Pentefountas

Stop the Cap! is following this week’s extensive hearings into Internet Overcharging in Canada by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).  The debate into Bell’s attempt to mandate usage-based billing for -every- provider in Canada, regardless of whether they are owned or operated by Bell, reached a new level of absurdity this morning when a Conservative appointee to the CRTC, Tom Pentefountas — the vice-chairman of the commission — asked this question to an astonished panel headed by Openmedia.ca, a consumer group fighting usage-based billing:

“What is so undemocratic about allowing a few companies to control the Internet?”

Pentefountas was openly hostile at times against Openmedia, questioning their membership, their funding, and whether they had a “self-interest” in the fight.  They do — consumers, a concept that evidently escapes the very Big Telecom-friendly new commissioner, appointed by the government of Stephen Harper.

Yesterday, much of the hearing was focused on Bell’s defense of UBB, and we noted Mirko Bibic’s increasing discomfort as the Bell lobbyist came under increasing scrutiny and hard questioning that he never experienced during earlier hearings (those that led to the CRTC’s approval of UBB).  Now that the public (and higher government officials) are watching and listening, what used to be a non-confrontational experience is today sounding increasingly skeptical of the arguments for UBB by many commissioners.

We’ll have audio archives of the hearings available here when they are published online.  They help build the record of carrier arguments for UBB, independent findings which call out those arguments, and the opposition to UBB and why flat rate broadband is important to the knowledge-based economy of North America.

There will be hurdles to overcome, starting with confronting the attitudes of commissioners like Mr. Pentefountas, who evidently does not understand the implications of a few corporate entities controlling Canada’s Internet.

Follow live coverage of the CRTC hearings here.

As political pressure over Usage Based Billing continues to keep providers from gravitating towards more stringent Internet Overcharging schemes, western Canadians are enjoying significant victories as providers relax usage caps and increase speeds for broadband service.

Weeks after Shaw Communications announced new packages with increased usage allowances and a few unlimited use plans, Telus has now followed Shaw’s lead and doubled usage caps on many of its Internet plans, slashed overlimit fees by more than half for some, and plans to increase upload speeds for one of its premium plans:

Among the major changes are dramatically increased usage allowances and the reduction of overlimit fees.

Telus customers receive their service from the phone company in various flavors of DSL.  Some older suburban and rural areas still receive speeds averaging 3Mbps, but those lucky enough to be served by VDSL can comfortably achieve the company’s fastest broadband speeds.  The increased usage allowances are welcome news, even if Telus has never strictly enforced any of them:

• High Speed Turbo 25 increased to 500GB, was 250GB;
• High Speed Turbo increased to 250GB, was 125GB;
• High Speed increased to 150GB, was 75GB;
• High Speed Lite increased to 30GB, was 13GB;
• The overlimit fee for High Speed Lite has been reduced from $5/GB to $2/GB;
• Unofficial reports suggest upload speed for Turbo 25 is being increased from 2Mbps to 3Mbps, to be rolled out gradually.

Is Telus following Shaw's lead?

The reduction in the overlimit fee for High Speed Lite was predictable in light of recent political events.  It is difficult to sustain the argument that overlimit fees and usage caps are priced to control network congestion when the lightest users face the most draconian limits and penalty fees.

But unlike their cable competitor Shaw Communications, Telus has not seen fit to offer customers a truly unlimited plan, which presents a problem for some.

“Telus needs to remember they cannot win a speed race with Shaw so they should be lowering prices, taking the usage caps off, and competing with something they can actually win — delivering customers the unlimited service they want at a reasonable price,” says Stop the Cap! reader Abel from Burnaby, B.C.

Separately, Telus also quietly introduced a rate increase for basic home telephone service.  What used to be $21 a month is now $25, an increase of four dollars.

The dramatic plan changes underway in western Canada come in response to political pressure and consumer ire against Usage Based Billing (UBB).  Bell, which provides much of Canada with wholesale broadband access, was seeking to force independent providers to abandon unlimited, flat rate pricing in favor of ubiquitous UBB.  The provocation brought a half million Canadians to sign a petition against metering broadband.

For eastern Canada, thus far little has changed as Bell, Rogers, and Videotron continue with business as usual.

More than halfway into Glenn Britt’s appearance last week at a Wall Street-sponsored investor event, the head of the nation’s second largest cable company candidly admitted years of price hiking is finally driving a growing segment of America’s hard-pressed middle class out of the market:

“There is a segment of our economy that should be of concern.  We have a bifurcating economy where people who are college educated and like everybody in this room are doing okay.  For that segment, pay TV [pricing] is fine.  There is another group of people who are sort of falling out of the middle class.  For some of those people, pay TV is too expensive.”

That’s a remarkable admission from a cable company that has consistently raised prices for its products well in excess of inflation for at least a decade, and judging from the rest of his comments, there is plenty more of the same on the way.

Britt is nearing his 10th anniversary as CEO of what is now Time Warner Cable, formerly a division of AOL/Time-Warner.  In the past decade, the company he oversees has undergone a transformation in its business model. In 2001, digital cable was all the rage, delivering the 500-channel television universe at the cost of rapidly increasing cable bills.  Cable broadband was just coming back from the dot.com crash, with many Americans still mystified by the concept of “www” and whether a web address had a “/” or a “\” in it.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt tells Wall Street investors at the Sanford Bernstein conference the company is using their customers’ addiction to high speed broadband as leverage for rate increases — three in the last three years. Britt’s world view for Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption billing are reinforced in a room where ordinary customers aren’t invited and the Wall Street types in attendance dream about the enormous profits such pricing would bring. June 1, 2011. (6 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Today, broadband is threatening to become the cable industry’s most important product — one that Americans will crawl through broken glass to buy.  In larger cities, the competitive war between DSL and cable broadband has been settled and DSL lost.  That has brought Time Warner a steady stream of customers departing their local phone company and bringing their telecommunications business with them.  Even during the economic downturn, Britt notes, one of the last products people will agree to give up is their broadband Internet access.

“Broadband is becoming more and more central to people’s lives,” Britt said. “It is becoming our primary product. People are telling us that if they were down to their last dollar, they’d drop broadband last.”

Britt openly tells investors Time Warner Cable will take that last dollar, and many more.

“We are able to raise prices,” Britt notes. “As broadband becomes a utility, you can charge more.  So after a dozen years of not raising prices for broadband service, for the last three years we have been raising prices.”

Britt notes the company is also enjoying increased average revenue per customer as many upgrade their broadband service to higher speed tiers which deliver higher revenue to the cable operator.

But as the market for broadband matures, the next level of profits could come from so-called “consumption pricing,” which could make yesterday’s rate increases look like a miniscule price adjustment.  In 2009, Time Warner Cable sought to test new broadband pricing that would have tripled the cost of unlimited broadband from $50 a month to an astonishing $150 a month.  A firestorm of protests for this level of Internet Overcharging temporarily killed the prospect of OPEC-like profits, unsettling some Wall Street investors and analysts, many who refuse to let the dream die.

Among the biggest proponents of this kind of metered pricing is, in fact, Sanford Bernstein — the sponsor of the conference.  So it came as no surprise Britt faced additional browbeating in the hour-long interview to reintroduce these pricing schemes.  After all, Britt is told, AT&T has implemented a usage cap and Cable One has (what the interviewer calls) a “quite interesting” pricing model — delivering the smallest usage caps to customers with the highest speed tiers.  So when will Time Warner follow suit?

Once again, Britt said he’s a true believer in consumption billing and thinks the industry will move in that direction, but refused to give an exact timetable.  “Consumption billing” goes beyond traditional usage caps by establishing a combination of a flat monthly service fee, and additional charges for the amount of data you use.  Time Warner’s original proposal limited consumption to 40GB per month at today’s broadband prices, but added an overlimit fee of $1-2 for each additional gigabyte.

The strangest part of the hour was Britt’s defense of usage pricing with an impromptu discussion with his wife the evening before about the pricing models of public transit in European capitals (they’ve no doubt visited), and metropolitan New York City.

Britt shared that in the finest cities of Old Europe, bus and train travelers paid different rates based on how far they traveled within the city.  In New York, his wife noted, one price gets you access to any point in the city on the subway.  

How fair is that?

Aside from the hilariously unlikely scenario either Britt or his wife have stepped foot on a New York City public bus or subway train in the last decade, his rendition of “consumption billing is fairer”-reasoning fell flat because it argues a false equivalence between the cost to move data and the expenses of a public transit system.  Remember, Time Warner is the cable company that pitches unlimited long distance calling on the one platform that most closely resembles broadband — telephone service.

“People want us to invest more to keep up with the traffic,” Britt argued.  “People who use it should pay less — people who want to spend eight hours a day watching video online is fine with me, but they should pay more than somebody who reads e-mail once a week.”

This is the same Glenn Britt who just minutes earlier confessed the cable company has been raising prices on all of its broadband customers for three years in a row because they can.  Earlier attempts at consumption billing saved nobody a penny.  Light users were given a paltry usage allowance that could be largely consumed by downloads of security patches and software updates, after which a very punitive overlimit fee kicked in.  Besides, Time Warner Cable already sells a “lite” usage plan today that has few takers.  Most consumers want, and are willing to pay for a standard, flat rate broadband account.  That’s the account Britt and his Wall Street cheerleaders want to get rid of come hell or high water.

Britt is asked whether pay television is getting too expensive for the hard-pressed middle class. For many consumers, it is, which is why the company is developing its “welfare” tier called TV Essentials — a sampling of cable networks with plenty of holes in the lineup to remind subscribers what they are missing if they make do with this less expensive package. June 1, 2011. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Throughout the hour long interview, Britt’s read of the hard-pressed common American family comes across as more than a little hollow — more like hopelessly out of touch.  One part Marie “Let Them Eat Cake” Antoinette and one-part “we’ll throw a bone to some and raise prices on the rest,” Britt is content lecturing consumers — discouraging them from crazy ideas like “a-la-carte” cable pricing and reasonably priced broadband.

The Wall Street crowd loved every minute, and the friendly echo chamber atmosphere made Britt feel more than welcome at the conference.  While Time Warner Cable’s CEO spent more than a hour talking to Wall Street, he has no time to actually sit down and talk with his customers — the ones that want nothing to do with his Internet pricing schemes.  Indeed, at one point Sanford Bernstein’s host dismisses customers as “people who want everything for free,” a contention Britt partly agreed with.

Have another piece of cake.

If you are still wealthy enough to buy an iPad and are enjoying Time Warner Cable’s free streaming app, watch out. It may not be free for long. As Britt partially admits, Time Warner Cable is using the online video service as a “Trojan Horse” to get subscribers hooked on their online video, before they attach a price tag to the service. June 1, 2011. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

And what about all of this much-ballyhooed “investment” in tomorrow’s broadband networks?

Britt confesses the cable company is spending less than ever on system upgrades and capital construction projects.  Why?  The company forecasts its demand and growth five years out and budgets accordingly.  The current target is to spend just 15 percent of revenue on such projects, and based on budget planning, there is no urgent need to upgrade Time Warner’s broadband networks to keep up with demand.  In fact, it was all smiles when Britt revealed one of the company’s biggest expenses — the costly set top box — may not be a permanent part of America’s cable future after all.  Britt offered there was a good chance capital spending might even decline further in the future.

Britt suggests the next generation of television sets will deliver the same functionality as today’s set top box at a cost paid by the consumer.  Time Warner’s slow march to all digital cable means the need for wholesale upgrades of cable systems is over for perhaps a generation.  And with an IP-based cable delivery platform, software upgrades and improvements can be made without paying the high asking price charged by today’s handful of set top manufacturers.

In fact, outside of programming costs, Britt doesn’t see any long term challenges to years of good times for investors. Even minor competition from the telephone companies, who generally charge prices very similar to what Time Warner Cable charges, pose no big threat.

His biggest nightmare?  A check on the industry’s near-unfettered power by Washington regulators.  Despite Britt’s claims the cable industry is already well-regulated, in fact it is not.  Since 1996, cable companies can charge whatever they choose for standard cable, phone and Internet service.  Consumption billing, which will almost certainly be seen as gouging by consumers, may trigger an unwelcome intrusion by Congress, especially if the industry continues to cause a drag on America’s broadband ranking, already waning.

For investors, the glory days of huge rate hikes for cable television are likely behind us, Britt warns.  But have no fear: for the generally well-heeled and barely-hanging-on there is plenty of room for more rate increases on broadband — and meters, too.

Once again, Britt unintentionally admits the truth: Time Warner Cable does not have a broadband congestion problem that requires an Internet Overcharging scheme to solve. In fact, he admits the cable company is spending less than ever on network upgrades for residential subscribers, and expects that trend to continue. He’s also avoiding overpaying for merger and acquisition opportunities. June 1, 2011. (6 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Among the public interest groups that have historically steered clear of the fight against usage caps and usage based billing is Public Knowledge.

Stop the Cap! took them to task more than a year ago for defending the implementation of these unjustified hidden rate hikes and usage limits.  Since then, we welcome the fact the group has increasingly been trending towards the pro-consumer, anti-cap position, but they still have some road to travel.

Public Knowledge, joined by New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern over AT&T’s implementation of usage caps and asking for an investigation:

[…] Public Knowledge and New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative urge the Bureau to exercise its statutory authority to fully investigate the nature, purpose, impact of those caps upon consumers. The need to fully understand the nature of broadband caps is made all the more urgent by the recent decision by AT&T to break with past industry practice and convert its data cap into a revenue source.

[…] Caps on broadband usage imposed by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can undermine the very goals that the Commission has committed itself to championing. While broadband caps are not inherently problematic, they carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive and monopolistic ways. Unless they are clearly and transparently justified to address legitimate network capacity concerns, caps can work directly against the promise of broadband access.

The groups call out AT&T for its usage cap and overlimit fee model, and ponder whether these are more about revenue enhancement than network management.  The answer to that question has been clear for more than two years now: it’s all about the money.

The two groups are to be commended for raising the issue with the FCC, but they are dead wrong about caps not being inherently problematic.  Usage caps have no place in the North American wired broadband market.  Even in Canada, providers like Bell have failed to make a case justifying their implementation.  What began as an argument about congestion has evolved into one about charging heavy users more to invest in upgrades that are simply not happening on a widespread basis.  The specific argument used is tailored to the audience: complaints about congestion to government officials, denials of congestion issues to shareholders coupled with promotion of usage pricing as a revenue enhancer.

If Bell can’t sell the Canadian government on its arguments for usage caps in a country that has a far lower population density and a much larger rural expanse to wire, AT&T certainly isn’t going to have a case in the United States, and they don’t.

The history of these schemes is clear:

1. Providers historically conflate their wireless broadband platforms with wired broadband when arguing for Internet Overcharging schemes.  When regulators agree to arguments that wireless capacity problems justify usage limits, extending those limits to wired broadband gets carried along for the ride.  Dollar-a-holler groups supporting the industry love to use charts showing wireless data growth, and claim a similar problem afflicts wired broadband, even though the costs to cope with congestion are very different on the two platforms.
2. Providers argue one thing while implementing another.  Most make the claim pricing changes allow them to introduce discounted “light user” plans.  But few save because true “pay only for what you use” usage-based billing is not on offer.  Instead, worry-free flat use plans are taken off the menu, replaced with tiered plans that force subscribers to guess their usage.  If they guess too little, a stiff overlimit fee applies.  If they guess too much, they overpay.  Heads AT&T wins, tails you lose.  That’s a clear warning providers are addressing revenue enhancement, not network enhancement.
3. Claims of network congestion backed up with raw data, average usage per user, and the costs to address it are all labeled proprietary business information and are not available for independent inspection.

There are a few other issues:

In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by AT&T are particularly aggressive. Unlike competitors whose caps appear to be at least nominally linked to congestions during peak-use periods, AT&T seeks to convert caps into a profit center by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap. In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands.

In North America, only a handful of providers use peak-usage pricing for wired broadband.  Cable One, America’s 10th largest cable operator is among the largest, and they serve fewer than one million customers.  Virtually all providers with usage caps count both upstream and downstream data traffic 24 hours a day against a fixed usage allowance.  The largest — Comcast — does not charge an excessive usage fee.  AT&T does.

Furthermore, it remains unclear why AT&T’s recently announced caps are, at best, equal to those imposed by Comcast over two years ago.  The caps for residential DSL customers are a full 100GB lower than those Comcast saw fit to offer in mid-2008. The lower caps for DSL customers is especially worrying because one of the traditional selling points of DSL networks is that their dedicated circuit design helps to mitigate the impacts of heavy users on the rest of the network. Together, these caps suggest either that AT&T’s current network compares poorly to that of a major competitor circa 2008 or that there are non-network management motivations behind their creation.

AT&T has managed to create the first Internet version of the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, combining Comcast's 'tolerated' 250GB cap with AT&T's style of slapping overlimit fees on data plans from their wireless business.

As Stop the Cap! has always argued, usage caps are highly arbitrary.  Providers always believe their usage caps are the best and most fair around, whether it was Frontier’s 5GB usage limit or Comcast’s 250GB limit.

AT&T experimented with usage limits in Reno, Nevada and Beaumont, Texas and found customers loathed them.  Comcast’s customers tolerate the cable company’s 250GB usage cap because it is not strictly enforced — only the top few violators are issued warning letters.  AT&T has established America’s first Internet pricing version of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup: getting Comcast’s tolerated usage cap into AT&T’s wireless-side overlimit fee.  The bitter aftertaste arrives in the mail at the end of the month.

Why establish different usage caps for DSL and U-verse?  Marketing, of course.  This is about money, remember?

AT&T DSL delivers far less average revenue per customer than its triple-play U-verse service.  To give U-verse a higher value proposition, AT&T supplies a more generous usage allowance.  Message: upgrade from DSL for a better broadband experience.

Technically, there is no reason to enforce either usage allowance, as AT&T DSL offers a dedicated connection to the central office or D-SLAM, from where fiber traditionally carries the signal to AT&T’s enormous backbone connection.  U-verse delivers fiber to the neighborhood and a much fatter dedicated pipeline into individual subscriber homes to deliver its phone, Internet, and video services.

A usage cap on U-verse makes as much sense as putting a coin meter on the television or charging for every phone call, something AT&T abandoned with their flat rate local and long distance plans.

Before partly granting AT&T’s premise that usage limits are a prophylactic for congestion and then advocate they be administered with oversight, why not demand proof that such pricing and usage schemes are necessary in the first place.  With independent verification of the raw data, providers like AT&T will find that an insurmountable challenge, especially if they have to open their books.

[flv width=”640″ height=”368″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell’s Arguments for UBB 2-2011.flv[/flv]

Canada’s experience with Usage-Based Billing has all of the hallmarks of the kind of consumer ripoff AT&T wants Americans to endure:

• A provider (Bell), whose spokesman argues for these pricing schemes to address congestion and “fairness,” even as that same spokesman admits there is no congestion problem;
• Would-be competitors being priced out of the marketplace because they lack the infrastructure, access, or fair pricing to compete;
• Big bankers and investors who applaud price gouging and are appalled at government checks and balances.

Watch Mirko Bibic try to rationalize why Bell’s Fibe TV (equivalent to AT&T U-verse) needs Internet Overcharging schemes for broadband, but suffers no capacity issues delivering video and phone calls over the exact same line.  Then watch the company try and spin this pricing as an issue of fairness, even as an investor applauds the company: “I love this policy because I am a shareholder.  That’s all I care about.  If you can suck every last cent out of users, I’m happy for you.”  Finally, watch a company buying wholesale access from Bell let the cat out of the bag — broadband usage costs pennies per gigabyte, not the several dollars many providers want to charge.  (11 minutes)

Visions of higher broadband bills for consumers... complete with usage limits.

In our continuing campaign to call out shallow analysis of Internet Overcharging, we present today’s latest example from Strategy Analytics.

This group, which claims to be “a leading expert on telecommunications tariffs research and analysis” for OECD and EU operators and regulators offered this gem: (underlining ours)

As and when these caps come into force, users will doubtless complain – much as they did with mobile broadband caps. Some will worry about overage charges, while others will bemoan the fact that the caps are set so high that they are paying for bandwidth they simply won’t use (which is kind of ironic, if they have come from a world where they were paying for unlimited usage). From a provider perspective, it is very much a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The ‘trick’ for them is to strike the right balance between fairness – if you use, you pay – and simplicity/transparency, by not creating too many layers around broadband pricing.

We can probably expect to see providers follow AT&T’s lead in fixed broadband pricing. But before the critics start on the inevitable tirade against them, it is worth remembering that genuine flat rate pricing across comms services is not as prevalent as we would all like to believe – a closer look at service terms and conditions will reveal that.

The “critics” Strategy Analytics wants to lecture are consumers.

In nearly three years of covering Internet Overcharging schemes as our main focus of interest, we have never… we repeat never, heard of anyone complaining their home broadband provider delivered ‘too much’ usage allowance.  In fact, consumers who complain about broadband pricing point to relentless rate increases, particularly when they come on top of usage limits and/or speed throttles.

The only “strategy” on offer from this group is an apparent interest in raising consumer broadband bills with price tricks.  The ultimate in simplicity and transparency is today’s enormously profitable unlimited use broadband service that has raked in billions in profits for cable and phone companies.  Consumers need not think twice about every website they visit, providers don’t have to deal with billing confusion, customers are given the opportunity to buy faster speed tiers at a premium price that actually delivers value without restricted use provisions.

The group also claims unlimited broadband is not as ubiquitous as we might believe, hinting use restrictions can be found in Acceptable Use Policies.  The truth is, those restrictions which allow a provider to control traffic that proves harmful to the network (bot attacks, hacking, and viruses) or other customers (spam bombs, commercial use of residential accounts, running a server) have always been a part of Acceptable Use Policies since phone and cable companies started selling service.  Most providers responsibly enforce these provisions not as a backdoor usage cap, but to prevent activities that clearly create demonstrable problems for the provider or other customers.  Few consumers object to them.