Flag of New Zealand

Despite broadband provider propaganda designed to convince Americans restrictions on broadband usage were “commonplace” and well tolerated overseas, a group of New Zealand and Australian broadband entrepreneurs propose to spend just under $900NZ million to build new fiber capacity to help eliminate them once and for all.

A team of businessmen from the South Pacific today announced they are part of “an early stage” venture to construct a brand new underseas fiber optic cable to connect Australia and New Zealand with the United States, providing five times the capacity of existing service provided by the Southern Cross system.

The new group, Pacific Fibre, went public today and is talking with potential partners about the plan to construct a 13,000 kilometer cable by 2013.

Mark Rushworth, former Vodafone chief marketing officer, told TV New Zealand a full 90 percent of New Zealand Internet traffic is bound for the United States.

“It is using the most direct route. It is one hop from New Zealand to the US, which from a technical perspective is very important because it means it is a lower latency cable, that is, it is faster than other cables,” he said.

Flag of Australia

The primary impetus for the project was the common practice in New Zealand and Australia to limit customers’ usage of broadband service with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage-based billing or restrictive data caps which can throttle speeds just above dial-up for customers for weeks, if they exceed their usage allowance.

Rushworth

Private providers have lived happily on the revenue earned from such schemes and have done little to relax usage limits on their customers, so Pacific Fibre decided to undertake a game-changing new fiber cable themselves to drive prices down and eliminate the caps.

“We desperately need a cable that is not purely based on profit maximization, but on delivering unconstrained international bandwidth to everybody, and so we’ve decided to see whether we can do it ourselves,” said partner Sam Morgan.

“We hope to bring in extra capacity at a low price, which our carriers and ISP customers can end up passing on to their customers,” Rushworth said.

“We all know that in any market as soon as you introduce competition prices tend to drop and volume goes up,” he told TVNZ.

The current proposed cable configuration would have two fiber pairs with 64 wavelengths (lambdas) each at 40 gigabits per second per lambda. The maximum lit capacity initially would be 5.12 terabits per second, but would be upgradeable to over 12 terabits per second as emerging technology became a reality.

Rogers Communications Monday began their latest Internet Overcharging scheme on Canadian broadband customers — they’ve doubled the maximum overlimit penalty from $25 to $50 for customers who exceed the cable company’s arbitrary broadband usage allowances.

It’s a fact of life for anyone living with a provider that wants to charge too much for broadband service.  Like the credit card industry, the tricks and traps keep on coming as providers seek to monetize everything they can to extract as much money from customers as possible.

For some providers like Bell, the trick is to gradually reduce your usage allowance, exposing more and more customers to overlimit fees (the company even sells an insurance plan to protect you from their audacious pricing).  For others, the fee trap comes from gradually increasing the maximum overlimit fee until there is no maximum.

Rogers has chosen the latter method, effectively passing through massive rate increases for Canadians that dare to use too much.

Originally, Rogers Extreme service was priced at $60 a month for 10/1 Mbps service with a 95 GB cap.  Customers who traditionally exceeded that paid $1.50 per gigabyte in overlimit fees.  With a $25 maximum penalty, many customers just accepted the fee as their ticket to unlimited broadband.  Now, Rogers has conceded a quarter to customers, lowering the per gigabyte penalty rate to $1.25.  But for customers who still regularly exceed their allowance, the charges really add up.  That $60 a month now balloons to $110 per month for exactly the same unlimited service customers used to enjoy for less.

That forces customers like the Globe & Mail’s Michael Snider to make some choices:

1. Reduce usage — a win for Rogers and broadband rationing for him;
2. Upgrade to a higher tier service plan to get a better allowance — a win for Rogers and a higher bill for Snider.  Extreme Plus has an allowance of 125 GB, just a 30 GB difference, for an additional $10 a month;
3. Grin and bear it — a win for Rogers and a future that guarantees him bigger bills indefinitely.

This is the type of move that may force customers who regularly approach or exceed their cap to seriously consider upgrading their service package.If that’s part of Rogers’ plan, it worked.

I just bumped up my service from Extreme to Extreme Plus (if you do the same, inquire about the promotion that offers $20 off Internet for the first six months if you lock in for a year — that’s upgrading only). So now, I’ll be getting 25-Mb download speeds (still a measly 1-Mb upload, though) and a cap of 125 GB a month and, once the promotion ends, will be paying $14 a month more ($10 for the service and $7 for the modem rather than $3).

Call me a sucker, but twice in the past year I have exceeded my 95 GB cap and paid an extra $25 on my bill — once after backing up several gigs on an online backup service and once after downloading a few movies on my Xbox.

But Snider also faces, by design, the one-two punch of Internet Overcharging schemes.  Not only do they fatten provider profits, they also discourage him from using his broadband service, fearing a higher bill.  Even better, they discourage cord-cutting — relying on your broadband service and dropping your cable-TV package.

I am discovering that I’m actually limiting my consumption of some totally legitimate services because I’ve no desire to pay extra on my Rogers bill at the end of the month.

Take for example Microsoft Xbox’s movie service. After waiting for what seemed eons for some kind of a legit movie download service, I finally have access to one that has a list of movies that I’d actually like to see, but it’s proving too expensive to really enjoy it regularly. Reason is, downloading an HD movie eats up more than 11 GB of my bandwidth — more than 10% of my monthly allotment (before I upgraded) for one freaking movie. That goes for games too. It seems as though distributors are leaning more and more to online delivery, but at 6 or 8 GB per game, again, that eats up a lot of bandwidth.

Being the gatekeeper for broadband distribution and also being a content distributor has its advantages.  If the competition starts getting too hot and heavy, locking down the distribution platform guarantees no competitor will ever get the best of you.

Whatever you do, don't turn off this modem, despite the fact you're paying for traffic it receives 24/7. Unplugging a cable modem could "damage it" according to Rogers.

Rogers claims its all about costs from increased broadband consumption, but one look at their pricing scheme proves that wrong.  Rogers reserves the biggest penalties of all for its lightest-use customers.  Those on Rogers Ultra-Lite tier suffer with barely-broadband speeds of 500/256 kbps with a usage limit of just 2 GB for a ridiculous $27.99 per month.  The penalty rate for customers who can hardly be described as “power users” is a whopping $5 per gigabyte.  They pay more because they impact the network more?  How does that work?

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the agency responsible for oversight of telecommunications services in Canada is no help.  They’ve become a de facto telecom industry trade association, rubber-stamping approval of whatever providers want.  The result is expensive, usage-limited, speed-throttled broadband service across the country.

What can you do to control your monthly broadband bill Rogers wants to raise?  Their advice is basically to use less of the broadband service you paid good money to get.  Oh, and despite the fact whenever your cable modem is powered on you are bombarded with constant traffic which eats into your allowance, whatever you do, don’t leave it unplugged — it will “damage it.”  From Rogers Internet FAQ:

We STRONGLY recommend that you do not turn off your modem when you are away from home. Your cable modem has been designed to remain powered at all times. Regularly turning it off and on may result in damage to your cable modem.

…and damage to our profits.

Oregon's telephone company service areas

Frontier Communications has won approval to assume control of telephone lines serving 310,000 Oregonians.

The Oregon Public Utilities Commission Friday unanimously approved the transfer of service from Verizon to Frontier as part of a 14-state transaction.

“First and foremost we want to ensure that customers are not harmed by this transaction.  That’s why we are requiring more than 50 conditions, all aimed at making sure customers are not harmed by this sale,” Chairman Lee Beyer said. “In addition, we are requiring Frontier Communications to spend $25 million on expanding high-speed internet access to its Oregon customers by July 2013.”

In return for approval, Frontier agreed to PUC demands for customer service protections:

• A commitment that Frontier spend at least $25 million to expand high-speed broadband in Oregon by July 2013;
• No changes in “commission-regulated” retail service plans for at least three years;
• Costs of the transition must not be paid by customers in the form of rate increases;
• 90-day window to change long distance carrier without any fees;
• An independent audit, paid for by Verizon, to ensure Frontier can handle service for those customers affected by the deal;
• An opt-out provision letting Oregon’s FiOS subscribers terminate their contracts without penalty if Frontier reduces Internet speeds or drops any of its television channels.

What is missing from Oregon’s agreement?

• A prohibition of Internet Overcharging schemes like Frontier’s 5 gigabyte “acceptable use” policy that potentially limits customer’s broadband use.  Expanded broadband that customers can only use for basic web browsing and e-mail, without fear of exceeding the limit, indefinitely punishes rural Oregonians with no broadband alternatives;
• A specific definition of what constitutes “broadband” speeds.  Frontier can continue to deliver the 1-3 Mbps it routinely provides to its less urban service areas.  While better than nothing, Oregon regulators could have used the deal as leverage to win 21st century broadband speeds from Frontier, not yesterday’s ‘barely broadband;’
• Fines and penalties that will punish a provider that does not invest appropriately in high service standards to provide quality service, and a trigger to permit automatic cancellation of operating certificates should Frontier go bankrupt.

Too many of these deals offer upsides for Wall Street and little benefit to consumers, especially those dependent on their landline phone company for basic communications services.  By forcing requirements that prove costly for a provider to renege on, investors will understand their gains will only happen when they are assured Frontier is doing right by their customers, as well as their shareholders.

Oregon is the sixth state to approve the sale.

Frontier currently serves only 12,000 customers in the state, mostly in southwest Oregon, including the communities of Azalea, Canyonville, Cave Junction, Days Creek, Glendale, Myrtle Creek, O’Brien, Riddle, Selma, and Wolf Creek.

The company’s new customers will come mostly from Washington County, east Multnomah County, and from several pockets of customers in the northwestern part of the state.  Oregon’s largest telephone provider is Qwest Communications, but the state has numerous smaller independent providers as well.

Charter customers thank the company for the speed increases

Charter Cable has made it clear — no metered billing and no enforcement of its “soft usage caps.”

“We have no plans to introduce metered billing,” Ketzer told Broadband Reports, adding no trials were forthcoming either.

But Charter Cable did say bandwidth consumption is a concern for the company, and a measurement tool to educate customers about their current usage was on the way.

“Right now we are gathering requirements to develop a resource so that customers can monitor and control their bandwidth resources,” said Ketzer. “This was something that our customers have been requesting and we want to meet that need.”

Separately, Charter also announced speed upgrades for many of its broadband customers.  Starting this morning, customers can briefly unplug their cable modems to reset them and enjoy some increased speeds at no additional cost.

Charter's old speed tiers (shown above) got an upgrade this morning. Prices quoted are for new customers. Existing customers: add $15 -- Internet Only customers: add $25

The new speed increases impact three of their broadband plans.  Only “Lite” speeds remain unchanged:

• Lite: Remains the same at “up to” 1 Mbps/128 kbps
• Express: Increases from 5/1 Mbps to 8/1 Mbps
• Plus: Increases from 10/2 Mbps to 16/2 Mbps
• Max: Increases from 20/2 Mbps to 25/3 Mbps

Charter advises Max customers will need to exchange their current cable modem to receive the new speeds.  They come as a result of DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which requires a modem that supports that standard.

Some Charter customers can go even faster with the company’s Ultra60 plan delivering 60/5Mbps service for $139.99 a month.  Customer promotions, typically running six months, can cut the cost to $109.99 during the promotional period.

Increasing speeds and shelving Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits and usage-based billing build customer loyalty and bring new customers, particularly at the expense of telephone company DSL plans, which cannot compete on speed.  Most DSL providers have stopped increasing speeds beyond the maximum 6-10 Mbps they have advertised for years.  Many barely deliver 3 Mbps.

AT&T, which provides service in many Charter markets, has raised the stakes for competition as it rolls out U-verse, an advanced type of DSL service that can support video, telephone, and faster broadband.  In Reno, where AT&T has conducted usage cap experiments for more than a year, the news that Charter won’t comes as welcome news.

Stop the Cap! reader David canceled AT&T service when he found out the company was testing a usage cap in Reno.

“When we found out they were limiting us (after we signed up), we not only canceled AT&T broadband, but also disconnected our two phone lines as well,” David writes.  “We won’t do business with a company that wants to limit our broadband use and we resented being guinea pigs in the first place.”

David adds a “retention specialist” offered to waive his participation in the trial, but he wasn’t interested and is not looking back.

“Unless you deliver a clear message these ripoffs are unacceptable in a way they understand – money – they will just come back for more once the ‘experiment’ is over,” he said.

David is happy with his Charter Cable service, and estimates AT&T’s experiment cost them nearly $200 a month in revenue they used to earn from his family.

“Their cost control program certainly worked — for me.  I’m saving more money with Charter than what I was paying AT&T,” he adds. “I wouldn’t have switched except for their usage cap.”

Charter itself has some broadband usage limits, but they are almost never enforced.

Charter currently defines “normal” residential usage at around 15 gigabytes per month.  Charter’s usage allowances appear in its “excessive use” clause in the Acceptable Use Policy:

Residential service usage will not exceed 100GB of bandwidth per month for Customers subscribing to Services of 15 Mbps or less per month and 250GB of bandwidth per month for Customers subscribing to Service over 15 Mbps and up to 25 Mbps. Charter reserves the right to revise usage limits or to implement additional usage limits. In the event residential usage exceeds the above-described limits Customer will be notified and required to either limit Customer’s bandwidth consumption to permitted levels/limits or subscribe to a Service with a higher monthly bandwidth limit if a higher limit subscription is available.

Since these limits have not been aggressively enforced, they are known as “soft usage caps.”  Most Internet Service Providers have provisions for such limits in their customer agreements, although they are usually only enforced only when a customer’s usage reaches into the stratosphere (often terabytes of usage are involved) or creates a problem for the provider.

Still, some customers dropped Charter Cable even over the defined “soft caps,” switching to competitors who had no such provisions in their usage policies.  Consumers hate Internet Overcharging schemes, and will readily change providers to avoid them.

[flv width=”500″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Charter Thank You Ad 3-1-2010.flv[/flv]

Charter Cable created this ad from customer recorded submissions sent over their Internet service (1 minute)

Mark Cuban

Mark Cuban has once again entered the debate over online video, Internet Overcharging schemes, and giant corporate mergers… and mangled it.

Cuban, who owns HD Net as well as the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, occasionally presents cable industry talking points on his blog, but quickly gets into trouble when he strays from them.

This time, Cuban is annoyed with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) over remarks the senator made about the proposed Comcast-NBC merger.  Cuban seized on comments by Franken that Comcast should put all of its television programming online.  Doing that, Cuban insists, would lead to higher prices for broadband and usage caps on it.

Where has Cuban been?  I realize the man is too wealthy to worry about the relentless rate increases Comcast and other companies force on consumers every year, but he also forgot Comcast already has a usage cap on its service, even before the feared video tidal wave arrives.

I get that no one really cares if Comcast has to spend money on capital improvements to add bandwidth to the home.  They should. Its pretty damn stupid to push consumption in a direction that will raise internet rates  to receive the same content for which there is already a phenomenal digital network in place to deliver that content.

Think about it for a minute Senator Franken. Comcast, and every large TV Provider has a digital network in place that can and does deliver gigabits of tv content perfectly,  every second of every day, to any TV set in any  home that is connected to their network. It works. Well.  What you are asking Sen Franken, is that Comcast duplicate the delivery of theirs and NBCUniversals shows on a network, the internet,  that is not, and has never been designed to handle the delivery of huge volumes of video and tv shows.

Cuban should be arguing that point with the cable industry.  TV Everywhere, the online video platform that will offer consumers access to “hundreds of TV shows and cable programming,” is their invention.  If Cuban’s fears are correct, why would the nation’s largest cable operators launch such an ambitious online video platform?

Cuban has bought into industry propaganda justifying usage caps.  There is always an excuse for rationing broadband service to boost profits.  First it was file sharing, now it’s online video causing the “serious problem” of customers using broadband service for more than just e-mail and web browsing.  Their solution – monetize it.  Usage caps and usage based billing are about preserving high profits, not protecting or increasing network capacity.  TV Everywhere proves that.

Franken does not advocate usage caps, as Cuban suggests.  The senator simply wants to be certain Comcast cannot act as a gatekeeper, determining who gets access to Comcast-NBC programming, and who does not.

Cuban should be welcome to such measures as a victim of Gatekeeper Abuse himself.  Mark, how many subscribers did you lose nationwide when Time Warner Cable unilaterally pulled the plug on your channels?