Virgin Mobile has begun notifying their Broadband2Go customers of how they plan to continue delivering “an outstanding customer experience”: by throttling the speeds of any customer who exceeds 5GB of usage per month.

Many Virgin Mobile customers have been in touch with Stop the Cap! about they feel is bait and switch pricing engaged by Sprint’s prepaid mobile division.  At issue — customers who invested $75-150 in equipment to sign up for a service they were sold on being “unlimited.”  Virgin Mobile made the “unlimited” part of its service the focus of its marketing.

The company characterizes the decision to adopt an Internet Overcharging scheme “a difficult choice,” but it’s one that that will ultimately help the company’s bottom line while costing many of their customers a substantial amount of money for a service they might never have purchased had they known it was going to be limited.

As is the case with almost every Internet Overcharging scheme we’ve seen, the same marketing that promised an “unlimited” experience now promises that such usage limits won’t impact most customers.  In fact, the company’s notification states, “you can send over 500,000 e-mails or browse the web for 250 hours a month!”  Of course, nobody except spammers send that much e-mail, so that kind of boasting is ultimately meaningless to customers.

What is more meaningful is that Virgin’s new 5GB cap will effectively mean customers have to heavily ration their online experience, especially if it includes multimedia.  In fact, customers won’t be able to watch more than a handful of HD movies using the service.  That’s a $40 movie pass some customers would have passed up had they known it came with limits.

This notification arrived in our e-mail box this morning. Despite the spin, the e-mail is likely to enrage customers, especially those who only recently invested money in Virgin Mobile equipment they can no longer return for a refund.

In fact, Virgin Mobile’s return to the land of Internet Overcharging is nothing new for the company.  Customer response to the company’s earlier prepaid wireless broadband plans were, to say the least, underwhelming.

Virgin Mobile’s new usage limits are less about “delivering the same quality service you’ve come to expect” and more about protecting Sprint’s more lucrative postpaid mobile data customers who pay more to use the same 3G network.  While Stop the Cap! agrees delivering an unlimited wireless broadband service remains a difficult challenge with the current limits on wireless capacity, Virgin Mobile’s about-face comes uncomfortably fast — just six months after unveiling and heavily promoting its “unlimited” service.  Just as with Clearwire, Sprint has managed to oversell its network and not invest sufficiently in expanding it to meet customer demands.  Nor has either company educated customers about the inherent limitations wireless broadband has, especially on an overcrowded network.

Sources tell us Virgin Mobile, much like Clearwire, suffered from some customers trying to use peer to peer software, sometimes for days on end (simply a ridiculous endeavor on most of the wireless networks we’ve experienced).  But the company did little to explain to customers that such software often does not work well on these types of networks, and using it 24/7 is likely going to create issues not only for that customer, but for others as well.  Instead, blanket usage limits punish everyone.

Customers deserve more than platitudes from Virgin Mobile.  Any customer that wants to cancel their service should be given a full refund by Virgin for equipment costs they incurred when signing up.  Further, Virgin Mobile’s customer policies do not generally allow money on account, but as of yet unspent, to be refunded to departing customers.  That policy should be waived in this instance.  Any unspent funds should be credited back to the customer’s credit card or refunded by check.

AT&T claims every family should have access on the go, which is why they are “introducing” Smartphone data plans for the family.  Only one problem.  There is nothing new about the data plan, which still starts at $15 per month, per line, for up to 200MB of usage.

AT&T changed the plan’s name, but left the same high price in place.  An Internet Overcharging scheme is still an Internet Overcharging scheme no matter how a wireless company pitches it.

The plan, which throws in AT&T Wi-Fi, which customers can also already get, “is designed for families that primarily surf the web, send and receive personal email and visit social networking sites,” says AT&T spokeswoman Mari Melguizo.

But a real data plan for families would let every user on the account share from one data plan, billed once on the account, not per phone.  That’s not on offer from AT&T, although analysts predict the next wave of smartphone upgrades will come only when data pricing comes down, especially on accounts with multiple phones.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Family Smartphone Data Plan Ad.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s new ad for the same old, overpriced product.  (1 minute)

Two years after Time Warner promised upgraded speeds for Rochester, they finally arrive this spring.

After much of upstate has already been upgraded for DOCSIS 3 service, New York’s second largest economic center — Rochester, will finally see speed upgrades for cable broadband service this spring.

Time Warner Cable, which promised Rochester would be among the first cities to see faster speeds if they accepted the company’s Internet Overcharging experiment instead took their upgrades elsewhere (like Watertown) when the community collectively said “no.”

Two years later, the upgrade other cities including Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and New York received last year will finally make its way to the Flower City this spring.

“Time Warner Cable delivers cutting-edge products that speak to the growing needs of both the tech-savvy user and multi-media families who simply want the fastest speeds right now,” said Terence Rafferty, Regional Vice President of Operations for the Northeast communities of Time Warner Cable.

That “right now” part may true as long as you don’t live in Rochester.  With anemic (at best) competition from also-ran Frontier Communications, which delivers DSL service that long since forfeited its position in the broadband speed race, Time Warner wasn’t exactly pressed by market conditions to deliver upgrades in a hurry, and they didn’t.

Instead, Verizon service areas where FiOS, the company’s fiber-to-the-home network loomed got the fastest service, without threats of Internet Overcharging schemes hanging over their heads.

As elsewhere, Time Warner will bring two tiers of DOCSIS 3 service: 30/5 service for $20 more than Road Runner’s Standard service (10/1Mbps) or 50/5Mbps service for $99.  The “sweet spot” will be 30/5 service, which is just $10 more than Road Runner Turbo customers currently pay.

Rochester and Finger Lakes area customers interested in the service can pre-register and get notified when the service becomes available in your area.  A new cable modem is required, but since Rochester area customers do not own their own (the modems are provided free with the service), the swap is a minor inconvenience.

The new cable modems include wireless connectivity, so up to five devices can share your broadband connection without wires.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Thanks to quick work from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canadian broadband providers have wasted no time announcing new usage limits and penalties for those who exceed them.

The principal culprit for the Internet Overcharging: Bell (Canada), the nation’s largest telecommunications company.

Bell’s newly won right to charge wholesale customers usage-based billing rates has caused a collective groan from independent providers from Vancouver to Charlottetown. Primus, the second-largest alternative communications company in Canada, threw up its hands and announced it was going to pass Bell’s costs along to their customers.  Some other providers have already raised rates, shocking customers who received December bills with $100 in overlimit penalties.

“It’s an economic disincentive for Internet use,” said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. “It’s not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it.”

That is a hallmark example of what happens under Internet Overcharging schemes like “usage-based pricing,” usage caps, or other limited use plans.  Customers don’t pay for their actual broadband use — they overpay, especially when stiff penalties are imposed when they exceed their usage allowance.

“Canada’s broadband market is a racket, period,” says our reader Andy, who lives near Petawawa, in northern Ontario.  “If you are in a major city in the south, you can choose Bell or one of their lackeys or the cable company, which almost always means Shaw or Rogers in English-speaking Canada.”

Andy doesn’t have access to cable, so his broadband comes courtesy of DSL from the phone company.  He counts himself lucky he has that, even though it only delivers around 512kbps and is down at least once a week, especially when the weather is bad.  Other communities have no broadband at all, and some areas are so desperate for access, they have provided financial incentives to attract a provider to town.  It rarely succeeds.  Zeropaid reports a handful on unscrupulous would-be providers have taken the incentives and left town with no broadband service to show for it.

“These guys only want the easy customers and they’ve got them in Toronto or Ottawa,” Andy says. “The rest of us can live with dial-up.”

The Canadian government occasionally launches highly publicized demonstration projects to deliver rural broadband in northern Canada, often over wireless, something Andy scoffs at.

“When the TV cameras are shut off and [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper’s political bandwagon goes home, the networks last for about a month until something goes wrong and the whole thing shuts down, sometimes for weeks before someone repairs it,” Andy says.

There oughta be a law.

Katz

In fact Canada, a country with a reputation for keeping a regulatory eye on essential services, has an agency that is supposed to protect consumers and monitor telecommunications services. Unfortunately for Canadians, it was that agency that gave Bell the go-ahead to kill unlimited, flat rate broadband — the service that has kept most independent service providers in business.

Critics charge the Commission has been acting more like a Big Telecom industry trade group than an independent oversight body, and many independent providers openly wonder how long they’ll survive with Bell’s predatory pricing.

Reviewing who serves on the Commission may provide some answers about why they seem to be closely aligned with Canada’s largest telecom companies.  Many of the commissioners used to work for the very companies they are now asked to regulate, and some are likely to return to them after their stint at the CRTC.  The agency’s supposedly independent commissioners know if they want future employment in the telecommunications industry, it’s best not to antagonize your next boss.

Take Commissioner Leonard Katz.  He joined the CRTC in 2005 and was appointed vice chairman of telecommunications in 2007.  For 30 years before joining the Commission, Katz was employed by Canada’s largest telecom firm, moving up through Bell’s management ranks from 1974-1985.  His last big job at Bell was as the assistant director of Bell’s regulatory lobbying department, where he spent his energy and time dealing with federal politicians and the CRTC.  Katz also loves Canada’s wireless industry, dominated by Rogers Communications.  He was founder and chairman of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Clearinghouse for wireless carriers.

Arpin

Or there was Michel Arpin, a consummate former insider at some of Canada’s largest corporately-owned broadcast station groups like Astral Broadcasting, Mutual Broadcasting, and Radiomutuel.  He also had a side relationship with Telus, a western Canadian telecom company that also belongs to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB).  Arpin served CAB as vice-chair and chair. Arpin, the corporate media man, also served as the vice-chairman of the CRTC’s broadcast division until late last year.

Other examples:

• Rita Cugini — A regional commissioner for the province of Ontario, her professional background has been working for some of the province’s biggest media interests, including Alliance Atlantis, Telelatino, and CFMT/OMNI.  She also is integrally involved with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which bends the ears of regulators regularly on a variety of matters;
• Tim Denton — About as close to the broadband industry as you can get, Denton’s role as a commissioner began in 2008, but his money was made working for the broadband industry, including the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, which lobbies for big broadband provider interests.
• Candice Molnar — Serves today as regional commissioner for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but she knows most of the prairie provinces’ movers and shakers by name, having spent more than 20 years at SaskTel, Saskatchewan’s biggest phone company.  She helped guide SaskTel from provincial to federal regulation when she worked there and her voting record shows her heart is still with her former employer.

Cugini

With a Commission stacked against ordinary Canadian consumers, it’s no wonder Internet Overcharging schemes and stifled broadband competition rule the day in Canada.

“Rural Canada always pays the biggest price,” says Andy.  “If it didn’t happen in Toronto or Ottawa, it didn’t happen at all.”

Andy complains Canadian broadband will never improve with Internet Overcharging schemes in place.

“They complain about your usage and say if they can restrict it, they can improve service to more people; well, where is my better service?” Andy asks.

“At least I don’t have to worry about their usage allowances… yet,” Andy says. “Even if I left my connection running continuously, at these speeds I doubt I could do much damage.”

Commissioners of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), led by its chair Gamaliel Cordoba (middle, in blue shirt) preside in a public hearing Tuesday on the proposed circular requiring broadband data limit for consumers and minimum broadband speed for service providers. The event, which was held at the NTC main office in Quezon City, was attended by various industry stakeholders, including telcos, bloggers, and consumer advocacy groups. Photo by Melvin Calimag; Courtesy: GMANews.tv

Philippine consumers won a major victory this morning, successfully stripping language permitting Internet usage limits from a broadband reform measure before the country’s telecommunications regulator.

In a newly revised draft, this language written by and for some of the nation’s largest telecom providers was removed after a major consumer push-back:

“WHEREAS, it has been observed that few subscribers/users connect to the internet for unreasonably long period [sic] of time depriving other users from connecting to the internet; NOW, THEREFORE… Service providers may set the maximum volume of data allowed per subscriber/user per day.”

Consumer rights group TXTPower was instrumental in exposing the provider-written language and generating a groundswell of opposition to broadband usage limits.  The group’s leader Tonyo Cruz said Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps deliver all of the benefits to providers while limiting consumer access and increasing bills.

“The adoption of [usage caps] will destroy social media in the Philippines and affect businesses,” Cruz told commissioners at a National Telecommunications Commission public meeting attended by consumers.

Cruz compared broadband in the Philippines with a turtle race.

“Imposing caps would be like putting speed limits on slow-moving turtles,” he said.  “It is one thing for telcos to say that a small percentage of consumers abuse their networks, but is another and more important thing to know whether they actually deliver the promised services and whether they have at the moment or in the future the capacity to deliver them.”

Cruz says his group doesn’t oppose providers dealing individually with consumers who use their accounts to the point of creating problems for other users on the network, but a blanket usage limit punishing every Filipino was unacceptable.

The issue rapidly became a political hot potato when ordinary Filipinos contacted their elected representatives to protest the measure.

Kabataan Partylist representative Mong Palatino put the Commission on notice: “NTC’s draft memo [including usage caps] is clearly anti-consumer and regressive. It tramples on the rights of the consumers to get what they pay for in terms of a reliable Internet service,” Palatino wrote in a widely distributed statement. “By allowing telcos and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to limit Internet speed and connection, NTC seemingly wants the whole nation to regress to an Internet era that is much slower and highly unstable,” Palatino explained.

For Cruz, the entire argument for usage caps and the complaints about consumers using too much Internet service “ring weird.”

“The telcos who complain about over-use are the same companies actively encouraging consumers to use the Internet and become avid Internet users, to watch and upload videos and photos,” Cruz noted.

Cruz and other consumer activists want the Commission to hold additional public hearings, and stream them live over the Internet.