Phillip "No, I won't take your word for it" Dampier

Did you realize if you are pro-Net Neutrality, you’re probably pro-piracy and a broadband hog?  That’s the new low achieved this past week by Net Neutrality opponents who are spending millions trying to protect their broadband fiefdoms from any regulation.  But even if they lose their fight to stop Net Neutrality when they find consumers won’t accept a throttled “network managed” broadband future, providers will be “forced” to control those dirty pirates and broadband hogs with usage limits and overlimit fees to help “pay for network expansion.”

It’s why Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and “consumption billing” go hand in hand.  What providers can’t profit from on one end they’ll try from another.

Longtime readers of Stop the Cap! already know how this scam works.  Canadian broadband users got stuck with both: speed throttles -and- usage caps and overlimit fees.  Assuming purposely throttled speeds are banned by Net Neutrality policies, simply under-investing in network expansion, despite the rampant profit-earning capacity broadband delivers, gets us to the same place — throttled speeds from overcongested networks and a convenient excuse to impose usage limits and other control measures to more “fairly” provide service to every customer.  Best of all, providers can pocket the overlimit fees charged to customers who exceed their allowance and train them to use less broadband with fears of more stinging penalty fees on their next bill.

Back in 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, we challenged providers to provide the raw data to prove their assertions that they needed to impose formal limits and so-called “consumption-based billing” and abandon the lucrative flat rate pricing model that earns them billions in profits every year.  Of course, they have always refused, citing “competitive reasons,” “customer privacy,” or some combination of laws that supposedly prohibits any third party analysis.  Of course, they’re only too happy to characterize usage themselves, and we’re supposed to trust them — the same people that want to use that data to justify Internet Overcharging schemes.  Independent analysis?  When broadband pigs fly!

Now, telecom analyst Benoit Felten from the Yankee Group is asking the same questions on his Fiberevolution blog and issuing a challenge:

So here’s a challenge for them: in the next few days, I will specify on this blog a standard dataset that would enable me to do an in-depth data analysis into network usage by individual users. Any telco willing to actually understand what’s happening there and to answer the question on the existence of hogs once and for all can extract that data and send it over to me, I will analyse it for free, on my spare time. All I ask is that they let me publish the results of said research (even though their names need not be mentioned if they don’t wish it to be). Of course, if I find myself to be wrong and if indeed I manage to identify users that systematically degrade the experience for other users, I will say so publicly. If, as I suspect, there are no such users, I will also say so publicly. The data will back either of these assertions.

Felton’s co-author Herman offers his assessment:

Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, the way that telcos identify the Bandwidth Hogs is not by monitoring if they cause unfair traffic congestion for other users. No, they just measure the total data downloaded per user, list the top 5% and call them hogs.

For those service providers with data caps, these are usually set around 50 Gbyte and go up to 150 Gbyte a month. This is therefore a good indication of the level of bandwidth at which you start being considered a “hog”.  But wait: 50 Gbyte a month is… 150 kbps average (0,15 Mbps), 150 Gbyte a month is 450 kbps on average. If you have a 10 Mbps link, that’s only 1,5 % or 4,5 % of its maximum advertised speed!

And that would be “hogging”?

The fact is that what most telcos call hogs are simply people who overall and on average download more than others. Blaming them for network congestion is actually an admission that telcos are uncomfortable with the ‘all you can eat’ broadband schemes that they themselves introduced on the market to get people to subscribe. In other words, the marketing push to get people to subscribe to broadband worked, but now the telcos see a missed opportunity at price discrimination…

TCP/IP is by definition an egalitarian protocol. Implemented well, it should result in an equal distribution of available bandwidth in the operator’s network between end-users; so the concept of a bandwidth hog is by definition an impossibility. An end-user can download all his access line will sustain when the network is comparatively empty, but as soon as it fills up from other users’ traffic, his own download (or upload) rate will diminish until it’s no bigger than what anyone else gets.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) has a better idea to stop Internet Overcharging: the Broadband Internet Fairness Act (HR 2902), which would ban unjustified billing schemes for broadband

The arbitrary nature of what constitutes a “hog” invalidates providers’ arguments at the outset.  Frontier defines a hog as someone who consumes more than 5GB.  Comcast sets their definition of a broadband piggy at 250GB.  The gap between the two is wide enough to allow a small planet to slip through unencumbered.

If a consumer does all of their downloading from midnight to six the following morning, are they as much of a hog on a shared cable modem network as the user watching Hulu during prime broadband usage time?  Probably not.  If a cable provider tries to force too many homes to share the same finite amount of bandwidth available in a designated area, service will slow for everyone during peak usage times.  But nobody will notice or care if customers are maxing out their connection in the middle of the night.  The appropriate answer, especially for an industry that enjoys enormous profits, is to expand their network to maintain basic quality of service at peak times.  DOCSIS 3 upgrades for cable are cost efficient, flexible and often profitable, because providers can market new, premium-priced speed tiers to those who want cutting edge service.

Instead, some providers see delaying upgrades as a better answer, enjoying the cost savings that follow implementation of usage caps, limits and other overcharging schemes which artificially limit demand and further monetize their broadband service offerings.

Unfortunately, even if Felten got responses from providers, he’ll be forced to trust the integrity of data he didn’t collect himself.  Rep. Eric Massa has a better idea.  His proposed Broadband Internet Fairness Act would ban such overcharging schemes unless providers could prove to the satisfaction of a federal agency that such pricing was warranted.  The big difference is that providing “massaged” data to Mr. Felton might be naughty, but would be downright criminal if tried with the federal government.

Shouldn’t the central lesson here be to “trust but verify?”

Comcast's new usage gauge is being tested in Oregon

Comcast’s long promised “usage gauge” has arrived.  The company promised to provide one to customers more than a year ago when it imposed a 250GB monthly usage limit on its residential broadband accounts.  Although generous in comparison to some other providers that limit customers to as little as 1-5GB of usage per month, Comcast’s allowance and the meter re-emphasizing it has created controversy among customers concerned about usage caps, potential overlimit fees or speed throttles.

Stop the Cap! reader “bones” sent along word of the measurement tool beta test in the Portland, Oregon area, and reviewing the accompanying data exposes some inconvenient facts such usage limits will have on customers.

Comcast’s version of the ‘gas gauge’ depicts usage on a bar graph and is updated monthly.  Company officials claim the average user consumes just 2-4 gigabytes per month, a debatable figure.  Comcast claims about 1% of their subscribers exceed 250GB of usage per month, but does not indicate whether that number has been on the increase as the company unveils new premium speed, premium priced broadband tiers.

Comcast hired NetForecast to “independently” verify the accuracy of the meter, which they claim produces results within 0.5% accuracy.

The company’s report concludes with praise for Comcast’s new meter, claiming it “will shine a new light on a previously unknown and misunderstood aspect of the digital age. NetForecast believes that this information will allow consumers to become better informed, and better informed consumers will help positively shape the Internet’s future.”

It also increases resentment towards a company that makes them check a meter to be sure they are within their “allowance” for the month, particularly when that company makes loads of money on broadband service.

NetForecast’s tests do reveal several new pieces of information to the “net meter” controversy:

1. The company found up to 1GB of traffic per month represented “background traffic associated with modem management.”  That’s a considerable amount of data counted against a customer’s usage, especially for customers stuck on lower consumption usage plans;
2. The increasing complexity of some web pages and their underlying structure can contribute to additional traffic associated with “protocol overhead”;
3. Poorer line quality can result in increased traffic due to retransmission requests;
4. “Unexpected” traffic is so substantial, it warranted its own section in the NetForecast report:

Traffic can be generated by more than just PCs. Any device that has access to the wireless router is a potential Internet traffic generator—including smart phones, game consoles, digital video recorders, printers, cameras, etc. Many non-PC devices “phone home” to a manufacturer or supporting service. These automated connections are transparent to the user as a convenience so the user is unaware of the traffic generated.

The most likely source of unexpected traffic, however, is from software running on PCs throughout the home. The Windows operating system and most popular software have automated update programs. These updates often download and are installed automatically without the need for user intervention. The automation is generally designed for the convenience and protection of the consumer, but the traffic it generates may come as a surprise.

Each program update download may be modest in size, however, when you multiply a modest download by the number of programs calling for updates and the number of PCs in the house, the traffic attributable to updates can be substantial. Furthermore, in some cases the vendor default update settings are very aggressive, with some default settings checking each hour and downloading every possible option even though they are not all needed. For example, a software program may load its interface in a dozen languages even though all household members only know how to read English.

That’s just the beginning.  The company also documented “surprise usage” from smartphones downloading updates, photo sharing sites, online backup, and other online applications.  Perhaps most important are online video services:

A large volume of traffic may be going to digital video recorders such as TiVo. A user in the home may have rented a movie from Amazon, Netflix. Blockbuster, etc. Renting the movie will be a known traffic-generating event, however, many services also preload the start of other movies as well as trailers to make them instantly available should they be called for. As in other situations described above, traffic is consumed for the consumer’s convenience but without his or her knowledge.

If Comcast’s meter results showing your usage doesn’t make sense and you don’t believe or understand the numbers, wait until you read how it is your responsibility, as a customer, to do all the sleuthing.

NetForecast’s prescription for “rogue traffic” requires the customer to shut off their computers and other connected devices for a “digitally silent” period (overnight or on a weekend when traveling).  Then, the customer gets to follow this routine:

At the end of the digital silence turn on one PC and log back into the Comcast meter portal, or you can check from an Internet cafe or other means while you are away. If true digital silence was achieved, the meter should not have incremented by more than 1GB. If there is more than 1GB use over even several days, then there is certainly some other traffic consumer connected through the router.

If the digital silence experiment worked, then carefully add devices back to the home network while watching the meter. Note that the meter only increments once per hour, so it may take some time to find a rogue traffic source. On the other hand, the home may simply be a highly connected place that is leveraging many aspects of the Internet, and the traffic may be entirely due to legitimate use.

“I guess those of us who are Comcast customers get to add this to our ‘list of things to do’ when we are trying to enjoy our broadband service,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Karen in Portland.  “Can you imagine telling a customer whose wireless wi-fi was ‘borrowed’ by a neighbor that they have to do all this when half the time, those customers don’t even understand how to enable wi-fi security?”

Each and every byte gets counted.  Almost.

Exempt from the usage meter are Comcast’s digital phone service and on-demand video services sent to your television. That’s a nice benefit for Comcast, but not so nice for their competitors, such as voice-over-IP telephone services and the aforementioned Netflix, Amazon, and other on-demand broadband video services. Programming sent to your computer over Comcast’s forthcoming TV Everywhere service does count against your allowance, however.

With a 250GB allowance, it may be some time before most customers find themselves routinely having to limit their usage to avoid exceeding it.  But that assumes Comcast doesn’t follow some other providers into a limbo dance of lowered usage allowances.  With a meter in place, it’s as simple as lowering the cap and telling the customer to check before they use.

What do Comcast customers think?  Comcast’s blog amusingly illustrates some company employees love it, and most consumers hate it:

“Finally! This is great stuff, I cannot wait for this to roll out in our market. We’ve been waiting and customers have been asking for months. Keep up the good work out there, and let’s never stop being innovative. We ROCK!” — Ozzie Navarro, presumably the ‘we’ is this instance refers to an author employed by Comcast.

“How is it great that you’re capping a service I pay monthly for at great expense? Now I can see it in a meter, wow! Upgrade your damn infrastructure to support more bandwidth instead of cutting off customers.” — Jason

“Don’t think you are fooling people by saying, ‘Only x% of people use over 250gb/month, and 1-x% of people won’t have to worry.’ Would you outright deny that you are implementing this feature because you feel your TV industry is threatened by Netflix, Slingbox, Hulu.com, et al.? You say it is to provide all users with a better experience. You say that because some people are “hogging the internet”, grandma can’t look at photos of her grandchildren fast enough. Did it ever occur to you that more people are using more web-intensive programs everyday? It’s not like bandwidth is a finite resource. As much as you guys want to say it is, bandwidth is only limited by ISPs. You love to say that your “networks are overburdened.” Hate to point out the obvious, but you are the ones selling the service so you should plan accordingly for usage. You sell people an advertised rate of 10Mbps, knowing full well that unless everyone else in their neighborhood is offline, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell you’ll get these speeds.

Then you have the nerve to say because so many people are “abusing their privilege” you must implement a bandwidth cap to “maintain the integrity of our networks.” I pay $50/month just to access this wonderful series of tubes known as the internet. When I was sold this plan, I was told very specifically that it was UNLIMITED.  That meant, if I maxed out my possible internet consumption everyday — no big deal — that’s what unlimited means. It’s becoming more and more obvious that this whole thing is a money grab, much like overdraft fees from our favorite financial institutions. I love how in the last comment you preach about rolling out your DOCSIS 3.0 system, which will supposedly let people have higher speeds. You don’t plan on upgrading the amount we can use per month though do you? That was suspiciously left absent from your article. Basically you are giving us the power use the internet in more innovative ways, but punishing us for trying to take advantage of your speeds. Thanks for giving me the ability to hit the upper limit more easily and quickly!” — Matt

“So a service whose advertising mentions NOTHING about data caps is actually capped, eh? That’s nice. It’s also really nice that you’re rolling out a faster product, so people can use up their allotted internet EVEN FASTER. Comcast doesn’t want people not paying for their ridiculously overpriced TV service, so they cripple their internet so you don’t have a choice. Really nice.” — Comcast customer

Phillip "He Who Shall Not Be Named" Dampier

I’ve tangled with Todd Spangler, a columnist at cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News before.  This morning, I noticed Todd suddenly added me to the list of people he follows on Twitter.  Now I see why.

Todd is back with another one of his cheerleading sessions for Internet Overcharging schemes, promoting consumption-based billing schemes as inevitable, backed up by his industry friends who subscribe and help pay his salary and a guy from a company whose bread is buttered selling the equipment to “manage” the Money Party.

GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham and Broadband Reports’ Karl Bode don’t pay his salary, so it’s no surprise he disagrees them.  Oh, and I’m in the mix as well, but not by name.  Amusingly, I’m “the StoptheCap! guy, who’s making a career directing his bloggravation at The Man.”

Todd doesn’t consider himself “an edgy blogger type because, as everyone knows, I am The Man,” he writes.

Actually, Todd, you are Big Telecom’s Man, paid by an industry trade magazine to write industry-friendly cozy warm and fuzzies that don’t rock the boat too much and threaten those yearly subscription fees, as well as your paid position there.  I’ve yet to read a trade publication that succeeds by disagreeing with industry positions, and I still haven’t after today.

Unlike Todd, I am not paid one cent to write any of what appears here.  This site is entirely consumer-oriented and financed with no telecom industry involvement, no careers to make or break, and this fight is not about me.  I’m just a paying customer like most of our readers.

This site is about good players in the broadband industry who deserve to make good profits and enjoy success providing an important service to subscribers at a fair price, and about those bad players who increasingly seek to further monetize their broadband offerings by charging consumers more for the same service.  As one of the few telecom products nearly immune from the economic downturn, some providers are willing to leverage their barely-competitive marketplace position to cash in.

It’s about who has control over our broadband future – certain corporate entities and individuals who openly admit their desire to act as a controlling gatekeeper, or consumers who pay for the service.  It’s also about organizing consumers to push back when industry propaganda predominates in discussions about broadband issues, and we know where we can find plenty of that.  Finally it’s about evangelizing broadband, not in a religious sense, but promoting its availability even if it means finding alternatives to private providers who leave parts of urban and rural America unserved because it just doesn’t produce enough profit.

Let’s derail Todd’s latest choo-choo arguments.

“The idea of charging broadband customers based on what they use is still in play.” — That’s never been in play.  True consumption billing would mean consumers pay exactly for what they use.  If a consumer doesn’t turn on their computer that month, there would be no charge.  That’s not what is on offer.  Instead, providers want to overcharge consumers with speed –and– usage-based tiers that, in the case of Time Warner Cable, were priced enormously higher than current flat-rate plans.  Customers would be threatened with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding a paltry tier proposed by the company last April.  The ‘Stop the Cap! guy’ didn’t generate thousands of calls and involvement by a congressman and United States senator writing blog entries.  Impacted consumers instinctively recognized a Money Party when they saw one, and drove the company back.  A certain someone at Multichannel News said Time Warner Cable was “taking one for the team.”  At least then you were open about whose side you were on.

“Verizon just wants to make more money by charging more for the same service. What an outrage! It’s not like the company spent billions and billions to build out their network and needs to recoup that investment.” — Recouping an investment is easily accomplished by providing customers with an attractive, competitively priced service that delivers better speed and more reliability than the competition.  Provide that in an era when fiber optic technology and bandwidth costs are declining, and not only does the phone company survive the coming copper-wire obsolescence, it also benefits from the positive press opinion leaders who clamor for your service will generate to attract even more business.  Stacey’s comments acknowledged the positive vibes consumers have towards Verizon’s fiber investment — positive vibes they are now willing to throw away.

Verizon FiOS already gets to recoup its investment from premium-priced speed tiers that are favored by those heavy broadband users.  Most will happily hand over the money and stay loyal, right up until you ask for too much.  Theoretically charging your best customers $140 a month for 50Mbps/20Mbps service and then limiting it to, say, 250GB of usage will be an example of asking for too much.  Verizon didn’t get into the fiber optics business believing their path to return on investment was through consumption billing for broadband.

“Today’s broadband networks — not even FiOS — are not constructed to deliver peak theoretical demand and adding more capacity to the home or farther upstream will require investment.” — Readers, today’s newest excuse for overcharging you for your broadband access is “peak theoretical demand.”  It used to be peer-to-peer, then online videos, and now this variation on the “exaflood” nonsense.  It sounds like Todd has been reading some vendor’s press release about network management.  Peak theoretical demand has never been the model by which residential broadband networks have been constructed.  The Bell System constructed a phone network that could withstand enormous call volumes during holidays or other occasional events.  Broadband networks were designed for “best effort” broadband.  If we’d been living under this the peak demand broadband model, cable modem service and middle mile DSL networks wouldn’t be constructed to force hundreds of households to share one fixed rate connection back to the provider.  It’s this design that causes those peak usage slowdowns on overloaded networks that work fine at other times.

No residential broadband provider is building or proposing constructing peak theoretical demand networks that are good enough to include a service and speed guarantee.  Instead, cable providers are moving to affordable DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which continue the “shared model” cable modems have always relied on, except the pipeline we all share can be exponentially larger and deliver faster speeds.  Will this model work for decades to come?  Perhaps not, but it’s generally the same principle Time Warner Cable is using to deliver HD channels quietly ‘on demand’ to video customers without completely upgrading their facilities.  You don’t hear them talk about consumption billing for viewing, yet similar network models are in place for both.

“Is it fairer to recover that necessary investment in additional capacity from the heaviest users, who are driving the most demand?” Apparently so, because providers already do that by charging premium pricing for faster service tiers attractive to the heaviest users.  But Todd, as usual, ignores the publicly-available financial reports which tell a very different tale – one where profits run in the billions of dollars for broadband service, where many providers Todd feels urgently need to upgrade their networks are, in reality, spending a lower percentage on their network infrastructure costs, all at the same time bandwidth costs are either dropping or fixed, making it largely irrelevant how much any particular user consumes. What matters is how much of a percentage of profits providers are willing to put back into their networks.

Do people like Todd really believe consumers aren’t capable of reading financial reports and watching executives speak with investors about the fact their networks are well-able to handle traffic growth (Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable CEO), that consumption based billing represents potential increased revenue for companies that deny they even have a traffic management problem (Verizon), or that broadband is like a drug that company officials want to encourage consumers to keep using without unfriendly usage caps, limits, or consumption billing (Cablevision.)

“From 7 to 10 p.m., we’re all consumption kings,” Sandvine CEO David Caputo told Todd. “Bandwidth caps don’t do anything for you.” The implication of this finding is that “the Internet is really becoming like the electrical grid in the sense that it’s only peak that matters,” he added. — I would have been asking Todd to pick me up off the floor had Caputo said anything different.  His bread and butter, just like Todd’s, is based on pushing his business agenda.  Sandvine happens to be selling “network management” equipment that can throttle traffic, perhaps an endangered business should Net Neutrality become law in the United States.  His business depends on selling providers on the idea that sloppy usage caps don’t solve the problem — his equipment will.  Todd has no problem swallowing that argument because it helps him make his.  The rest of us who don’t work for a trade publication or a net throttler know otherwise.

What would actually be fair to consumers is to take some of those enormous profits and plow them back into the business to maintain, expand, and enhance services that deliver the gravy train of healthy revenue.  In fact, by providing even higher levels of service, they can rake in even larger profits.  You have to spend money to earn money, though.

Technology doesn’t sit still, which is why provider arguments about increased traffic leading to increased costs don’t quite ring true when financial reports to shareholders say exactly the opposite.  That’s because network engineers get access to new, faster, better networking technology, often at dramatically lower prices than what they paid for less-able technology just a few years earlier.  With new customers on the way, particularly for the cable industry picking up those dropping ADSL service from the phone company, there’s even more revenue to be had.

Or, do you think spreading the cost across all subscribers, thereby raising the flat-rate pricing for everyone, is the better option? Note that Comcast did this to an extent when it raised the monthly lease fee for cable modems by $2 (to $5), citing costs associated with its DOCSIS 3.0 buildout.

The industry already thinks so.  As we’ve documented, cable broadband providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast (and Charter next year), are already raising prices across the board for broadband customers in many areas.  Does that mean the talk about Internet Overcharging schemes can be laid to rest?  Of course not.  They want their rate increases -and- consumption based billing for even fatter profits.

If, on the other hand, you want to pretend that all-you-can-eat plans are sustainable at today’s price tiers, you’d be kind of clueless.

Every ISP maintains an Acceptable Use Policy that provides appropriate sanctions for those users who are so far out of the consumption mainstream, they cannot even see the rest of us.  Slapping consumption based billing on consumers with steep overlimit fees and penalties punishes everyone, and the provider keeps the proceeds, and not necessarily for network upgrades.

If Todd believes consumers will sit still for profiteering by changing a model that has handsomely rewarded providers at today’s prices, with plenty of room to spare for appropriate upgrades, he’ll be the clueless one.  The cable industry’s ability to overreach never ceases to amaze me.  Every 15 years or so, legislative relief has to put them back in their place.  It’s what happens when just a handful of providers decide it is easier to hop on board the Internet Overcharging Express and cash those subscriber checks than actually engage in all-out competitive warfare with one another – keeping prices in check and onerous overcharges out of the picture.

Nobody needs to know my name to understand this.  But some of his provider friends already know the names of our readers, because PR disasters do not happen in a vacuum.  They are also acquainted with two other names: Rep. Eric Massa and Sen. Charles Schumer.  If they want to go hog wild with Internet Overcharging schemes, that list of names will get much, much longer.

Brian Whitton, Verizon's Executive Director of Access Technologies

At least Verizon is honest about it.  As providers contemplate slapping customers with usage limits, overlimit fees, and other tiered pricing systems, they’ve typically said they’re justified because of the strain they claim heavy users place on their broadband networks.  One network that doesn’t face that problem is Verizon’s robust fiber optic FiOS network, which is on the way to upgrading from the ridiculously fast current speeds to the “next generation” of FiOS speed: delivering 10 Gbps downlink and 2.5 Gbps uplink, shared among 32 locations.  That makes the cable modem competition, which shares slower speeds among many more customers wilt at the prospect.  DSL instantly becomes the dial-up service of the decade in comparison.

Make no mistake, Verizon tells all who ask: Fiber to the Home is near-infinitely upgradeable for decades to come, simply by swapping out some hardware at each end of the pipe.

Yet Verizon began making noises about ending its all-you-can-eat broadband buffet this past September, when Verizon Chief Technology Officer Dick Lynch said Verizon was in favor of consumption-based billing, too.

But why should Verizon FiOS, often priced higher than the cable competition, opt for Internet Overcharging schemes when it has a network that is nowhere near capacity and will increase its speeds even further next year?

As GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham found out, the answer is – because they can:

Brian Whitton, executive director of access technologies at Verizon did acknowledge how valuable broadband has become—precious enough that people will pay for premium access to it, especially those using up a disproportionate amount of network assets. “Ultimately this is the fairest cost-recovery model, and with a tiering plan or a meter everyone is paying their fair shares to finance the network,” Whitton said. Unlike other ISPs, Verizon doesn’t view heavy bandwidth users as hogs, but it does view them as potentially high-end customers.

Yet Verizon already does charge users a fair share to finance their network, based on the speed tier that customer chooses.  Those high-end customers are already paying Verizon premium prices for the fastest available speeds on Verizon’s fiber optic system.  Verizon’s ability to recoup their investment becomes easier and easier as costs decline to construct the fiber optic systems that will protect Verizon’s viability for decades to come, unlike those traditional phone companies sticking with copper wire lines until the last customer out the door turns the lights out for good.  Verizon’s average revenue per subscriber has never been higher with its ability to market video programming, speeds that make most cable operators blush, and an infinitely more reliable telephone network, all on one bill.  That helps achieve subscriber loyalty, particularly when offering service that keeps customers happy.

Creating Internet Overcharging schemes for your broadband service simply to monetize consumption does not keep customers happy.  Verizon sees the cream rising to the top — charging broadband enthusiasts more while promising nothing for customers who use the service less.  With average consumption per broadband user rising, there’s going to be a lot more cream to skim, charging an increasing number of customers more money for the exact same level of service.

No consumption billing scheme to date has ever provided customers with a “fair share” system, because none of them result in no charge for no consumption or charge a flat fee per gigabyte.  Instead, customers are allocated a pre-determined allowance for usage, charged whether they use it or not.  If they exceed it, punishing overlimit fees are always the result, unless a provider takes another step towards monetizing broadband by inventing overpriced “insurance plans” to protect consumers from overage fees.  The cost of delivering that data is already built-in to the price of today’s broadband plans, and those costs continue to decline.

Higginbotham adds another factor in the equation: with insufficient competition, those “fair share” schemes can inflate prices and lower allowances at a whim, as most customers lack a wide variety of competitors to choose from, which could help keep the greed factor in check.

Most places have two providers that offer slightly different sets of services and plans, making it hard to compare prices. I don’t mind paying more for a better network (I do so for my cell phone), but most consumers lack that option when it comes to wired access. Comcast—which competes against Verizon in about 12% of its footprint—is rolling out faster broadband to ensure that customers don’t leave the cable provider for Verizon’s fiber. But in other areas of the country, such as here in Austin, Tex., folks must choose between DSL (with some U-verse) and cable that hasn’t been upgraded to the faster DOCSIS 3.0 speeds.

Austin was one of the test markets for Time Warner Cable’s reviled “consumption billing experiment” this past April.  In other test cities, it’s more of the same.  In Rochester, New York broadband service is realistically available from two major players — Time Warner Cable and Frontier Communications.  The former has apparently passed over Rochester for DOCSIS 3 upgrades because the cable operator sees little need to upgrade service in an area whose only primary competitor believes DSL service is good enough, one that has stubbornly kept an Acceptable Use Policy defining an appropriate amount of usage at a piddly five gigabytes per month, and thinks fiber is for breakfast cereals, not for Flower City residents.

Verizon’s words help call out the fiction that some providers have used to peddle Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers.  It’s not about “fairness,” it’s not about “exafloods and Internet brownouts,” nor is it about “expanding networks.”  It’s about profit, pure and simple.  When you have a duopoly in place for broadband and almost no regulation governing that service, the sky is the limit for price increases and limits on usage.

[flv width=”480″ height=”284″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Whitton On Telecom Delivery 2-25-09.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s Executive Director of Access Technologies Brian Whitton speaks about the future of telecommunication delivery technologies with Kimberlie Dykeman of Web2point0.tv at The Future of Television East conference in New York (February 25, 2009 – 11 minutes)

Charter Cable, which has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy since March 28, has been among the worst hit cable operators by an American economy in trouble, accusations of poor service, excessive executive compensation, and spiraling debt.  Before entering bankruptcy protection, the company had $21 billion in debt — a significant amount for a cable operator serving just 5.5 million customers in 27 states.

Company founder Paul Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft who controlled 91 percent of Charter Cable before bankruptcy, will control just 35 percent of the company as it emerges from reorganization in the coming weeks.  Allen’s attention will then turn to the bankruptcy of another one of his concerns – Digeo Inc., which is best known for its Moxi HD DVR.

Despite the bankruptcy, Charter Cable aggressively continues to upgrade its broadband service to DOCSIS 3 in many of its service areas, introducing new faster broadband products to customers.  But broadband service from Charter is just one of three services they offer customers, and many are not satisfied with the service they are getting.

Beyond bankruptcy, Charter Cable continues to face bad press for providing poor service, hassling customers with aggressive telemarketing calls, dramatic rate increases, and in one shocking incident this week, a Charter Cable technician in Victorville, California was attacked and killed while on a service call.

Authorities are still searching for a motive for Monday’s unprovoked attack on 25-year-old Trevor Neiman, of Phelan, California.  After surviving three tours of duty in Iraq, Neiman was killed with a small hammer in a Victorville home.  Police say the attack came from a relative of the homeowner who was visiting at the time of the assault.  The suspect, Hesperia resident Johnny Acosta, 45, was arrested on suspicion of murder a short time after fleeing the scene.

“There was no exchange of words. There was nothing that occurred before the unprovoked attack,” said Jody Miller, a spokeswoman for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department told KTLA News.

[flv width=”600″ height=”336″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KABC Los Angeles Charter Cable Installer Killed With Hammer 11-10-09.flv[/flv]

KABC-TV Los Angeles shares the tragic story of Charter Cable technician Trevor Neiman, and the devastating impact Monday’s attack had on his wife and family. (2 minutes)

Beyond that horrific incident, Charter Cable has been irritating subscribers with a series of rate increases and annoying marketing campaigns across the country.

In West Covina, California Charter Cable is ridding itself of senior discounts and also dramatically increasing rates.  Broadcast basic cable customers face a whopping $10 monthly increase in their cable bill, and the more popular expanded basic service will increase by $5.25 a month.  The company claims the rate increases are part of “an investment in improving the overall customer service experience.”

Resident Hermine Deemer, 83, told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune her bill will increase to $67 a month from $53 – a 26 percent hike.

“That’s a big increase,” Deemer said. “Nobody gets that big of an increase. I know things go up but not that much.”

Charter Cable is calling customers trying to market bundled services including broadband and telephone, claiming the savings from bundling services together would be “higher than the senior discount ever gave.”

Deputy City Manager Chris Freeland said the city has received several calls on the increases but there is little they can do about it.

“We would much rather have the senior discount,” Freeland said. “It’s really beyond our control. The economy is tough and every little dollar for seniors is so precious.”

Customers commenting on the rate increase have encouraged seniors to cancel service and switch to DISH Network satellite service, and several seniors lament they are housebound and television is their primary window to the outside world.  With no increase in Social Security in 2010 and increasing medical costs, many seniors will face difficulty coping with the rate increases.

In Pendleton, Oregon, the city attorney blasted Charter Cable for a $5 increase in broadcast basic service (providing local broadcast channels and some public affairs cable networks) and a $3 increase in expanded basic, claiming it unfairly falls on those least able to afford it, all to subsidize discounts on their bundled service packages.  Peter H. Wells wrote an open letter to Charter Cable published in the East Oregonian:

Per-channel costs for Charter Cable in the Pacific Northwest

By imposing the same $5.00 increase for all service tiers and, in fact, a lower increase for those with expanded basic service, the basic tier customer is paying for a greater portion of the company’s total costs than before the fee increase.

Through February 2005, less than five years ago, basic tier service cost the customer $12.91 per month. The rate change effective in December to $24.99 per month is such that those customers will have had a 93 percent rate increase in the past five years. It also appears that Pendleton’s basic tier customers are paying the same for less service than basic tier customers in other nearby service areas.

Charter representatives claim that the service charge increases over the past few years were to compensate the company for upgrades to the physical plant in Pendleton. I believe that argument is not appropriate. The physical plant upgrades were to allow Charter to provide additional services of telephone, digital cable and Internet. The cost of those upgrades should be borne by the users of those services, not the basic tier customers on whom the increase is being disproportionately imposed.

Unfortunately, Charter Cable’s rates are not within the control of the city management, so Wells could only ask that concerned residents contact Charter Cable and complain.

At least one customer fed up with Charter’s marketing practices found g0ing to a local TV station’s consumer watchdog reporter was even more effective.

Carole McGuire of Madison, Wisconsin turned down Charter’s relentless marketing of their “digital phone” product, which she doesn’t currently purchase.  Despite her disinterest, the visiting salesman left an application, and called her the next day to see if she changed her mind.  After that, McGuire began receiving a barrage of automated phone calls from Charter claiming she ordered the service, and needed to obtain third party verification to meet Federal Communications Commission obligations and process her order.

Not having placed an order, she ignored the calls, but they kept coming… over and over.

Exasperated, she turned to WISC-TV’s On Your Side reporter Erick Franke to see if he could get Charter to stop calling her.

[flv width=”530″ height=”316″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WISC Madison Charter Cable Telemarketing 11-3-09.flv[/flv]

WISC-TV Madison’s On Your Side segment from November 3rd helps a Madison resident put a stop to annoying Charter Cable telemarketing efforts. (3 minutes)

Unfortunately, not even TV stations are immune from dealing with problems with Charter Cable.  About a month ago, residents in Clarksville, Tennessee discovered WKAG-TV in nearby Hopkinsville, Kentucky missing from their cable dial.

Charter Cable had removed the low-power 18,500 watt station claiming it couldn’t obtain a strong enough signal to carry it.  WKAG-TV happened to be the only station in the entire region that produced news programming for Clarksville residents, and had consistently served the community of 100,000 with local newscasts, sports coverage, weather, and public affairs programming.

WKAG management was surprised by the decision to drop the station, and mounted a public campaign to dispute Charter’s poor signal strength assertions.  Charter Cable ignored the station’s first press release and has now been confronted with embarrassing video evidence that the station can be received with a good over-the-air signal with just a two foot antenna from the top of a building at a location even more distant from Charter’s TV reception tower, and from a lower overall height.

[flv width=”640″ height=”480″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WKAG Hopkinsville Charter Cable Dispute 11-5-09.flv[/flv]

WKAG-TV Hopkinsville, Kentucky prepared a web video showing evidence Charter Cable could restore the station to the cable dial in nearby Clarksville, Tennessee. (11/5/09 – 5 minutes)

Charter Cable used to import WKAG from a direct fiber feed, but dropped it several years ago in an apparent cost-cutting move.

Despite complaints from Clarksville residents, Charter continues to ignore customer demands for WKAG’s restoration.

From one side of the country to the other, Charter Cable’s finances are not the only challenge the company faces.  Providing affordable, responsive, and quality service to customers apparently also remains a challenge Charter Cable has yet to surmount.