Share and share alike is a concept unfamiliar to Rogers Communications, at least in the eyes of the independent Internet Service Providers who have wholesale bandwidth agreements with eastern Canada’s largest cable operator that are supposed to guarantee speed parity.

The Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC) last week announced it filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) accusing Rogers of withholding speed increases from independent ISPs.

In 2006, the CRTC made it clear that cable companies must treat its wholesale customers fairly:

The Commission determines that should a cable carrier introduce a speed upgrade to one of its retail internet service offerings with no corresponding price change, it is to issue at the same time, revised [third-party ISP access] tariff pages that match these retail service speed changes with no corresponding price change.

According to CNOC, Rogers wants independent ISPs to pay higher prices for the faster speeds it is providing its own customers for no additional charge.

That leaves providers like TekSavvy at a competitive disadvantage, according to the provider.

Peter Nowak explains Rogers is attempting to hurry independent ISPs to move to “aggregated points of interconnection,” part of the foundation of the CRTC’s earlier decision on usage-based billing. Independent ISPs were given two years to complete the transition and Rogers wants that change to move at faster pace:

Rogers wants indie ISPs to move onto the aggregated method, something it says the CRTC essentially ordered at the conclusion of the big usage-based billing fiasco a year ago. Here’s what a spokesperson told me:

We are not denying TPIAs access to our new speeds provided they have moved to a single point of connection, called an aggregated point of interconnection (POI). As part of the usage based billing rulings in November of last year, TPIAs were given two years to move from a disaggregated POI to an aggregated POI. The sooner this happens, the sooner we can provide those speeds to these third party ISPs.  Rogers will continue to provide access at existing speeds on the old network architecture until November 15, 2013.

The dispute, as usual, boils down to whether or not Rogers’ move can be considered anti-competitive. The small ISPs argue that it is, since Rogers’ own retail customers are getting the benefit of higher speeds without higher prices, yet the indie companies – and their own subscribers by extension – are being expected to pay more.

If it’s uneconomical for the indies to sell the faster speeds, they won’t, in which case the big network owners like Rogers will hold a distinct advantage since internet access is sold largely on speeds. Since they’ll simply perish if they can’t keep pace, the indie ISPs will ultimately have no choice but to accept the higher prices being pushed on them – and that effectively neutralizes the entire point of their existence, which is to provide a competitive check to the big guys.

CNOC has asked the CRTC to make an expedited ruling on the controversy as soon as possible to mitigate competitive damage.

Canadian cable, phone, and satellite providers have done a better job stymieing would-be “cord-cutters” than their counterparts further south in the United States.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) annual report on the country’s telecom companies shows all of them remain exceptionally profitable, keeping pay TV customers far more effectively than American providers. Total revenues climbed from $12.5 billion to $13.5 billion in just one year, as price hikes, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage-based billing, and lack of competition continue to takes its toll on Canadian wallets.

The biggest winners were the biggest telecom companies in Canada — Rogers Communications, Bell Canada (BCE), and Shaw Communications, which all saw profits soar 8.2% to $11 billion.  Costs increased about 10.7% in 2011, fueled by network upgrades and rampant hikes in programming costs — an interesting state of affairs considering Rogers and Bell own or control a substantial number of the programmers demanding higher payments.  Most of those increases were passed on to customers in the form of rate hikes.

Although Canadians are increasingly interested in streaming online video, virtually every major Internet Service Provider in the country has effectively prevented customers from dropping cable television service in favor of broadband-only access.  They manage it with usage caps and usage billing on their broadband products.  With streamed video accounting for a substantial drain on customers’ monthly usage allowances, Canadians are unlikely to cancel cable TV in favor of watching all of their favorite shows online.

In fact, the number of Canadian households that subscribed to a cable company’s basic television service actually increased by 2.8% in 2011 to reach 8.5 million.  Experts say the country’s transition to digital over the air television may account for some of that increase, but a few high broadband bills with overlimit fees for “excessive Internet use” can effectively drive online video fans back to traditional cable TV as well.

Satellite television in Canada remained flat,  with a virtually unchanged 2.9 million Canadians relying on Bell and Shaw satellite service for television entertainment.

But everyone is paying more to watch.

In 2011, cable companies paid $2.1 billion in wholesale fees to the pay and specialty services they distribute, an increase of 10.2% over the $1.9 billion paid the previous year. The fees paid by satellite companies rose by 2.8% in one year, going from $894.4 million to $919 million.

That leaves vertically and horizontally-integrated conglomerates like Bell in the perfect position to extract higher programming payments.  Those costs are passed down to Canadian consumers and blamed on “greedy programmers,” despite the fact those programmers are owned in part or outright by Bell.

A Rogers retail rental store

Rogers is also well-suited to remain a part of the Canadian entertainment experience.  The company owns cable systems, wireless phone networks, programmers, and even home video stores. However Stop the Cap! reader Alex notes Rogers has been closing a number of those video stores over the past few months.

“This gives customers one less choice for renting movies, basically forcing them to use Rogers On Demand instead,” writes Alex.

Rogers On Demand comes with a higher price, too.  In-store rentals from Rogers are priced at 2 for $9 or 3 for $15.  A recent look at Rogers’ video on demand website, Rogers Anyplace TV, shows most movie titles priced at $4.99 each.  With Rogers closing 40 percent of their retail rental outlets, movie fans have had fewer competitive choices for movie rentals.

One potential new contender coming to Canada – kiosk video rentals.  Although services like Redbox are now commonplace in the States, they are virtually unknown in the north.  Jim Gormley, former owner of Jumbo Video is back with Planet DVD.  With just 2% of Canadians renting movies from kiosks, Gormley believes there is plenty of room to grow, especially as Rogers scales back its video rental business.

Planet DVD has a pilot project running with supermarket chain Sobeys to place kiosks in front of nine store locations.  The first kiosk was erected in early March in front of a Sobeys store in Mississauga, Ont.

A new release at a Planet DVD kiosk is priced at $3 for a one-day rental.  That’s less than what most video stores charge, but more than double what Americans pay at a Redbox kiosk.

A Burlington, Ontario customer of Cogeco Cable, convinced by the company to upgrade his broadband service to a usage plan with a higher allowance, has been billed nearly $700 in broadband usage overlimit fees in a single month after the company quietly removed the cap on overlimit fees associated with the plan.

The customer first learned about the change in Cogeco’s usage-based billing policies when the company’s “auto pay” billing service deducted nearly $900 from his checking account to pay his cable bill, he told Broadband Reports.

Further charges and late fees have now racked up to almost $1,200 and so far Cogeco has only been willing to provide its customer with a $50 “courtesy credit.”

Cogeco claims it notified customers last fall it was removing the maximum overlimit penalty cap from two of its broadband plans, including the one the Burlington customer was persuaded to choose by a company representative.  Prior to October, The Ultimate 30 plan, designed for so-called “heavy users,” included a 125GB usage allowance with an overlimit fee of $1/GB, capped at a maximum of $50.

Canadian broadband users likely to exceed a broadband usage allowance typically upgrade to a service plan with a higher allowance or factor the capped, fixed overlimit fee into their assumed monthly cost for service.  But when providers like Cogeco quietly increase the maximum overlimit fee, or remove it altogether, usage-based billing shock often follows.

The customer claims he never received any change of terms notification until the first bill with unlimited overcharges arrived, and Cogeco admits it cannot assert every customer received the notification much less absorbed its meaning.  According to the Burlington man, Cogeco told him customers often don’t read the letters or throw them out, unopened, assuming it is advertising.

Even if Cogeco did send a letter, the man believes the company has gone out of its way to avoid prominently alerting customers about the possibility of explosive increases in broadband usage expenses.  Instead, they have framed the changes as an “enhancement” that will “help you get more from the Internet.”

When bill shock becomes an enhancement -- An informational message included on a recent Cogeco billing statement.

Cogeco customers upset about the change say it is easy for people to miss the implications buried in a rate chart that the maximum overlimit penalty has been removed.

“A Cogeco salesperson called me to change my service based on my usage,” said the Burlington man. “[The Ultimate 30 Plan] would cost me less money and in return I would receive faster internet and an increased data transfer capacity.”

Now the customer also gets hundreds of dollars in overlimit fees, too.  Even worse, the man complains, he was never given an opportunity to adjust his usage or service plan to avoid the enormous bills he has since received.

“I would have stepped down to the Turbo 20 package that has a maximum of $50 for usage or the Business Ultimate 50 package which [has] unlimited data transfer,” the man complains. “Either option would have saved me hundreds of dollars.”

The cable bill in your future?

Cogeco’s unwillingness to forgive overlimit usage charges seems strange to the Burlington man because several other Cogeco plans retain a fixed limit on overlimit fees.  Other Cogeco customers have begun to question the company’s logic in usage billing more generally, because hundreds of gigabytes consumed on a slightly slower usage plan would result in a bill a fraction of the cost the Burlington man now faces.

“Why does Cogeco’s bandwidth cost a ridiculous $1 per gigabyte on one plan, and considerably less on others with capped overlimit fees,” asks Stop the Cap! reader Jeff, another Cogeco customer who shared the story. “It’s a usage shell game and it’s all about the money because they won’t give a decade-long customer a break on fees they would never have charged many of their other customers.  The bandwidth costs to Cogeco are the same no matter what plan you are on.”

Jeff wonders whether customer goodwill matters anymore at telecommunications companies.

“They’d rather harass this man for hundreds in phantom ‘costs’ and destroy their reputation in the process.”

The customer says he can’t even be sure the bill is correct.

“Internet usage based billing is flawed,” he says.

He points out the methodology and devices that determine the bandwidth are not certified or regulated by Measurement Canada. There is no recourse for customers to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the bandwidth measurements. Cogeco customers must rely on an ‘Internet Usage’ meter Cogeco has on the website. The meter is not always up to date and has frequent outages, customers report.

Against this backdrop, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission new rules governing the practice of usage-based billing are set to take effect tomorrow, Feb. 1st.

“We are moving ahead with the implementation as planned to ensure that independent ISPs will continue to offer competitive and innovative services to Canadians,” said Leonard Katz, the CRTC’s acting chairman and vice-chairman of Telecommunications. “Some temporary adjustments have been made to ensure a smooth transition to the new billing regime and to ensure consumers are not inconvenienced.”

As an interim measure, independent ISPs who are customers of the Bell companies will have the flexibility to either merge their business and residential Internet traffic, or keep them separate.

In November 2011, the CRTC established how large telephone and cable companies should charge independent ISPs for the use of their networks.

In turn, cable and telephone company Internet Service Providers can continue to use usage-based billing practices similar to what Cogeco uses, or switch to a combination of flat-rate and usage-based billing.  But with the revenue potential Cogeco has illustrated it can earn from UBB, few large providers are anticipated to sell residential customers flat use plans.

“Caveat emptor,” says our reader Jeff.

Katz

A former executive at Bell Canada and Rogers Communications has been named interim chairman of Canada’s telecommunications regulator.

Current Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) vice-chairman Leonard Katz was appointed interim chairman Wednesday, following the departure of Konrad von Finckenstein.

Katz is not expected to hold the position for long.  Political insiders point to Conservative government favorite Tom Pentefountas, who has spent months lobbying for the CRTC top spot.  In July, Pentefountas asked a consumer group, “what is so undemocratic about allowing a few companies to control the Internet?”

Katz is yet another regulator who has spent most of his professional life working for the companies he is now expected to oversee.  Katz held senior posts at both Bell and Rogers, Canada’s largest telecommunications companies, before joining the CRTC in 2005.  He has served as its vice-chairman since 2007.

Katz has crossed swords with the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper on more than one occasion, most recently being embroiled in the controversy over Usage Based Billing.  An initial decision by the CRTC to adopt much of a plan submitted by Bell that would end unlimited flat rate access to the Internet in Canada was reversed by then-Industry Minister Tony Clement.  The government’s decision to overrule the Commission opened the door for ridicule by opposition Liberal and NDP MPs, who questioned the credibility of the CRTC and its authority under Conservative leadership.

Departing chairman Von Finckenstein blamed outdated regulatory policies for much of the controversy at the CRTC.  The government agency has been forced to adopt a largely deregulatory stance towards telecommunications, and has regularly been accused of catering to the interests of some of Canada’s largest telecommunications companies.

In the past several years, the CRTC has overseen a telecommunications marketplace that is rapidly consolidating, especially around companies like Bell, Rogers, and Shaw Communications, which have interests in broadcasting, publishing, entertainment, and telecommunications services.

Pentefountas

Katz could be replaced as early as this fall, and the controversial Conservative Montreal lawyer Tom Pentefountas remains the favorite pick among political watchers in Ottawa.

But Pentefountas has his enemies.  He has been roundly attacked for lacking the necessary experience and credentials to act as a commissioner on the CRTC, much less serve as its chairman, particularly by NDP Heritage Minister Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay).

Pentefountas, Angus claimed, told national media five months after being considered for the post of vice-chairman of the CRTC, “he didn’t know anything about the job.”

One unnamed source told Postmedia News Mr. Pentefountas may not grasp the transformational nature of the Internet and its impact on traditional broadcasting and telecommunications companies.

“He’s occasionally comes out of left field,” the source said.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Charlie Angus on CBC on CRTC 2-10-11.flv[/flv]

CBC-TV aired this exchange last February between NDP Heritage Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins/James Bay), Dean Del Mastro, Parl. Secretary for the Minister of Heritage, and Liberal MP Marc Garneau (Westmount/Ville-Marie) regarding Tom Pentefountas, the challenges at the CRTC, and controversy over a new policy that would allow the reporting of “false news.”  (12 minutes)

A-la-carte cable: Still not on Rogers' menu

Carol Jameson simply can’t afford to spend $70 a month for cable television any longer.  Although Canada’s economy is doing better than some, Jameson’s husband recently had to endure a pay cut, and the costs of raising their two teenage children are not getting any lower.  The London, Ont. Rogers Cable customer ran several kitchen table meetings to discuss what expenses could be cut from the family budget.  Her teenage son and daughter targeted the family’s landline telephone — an archaic curiosity of the past for today’s cell-phone-obsessed youth, and cable-TV, which they saw as increasingly irrelevant.

“Just don’t touch the Internet connection,” Carol was advised.

Despite concerns from her sports-addicted husband, Jameson decided to start shopping around, and definitely decided the days of their landline was over.  In her neighborhood, “shopping around” meant choosing from Rogers Cable or a satellite TV provider.  Bell’s Fibe — fiber to the neighborhood — service was not up and running in her part of London.

“I had settled on a basic satellite package and keeping Rogers’ broadband and called the cable company to share the bad news,” Carol tells Stop the Cap! “But when I tried to cancel, I was transferred to someone who said I could stay and pick and choose only the channels I wanted to watch and pay for.”

Carol was shocked Rogers had a solution for her high cable bill that it never bothered to share until she tried to cancel.

“You can’t find a thing about this deal online or even on the phone with Rogers’ customer service, and who would think to ask after years of getting dozens of channels we never watch,” Jameson says.

Carol was being pitched Rogers’ new “Pick and Pay” service, currently undergoing a five month trial in the London area.

“I was offered the service until March 2012, after which I was advised to call Rogers back and discuss my options after the trial ends, if it ends,” Jameson tells us.

Rogers’ “Pick and Pay” is a modified a-la-carte suite of offerings.  It does not allow customers to pick and choose only the channels they wish.  It instead asks customers to sign up for a $20 basic cable package containing local broadcasters and certain other channels Canadian telecommunications regulators want all Canadians to have access to, and several channels Rogers wants their customers to have (home shopping, The Fireplace, Aquarium, and Sunset Channels, etc.)  Beyond that, customers can choose from mini-packages of Canadian superstations, U.S. broadcast stations, and digital music.  Customers then select 15, 20, or 30 channels of their choosing ranging in price from $26.38-$33.48 per month.

“It’s better than $70 a month, but not by too much,” Carol says.

Carol and her husband decided to consider the offer, but found an exact list of channels hard to come by.

“That’s not a problem limited to me,” Carol reports. “The Globe & Mail featured Rogers’ new cable package and the customer in that case had to obtain a photocopied list of channel choices because Rogers didn’t have one online.”

Carol ended up with the 20 channel add-on package and the U.S. network station suite, which runs $28.41 and $3, respectively.  That means her cable TV bill dropped to $52 a month, just over $22 a month less.

Rogers' scarce photocopied channel listing for their "Pick and Pay" package, obviously removed from an employee's three-ring binder.

“But here is where Rogers gets you by your pocketbook,” Carol warns. “You have to take Rogers’ phone service with the deal, so now the landline is back, although they charge less than Bell.”

Jameson also notes these prices do not include mandatory extras:

• $4.49 – Digital terminal rental (per TV)
• $2.99 – Digital service fee
• $0.70 – Local Programming Improvement Fund Fee
• + G.S.T. (taxes)

“So much for the savings,” Carol says.

The Globe & Mail speculates the Rogers’ trial is rigged to convince Canadian regulators there is little interest in a-la-carte cable, at least the way Rogers has packaged it (and kept it hidden from public view):

In September, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission said that it had received complaints from consumers about being forced to pay for too many channels they do not watch, and that it expects cable and satellite companies to change that. The CRTC ordered all TV providers to report back by April on what actions they have taken to give subscribers more choice.

But cable and satellite executives have told the CRTC in hearings that there is no consumer demand for cheaper, “skinny basic” packages that offer fewer channels at lower cost than today’s basic TV packages. And some think that Rogers will use the London example to tell the CRTC that there isn’t much demand for the product.

Customers like the Jameson family might end up unwittingly proving Rogers’ point.

“After all of the extras, we rejected the plan and were all ready to switch to satellite and keep the broadband, but at the last minute Rogers offered us new customer pricing on their standard package for a year if we agreed to stay, and we did,” Carol tells us.  “A-la-carte cable is exactly what we need, but this isn’t it.  Maybe that is why Rogers keeps it a secret.”