Imagine if your electric utility billed you for service based on a meter that was developed by the company, had no third party verification, no oversight by a Bureau of Weights and Measures, and wrote provisions into the company’s terms and conditions that allowed the company to terminate your service if you complained too much about the resulting bills.

Rethink possible.  AT&T.

When America’s largest phone company implements its arbitrary and unjustified Internet Overcharging scheme this May, it will bring its controversial usage meter to bear on every one of its broadband customers — a meter implicated in wild over-measurements of customers’ broadband usage — usage that will put customers perilously close to, or over the limits AT&T wants to establish.  The result?  Fat additional profits in the form of $10 overlimit penalties for every 50GB AT&T says you consumed for broadband traffic that costs them pennies to deliver.

The broadband usage meter is no stranger to controversy and lawsuits over accuracy issues.  Despite reflexive denials that a particular provider’s usage meter couldn’t be wrong, far too many have had to backpeddle and confess that the meter that should have measured $40 in usage and resulted in $4,000 bills instead “was in error.”

Whether providers are developing meters that are just flat inaccurate or are quietly putting a virtual finger on the scale to increase the opportunity of overlimit profits is unknown, but past history shows the meters typically overmeasure usage, not undercount it.

Without independent verification and ongoing oversight, some customers wonder if AT&T is sticking a virtual finger on AT&T's usage scale.

Some recent past history:

• Telstra is Australia was implicated in December for a wireless usage meter that occasionally reported more than three times the usage measured by wireless phone owners’ built-in usage measurement tools.  Company representatives ended up crediting some customers as much as $3500AUD in inappropriate overlimit fees that should never have been charged.  Complaints continue to arrive as late as February about overbilling;
• Telecom New Zealand’s usage meter overmeasured usage this month resulting in overcharges and throttled speeds under the ISP’s “fair use policy.”  One customer was billed for 27GB of usage during one overnight period, despite the fact the computer was switched off;
• BT in the United Kingdom confirmed it overbilled some of their broadband customers in February when their usage meter measured usage for customers who had switched their computers off or took them away on holiday.  As far as BT was concerned, those computers were still at home and still racking up web usage.  Only last week, the company finally confessed their meter was inaccurate — overmeasuring usage that never happened;
• AT&T’s counterpart in Canada — Bell, cannot manage to measure customer usage correctly either, so it suspended its usage tracker tool temporarily.  In February, one customer tired of overbilling proved a point when he took his computer to the United States just to guarantee it could not go near Bell’s network.  The result?  Bell said he used 500MB anyway;
• In February, a class action lawsuit was filed against AT&T for “overmeasuring” wireless usage in some instances by up to 300 percent;
• Last fall, Verizon was forced to refund $25 million dollars for phantom data usage charges for service many customers claimed they never used.

In virtually all of the prior incidents, a common pattern emerges, usually ending when providers fall on their swords, admit error and issue refunds:

• Phase 1: Initial denials from providers there is a problem with the meter, usually blaming the customer, the customer’s measurement tool, or the process used instead;
• Phase 2: Once proven to be an issue, an effort to downplay its significance and impact with claims that only a “tiny” percentage of customers were affected;
• Phase 3: Refusal to submit usage meters, wholesale costs, and other components of Internet Overcharging to third-party verification;
• Phase 4: Refusal to allow an independent audit of customer accounts to verify overbilled customers were properly refunded every penny of excess charges;
• Phase 5: Class action lawsuit or government investigation commences;
• Phase 6: Settlement reached with refunds or low value coupons to customers who take the time to request one;
• Phase 7: Report excess profits from unclaimed refunds on balance sheet.

In too many cases, multi-billion dollar telecom companies that rely on those meters to measure and bill customers for their usage were implicated not for undermeasuring usage, but overmeasuring it — often substantially.

Some AT&T customers are already disturbed with what could be history repeating itself.  A reader of Broadband Reports in Skokie, Ill., compiled his own detailed analysis and found AT&T’s measurement tool grossly overmeasured his usage, and even worse, couldn’t do simple math and overmeasured him again when adding up his daily usage totals:

AT&T said that I had used 361GB in a single month! Surely this couldn’t be right. I’m a heavy user, but every time I even so much as glanced at my usage stats they’ve always been in the 200GB range. Surely something was amiss, so I decided to dig deeper.

It’s an old habit, but the first thing I do when I suspect something is wrong with any bill is enter all the line items into a spreadsheet and add them up myself. It sounds like busywork, but sometimes you’ll catch unlisted charges that have been phantomly added to your bill, or occasionally an outright math error. I couldn’t believe what I found. AT&T’s usage meter results insist I had used 341.39GB down, and 20.18GB up. But when I added all the daily detail entries (the DSL equivalent of a call log), only 332.8GB down and 0.72GB up are accounted for.

AT&T is claiming that I used 361.57GB of data, but according to their own daily data I only used 333.52GB, an 8.5% overcharge.

This AT&T customer discovered AT&T overmeasured his usage far more than it undercounted it. (Lines above the baseline show downstream traffic AT&T overmeasurement; lines below show undercounted usage. Click to enlarge.)

In total, this particular customer reports his usage was overmeasured by a whopping 33 percent. He is not alone.  A robust thread of similar results is active on Broadband Reports.

AT&T’s response to the early criticism follows the same path taken by other providers, starting with denials.

“We’re addressing ways we can make the labels and information on the online metering tool more clear for customers between now and May (when the new policy goes into effect),” said AT&T spokesperson Seth Bloom.  “I can also assure you our team is performing checks everyday to ensure accuracy.  That said, we believe we have an accurate tool.”

“Other tools may measure at different 24-hour periods than we do, and most likely do not take into account the standard network protocols (e.g. Ethernet, IP) that are used to provide applications and content to our customers via the Internet.  As you know, this is fairly standard to incorporate when measuring broadband traffic and is applied by other ISPs who measure usage.”

Customers and columnists alike are worried about AT&T's new data limits. This Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel columnist is not thrilled, and neither are customers who overwhelmingly want unlimited broadband access.

“In the end, AT&T expects the caps to impact only the aforementioned 2% [that comprise its heaviest users].”

With the right level of over-measurement, virtually anyone can be a member of the “2% Club.”  One customer told Connected Planet AT&T was already overmeasuring her DSL account by as much as 4,700%.

How can you measure your usage to compare against AT&T?

“It’s not hard to maintain independent usage statistics to double-check AT&T’s numbers,” says the Broadband Reports reader in Skokie. “If you have a DD-WRT compatible router, it will keep your upload and download history automatically. If you don’t have a compatible router, you can still run WallWatcher or MRTG to get the total bandwidth used by your router. Finally, if your computer is connected directly to your DSL modem without a router, you can run software like Net Meter to track your internet usage.”

Customers inconvenienced by unnecessary usage meters which threaten to expose them to unjustified overlimit fees is just one more reason why we call out these Internet Overcharging schemes.  Call AT&T and let customer service know you intend to switch providers if AT&T implements their usage cap scheme in early May.  Tell them regardless of what kind of usage you incur each month, you cannot afford the chance AT&T’s apparently inaccurate usage meter could expose you to a higher bill.  Tell them you don’t want the hassle, and the only way you will remain as a customer is if they do away with the entire scheme.

South Africans won uncapped broadband service one year ago tomorrow when an upstart provider — MWeb — unveiled its “Free the Web” campaign, delivering usage-limit free Internet access to customers across South Africa.

The company’s move to unlimited, flat rate service was heavily criticized by competing providers, who enforce draconian usage limits and have tried to convince customers the global trend was moving towards metered broadband.  But MWeb president Rudi Jansen dismisses the notion limiting broadband is the way to go, suggesting usage caps and meters are more about profits than serving customers.

Today, MWeb’s uncapped broadband is a runaway success, with more than 50 percent of its customers switching to the meter-free service.  It has been profitable, too.

“We are running ahead of our business plan and all our products are profitable,” Jansen tells TechCentral.

Now the nation’s semi-privatized, 39% state-owned phone company Telkom is widely expected to stop the erosion of its own broadband customers by adopting flat rate broadband service itself.

For Jansen, that would represent a welcome move.  The Internet visionary wants to transform South African broadband away from its current expensive pricing model and throw the Internet wide open.

“I’m looking forward to it,” Jansen says. “The sooner they launch it the better.”

The arrival of flat rate broadband made headlines across the country in 2010. (click to enlarge)

South African broadband has coped with challenges few other countries endure.  International connectivity has always been one of the biggest — sustaining traffic on satellite backbone links or underpowered undersea cables first forced providers to limit Internet use because of capacity concerns.  But new fiber-based underseas cables from Seacom and Wacs, including the forthcoming 5.1Tbps West African Cable System project will dramatically increase capacity and slash costs.

Jansen (Courtesy: TechCentral)

Yet several of his competitors want to keep the caps on and prices high, earning lucrative profits on a service Jansen says is becoming less costly to deliver every day.

Jansen admits MWeb is currently forced to traffic shape certain activities on his network, particularly bandwidth-intensive peer to peer traffic, because other providers in the country don’t agree with his wide-open view of the Internet.

He wants every provider in South Africa to agree to “open peering,” a practice that allows providers to exchange traffic with each other without charging transit fees.  He also wants to see wholesale mobile wireless pricing come down.  In Africa, mobile broadband has a strong place in a market where cable infrastructure (and broadband speed) is often lacking.

Telkom, South Africa’s equivalent to AT&T or Bell, is cited by Jansen as the biggest impediment to his plan to deliver truly unfettered, unlimited access.

Some South Africans deride the state phone company as "Hellkom"

In South Africa, broadband customers pay two providers — Telkom for the monthly rental of the telephone line and an ISP for the DSL service that connects through it.  Jansen says Telkom’s broadband line rental prices are too high.  But more importantly, the interconnection fee Telkom charges providers to access its network is “absolutely ludicrous.”

“Those prices are far more than the price of international connectivity,” Jansen says. “Telkom charges us to get access to their last mile and then charges end users to get access to the same last mile, so they make double money on it. And it’s completely mispriced.”

Despite the challenges from other providers, MWeb will celebrate the first anniversary of uncapped broadband tomorrow with a surprise announcement, probably targeting small business clients.

AT&T's revenue is on the rise, especially from its broadband and wireless service divisions.

AT&T’s announcement that it is will impose usage limits on its DSL and U-verse (wireline) customers this May is just another case of overcharging consumers for Internet access.

Stop the Cap! has been reviewing AT&T’s financial reports looking for justification for imposing usage controls on the company’s customers.  Most providers who enact these kinds of pricing schemes claim they are about controlling heavy users, reducing congestion, and covering the costs to provide the service.

But after reviewing some of AT&T’s financial reports, the only explanation apparent for these limits is a quest for additional revenue and profits from subscribers.

AT&T continues to earn billions every quarter — $7 billion in the last three months alone — from its data products division, the vast majority of which comes from selling IP — Internet access — services to customers.  At the same time, the company continues to cut operations and support expenses, reducing its operating costs, and increasingly relies on its wireless and wireline divisions for the majority of the company’s revenue.

There is no evidence AT&T broadband usage costs are significantly impacting the company’s revenue in any way.  In fact, its U-verse platform, which can deliver higher speed, premium broadband service (at a correspondingly higher price) is actually delivering higher revenue from the “heavy users” the company is now complaining about.

In short, AT&T wants to reap the financial rewards of selling more costly, higher speed broadband service, but wants to limit customers’ use of those services.

We reviewed both the quarterly and annual results for AT&T’s wireline division and discovered what we routinely find true among every provider that wants to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme: the company wants to raise prices on broadband customers even as it enjoys ongoing cost reductions to manage broadband traffic and reduces the amount of investment made to manage it.

AT&T's own facts and figures tell the story of a company that has no need to slap usage limits on its broadband customers.

Some interesting facts from AT&T:

• AT&T earns $5 billion (annualized revenue stream) from its U-verse platform;
• AT&T saw 30 percent revenue growth from residential broadband alone;
• 45 percent of AT&T’s revenue in wireline services comes from broadband/IP services;
• In 2011, AT&T says it has a “focus on growth” — of revenue and profit, that is.  The company seeks increases in its “operating margins,” plans capital expenditures that will be focused on a “slight increase in wireless spending,” and ongoing cost-cutting where possible.

AT&T plans to continue to invest in U-verse expansion, critical for a company that is rapidly losing revenue from departing landline customers. In the 2010 Annual Report, AT&T noted the vast majority of cash used in investing activities went towards construction costs related to improved wireless network capacity, which is dramatically different than wired broadband service, and U-verse.  This does not cover ongoing expenses from providing the service.

It’s an important strategy for AT&T, which needs to replace revenue from lost landline customers:

We continue to lose access lines due to competitors (e.g., wireless, cable and VoIP providers) who can provide comparable services at lower prices because they are not subject to traditional telephone industry regulation (or the extent of regulation is in dispute), utilize different technologies, or promote a different business model (such as advertising based) and consequently have lower cost structures.

In response to these competitive pressures, for several years we have utilized a bundling strategy that rewards customers who consolidate their services (e.g., local and long-distance telephone, high-speed Internet, wireless and video) with us. We continue to focus on bundling wireline and wireless services, including combined packages of minutes and video service through our U-verse service and our relationships with satellite television providers. We will continue to develop innovative products that capitalize on our expanding fiber network.

Unfortunately, the benefits U-verse provides broadband users will be tempered by usage limits on it.

Considering AT&T’s U-verse pipeline is one giant broadband connection, the disturbing fact the company will not implement these overcharging schemes on its voice or video services cannot be ignored.  Only the broadband service, on which customers could entirely bypass AT&T’s TV and phone products for a competitor, is impacted.  The risk of that happening with the company’s usage cap is now diminished.

As Stop the Cap! has warned for nearly three years — this is the ultimate end run around Net Neutrality. Instead of actively blocking or throttling competing services, AT&T simply uses a usage limit to discourage customers from using the competitor, relying on unlimited AT&T TV and phone services instead.

AT&T's annual report illustrates the ongoing wireline losses attributable to departing landline customers.

But things are much brighter in the broadband division. Notice the increasing revenue.

U-verse represents a successful example of benefits earned when companies invest in their networks to provide improved service to customers.

But what happens when companies gradually reduce their expenses and investments in those networks? They try and make up the difference with an Internet Overcharging scheme that places limits on service to keep costs down and profits up.

Broadband Reports has obtained a leaked memo stating AT&T plans on eliminating its flat rate broadband plans for DSL and U-verse customers effective May 2nd.

On that date, AT&T will limit its DSL customers to 150GB per month and its U-verse customers to 250GB per month in what will be the largest Internet Overcharging operation in the nation.  Customers who violate the usage limits will face a three-strikes-you’re-overcharged penalty system.  After three violations of the usage limit, customers will pay an additional $10 for each block of 50GB they consume.  Although that represents just $0.20 per gigabyte, less than some others have imposed, it is not pro-rated.  Whether a customer uses one or fifty “extra” gigabytes, they will face the same $10 fee on their bill.

Customers will begin receiving notification of the change in the company’s terms of service March 18.

AT&T claims only 2 percent of their DSL customers will be exposed to the Internet Overcharging scheme.

“Using a notification structure similar to our new wireless data plans, we’ll proactively notify customers when they exceed 65%, 90% and 100% of the monthly usage allowance,” AT&T’s Seth Bloom told Broadband Reports. The company also says they’ll provide users with a number of different usage tools, including a usage monitor that tracks historical usage over time, and a number of different usage tools aimed at identifying and managing high bandwidth consumption services.

“Using a notification structure similar to our new wireless data plans, we’ll proactively notify customers when they exceed 65%, 90% and 100% of the monthly usage allowance,” AT&T tells us. The company also says they’ll provide users with a number of different usage tools, including a usage monitor that tracks historical usage over time, and a number of different usage tools aimed at identifying and managing high bandwidth consumption services.

However, AT&T’s accuracy in measuring broadband usage is open for debate.  The company is facing a class action lawsuit over its wireless usage billing.  According to the suit, AT&T consistently inflates usage measured on customer bills.  No third party verification or oversight of usage meters is mandated — customers simply have to trust AT&T.

AT&T ran trials in Beaumont, Tex., and Reno, Nev., from 2008 with a range of usage limits.  Customer reaction to the trials was hostile, and the test ended in early 2010.  In December, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told providers the agency was not opposed to usage limits and consumption billing schemes, leading some to predict the green light was given to companies willing to test whether customers will tolerate Internet Overcharging.

AT&T claimed this weekend its new pricing was going to benefit customers.  So long as customers keep paying their bills, AT&T will not “reduce the speeds, terminate service or limit available data like some others in the industry,” Bloom said.

But the usage limits come at the same time Americans are increasing their consumption of online video and other high bandwidth services.  Usage limits which may appear to be reasonable at first glance become punishing when they do not change over time and customers increasingly risk exceeding them.  Once established, several companies have repeatedly lowered them to further monetize broadband service usage.  AT&T has delivered some of the lowest usage limits in the wireless industry, so it has faced customer criticism in the past.

Customers tied to existing term contracts may likely avoid the usage caps temporarily.  Others will not stick around long enough to find out.

“I will be canceling my U-verse service on Monday and go back to Time Warner Cable,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Jeffrey.  “I will never do business with a provider that imposes overlimit fees on usage that literally costs them next to nothing to provide.  It’s like charging extra for every deep breath.”

Some of our other readers are headed back to Comcast, which has a 250GB usage cap, or exploring DSL provided over AT&T lines by third party companies, which likely will not impose usage limits, at least for now.

“Charging 20 cents per gigabyte isn’t too bad, but you just know AT&T will lower the caps or jack those rates up,” our reader Ian writes. “It is very important to send AT&T a message right now we are prepared to quit doing business with them over this issue, or else we will be nickle and dimed to death by them tomorrow.”

Our reader Jared asks whether new legislation has been introduced to curb unjustified Internet Overcharging.  In 2009, then Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) introduced a bill to ban Internet Overcharging unless companies could prove it was justified.  At the moment, there is no new legislation, but when providers attempt to overreach and impose pricing the vast majority of broadband customers oppose, that could change.

At the moment, Stop the Cap! recommends AT&T customers begin to explore alternative providers and prepare to terminate their service with AT&T unless they scrap their Internet Overcharging scheme.  AT&T earns billions in profits from their broadband division and spends millions on lobbying.  With this amount of largesse, AT&T does not need this pricing scheme to remain profitable.

Jenkins

The Wall Street Journal attempted to attach its own conventional wisdom in an opinion piece about cloud-based streaming that suggests Canada “is just ahead of the U.S. in introducing usage-based pricing [and] has bloggers and politicians accusing Bell Canada of unconscionable ‘profiteering’ from usage caps. The company, they rage, is reaping huge fees for additional units of bandwidth that cost Bell Canada virtually nothing to provide.”

The author, Holman Jenkins, is a regular on the ultra-business friendly editorial page of the Journal, and has been raging against Net Neutrality and for higher Internet pricing for several years now.

Jenkins’ latest argument, just like his earlier ones on this subject, falls apart almost immediately:

This critique, which is common, could not more comprehensively miss the point. Another car on the roadway poses no additional cost on the road builder; it imposes a cost on other road users. Likewise, network operators don’t use overage penalties to collect their marginal costs but to shape user behavior so a shared resource won’t be overtaxed.

Jenkins needs to spend less time supporting his friends at companies like AT&T and Bell and more time exploring road construction costs.  If you are going to try and make an analogy about traffic, at least get your premise straight.

Before debunking his usage-based billing meme, let’s talk about road construction for a moment.  In fact, the kind of traffic volume on a roadway has everything to do with what kind of road is constructed.  In the appropriately named “Idiots’ Guide to Highway Maintenance,” C.J.Summers explores different types of road surfaces for different kinds of traffic.  Light duty roads in rural areas can get results with oil and stone.  Medium duty side streets and avenues are frequently paved with asphalt, and heavy duty interstates routinely use concrete.  Traffic studies are performed routinely to assist engineers in choosing the right material to get the job done.

Digital information doesn’t wear down cables or airwaves.  If broadband traffic occupies 5 or 95 percent of a digital pipeline, it makes no difference to the pipeline.  Jenkins is right when he says Internet Overcharging schemes are all about shaping user behavior, but for the wrong reasons.

Jenkins thinks Netflix and other high bandwidth applications face usage-based pricing to allow providers to keep their broadband pipes from getting overcongested:

Netflix is one of the companies most threatened by usage-based pricing, and it has quickly geared up a lobbying team in Washington. In a recent letter to shareholders, CEO Reed Hastings downplayed the challenge to Netflix’s video-streaming business. In the long run, he’s probably right—the market will settle on flat-rate pricing once the video-intensive user has become the average user.

In the meantime, however, Netflix shareholders had better look out.

In fact, providers are reaping the rewards of their popular broadband services, but almost uniformly are less interested in investing in them to match capacity.  It is as if the AT&Ts of this world assumed broadband users would consume    T H I S    M U C H   and that’s it — time to collect profits.  When upgrade investments don’t even keep up as a percentage of revenue earned over past years, the inevitable result will be a custom-made excuse to impose usage limits and consumption billing to manage the “data tsunami.”

Canadian providers did not slap usage caps on broadband users because Netflix arrived — they lowered them. Telling users they cannot consume the same amount of bandwidth they used a month earlier has nothing to do with managing traffic, it’s about protecting their video businesses by discouraging consumers from even contemplating using the competition.  Jenkins works for a company that understands that perfectly well.  News Corp., has a major interest in Hulu as well as satellite television services in Europe and Oceania.

The rest of Jenkins’ piece is as smug as it is wrong.  In attacking Net Neutrality supporters as “crazies” trying to defend their “hobby horse,” Jenkins claims public interest groups are pouting about usage-based billing, too:

All along, what the net neut crazies have lacked in intellectual consistency they’ve made up in fealty to the business interests of companies that fear their services would become unattractive if users had one eye on a bandwidth meter. That’s why opposition to “Internet censorship” morphed into opposition to anything that might price or allocate broadband capacity rationally. But such a stance is rapidly becoming untenable, whether the beneficiary is Google, with its advertising-based business model, or Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others who hope to capitalize on the entertainment-streaming opportunity.

All are betting heavily on the cloud. All need to start dealing realistically with the question of how the necessary bandwidth will be paid for.

Part of Jenkins’ theory calls back on his usual Google bashing — he perceives the company as a parasite stealing the resources bandwidth providers paid for, while forgetting the success of their businesses ultimately depends on content producers (who indeed pay billions for their own bandwidth) making the service interesting enough for consumers to buy.

But there is nothing rational about Jenkins’ support for Internet Overcharging.  North Americans already pay some of the highest prices in the world for the slowest service.  While providers attempt to lick the last drop of profits out of increasingly outdated networks (hello DSL!), their future strategy is less about expanding those networks and more about constraining the use of them.

Jenkins is ignorant of the fact several of Net Neutrality’s strongest proponents, Public Knowledge being a classic example, have not historically opposed usage-based pricing, much to my personal consternation.  As we’ve argued (and I submit proved), Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging go hand in hand for revenue hungry providers.  If they cannot discriminate, throttle, or block traffic they consider to be costly to their networks, they can simply cap demand on the customer side with usage limits or confiscatory pricing designed to discourage use.  That is precisely what Canadians are fighting against.

It’s all made possible by a broken free market.  Instead of hearty competition, most North Americans endure a duopoly — a phone company and a cable company.  Both, particularly in Canada, have vested interests in video entertainment, television and cable networks, and other entertainment properties.  As long as these interests exist, companies will always resist challenges to their core business models, such as cable TV cord cutting.  It’s as simple as that.

The “realistic” way bandwidth will be paid for escapes Jenkins because his quest for condescension takes precedence over actual facts.  Content producers already pay enormous sums to bandwidth providers like Akamai, Amazon, and other cloud-based distribution centers.  Consumers pay handsomely for their broadband connections, part of which covers the costs of delivering that content to their homes and businesses.  AT&T and other providers don’t deserve to get paid twice for the same content.  Indeed, they should be investing some of their enormous profits in building a new generation of fiber-based broadband pipelines to keep their customers happy.  Because no matter how much data you cram down a glass fiber, the ‘data friction’ will never cause those cables to go down in flames, unlike Jenkins’ lapsed-from-reality arguments.