  That traditionally means direct mailers, door hanger tags, and door-to-door visits from sales teams hired by HawTel.

“It’s a crazy way to build excitement for the product, by keeping it a secret,” Ho believes. “More important, I suspect their pricing is not going to be very good if they require customers to bring in a current bill from a cable competitor in order to get a quote.”

Ho should know, he’s a marketing professional himself.

“I suspect the company wants face time with a customer to explain away the lack of visible savings by instead talking up the features they will offer that Oceanic Cable does not,” Ho suggests.

Among those features – the four-recordings-at-a-time DVR, the 250-channel all digital lineup, and the presence of NFL Network, a network Time Warner Cable systems have perennially refused to carry on their basic digital tier because of its cost.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KITV Honolulu Hawaiian Telecom Bring Cable Competition To The Islands 7-7-11.mp4[/flv]

KITV-TV in Honolulu opened their newscast with the mysterious launch of Hawaiian Telcom’s new TV service.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KHON Honolulu Hawaiian Telcom launches cable TV service in select location 7-7-11.mp4[/flv]

KHON-TV in Honolulu covers HawTel’s introduction of cable competition on the island of Oahu, even though company officials won’t say where it’s available or for how much.  (Loud Volume Warning!) (1 minute)