While most rural telephone companies are selling customers 1-3Mbps copper-delivered DSL service, Alcatel Lucent has announced the commercial availability of VDSL 2 Vectoring, a new way of delivering up to 100Mbps over the copper wire telephone network most rural North Americans still depend on for telecommunications service.

VDSL2 combines a fiber-copper hybrid network similar to Bell’s Fibe or AT&T’s U-verse, with interference-cancelling technology called “vectoring” to deliver speeds much closer to the 100Mbps theoretical limit of current DSL technology.

“Alcatel-Lucent’s plan to make VDSL2 vectoring commercially available is very timely,” said Rob Gallagher, Principal Analyst, Head of Broadband & TV Research, Informa.  “VDSL2 Vectoring promises to bring speeds of 100Mbps and beyond to advanced copper/fiber hybrid networks and make super fast broadband speeds available to many more people, much faster than many in the industry had thought possible.”

A new way to boost copper speeds even faster.

Different flavors of DSL are currently in use around North America and beyond.  The most basic form, ADSL, also happens to be the most commonplace among phone companies offering basic broadband service.  For customers up to 12,000 feet away from a phone company central office, DSL delivers speeds usually at 1Mbps or faster.  Customers enjoying the fastest speeds must live much closer to the phone company facilities.  The further away you live, the slower your broadband speed.  In rural areas, consumers can live further away than the maximum distance of the central office, which means no DSL service for those subscribers.

A combination of signal loss and interference, called “crosstalk,” from adjacent copper wire pairs are both the enemies of DSL broadband, because they can drastically reduce speeds.

Telephone companies can address this problem by building new satellite central offices located halfway between customers and their primary facilities.  These offices, usually connected by fiber, can successfully reduce the amount of copper wire between the customer and the company, boosting speeds.  Many phone companies also deploy DSL extensions called D-SLAMs, which can be attached to a phone pole or enclosed in a metal box by the roadside.  A fiber cable connects the D-SLAM back to the phone company, while existing copper phone wires go back to individual subscribers.

More modern forms of DSL: ADSL2, ADSL2+, and VDSL, share some of those concepts.  The key is cutting as much copper wire out of the network as possible, replacing it with fiber optic cable which does not suffer signal loss or interference in the same way.

Many European and Pacific broadband networks rely on ADSL2/2+, which can usually deliver reliable speeds in the 20Mbps range.  VDSL networks offer even more bandwidth, and are the basis of U-verse and Fibe, which split up broadband, phone service, and television on the same cable.  When customers demand even faster speeds, phone companies can “bond” several individual DSL connections together to deliver faster speeds.  Some traditional ADSL providers do that today for their customers, especially in areas where low speeds prevail.

An argument the phone company will love.

Alcatel Lucent says VDSL2 with Vectoring is the next best thing to fiber to the home, because it is cheaper to deploy with fewer headaches from local authorities when streets and yards are dug up for fiber cable replacements.  It also meets the growing speed needs of average consumers.  Alcatel Lucent predicts the minimum speed North Americans will need to support the next generation of online video is 50Mbps, more than 10 times the speed phone companies like Verizon, AT&T, Frontier, and CenturyLink provide over their traditional DSL networks, especially in rural and suburban areas.

Vectoring can deliver results for phone companies with aging copper wire infrastructure, more prone to crosstalk and other signal anomalies.  Alcatel Lucent compares vectoring with noise-cancellation headphones.  By sampling the current noise conditions on copper cable networks, vectoring can suppress the impact of the interference, boosting speeds and delivering more reliable results.

With technologies like VDSL2 with Vectoring promising speeds far faster than what rural North Americans currently enjoy, the Federal Communications Commission may want to re-evaluate its national minimum speed standard for broadband — 3-4Mbps — found in its National Broadband Plan.  Alcatel Lucent promises they can do much better.

[flv width=”640″ height=”324″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Alcatel Lucent VDSL2.flv[/flv]

Alcatel Lucent produced this video to promote its new VDSL2 with Vectoring technology.  The video targets cost-conscious phone companies who are being pressured to deliver faster service, but don’t want to spend the money on a fiber to the home network.  (6 minutes)

A new proposal from the nation’s six largest telephone companies would double or triple Universal Service Fund (USF) fees on many telephone lines, extending them to wireless, broadband-based phones, cable TV “digital phone” products, and potentially even Internet accounts, providing billions from consumers for the companies proposing the plan.

Universal Service Fund reform has been a hot topic this year in Washington, as regulators attempt to reform a long-standing program designed to help keep rural landline telephone service affordable, subsidized with small charges levied on customer phone bills that range between $1-3 dollars, depending on the size of your community.

The original goals of the USF have largely been achieved, and with costs dropping to provide telephone service, and ancillary services like broadband DSL opening the door to new revenue streams, some rural phone companies don’t need the same level of support they received in earlier years.  As a result, USF funds have progressively been disbursed to an increasing number of projects that have little to do with rural phone service.  Several funding scandals over the past decade have underlined the need for USF reform, and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been a strong advocate for directing an increasing amount of USF resources towards rural broadband deployment projects.

But now some of America’s largest phone companies want to establish their own vision for a future USF — one that preserves existing funding for rural phone service –and– levies new fees on ratepayers to support broadband expansion.

The ABC Plan's chief sponsors are AT&T...

America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan (ABC), proposed jointly by AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, Windstream, Frontier Communications and FairPoint Communications, departs markedly from Genachowski’s vision for a revised USF that would not increase the overall size of the Fund or its cost to consumers.

That’s why some ratepayer consumer groups and utility regulators have taken a dim view on the phone companies’ plan.

Colleen Harrell, assistant general counsel to the Kansas Corporation Commission says customers would find USF fees doubling, if not tripling on their home phone bills under ABC.  That could mean charges of $6 or more per month per phone line.

While the plan substantially benefits the companies that propose it, critics say ABC will do little to enhance service for ordinary consumers.  In fact, some language in the proposal could open the door for landline companies to discontinue universal landline service, a long time goal of AT&T.

In fact, protection for incumbent phone companies seems to be the highest priority in most of the ABC’s framework:

1. The proposal provides a right of first refusal to the incumbent phone company, meaning USF grant funds effectively start at the landline provider, and are theirs to accept or reject.  This has competitors howling, ranging from Wireless ISPs, mobile data providers, cable companies, and even fiber networks.  The ABC proposal ignores who can deliver the best broadband most efficiently at the lowest price, and is crafted instead to deliver the bulk of funding to the provider that has been around the longest: phone companies.
2. Provisions in the ABC Plan provide a convenient exit door for landline providers saddled with providing service to some of America’s most rural communities.  An escape clause allows “satellite service” to be provided to these rural households as a suitable alternative to traditional wired service, sponsored by an annual $300 million Advanced Mobility/Satellite Fund.  This, despite the fact consumer ratings for satellite providers are dismal and existing providers warn their services are often unsuitable for voice calls because of incredibly high latency rates.
3. Provisions in the ABC Plan adhere to a definition of acceptable broadband well within the range favored by telephone company DSL providers — 4Mbps.  Setting the bar much higher could force phone companies to invest in their networks to reduce the distance of copper wire between their offices and customer homes and businesses, allowing for faster speeds.  Instead, lowering the bar on broadband speeds assures today’s deteriorating rural landline network will make-do, leaving a rural/urban speed divide in the United States.
4. To “resolve” the issue of the increased fees and surcharges that could result from the plan’s adoption, it includes a subjective cap of $30 a month on residential basic landline home phone service (without calling features).  But since most ratepayers pay substantially less for basic home phone service, the maximum rate cap provides plenty of room for future rate increases.  Also, nothing precludes phone companies from raising other charges, or creating new “junk fees” to raise rates further, ignoring the “cap.”

...and Verizon

Rural states seem unimpressed with the phone companies’ proposal.  The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) called various provisions of the plan “a train wreck.”  Kansas is one of several states that developed their own state-based Universal Service Fund to help the state’s many rural agricultural areas receive acceptable telecommunications services.  Kansans initially paid one of the highest USF rates in the country when their state plan was enacted in 1996.  But Kansas phone companies used that money to modernize their networks, especially in rural communities — some of which now receive fiber-based phone service, and the rates have fallen dramatically as upgrade projects have been completed.  Today, most Kansans pay just $1.45 in USF fees to rural phone companies, while AT&T customers in larger Kansas towns and cities pay an average of $2.04.

If the ABC Plan is enacted as-is, Kansans will see phone bills spike as new USF fees are levied.  That’s because the federally-based USF Fund reform program would require today’s 6.18% state USF rate double or triple to sustain various programs within its scope.

And forget about the $30 ‘smoke and mirrors’ “rate cap”, according to the KCC:

[…] The ceiling will not preclude carriers from increasing the basic rate beyond $25 or $30 through higher state USF surcharges or higher local rates.  Multiple states including Kansas  have partially or totally deregulated basic local phone service rates, and the only component of retail  local service pricing that the FCC regulates is the federal Subscriber Line Charge.  Thus, a carrier may face no constraint whatsoever in increasing basic local rates to the point that total local rates are well above the illusory ceiling.

The state of Wyoming was also unimpressed with a one-size-fits-all national approach advocated primarily by big city phone companies AT&T and Verizon, the chief sponsors of the ABC Plan.

The Wyoming Public Service Commission filed comments effectively calling the ABC Plan boneheaded, because it ignores the plight of particularly rural states like Wyoming, chiefly served by smaller phone and cable companies that face challenges in the sparsely populated, mountainous state.

First among the Wyoming PSC’s complaints is that the plan ignores business realities in rural states.  No matter how much USF funding becomes available or what compensation schemes are enacted, dominant state phone companies like CenturyLink are unlikely to “invest in broadband infrastructure unless it is economically opportune to do so.”

The PSC points to the most likely outcomes if the ABC Plan is enacted:

• Phone companies not challenged by a broadband competitor will make due with their current copper wire wireline infrastructure the PSC says has been deteriorating for years.  The PSC fears broadband expansion funds will be used to improve that copper network in larger areas where cable competition exists, while the rest of the more-rural network gets ignored;
• In areas like larger towns or suburbs where phone companies suspect a cable (or other) competitor might eventually expand or launch service, USF funding could be spent to bolster the phone company’s existing DSL service to deter would-be competitors from entering the market;
• 

  We'll pass, too.

  The Wyoming PSC believes phone companies will spend broadband funds only where it would improve the phone company’s competitive position with respect to cable competitors.  Providers are unlikely to expand into currently-ignored rural areas for two reasons: lack of ongoing return on investment and support costs and the ABC Plan’s willingness to abandon rural America to satellite providers.  “We are familiar to a degree with satellite service at it presently exists in Wyoming markets, and we are not particularly enamored of the satellite solution,” the PSC writes.  But if adopted, no rural phone company would invest in DSL service expansion in areas that could be designated to receive federally-supported satellite service instead.

Wireless competitors are not happy with the ABC Plan because it ignores Wireless ISPs and sets ground rules that make them unlikely to ever win financial support.  Many also believe the ABC Plan picks technology winners and losers — namely telephone company provided DSL service as the big winner, and everyone else a loser.

The Fiber to the Home Council also heaped criticism on the ABC Plan for the low bar it sets — low enough for any phone company to meet — on broadband speeds.  The FTTH Council notes the ABC Plan would leave rural America on a broadband dirt road while urban America enjoys high-speed-rail-like service.

Coming Next… Who Really Supports the Phone Companies’ ABC Plan.

Verizon's 20' Monolith (Courtesy: Macro/micro Brooklyn)

Verizon Communications has found a way to outdo AT&T’s enormous and unsightly “lawn refrigerators.”  They have installed 20 foot fiberglass poles in the middle of historic neighborhoods in Flatbush, Brooklyn on top of which the phone company plans to mount boxes containing equipment to support its FiOS fiber to the home service.

The enormous polygonal poles went up suddenly without advance warning, and neighbors left their homes to gaze up at the mysterious new addition to the Victorian-era community.

“The neighbors started gathering around it like it was the monolith in ‘2001,’ ” Rev. Jeanne Person, told the New York Times.

Nobody seemed to know who installed the poles, or more importantly why.

It turns out they are Verizon’s answer to AT&T’s enormous and unsightly 4-6 foot tall metal cabinets that the latter has been installing on street corners and in front of homes throughout U-verse service areas.

John J. Bonomo, Verizon’s director of media relations, told the Times the poles provide an interface between underground cables and above-ground wires that thread through backyards.  Bonomo recognized the way AT&T does it attracts vandals and graffiti.  Verizon’s solution tries to hide the unsightly boxes in the canopy of neighborhood trees, to varying degrees of success.  It also prevents anyone other than Spiderman from stealing equipment inside.

Besides, Bonomo says, the company got all of the necessary permits from the Department of Transportation.  Well, almost all of the necessary permits.

They forgot the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which regulates the look and feel of protected, historic neighborhoods — like Flatbush.  Install 20-foot plastic poles without a permit at your peril.

A spokesperson for the Commission says they hope to reach a resolution with Verizon soon.

It’s not that neighbors are ungrateful that Verizon is extending FiOS into Brooklyn, where it will provide real competition to Cablevision.  Many applaud the fiber service and look forward to signing up.  They just don’t believe randomly placed 20′ poles are the way to do it.

“First we wanted to know what it was,” Rev. Person said. “Then when we figured out what it was, we wanted to get rid of it. What does landmarking mean if it doesn’t protect us?”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCBS NY Verizon 20 Pole 6-7-11.mp4[/flv]

Brooklyn residents complained to WCBS-TV about the 20 foot unwelcome additions to their neighborhoods.  (2 minutes)

For the past two years, we’ve watched a lot of expansive fiber broadband projects get promoted by local media as broadband nirvana for individual homes and businesses that are either stuck with molasses-slow DSL or no broadband at all. Now, we’ve found another, sold by Springfield, Mass. media as salvation from Verizon’s ‘Don’t Care’ DSL for western Massachusetts.  But will the 1,300 miles of fiber actually reach the homes that need a broadband boost?

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSHM Springfield Broadband in Berkshires 7-26-11.mp4[/flv]

WSHM-TV in Springfield covered the start of MassBroadband 123’s fiber optic project as the solution to rural broadband woes in western Massachusetts.  But most residents won’t actually get to use the new network, at least initially.  (2 minutes)

Last month, Gov. Duval Patrick joined public officials and firefighters at the Sandisfield Fire Department to kick-off construction of the MassBroadband 123 fiber-optic network project to expand broadband access to more than 120 communities in western and north central Massachusetts.

MassBroadband 123 Service Area (click to enlarge)

“For too long, families and businesses in western Massachusetts have lived without reliable and affordable high-speed Internet access,” said Governor Patrick. “Today, as we commence the installation of more than 1,000 miles of fiber-optic cable across the region, we start the critical final step in delivering broadband access to everyone. The digital divide in Massachusetts is about to close.”

Don’t hold your breath.

Don’t get me wrong.  The Massachusetts Broadband Institute means well.  Judith Dumont, the group’s director, is well-aware of the challenges rural Massachusetts has getting 21st century broadband.  She’s helping to oversee the construction of an enormous middle-mile, fiber backbone network that will eventually reach those ten dozen communities.  But much of the funding for the project precludes the possibility of directly wiring that fiber to the people who actually need it.  The incumbent providers’ lobbyists have seen to that, broadly warning it would represent ISP Socialism to allow government money to deliver service to homes and businesses — customers they themselves claim to be committed to serve.  But ask any resident in Sandisfield how well they manage that.

Gov. Patrick splices fiber cable at inauguration ceremony for fiber expansion project. (Courtesy: MBI)

A good part of upgraded broadband on the way in the Berkshires will be provided to government institutions like local government, public safety, schools, and libraries.  There is nothing wrong with that either, but when local media blurs this distinction into belief fiber-fast Internet access is on the way to Mr. & Mrs. Jones living on Maple Street, they do a real disservice to the cause for better broadband.

Dumont optimistically believes that opening the state’s fiber network to incumbent providers on a wholesale basis will dramatically help the pervasive problem of reaching rural customers.  Unfortunately, this has simply not been our observed experience watching these projects develop.  The “last mile” problem doesn’t get solved with the existence of a middle mile network, because providers are rarely willing to invest in the construction costs to wire the unwired.  Political and business matters too often get in the way.

Cable companies frequently boycott participation in these networks, and phone companies like Verizon Wireless -may- utilize them for backhaul connectivity to their cell towers, but don’t expect to see lightning-fast Verizon FiOS fiber to the home service springing up anytime soon in western Massachusetts, even if fiber connectivity is provided just a mile or so up the street.  If they didn’t build it themselves, many providers just are not interested.

“Last mile” is often the most expensive component in a broadband network.  It’s the part of the project that requires digging up streets and yards, stringing cables across phone poles, and literally wiring the inside and outside of individual homes and businesses.  Verizon FiOS works in densely populated areas where large numbers of potential customers are likely to deliver a quick return on investment in the network.  But Wall Street has always disagreed, declaring the capital costs too high to make sense.  AT&T won’t even match Verizon’s commitment, relying instead on fiber-to-the-neighborhood networks that deliver access over a more modern type of DSL, delivered on fiber to copper wire phone lines already in place.  That’s their way of not spending money rebuilding their own last mile network.

Wireless ISPs are expected to take advantage of the state's new middle-mile network.

If any part of the broadband network in rural America needed subsidies, the “last mile” is it.  But Washington routinely delivers the bulk of federal assistance to the construction of middle mile networks and institutional broadband that doesn’t deliver a single connection to a homeowner or business.  That suits incumbent providers just fine, judging from their lack of interest in applying for broadband subsidy funding made available two years ago and their hard lobbying against community broadband networks, or anything else smacking of “competition.”

Thus far, the limited grants that are available for “last mile” projects require substantial matching funds and are often limited to $50,000 — a ridiculously low amount to solve the “last mile” challenge.  Those trying are primarily fixed wireless providers valiantly attempting to serve the areas DSL and cable forgot, but deliver woefully slow speeds at incredibly high prices.  WiSpring, one such Wireless ISP, wants to expand coverage with the help of the new fiber network.  But their top advertised wireless speed for residential customers is 1.5Mbps, and that will set you back $100 a month after a $500 installation charge.  Oh, and their customer agreement limits use to 25GB per month with a $10/GB overlimit fee.  That’s hardly the kind of broadband solution a multi-million dollar fiber network should bring to individual consumers.  It’s as frustrating as filling a pool, one cup of water at a time, with an eye-dropper.

Now imagine if a quarter of the state’s $40 million investment in broadband — $10 million, was spent physically wiring individual homes with fiber broadband.  Would that make a bigger splash in the lives of ordinary consumers than a middle mile network they cannot directly access?  Is construction of a state-of-the-art fiber network a good investment when many of the providers scheduled to use it are Wireless ISPs delivering bandwidth suitable for e-mail and basic web browsing only?

In West Virginia, we learned last month the state is swimming in middle mile stimulus grant money it can’t spend fast enough on behalf of institutions — many who either already have super fast service or can’t afford the Cadillac pricing that represents the ongoing service charges not paid for by grant funds.  Is this a good way to spend tax dollars?

Communities large and small need to think big when it comes to broadband.  Building a middle mile network does not by itself solve the access problem.  It’s a fine start, but absolutely requires a follow-up commitment to solve the last mile problem.  Here are our recommendations:

1. Demand the federal government eliminate restrictions on the kinds of network projects that can built with stimulus funds, especially those that prohibit investment in last-mile networks;
2. Don’t believe for a moment large cable and telephone companies will bring better broadband to consumers just because you have a middle mile network.  Historically, they have lobbied hard against last-mile projects they do not own or control, and fund conservative political groups to oppose your community’s right to develop and govern your own broadband future;
3. If incumbent providers won’t provide the service your community needs, consider exploring the possibility of doing it yourself.  Just as MBI contracts the wholesale part of its service out to a third party to administer, nobody says the village clerk has to be a billing agent for a community broadband service that directly serves your residents;
4. Involve local citizens in rallying for better broadband instead of sitting around and waiting for the local phone or cable company to provide it.  They won’t.  It’s a simple matter of economics for them – will they get a sufficient return on their investment within five years? If not, you are not getting improved broadband.  That works for them but doesn’t work for your community, and providers have made it clear most of the networks they intend to build are already built.  That leaves a lot of communities behind.
5. While wireless may be an answer for the most rural or difficult-to-reach homes, it is not a realistic solution for 21st century broadband inside village or town limits.  Wireless networks often lack the capacity to sustain the growing demand for multimedia, high-bandwidth content that is becoming more important for today’s online experience.  When a provider limits usage to 25GB a month, that’s a big problem for any community that will soon find itself stuck in a broadband swamp while the rest of the country passes it by.
6. The biggest financial challenges seem to come to those who think small about broadband projects.  Don’t rely on yesterday’s technologies for tomorrow’s networks.  Fiber-based broadband will deliver the best bang for the buck and is infinitely upgradable.  That’s why rural phone companies and cooperative telecom providers are constructing fiber networks themselves.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGBY Springfield The State Were In Judith Dumont 7-11.mp4[/flv]

WGBY-TV in Springfield talked with Judith Dumont about western Massachusetts’ broadband future.  (19 minutes)

AT&T warns DSL customers they can watch 10 High Definition movies per month... and use their Internet connection for absolutely nothing else, unless they want to incur an overlimit fee of $10.

AT&T has released a phoney baloney video for their customers purporting to “explain” broadband usage and the company’s completely arbitrary usage limits on DSL and U-verse customers: “A single high-traffic user can utilize the same amount of data capacity as 19 typical households. Lopsided usage patterns can cause congestion at certain points in the network, which can slow Internet speeds and interfere with other customers’ access to and use of the network.”

Too bad these claims are not verified with actual facts.

Meaningless statistics

AT&T’s claim that less than two percent of their customers use 20 percent of available bandwidth is frankly meaningless to the company’s DSL and U-verse hybrid fiber-copper networks.  For years, phone companies made a marketing point that unlike cable broadband’s shared network, their DSL service was never shared with anyone else in a neighborhood.  Therefore, running it at a trickle or full speed ahead should have no impact on any other customer.  The only exception to this rule comes from phone companies that under-invest in their middle mile and backbone networks.  For AT&T, that means trying to serve too many customers on inadequate equipment ranging from a poorly planned network of D-SLAMs, which connect individual customers with a fatter pipeline back to the central office, or an inadequate network between the central office and AT&T’s regional backbones.  Fiber, such as that used by AT&T’s more modern U-verse system, completely solves any capacity issues.  Broadband traffic is only a tiny percentage of the bandwidth consumed by AT&T’s IPTV video service — the one that delivers U-verse TV to your home.  AT&T imposes no viewing limits on customers, of course.

Any actual capacity crunch would only show up during peak usage periods — when AT&T customers of all kinds pile on their broadband connection at the same time. AT&T’s usage cap regime does next to nothing to mitigate that kind of congestion.  Here’s why:

Since AT&T and other broadband companies routinely claim the average use per customer is well under 20GB per month, and only 2 percent of customers are currently deemed “heavy users” by AT&T, that tiny percentage of customers cannot create sufficient drag on AT&T’s DSL network even if they opened up their connections to full speed traffic.  In reality, the 98 percent of “average” users piling on the network during prime time would be the only thing capable of the kind of critical mass needed to create visible congestion.  What uses more capacity?  Two customers using their 7Mbps DSL lines to stream online videos concurrently or 98 customers all using their 7Mbps DSL lines at the same time for virtually any online activity?

The math simply doesn’t add up.

The Congestion Myth

AT&T targets their broadband customers with an unwarranted, arbitrary Internet Overcharging scheme they cannot effectively explain to customers.

As two week’s of hearings this month have demonstrated, Bell Canada’s similar arguments for its usage caps simply come without any evidence of actual congestion.  In fact, company officials modified their position to talk more about peak usage congestion, a problem that cannot be controlled with a usage cap well in excess of the average consumer’s usage.  In fact, only a speed throttle could control network congestion at the times it actually occurred.  AT&T also ignores when its customers are using its network.  Is a heavy user downloading files at 3 in the morning creating a problem for other users?  No.  Are the majority of their average-usage customers all jumping online after school or work creating a problem?  Perhaps, if you believed AT&T even had a congestion problem.

Industry maven Dave Burstein does not, and Burstein talked to two chief technology officers at AT&T who told him wired broadband congestion is a “minimal” problem for the phone company.

Upgrades and Cord-Cutting, Delayed

Two things usage caps can do is help your company delay necessary upgrades to meet customers’ broadband needs, whether they are “heavy users” or not.  AT&T has shown itself historically to be slow to invest, and cheap when it does.  AT&T’s wireless network is bottom-rated by consumers thanks to inadequate network capacity.  The company elected to upgrade on-the-cheap to an IPTV platform that still relies on copper phone lines to deliver service that simply cannot compete in quality and capacity with Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network.  But investors love the fact the company counts every penny, even if it means inconveniencing and overcharging customers for their services, usually offered in duopoly or monopoly markets.

AT&T’s usage caps on U-verse are even less credible than those imposed on their DSL service.  U-verse is a fiber to the neighborhood network with near limitless capacity for broadband and video.  In fact, the only “congestion” comes from the copper phone lines that limit how much bandwidth can be supplied to your individual home.  But no matter how much you use, you will not affect your neighbors because your copper phone line is shared with nobody else.  In fact, the biggest chunk of U-verse’s bandwidth is reserved for their video services, which makes arguments about excessive Internet usage on that pipeline un-credible.

What AT&T’s usage cap does assure is that you will not drop that video package from your U-verse service anytime soon.  That lucrative revenue from expensive video packages cannot be forfeit without a fight, and a nice deterrent in the form of an arbitrary usage cap does wonders to keep that cord cutting to a minimum.

Meters That Don’t Measure

One of the worst ongoing problems with Internet Overcharging schemes like AT&T’s is the broken usage meter.  Stop the Cap! has received hundreds of e-mails from AT&T DSL and U-verse customers who report AT&T’s usage meter is either unavailable, broken, or is wildly inaccurate.  With absolutely no independent oversight, and no consistently accurate usage measurement, charging anyone overlimit fees with a broken meter doing the counting is unconscionable.  Yet AT&T may well try.  The company has already been sued by one law firm for what it alleges is an unfair usage meter on the company’s wireless service — a meter that consistently overcounts usage in AT&T’s favor.

AT&T admits they cannot even accurately measure their own customers' usage.

Once getting over the broken meter, customers are directed to a pointless usage-estimator — the ones that tell you about how many tens of thousands of e-mails you can send and receive under AT&T’s cap regime.  In fact, these statistics are irrelevant for the vast majority of customers who never think of sending 10,000 e-mails or exchanging 2,000 pictures or songs.  That’s because customers do not use the Internet to exclusively do those things.  Even with the guestimator, they are left checking a broken usage meter to ponder whether or not they can watch one more show or download another file without incurring a $10 overlimit penalty (or more).  That “generous” limit AT&T touts suddenly doesn’t look so ample when the company gets to the wildly popular activity of streamed video.  AT&T’s own video warns you can only watch 10HD movies a month over your broadband connection — and absolutely nothing else.  No web browsing, e-mail, or photos or music.  Ten movies a month.  Still thinking of dropping your U-verse video subscription now?

Yet AT&T has the nerve to claim, “Our goal is to provide you with the best Internet service possible.”  Really?

Thankfully, not every member of the investor class is thrilled with nickle-and-diming broadband consumers for usage that costs the providing company next to nothing.

The Economist excoriated AT&T for its unwarranted usage limits on its blog earlier this year:

The use of caps allows providers to dish out bandwidth with one hand and take it away with the other. The companies have vastly increased the capacity of various copper, coaxial and fibre lines, but artificially separate out a portion—at least half and often much more—for video which a set-top box or a broadband modem spits out as an apparently distinct service. Cable firms simultaneously push out hundreds of digital channels, while telecoms firms rely on multiple digital streams from live broadcast or cable TV or on-demand pay-per-view. It is as though the water main were divided as it entered the home and a steady, modest stream was made available for showers and at the tap, while most of it was always at the ready for a coin-operated washing machine.

Increasing speed on the internet portion, which would allow consumers to give up on TV subscriptions, is balanced by capping volume. If a consumer does not monitor usage, his internet access can be withdrawn or, in AT&T’s case, overage fees of $10 charged for every additional 50 GB of usage. […] [That] $10 charge applies whether the limit was breached by 1 MB or a smidgen under 50 GB.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Usage.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s new video on broadband usage is based on facts not in evidence and only adds to consumer confusion about arbitrary Internet Overcharging schemes.  (4 minutes)