One of America’s largest midwestern cities is being victimized by not one, but two major Internet Service Providers with Internet Overcharging schemes that will limit broadband use by customers.

Charter Communications, which calls St. Louis home, delivers cable service to much of the city, and has lightly enforced arbitrary usage limits on its cable broadband customers since last November.  AT&T, the major telephone provider, plans to limit its DSL and U-verse customers starting in early May.

“Now we get to choose between Charter’s usage cap or AT&T’s,” says Reginald, a Stop the Cap! reader in St. Louis.  “As usual, AT&T is always the bigger ripoff — this company hasn’t done one consumer-friendly thing in at least a decade.”

Reginald is currently a U-verse customer who fled Charter around the time the cable company went bankrupt.

“Charter was, is, and will always be abysmal in providing good service and accurate bills, and I was not about to pay for their business mistakes,” Reginald writes.  “When U-verse became available I told AT&T I was signing up because they were offering unlimited use plans and Charter was playing games with their usage cap.”

When AT&T’s cap is in place, St. Louis residents will get to choose between the lesser of two evils:

Usage Limits

• AT&T DSL Customers:  150GB per month
• AT&T U-verse Customers:  250GB per month
• Charter Lite/Express: 100GB per month
• Charter Plus/Max: 250GB per month
• Charter Ultra 60: 500GB per month

AT&T will deliver three warnings and then a higher bill — $10 for each 50GB of “excess usage.”  Charter sends out occasional warnings, then reserves the right to terminate your service.

“It stinks, and if I had my way I would not do business with any provider who has a usage cap,” Reginald says.  “I would rather pay a few dollars more a month and not have to worry, and I can’t imagine I’ve ever used over 100GB in a month.”

Jess, another St. Louis resident, pulls the plug on AT&T U-verse May 2nd.

“I almost wanted them to charge me an early cancellation fee so I could pound them with their sudden change of terms,” Jess says.  “I am switching back to Charter on May 2nd, the day AT&T starts their crap.  AT&T acted all surprised about why I would possibly ever not do business with them over this issue.”

Jess says she would rather deal with warning letters from Charter than a higher AT&T bill.

“Every penny more AT&T gets from us goes right into their lobbying to screw consumers more, and here are the results for everyone to see,” Jess says.  “If Charter wants to pull their games with me and my family, the next step is to declare war on the politicians who let this stuff happen.”

Bill says AT&T offered him a discount to stay with the company — he is canceling his U-Verse service May 1st.  But he refused, telling AT&T he will not do business with a company that engages in Internet Overcharging.

“I’m not too worried about Charter,” Bill writes Stop the Cap! “If they try and threaten me, I’ll let them cut me off and then we’ll sign up under my wife’s name, and bounce from account to account.”

Your money = Their Money

For all three of our readers, none of whom claim they will exceed the allowance, it’s a matter of principle.

Reginald, Jess, and Bill all feel strongly usage caps and overlimit fees are unjustified, and are more about protecting video packages than “unclogging” providers’ networks.

Bob Zimmermann, an AT&T customer in Richmond Heights, tells the Post-Dispatch he doesn’t like the new limit either. He watches an occasional Internet movie, and sometimes downloads video to his iPad. He doubts he’ll exceed the cap, but he doesn’t want to worry about it.

He is shopping for alternatives.

“I’ll see if I can negotiate a better deal,” he told the newspaper.

Jess wishes him luck finding someone else in St. Louis.  She suggests customers like Zimmermann play AT&T and Charter off each other to get a lower bill, at least temporarily.

“What is most important right now is to tell AT&T you are leaving them because they are abusive, and then sign up with a new customer discount with Charter,” Jess suggests.  “Then if and when Charter cuts you off, go back to AT&T and see if you can get them to waive any fees after the third warning or else you are switching back to Charter.”

Another alternative is to sign up for Charter’s business service, which has no usage cap, but comes at a significantly higher price than residential service.  Their starter package includes unlimited Internet at 16/2Mbps speeds, a domain name, and a business phone line with unlimited long distance and calling features.  It runs a steep $120 a month.

“If Charter didn’t offer a 500GB allowance on their 60Mbps tier, I might consider a business package if I used my connection a lot,” admits Bill.  “Isn’t it ridiculous when someone wants to sell you a super fast package you cannot really use because of usage limits?”

Bill partly blames the state legislature for letting AT&T get abusive with customers.

“AT&T shows up with a lot of cash to dole out in the Missouri legislature and in return they get to abuse customers,” Bill notes.  “You notice Verizon cannot get away with this in the more consumer-protection-friendly northeast.”

Jess says the whole thing is a mess.

“It really shows how the midwest is getting screwed once again — this time for Internet access,” she notes. “There is no Verizon fiber here, and even Google showing up in Kansas City won’t be enough to shame the likes of AT&T.”

It has been some time since major carriers like Verizon have promoted “unlimited use” plans for broadband.  Not too many years ago, providers used “unlimited” as a major selling point for those looking to escape slower, time-limited, dial-up access.  Today, Verizon is back pitching unlimited DSL at prices as low as $14.99 per month, if you still happen to have your Verizon landline.

Verizon’s DSL pricing changes include two new price tiers for current landline customers and for those who don’t want landline service.  No annual plan contracts are required, and prices are good for one year.

For Verizon landline customers:
500 Kbps to 1.0 Mbps – $19.99 ($14.99 when ordered online)
Either 1.1-3 Mbps, 3.1-7 Mbps or 7.1-15 Mbps (speed level will depend on line quality) – $34.99 ($29.99 when ordered online)

For those who only want broadband service, prices are considerably higher:
500 Kbps to 1.0 Mbps – $29.99 ($24.99 when ordered online)
Either 1.1-3 Mbps, 3.1-7 Mbps or 7.1-15 Mbps (speed level will depend on line quality) – $44.99 ($39.99 when ordered online)

Verizon really wants customers to order service online, and will throw in a free wireless router when you do.  Activation and shipping charges may apply.  Customers also get free access at Verizon Wi-Fi locations.

Verizon is pitching these services to customers who don’t want to deal with “clogged networks or exceeding monthly dial-up time limits.”

These prices are similar to discounts AT&T offered its DSL customers last year.  It’s an effort to maintain revenue and attract price-sensitive rural holdouts who avoid more expensive broadband plans.  Verizon simultaneously announced a new pseudo-“triple play” package for areas without its FiOS fiber to the home service that uses Verizon’s network for phone and broadband service, and DirecTV for television.

“We’ve enhanced the value and simplified our HSI bundles by pricing them aggressively and removing any contract requirements and early termination fees for Verizon services going forward,” said Eric Bruno, Verizon vice president of product management.  “With these refinements, our High Speed Internet service offers the best value in broadband.”

Bruno forgets when adding new DirecTV services to a Verizon phone and broadband bundle, a two-year agreement and early cancellation fees with the satellite company will apply.

Customers contemplating service who disconnected their Verizon landline can sign up for Verizon’s least expensive landline service — the one with no local calling allowance.  Outgoing calls are billed on a per-call basis in most areas, and the monthly charge for the service can be under $10, depending on the size of your calling area.

While America’s heartland is being wired for 3Mbps DSL service, residents in Pakistan are getting ready for speeds up to 50Mbps thanks to a major broadband expansion in the country.

Pakistan’s PTCL, the country’s state-controlled phone company, is working on a major upgrade to bonded VDSL2, the next generation of DSL, which can deliver more than five times the top speed of the country’s highest level of service, at a construction cost of just $200-300 per home passed.

PTCL, the largest broadband provider in Pakistan, has plans to complete the project in selected cities by the second quarter of the year, and then expand the service further out into more rural regions.

“PTCL is the first service provider worldwide to deploy a commercial VDSL2 bonding solution that aims at doubling the bandwidths provided to its existing customers,” PTCL President and CEO Walid Irshaid said.

Ishaid’s company chose VDSL2 over fiber to the home primarily because of cost.  With fiber installs now running around twice as expensive as a DSL upgrade, a developing country like Pakistan couldn’t justify the higher price.  VDSL is expected to be an important part of broadband expansion in the developing world, particularly in Africa, southeastern Europe, and central Asia.

Alcatel-Lucent, which is supplying equipment to deploy bonded VDSL2 service, says it has customers in western and central Europe as well.  Several providers are interested in VDSL2 technology because it could serve as a platform to deliver broadband, video, and phone service, much like AT&T’s U-verse.  Most Europeans get their broadband from DSL-equipped phone lines.

Pakistan hopes to eventually sell packages of service well beyond today’s maximum speed of 10Mbps, at a significantly lower cost.

Currently, Pakistan sells broadband ranging from a basic 256kbps connection (1GB limit) for around $3.50 a month, a popular 4Mbps unlimited package for around $24 a month, and 10Mbps service for a super pricey $119 a month.  With the upgrades, PTCL can either raise speeds, reduce prices, or a combination of both.  Outside of the 256kbps service, all other broadband packages from the company offer unlimited use.

OK for the $3.50 a month price, but it has a 1GB cap.

2Mbps unlimited service for $17.78.

10Mbps service is fast for today's DSL, but at more than $100 a month (ouch), it explains why Pakistan wants better and cheaper options for its citizens.

The Faith Baptist Church was told to live with Windstream's slow speed DSL or pay Time Warner Cable a $20,000 installation fee.

Despite claims from some in the state legislature that restricting fiber optic broadband development in communities like Salisbury is good for consumers and businesses, an increasing number of both are telling reporters a different story.

Faith Baptist Church, in the aptly-named community of Faith, N.C., can’t wait to sign up for Salisbury’s community fiber network — Fibrant.  They believe in a faster broadband experience the local phone company cannot deliver.

Casey Mahoney, a church member, told the Salisbury Post the church wants to ditch its slow speed DSL service from Windstream and cannot afford the $20,000 installation fee Time Warner Cable wants to charge the congregation to extend its broadband service to the church building.

If some in the state legislature have their way, the church will have a long, perhaps infinite wait for a fiber optic future.  A large number of legislators in the Republican-controlled state Senate are leaning towards voting for a bill custom-written by and for the state’s largest cable company — Time Warner Cable.  The legislation would micromanage community-owned broadband networks right down to the streets they would be allowed to deliver service.  Those terms, perhaps unsurprisingly, would not apply to the state’s largest cable and phone companies.

H.129, moving towards a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday, would cement today’s marketplace for years to come — a duopoly Mahoney thinks makes Time Warner Cable’s $20,000 installation fee feasible.

He told the Post, “When you only have one company available in an area, that’s when they can say, ‘It will cost you $20,000 — take it or leave it.’ ”

Not everyone supports the cable industry’s efforts to lock down competition from community-owned providers.  Several local officials who represent underserved communities across the state are upset the legislation is being railroaded through the legislature with almost no discussion.

Misenheimer

“I am disappointed that the General Assembly is giving consideration to taking this right away from us without a single conversation taking place,” Kannapolis Mayor Bob Misenheimer complained to Sen. Andrew Brock (R), who serves Davie and Rowan counties.

Misenheimer is particularly upset cable operators want the right to restrict the service areas Fibrant can serve, and not allow the fiber network to expand service into Kannapolis.  In fact, Brock’s office has received similar communications from the Faith town board and mayors from Rockwell, Landis, China Grove, Granite Quarry, Spencer, Cleveland, and Concord — all who want to be included in the Fibrant service area.

“Isn’t it simply amazing that Fibrant is being bashed as a failure-waiting-to-happen by the sponsors of this bill while mayors across two counties are absolutely clamoring to get the service to their residents,” said Stop the Cap! reader Andy Brown who lives near Landis.  “How can Marilyn Avila and Tom Apodaca have the slightest bit of credibility on this issue when you see town leaders literally falling all over each coveting a service that these legislative-Friends-of-Time-Warner-Cable have predicted is a certain failure?”

“I want Fibrant in Landis myself, if only for the competition,” Andy shares.  “You know, the kind of competition legislators are supposed to support.”

Andy describes efforts underway to distort the record on H.129 in hopes of whipping up consumer support for it.

“There are some silly stories being told attacking community networks like Fibrant on local media websites, including the ridiculous claim communities will be required to sign up for the service if it comes to town,” Andy reports.  “These come from some of the same people who also claim fiber optic cables suffer from rot problems, wireless broadband is faster than fiber optics, and that Fibrant is part of the Obama Administration’s plan to socialize the Internet.”

“If these people want Windstream DSL or are happy paying annual rate increases far beyond the rate of inflation year after year, don’t sign up for Fibrant — but don’t dictate away that option for me,” Andy said.  “The only ‘takeover of the Internet’ I see is by Time Warner and CenturyLink.”

Lynch

Verizon’s ambitions to provide 285 million people with the option of ditching their cable or DSL broadband account for its new LTE/4G wireless network is a dream that will never come true with the company’s wireless Internet Overcharging schemes.  With a usage cap of 5-10GB per month and a premium price, only the most casual user is going to give up their landline cable or DSL service for Verizon’s wireless alternative.

Dick Lynch, executive vice president and chief technology officer at Verizon spoke highly of Verizon’s new next generation wireless network as a perfect platform to deliver broadband service to landline customers, including many of those the company sold off to Hawaiian Telcom, FairPoint Communications, or Frontier.

“[LTE] provides a real opportunity for the first time to give a fixed customer in a home, broadband service — wireless — but broadband service,” Lynch said. “In wireless, I see a great opportunity within the LTE plans we have to begin to service the customers who don’t have broadband today … They will be able to have mobile LTE and also to be able to have fixed broadband.”

Unfortunately, Verizon’s LTE network comes with usage limits and a premium price — $50 a month for 5GB or $80 a month for 10GB.  At those prices, rural America will have two bad choices — super slow 1-3Mbps DSL ($30-60) with allowances ranging from 100GB-unlimited or LTE’s 5-12Mbps (assuming the local cell tower is not overloaded with users) with a usage cap that guarantees online video will come at a per-view cost rivaling a matinee movie ticket.

Still, Verizon is likely to test market the service as a home broadband replacement, particularly in territories they no longer serve.  Verizon has done much the same thing pitching a home phone replacement product that works with their wireless network to residents of Rochester, N.Y., and the state of Connecticut, neither currently served with landlines from Verizon.

Despite the pricing and cap challenges, Deutsche Bank — one of the Wall Street players that follows Verizon — thinks the company’s DSL-replacement has merit, if:

1. If you are a regular traveler that needs a wireless broadband service anyway;
2. You use broadband exclusively for web browsing, e-mail, and very occasional multimedia access;
3. You are wealthy enough not to care about the overlimit penalty.

For everyone else, sticking with traditional DSL service will continue to be the most affordable option, assuming usage caps are kept at bay.  Where available, cable broadband service from companies that serve smaller communities, including Comcast Cable, Time Warner Cable, and Cablevision, among others, will probably continue to deliver the most bang for the buck in rural America.