Joe Brown was obviously not the right person for G4TV’s Attack of the Show to talk to about the issue of Internet Overcharging.

As AT&T begins notifying their DSL and U-verse customers they are about to face usage limits on their broadband service, G4TV sought out reaction from the features editor of Gizmodo.com, who was wholly unprepared to inform viewers about the facts behind AT&T’s usage caps and their implications for customers.

While Brown and G4TV were joking about users having to curtail game downloads, for millions of AT&T customers, it’s no laughing matter.

AT&T’s announced 150-250GB limits will eventually cost customers $10 or more for each extra 50GB allotment, on top of their already-expensive broadband service package.

“It really had to happen eventually I think,” Brown told viewers.  “People are using a lot of bandwidth.”

Gizmodo's Joe Brown talks with G4TV's Attack of the Show

But Brown’s observation conflicts with AT&T’s own claim “only a tiny minority of customers” will use more than the company wants to allow, with the average AT&T customer consuming 18GB per month.  AT&T isn’t telling the full story about that either.

For those “heavy users” AT&T wants to restrict first, the implications go well beyond curtailing Netflix and playing online games.

“As a software developer who works under a Linux environment and is forced to telecommute from home one week per month, these caps would absolutely kill me,” writes Joe Stein from Sparks, Nev.  “If you are a retired person using your computer to check e-mail and browse the headlines, you will obviously never exceed AT&T’s caps, but for technology innovators and those like me in the software development field, 150GB is nothing.”

Stein downloads regular updates for Linux, exchanges software back and forth with the office several times a day, and uses video conferencing regularly when he works from home.

“Not all online video is about adult entertainment or downloading movies,” Stein says.  “Usage caps hurt anyone who has to work with large files or business-related video, and after the events this week, AT&T can afford to leave off the caps.”

Brown claims AT&T conducted “a study” in two cities which found that 98 percent of their customers used far less than the usage caps would allow.  What Brown does not know is that those two cities are Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada — hardly superstars in the tech revolution.

“Nobody moves to greater Reno to be a software superstar, which is why I am in San Jose, Calif., all the time,” Stein says.  “But there is more to this area than casinos.”

Stop the Cap! has been helping consumers in both cities avoid AT&T because the company’s “study” came at the same time it was experimenting with an Internet Overcharging scheme that limited customers to as little as 20GB of usage per month — a strong incentive for customers to avoid high bandwidth services,  or better yet AT&T.  So it’s no surprise broadband users who know better chose an alternative provider, including Stein.

“I first became aware of the usage cap debacle a few years ago when AT&T tested usage caps in the Reno area, which covers Sparks,” Stein says.  “I saw the impact first hand when customers started getting notified they would have to pay substantially more for basic Internet service.”

AT&T first limited their broadband customers to as little as 20GB of usage per month, then claimed the average customer only uses 18GB, making their 150GB DSL cap "generous."

Stein left for the cable company — Charter Communications, and they have usage caps too, but they are rarely enforced and much higher than what AT&T offers DSL customers, Stein says.

Brown claims AT&T is trying to “get out ahead of people using too much,” a point in conflict with the fact AT&T is willing to sell consumers additional bandwidth on its “overcongested” network.

Brown’s suggestion that “bandwidth costs money” is partially true, but not in the context of AT&T’s usage limits.  The company that can afford fiber optic upgrades to deliver limitless television and telephone service apparently cannot afford the pennies in bandwidth costs customers consume as part of their broadband service, which can run $50 a month or more.

Pondering broadband usage “fairness” is a losing proposition for consumers… and reporters, too.

Once someone blindly accepts the premise AT&T needs data caps, with no evidence usage presents a technical or financial challenge for the company, the debate is quickly reduced into a numbers game about “how much usage is fair.”

Clearly for Brown and his friends, who admit they are dangerously close to reaching or exceeding AT&T’s limits, the answer to Brown wondering aloud if the caps would “do it for him” should be no.

Stop the Cap! believes no cap is worth living with, especially on AT&T’s enormous-sized broadband network, now increasingly designed to handle the multimedia rich Internet and their U-verse platform.

It is doubtful many will be assuaged by Brown’s comments that “AT&T sounded pretty cool” about how they will deal with those who exceed their arbitrary usage limits.  Why?  Because after the “fair warnings” AT&T will provide customers on its artificially limited network, they will drop the sledgehammer of higher bills on top of customers’ heads.

Brown should know better, especially after finding AT&T unwilling to discuss how often it intends to revisit its usage cap levels.  AT&T’s counterparts in Canada have already foreshadowed the answer.  Once the cap regime is in place, several companies lowered them, sometimes repeatedly, to further monetize broadband usage.  They also raised the prices of overlimit fees, often substantially.

AT&T depends on uninformed consumers and reporters not understanding the true facts about Internet Overcharging schemes.  It’s not too late for reporters like Joe Brown to undo the damage, however.

Stop the Cap! strongly encourages everyone to examine the evidence we have compiled here over the past two and a half years.  It’s not hard to discover AT&T’s usage caps have nothing to do with fairness, are arbitrary and unnecessary, and come as a result of providers seeking higher profits in an undercompetitive marketplace.

If we do not uniformly and loudly oppose usage limits, America’s broadband rankings, digital economy innovation, and high technology jobs are all at risk, just to satisfy AT&T’s insatiable appetite for higher profits.

(P.S. – Joe: How did you miss Comcast has been capping their customers at 250GB for two years now.  Say it ain’t so, Joe!)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/G4TV Attack of the Show ATT Caps Their Data Usage 3-15-11.flv[/flv]

G4TV’s ‘Attack of the Show’ misses the boat on AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme.  They did better covering Time Warner Cable’s attempt at Internet Overcharging in 2009.  It’s time to revisit this issue and get involved in the fight that could hurt the very audience watching this show.  (6 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/UBB is Nonsense.flv[/flv]

François Caron produced this video succinctly smashing the myth that “usage-based billing” and “usage caps” are about fairness or fight congestion.  In this case, Caron refers to Canadian providers, but the story is much the same south of the border.  These Internet Overcharging schemes are nothing more than an effort to control what you can do with your broadband connection.  AT&T wants a 150-250GB usage cap on broadband, but has limitless capacity for television and telephone service.  They also have $39 billion to buy T-Mobile, but need to overcharge you for broadband service.  Bell in Canada wants -every- broadband user in Canada to pay this ripoff pricing.  Share with anyone who thinks paying for usage is anything like paying for water, gas, or electricity.  It’s not!  (6 minutes)

In a stretch even the most accomplished Yoga master would never attempt, an industry-funded dollar-a-holler group has told Congress that Internet Overcharging is a useful tool to combat online piracy.

On Tuesday, Daniel Castro, an analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of combating “rogue sites [that] operate in a low risk, high reward environment.”

In December 2009, ITIF proposed a number of policies to help reduce online copyright infringement, especially in countries that turn a blind eye to copyright enforcement. The purpose of these policies is to establish a robust enforcement mechanism to combat IP theft online. These recommendations include the following:

• Create a process by which the federal government, with the help of third parties, can identify websites around the world that are systemically engaged in piracy;
• Enlist ISPs to combat piracy by blocking websites that offer pirated content, allowing pricing structures and usage caps that discourage online piracy, and implementing notice and response systems;
• Enlist search engines to combat piracy by removing websites that link to infringing content from their search results;
• Require ad networks and financial service providers to stop doing business with websites providing access to pirated content;
• Create a process so that the private sector can consult with government regulators on proposed uses of anti-piracy technology;
• Fund anti-piracy technology research, such as content identification technology;
• Pursue international frameworks to protect intellectual property and impose significant pressure and penalties on countries that flout copyright law.

Castro’s idea of allowing providers to establish “pricing structures and usage caps” stands out like a sore thumb in the context of battling piracy because it is the only recommendation on the list that targets every broadband user with the same broad brush, punishing every customer whether they are engaged in piracy or not.

It would be like setting up roadblocks and searching every vehicle in a city to search for a shoplifter.  Every individual is found guilty before being proved innocent, and will be forced to pay higher prices regardless of the outcome.

The ITIF proposal runs contrary to years of efforts by Internet Service Providers to avoid being involved in the personal business of their customers.  In 2009, major ISPs wanted no part of enforcing a proposal from the record industry for a “three strikes, you’re out” plan.  Verizon, among others, made clear copyright enforcement was not their responsibility to police, although many ISPs are willing to forward copyright infringement notices to individual customers.

Castro’s testimony goes over the top when he blames his own suggested pricing antidote for “hurting law-abiding consumers who must […] pay higher prices for Internet access to compensate for the costs of piracy.”

Of course, no ISP has ever suggested they would use the extra revenue earned from Internet Overcharging to combat another industry’s piracy problem.

His sweeping indictment against consumers extends beyond nipping at their bank accounts on behalf of telecommunications companies who help fund the group he represents.  He also suggests those who oppose his piracy prescriptions are either in league with, or defenders of piracy — or other offenders ranging from criminal enterprises to kiddie porn peddlers.

Castro’s support for usage caps to control illicit online activities leaves collateral damage as far as the eye can see.  It also simply won’t work for many forms of piracy Castro complains about.  ISPs with usage caps go out of their way to note even the most draconian limits still allow thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of songs to be downloaded — legal or otherwise.  Castro testified e-published books are now increasingly vulnerable to piracy, content compact and easy to obtain even with usage limits.  Combating websites dealing in counterfeit goods with usage limits isn’t even worth trying.

What Castro’s proposal will do is limit access to the growing amount of legitimate online video traffic.  While the author cites statistics that “one in four bits of traffic traveling on the Internet today is infringing content,” (taken from a report commissioned by NBC-Universal, who has a major interest in this battle) he ignores other facts.  Namely, more than three-quarters of all broadband traffic is legal and legitimate.  Nearly 20 percent of primetime broadband traffic is coming from companies like Netflix who are in the business of providing a legal alternative to video piracy.

Castro’s argument on usage caps simply falls apart: ISPs, who have never been particularly interested in being the enforcement divisions for Hollywood studios, should be given the right to limit broadband usage and raise prices to combat piracy even when most of that traffic heads for legitimate websites?

Public Enemy #1 for Content Theft circa 1981: The $1,400 VCR

Online piracy enforcement should not involve Internet Overcharging schemes, and arguments that it should only illustrate why so many consumers and public interest groups get nervous about industry-proposed enforcement mechanisms.  Too often, they ignore presumption of innocence before guilt, browbeat alleged offenders into settlements to avoid costly litigation — guilty or not, and turn over policing to an industry with a long track record of overreach to protect their business interests. The record speaks for itself:

• Demands to ban videotape recorders in the 1970s and early 1980s for “piracy reasons”;
• Tax cassettes and video tapes to cover alleged piracy losses in the 1980s;
• Tax blank digital media in the 1990s because of “rampant piracy”;
• Impose monthly “piracy recovery surcharges” on broadband users in the 2000s;

Now the industry wants to police the piracy problem on its own terms.  As before, the proposed solutions are worse than the problem.

Back to the future.  In 1981, ABC’s Nightline ran this report on the entertainment industry suing a VCR owner, retailers, and manufacturers for piracy over taping a television station with a videocassette recorder.  The concern in 1981 — technology was moving faster than copyright law could keep up.  Many of the yesterday’s players are part of today’s debate, including Universal, the company that purchased research indicting 20 percent of all Internet traffic as “illegal.” (Part 1 of 3 – 9 minutes – Courtesy WEWS-TV Cleveland, ABC News, and ‘videoholic1980s’)

Today’s piracy debate rehashes the same accusations of content theft, only the technology has changed.  One executive tells the Nightline audience he’s offended at being told the industry already earns enough.  The movie and television industry predicted calamity over the VCR more than 30 years ago, saying it would cost them billions in lost profits.  Hollywood eventually lost the argument against the VCR and their businesses turned out fine, earning billions in revenue selling videotapes of movies and television shows to consumers they were willing to sue just a few years earlier. (Part 2 of 3 – 9 minutes)

Before Washington is asked to join the panic-frenzy over online piracy, perhaps they should recall the same predictions of doom and gloom made by many of the same companies — predictions that were overstated.  Imagine if they had succeeded in banning the VCR?  Indeed, just as before, Hollywood stands to earn billions online when they make their content available for easy, legal viewing at a reasonable price.  Slapping usage limits on broadband consumers is the worst idea ever to promote legal viewing of digital content because it discourages customers from shopping for it.  (Part 3 of 3 – 4 minutes)

Wonder Twins: AT&T and Wall Street team up to support Internet Overcharging. "Shape of usage caps, form of ripping broadband users off."

The Wall Street Journal has left its readers with the impression America is the last bastion of the unlimited, all you can use, broadband plan.

In a story for the Dow Jones Newswires, Roger Cheng reports AT&T’s imposition of data caps and other Internet Overcharging schemes “is the latest step taken to get people out of the mindset that online access is an all-you-can-eat buffet. It’s part of a broader shift by companies on both the wireless and fixed-line sides to get consumers comfortable with a usage-based pricing model, in line with how the service is delivered elsewhere around the world.”

But that statement is provably inaccurate.  In fact, usage limits and so-called “usage-based pricing” is a phenomenon growing mostly in under-competitive markets in North America.

As Stop the Cap! has reported over the past few years, while the rest of the world is moving away from these usage-limited plans, providers in the United States and Canada are seeking to impose them to boost profits and monetize broadband traffic.  Some are even exploring charging you based on individual web applications and websites visited.

At the same time Korea is moving towards delivering 1Gbps unlimited broadband to every resident by 2013, American providers are trying to limit the broadband party to protect their own business interests.  In Canada, AT&T’s counterpart Bell was caught distorting the record on why it wanted to cease unlimited access, eventually admitting it was about getting users to reduce usage, particularly of video services which compete against its own pay television product.  Shaw Cable was caught lowering usage allowances when the threat of Netflix arrived in Canada.  So did Rogers Cable.

Around the world, usage-limited broadband is either yesterday’s story, or will be soon:

• The Philippines fought off unjustified efforts to impose usage limits on broadband service to boost provider profits.  So did Malaysia.
• Australian providers forced to impose caps because of undersea fiber capacity issues are relaxing them as capacity increases.
• Australia’s government has made abolishing data caps a national priority with its National Broadband Network, because they harm innovation and entrepreneurship.
• In New Zealand, providers and government officials have made it clear, “we hate data caps,” and they are benefiting from new underseas fiber that will eliminate them once and for all;
• In South Africa, MWEB abolished usage limits and now waits for additional underseas cable projects to finish before boosting speeds.
• Just this week, BT in the United Kingdom joined a parade of other providers eliminating usage caps on its broadband service.

Make no mistake: every survey ever conducted on this issue shows consumers loathe Internet Overcharging schemes and prefer unlimited access usage plans, particularly for wired broadband:

• In Europe, where unlimited access plans are already available on the wired side, consumers there now want limits also lifted on mobile networks;
• In the United States, Americans despise usage capped broadband;
• Another survey shows usage caps alienate providers’ best customers;

South Africa adopts unlimited Internet.

It’s no wonder telecommunications companies rival big banks among the Wall Street Cheat Sheet’s 18 Most Hated Companies.  Among the despised: AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Cable and Charter Communications.

Why?  Pricing and usage caps are covered among the reasons.

Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Wall Street analysts joined AT&T’s chorus claiming such usage capped broadband was the wave of the future:

1. DISTORTED CLAIM: “All-you-can-eat is a uniquely American service,” said Dan Hays, who covers telecom for consultancy PRTM. Consumers, who have enjoyed years of flat-rate pricing for Internet, may have a hard time accepting limits on their landline service, analysts said.
2. BROKEN RECORD: “We expect the cable operators to follow AT&T’s move by introducing pricing plans that include caps for lower end packages,” said Craig Moffett, analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Moffett said the logical reaction to more cord-cutting would be usage-based pricing.

Hays is provably wrong on his claim unlimited access is “uniquely American.”

Moffett said precisely the same thing in December (and earlier) when Net Neutrality was halfheartedly adopted at the FCC.  He had called for these pricing schemes in the past and will continue to do so.

Both of these analysts work for companies who favor the higher profits Internet Overcharging will bring providers (and their investing clients), so it’s no surprise both are willing to cheerlead price hikes.  But readers are left in the dark as both are quoted with the impression they are independent observers with no interest in the outcome.

As for the impact on consumers, nobody from the Wall Street Journal bothered to talk to any to find out.

What AT&T has proven, yet again, is that American broadband is moving backwards to enhance their profits as the rest of the world advances.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/North Carolina Community Networks Best Broadband.flv[/flv]

Despite provider-financed arguments in opposition of North Carolina’s community broadband networks, here is a fact incumbent cable and phone companies simply cannot argue with: Fibrant and GreenLight deliver far better broadband service with the fastest speeds in the state, all without slowdowns or Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits.  (4 minutes)