Cornell University students pay an average of $37,000 a year (before housing, student fees, and other expenses) to attend one of America’s most prestigious universities.  When they arrive on-campus, it doesn’t take long to learn the college has one of the nastiest Internet Overcharging schemes around for students deemed to be using “too much Internet.”

For years, Cornell limited students to less than 20 gigabytes of Internet usage per month, only recently increasing the monthly allowance to 50GB this summer.  Cornell’s overlimit fee starts at $1.50 per gigabyte, billed in megabyte increments.  Now some students are pushing back, launching a petition drive to banish the usage limits that curtail usage and punish the 10 percent of students who exceed their allowance.

Christina Lara, originally from Fair Lawn, N.J., started the petition which has attracted nearly 300 signatures over the past few weeks.

“Cornell students, along with students across the world, rely on the Internet to pursue their academics, independent research, and leisure activity,” Lara writes. “We should not be subjected to charges for our Internet usage, particularly because our curriculums mandate we use the Internet. Despite this, Cornell University continues to adopt NUBB (Network Usage-Based Billing), which charges students for exceeding the 50 gigabyte per month ‘allowance.'”

Lara incurred bills as high as $90 a month in overlimit fees last year, thanks to regular use of Netflix and Skype for online video chats with friends and family back home.

Internet fees for on-campus housing are included in the mandatory student services fee.  Although Time Warner Cable has a presence on campus, most residence halls don’t appear to be able to obtain service from the potential competitor, which sells unlimited Internet access in the southern tier region of New York where Cornell is located.  Instead, Cornell students on campus rely on the university’s wireless and Ethernet broadband network, and DirecTV or the university’s own cable TV system for television.

Lara

The apparent lack of competition makes charging excess-use fees for Internet usage easy, critics of the fees charge.

“It’s much easier if you live off-campus or in one of the apartment complexes students favor,” says Neal, one of our readers in the Ithaca area who used to attend Cornell.  “The only complication is getting access to the University’s Intranet, which is much easier if you are using their network.”

Neal says Verizon delivers landline DSL to off-campus housing, but not on-campus.  Because the service maxes out at 7Mbps, most who have other options sign up for Time Warner Cable’s broadband service instead.

“It’s cheaper on a promotion and much faster, and it’s still unlimited,” Neal says. “Hasbrouck, Maplewood and Thurston Court were the only residential buildings that offered the chance for Time Warner Cable on-campus, and only if the wiring was already in place.”

Neal notes many apartment complexes off campus have contracts with Time Warner Cable, which means cable TV and basic broadband are included in your monthly rent.  Some Cornell students who live on or near campus try to make do with a slower, but generally free option — the Red Rover Wi-Fi network administered by the University.  Others reserve the highest usage activities for computers inside university academic buildings, where the limits come off.

Lara complains Ithaca, and the southern tier in general, is hardly an entertainment hotbed, making the Internet more important than ever for leisure activities.

Time Warner Cable provides the rest of Ithaca with unlimited Internet.

“If Cornell was situated in a major metropolitan area with a vast nightlife that could accommodate the interests of most, if not all, our undergraduates, then many Cornellians wouldn’t be so inclined to stay in their rooms and get on the Internet,” Lara says. “But that’s not the case. Cornell’s Greek life dominates the social scene, making ‘nightlife’ a dividing factor in the community.”

Tracy Mitrano, Cornell’s director of information-technology policy, told The Chronicle the vast majority of students will never hit the cap, and those that do cannot be charged more than $1,000 a month in overlimit fees, regardless of use.  Those that do exceed the limit typically find a monthly bill for “overuse” amounting to $30.

“The approach that Cornell uses offers transparency and choice,” said Mitrano. She noted that Cornell provides students with clear information regarding their network usage by alerting them by e-mail when they are about to hit the limit and by setting specific rates for overuse fees.

“The choice seems to be using the university network or moving off-campus to buy Verizon or Time Warner Cable broadband to avoid the usage cap,” counters Neal. “I am not sure their ‘choice’ argument flies if students don’t have the option of signing up for Road Runner in their rooms on their own, bypassing the Internet Overcharging altogether.”

Both Neal and Gregory A. Jackson, vice president of Educause, seem to be reaching consensus on whether or not universities should be charging students for Internet separately from room and board.  Jackson notes it is a discussion being held at an increasing number of universities.  Neal thinks having a wide open access policy to deliver competition could solve this problem in short order, and students should make the decision where to spend their broadband funds themselves.

“If Cornell’s IT bureaucracy faced unlimited-access competition from Verizon and Time Warner Cable, do you think they’d still have a 50GB usage cap, considering only a small percentage of their captive customers exceeded it,” Neal asks.  “Of course not.”

[Thanks to PreventCAPS for the story idea.]

Frontier Communications is adding a new $1.50 monthly surcharge for broadband customers not currently enrolled in a “price protection agreement.”  Labeled the HSI Surcharge, the new fee started showing up on customer bills this month, with only a vague explanation buried inside the bill:

Courtesy: Manmaniac

Frontier's Fast One.

Customers attempting to get an explanation of what this charge was all about got a myriad of answers from Frontier customer service representatives:

• It’s a broadband tax;
• It’s a surcharge to help pay for network improvements;
• It’s a charge for customers who refuse to take a price protection plan;
• It’s a rate increase.

Stop the Cap! called Frontier this afternoon and was told it was designed to collect additional revenue to fund network expansion and was, effectively a rate increase.  Even customers on 1-3 year price protection agreements will eventually pay the “surcharge” as their agreements expire.  It is not a government-mandated charge or tax.

Effectively, this rate increase allows the company to advertise their Internet service at a deceptively low price, until customers discover Frontier’s modem rental fees and surcharges.  In 2009, during Stop the Cap!‘s flirtation with Frontier DSL, we found the “out the door” price for their 3.1Mbps service was actually higher than that charged by Time Warner Cable’s 10Mbps Road Runner service.

Their prices are sky high.

Back in May 2010, Stop the Cap! launched a debate with a few Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) that provide largely rural America with wireless access to the Internet over long range Wi-Fi networks.  The debate got started when Matthew Larsen, who runs the Wireless Cowboys blog, announced the arrival of an Internet Overcharging scheme at his WISP — Vistabeam, which serves residents in rural Wyoming and Nebraska.

WISPs are being increasingly challenged by the changing tastes of Internet customers, who are gravitating towards broadband multimedia content, saturating limited capacity networks and forcing regular infrastructure upgrades to keep up with increasing usage demands.  Unlike larger providers, many WISPs are independent, family-run businesses that lack easy access to capital and resources to rapidly respond to demand, especially when most have a rural customer base that numbers in the hundreds or thousands.

That’s one of the reasons why Stop the Cap! has not been as harsh on these providers when they implement usage limit schemes on their customers.  Because WISPs provide service where cable and phone companies usually don’t bother to serve, these wireless providers are the only option beyond satellite Internet, which we regularly label “fraudband” for claims of broadband speeds that are rarely delivered.  Still, we were not impressed last year with some of Larsen’s language about what his usage caps were intended to do (underlining ours):

I feel that these caps are more than generous, and should have a minimal effect on the majority of our customers.   With our backbone consumption per customer increasing, implementing caps of some kind became a necessity.    I am not looking at the caps as a new “profit center” – they are a deterrent as much as anything.    It will provide an incentive for customers to upgrade to a faster plan with a higher cap, or take their download habits to a competitor and chew up someone else’s bandwidth.

Ouch.

It’s been over a year, and Larsen is back with an editorial patting himself on the back for an Internet Overcharging success story well-implemented:

We have never raised prices on our services.    We still have a customer note on the wall that reads “Your bill was the only one I got this month that DIDN’T go up.   Thank you!”     I would have a hard time raising prices on this person because of their neighbors that are downloading 20x as much.   Usage Based Billing is a much fairer way to go, especially when the provider faces so much reinvestment cost to accommodate the heavier users.   After the first year of implementation, I am very glad that we took the time to implement it and intend to use the revenue to build a better network for all of our customers.

Larsen is also upset with those who believe in the concept of unlimited Internet:

Operating a broadband network is not free, and it is not a low-maintenance business.   I have a group of dedicated employees and subcontractors that have spent a lot of late nights and early mornings away from their families to build and maintain our network.   Anyone who thinks that unlimited broadband is a God given right should be forced to spend a few days in my lead tech’s shoes, getting a good look at what a broadband provider has to do to build a network and keep it running.

Larsen, like other WISPs are confronting the reality that Internet usage is on the upswing, and while we sympathize with the challenges faced by Vistabeam and other WISPs, his statements do not apply to every broadband network around.  And frankly, an increasing number of customers simply aren’t interested in Larsen’s challenges, especially if another provider can deliver service more cheaply and efficiently.  Vistabeam better hope nobody does, because their prices are simply not competitive if just about any other provider manages to work their way into his territory.

Vistabeam prices start at $29.95 a month for 384kbps/128kbps service with a monthly usage limit of 10GB.  Exceed that and you will pay an additional $1 per gigabyte.  Customers who need more speed pay dearly for it.  A tier providing 4/2Mbps service will run you $99.95 a month with a 60GB monthly usage allowance.

As of late, Larsen has been railing against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over recent broadband stimulus awards designed to improve coverage of broadband Internet in the same rural regions of the country Vistabeam serves.  He’s upset the USDA has awarded a $10.2 million infrastructure loan to the Hemingford Cooperative Telephone Company, which provides service in western Nebraska under the name Mobius Communications.

Larsen speaks highly of the fact Vistabeam delivers service in the absence of government funding or stimulus. But average consumers are not likely to care when they compare prices and consider the fact Mobius doesn’t appear to limit customers’ usage.

Mobius DSL Prices:

• 500kbps – $35.00
• 1.5Mbps – $40.00
• 3Mbps – $50.00
• 5Mbps – $60.00 (Currently available in Alliance and Chadron.)

Mobius charges effectively half the price Vistabeam charges, and offers faster tiers of service in some areas, without fear of overlimit fees.  It’s also important to recognize the “award” was actually a “loan,” which must be repaid.  Larsen seems less upset with the fact there are broadband stimulus programs than with the reality industry lobbying has effectively cut out many Wireless ISPs from standing any chance of winning one.

I get especially frustrated by loan awards like this one because I have operated two ISPs that have had to compete directly with Mobius and did not have access to any federal grant or loan programs.   The USDA Broadband and Loan programs are essentially only available to [regional phone companies].   When I made inquiries into the programs several years ago, I found that they would only loan to a single recipient in a region so that they were not funding competing projects.

Phillip Dampier

For Stop the Cap!, our constituents are consumers interested in obtaining the best possible broadband service at the best price.  Larsen’s views, understandable from the perspective of a business owner, would leave a number of consumers paying effectively double the price for usage-limited broadband. That would, however, satisfy a business argument that self-funded private providers should not face competition from other providers that can extend faster, unlimited DSL, cable, or fiber service with low interest loans.

Wouldn’t a better solution be to form a coalition to force open the same beneficial loan programs to Wireless ISPs who can more readily and affordably build up their networks and ease the Internet Overcharging that too often comes along for the ride?  We’re not accusing Larsen of gouging his customers for fun and profit, but we would like to see WISPs like Vistabeam develop win-win strategies that deliver success for their innovative efforts and lower priced, faster service for their customers.

The alternative may be the eventual arrival of those rural phone companies, increasingly equipped to deliver faster and cheaper service to Vistabeam’s current customers, eventually spelling disaster to that company’s business plan.  It has happened before.  Anyone remember the “wireless cable” industry that delivered a few dozen cable channels over microwave signals?  That’s a service whose time came and went, largely replaced with satellite television and rural telephone cable TV, better equipped to provide the kind of service consumers actually wanted, but wireless cable was ill-equipped to provide.

Earlier this year, Gov. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) signed legislation into law that allows AT&T to deregulate itself, and its rates, at will.  Kansas ratepayers are about to pay the price for that law as basic phone rates are expected to increase as much as $84 a year for residents that have few alternatives.

AT&T wants to eliminate price caps on landline service, which currently limit pre-tax prices to $15.70 in rural areas, $16.70 in larger Kansan cities with enhanced local calling areas.  After AT&T won similar deregulation in Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri and Arkansas, AT&T has been regularly raising basic phone rates, which are now $5 to $7 more a month for basic service than before deregulation.

AT&T intends to divert much of the additional revenue away from upkeep of its landline network, which in several states it has won the right to abandon in rural areas, and use the money to enhance its cell phone network instead.

AT&T spokesman Aaron Catlin told The Wichita Eagle AT&T intends to supply communities currently bypassed by AT&T DSL with heavily usage capped, and much more expensive, 3G wireless broadband instead.

AT&T currently sells that service for $60 a month with a 5GB usage limit and an overlimit fee of $50 per gigabyte.

Catlin told the Eagle AT&T was excited with the possibilities, although rural Kansans facing those prices might not be.

“A lot of bad things are going to happen long-term,” Steve Rarrick, an attorney for the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board told the newspaper. “Over time, they (customers) are going to see their phone bills go up. That’s been the experience of other states.”

Losing customers.

A year after Frontier Communications assumed control of Verizon’s assets in the Pacific Northwest, customers are fleeing the company’s inherited fiber-to-the-home service FiOS, after announcing a massive (since suspended, except in Indiana) 46 percent rate hike for the television portion of the service.  A new $500 installation fee has kept all but the bravest from considering replacing customers who have left for Comcast and various satellite TV providers.

Frontier’s second-quarter financial results revealed the company has lost at least 14,000 out of 112,000 FiOS TV customers in the region (and in the Fort Wayne, Ind. market, where the service is also available.)

Early reaction to the original rate hike announcement started customers shopping for another provider — mostly Comcast, which competes in all three states where Frontier FiOS operates.  Even after the rate hike was suspended in some markets, intense marketing activity by Frontier to drive customers towards its partnership with satellite provider DirecTV managed to convince at least some of those customers to pull the plug on fiber in return for a free year of satellite TV, although an even larger number presumably switched to the cable competition.

D.A. Davidson, a financial consulting firm, told The Oregonian the message was clear.

“They would love to get rid of the FiOS TV customers,” Donna Jaegers, who follows Frontier, told the newspaper. “They’re programming costs are very high compared to the rates that they charge.”

Jaegers said Frontier Communications completely botched their efforts to transition customers away from FiOS TV towards satellite, because most of those departing headed for the cable competition, attracted by promotional offers and convenient billing.

Many others simply don’t want a satellite dish on their roof, and are confounded about Frontier’s message that satellite TV is somehow better than fiber-to-the-home service.

Frontier admits its FiOS service is now underutilized, but claims it will continue to provide the service where it already exists.

Wilderotter

Frontier Claims Its DSL Service is Better Than Cable Broadband

Frontier’s general business plan is to provide DSL service in rural areas where it faces little or no competition, and most of Frontier’s investment has been to upgrade Verizon’s landline network to sustain 1-3Mbps DSL service, for which it routinely charges the same (or more) for standalone broadband service that its cable competitors charge for much faster speeds.

But Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter says their DSL service is better than the cable competition.

“A key differentiator between our network and cable competition is that you consistently get the speed you pay for,” Wilderotter told investors on a conference call. “There’s no sharing at the local level. High demand for bandwidth-intensive applications like video are putting pressure on all wired networks. To that end, we want to make sure that we have more than enough capacity to satisfy the expectations of our customers. We’re spending capital in all parts of the network with specific emphasis in the middle mile, which will enable us to consistently deliver a quality customer experience for our customers of today and tomorrow.”

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter defends anemic broadband additions during the 2nd quarter of 2011 and tries to convince investors DSL service is better than the cable competition. August 3, 2011. (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Netflix Traffic Represents 25% of Frontier’s Broadband Traffic; Online Video — 50%

Wilderotter admitted Frontier’s broadband network is overcongested in many regions, which she partly blamed for the company’s anemic addition of new broadband customers.

She noted Netflix, which has itself consistently rated Frontier the worst wired broadband provider in the country for being able to deliver consistent, high quality access to their streaming service, represents one-quarter of all capacity usage of Frontier’s broadband network.

“Video is about 50 percent,” Wilderotter added.  In an investor conference call, she explained network congestion in more detail:

“In [the second quarter], we had many areas with unacceptable levels of network congestion, which negatively impacted our growth in net high-speed additions.” Wilderotter said. “We believe all of the major congestion issues will be fixed by the end of [the third quarter], and that will enable us to drive higher growth and net broadband activation in [former Verizon service areas.]”

“What we decided to do is to go for fixing the middle mile, which is the [central office] to the […] neighborhood and to expand that capability by 100-fold. And then also, expand from the [central office] out to the Internet and make sure that we have huge capacity to deliver and receive capability to our customers. So when we sell 6 meg, 10 meg, 25 meg, 50 meg, the customer gets what we sell them and that was extremely important for us.”

“So what we did is in the areas where we saw the congestion increase based upon usage increases, and we’ve built new households. We’ve held off on marketing to a lot of those new households until we fixed the congestion problem because we didn’t want to exacerbate what we had already. We’ve shifted capital in terms of the mix of how we’ve spent capital to fix this problem. I’d say we’re probably 75% of the way there in fixing congestion. This quarter is another big quarter for us to get all of the major issues out of the network, which will allow us in the back end of this quarter through the fourth quarter, to really start pushing the penetration levels where we’ve built new households in the areas that have been affected by congestion.”

Frontier Introduces Line Bonded DSL — Two Connections Can Improve DSL Speeds

Frontier Faster? Frontier announces line bonded DSL.

Frontier Communications also announced the introduction of Frontier Second Connect, a DSL line bonding product that delivers two physical connections to a single household.  Line bonding allows for improved broadband speeds.

“Second Connect gives our customers two exclusive connections in one household, and we’re the only provider in every market that can do that,” Wilderotter claimed.

In more urban markets, Frontier’s DSL speeds are woefully behind those available from most cable competitors.  Frontier has begun upgrading some of their legacy service areas and retiring older equipment in an effort to improve the quality of service.

“The real initiatives that we have underway are called middle mile, interoffice facilities, as well as some of the more aged equipment that’s in the network,” said Dan McCarthy, Frontier’s chief operating officer. “So as we go through, there’s about 600 projects that are underway today that will improve both the speed and capability.”

“We’ve inherited markets that there has not been upgrades to capacity in these markets for many years and fixes to the networks, plus the elements as the DSLAMs, even the DSLAMs themselves are old,” Wilderotter said. “So we’re replacing network elements in the neighborhood. We’re splitting them and moving customers to other network elements to make sure that they have a good experience.”

Frontier executives answer a question from a Wall Street banker about DSL speeds and congestion problems on Frontier’s broadband network. A detailed technical discussion ensues as the company tells investors it is redirecting some capital to fixing Frontier’s overcongested network. August 3, 2011. (5 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Frontier Still Losing More than 8% Of Its Landline Customers Every Year

Despite broadband rollouts and incremental improvements, more than eight percent of Frontier’s landline customers disconnect service permanently every year.  Frontier called that disconnect rate an improvement over its line losses last year, which exceeded 11 percent in some areas.

“Total line losses improved to an 8.6% year-over-year decline, our lowest level since taking ownership when the pro forma loss rate was 9.7%,” reported Wilderotter. “We also improved [the] loss rate [in former Verizon service areas to] 10.1% compared to 11.4% in Q2 2010.”

Most of Frontier’s departing customers are switching to cable providers and/or cell phone service.

(Update 8-23-2011: We are now told in many areas, Frontier’s Second Connect service is not actually a bonded DSL product, but rather a “dry loop” second DSL line that carries the same speed as your primary line.  Presumably, household members can divide up who uses which DSL circuit for Internet access.  The charge for Second Connect in ex-Verizon service areas is $14.99 per month plus a second mandatory monthly modem rental fee of $6.99. If the web link does not work, it means the service is not available in your service area.)