unlimited

Main Entry: un·lim·it·ed
Pronunciation: \-ˈli-mə-təd\
Function: adjective

1 : lacking any controls : unrestricted <unlimited access>
2 : boundless, infinite <unlimited possibilities>
3 : not bounded by exceptions : undefined <the unlimited and unconditional surrender of the enemy — Sir Winston Churchill>

An Alaskan Internet service provider is baffling its broadband customers with a blizzard of BS regarding just how unlimited its “unlimited” service plans really are.

A Stop the Cap! reader in The Last Frontier drops us a note to alert us of yet another provider trying to pull a fast one on its customers.

GCI markets cable-TV, telephone and broadband service in larger communities across many parts of the state.  Its broadband service, dubbed “Xtreme,” offer DSL-like speeds at a significant price premium over what users in the lower 48 pay for Internet access.

Since 2007, our reader writes, GCI offered customers a deal.  In return for letting the company provide all of your telecommunications needs — cable, phone, and Internet, GCI would provide you with unlimited broadband service.  The triple-play package was sold for at least $80 a month, and many customers agreed to the bundled route to avoid GCI’s restrictive, data-capped plans sold to its broadband-only customers.

GCI is now reneging on its end of the deal thanks to a creative redefinition of the word “unlimited.”  For the convenience of those who may be English-challenged, Stop the Cap! has provided the Merriam-Webster definition of the word “unlimited” above, which hasn’t changed much since its first use in the 15th century.

Broadband providers like GCI think they are clever enough to change all that.

Much to the chagrin of GCI’s bundled customers, the company unfairly slapped a “Fair Access Policy” on all of its unlimited customers on April 1st.  Customers started receiving usage warnings this spring, which came as quite a surprise for an “unlimited” service plan.  But the company insists it hasn’t limited its “unlimited” plans at all:

GCI offers some cable modem Internet service plans with “unlimited downloads”, meaning GCI does not bill customers additional fees for usage in a given month.

Actually, that isn’t the meaning of “unlimited” at all, no matter how much the company wishes it was.  Again, see the definition above.

In fact, even using GCI’s own definition, nonsensical as it is, it isn’t reality-based either.

Customers who exceed the arbitrary limits GCI determines as “fair,” could be subjected to higher pricing.  GCI’s website currently lists the overlimit fee starting at an impenetrable $0.005 per megabyte, which sounds pretty low until you realize it’s $5.00 per gigabyte, which is significantly higher than what most other naughty cappers charge.  On slower speed plans, GCI’s overlimit fee is a whopping $0.03 per megabyte — $30 per gigabyte.

What happens when you overuse your GCI unlimited Internet?  GCI will contact you to discuss your account and then ask you to agree to either reduce usage or pay additional fees for usage in a given month.

GCI loves to make its limits look mighty big by representing them in megabytes instead of the more commonly used gigabyte measurement.  They also include the usual comparisons: over 10,000 web pages, 250,000 e-mails, 1,000 pictures, etc.  On the lower speed plans, GCI avoids defining the far-smaller allowances for higher bandwidth services like near-DVD HD video streaming some Alaskan families may want to use during those cold and dark Alaskan winter evenings.

Here are the limits GCI assigns to its “unlimited” service plans:

That’s usage ranging from 40-100 gigabytes.  What this illustrates yet again is that Internet Overcharging schemes are ridiculously arbitrary.  A provider in rural Alaska defines “fair” use of its slowest speed “unlimited” broadband tier (3 Mbps/512 Kbps for $45 a month) at 40 gigabytes.  Meanwhile, Frontier Communications considers it fair to define its DSL service usage allowance at just 5 gigabytes per month.  Comcast says 250 gigabytes a month is fair.  AT&T’s wireless smartphone data plan now carries a 2 gigabyte limit AT&T claims is about right.

As is also commonly the case among Internet Overchargers, any unused allowances do not “roll over” to the next month.

GCI considers anyone exceeding these limits engaged in continuous high-volume data transfers, extensive use of streaming video and peer-to-peer file sharing programs, or using an unsecured wireless signal everyone in the neighborhood has hopped on to use.  But just backing up your family computer through an online backup service over a month could easily put you over these limits.  If a “mutually agreed on” solution cannot be reached to either limit your use or increase your price, GCI will show you the door.

Essentially, GCI hobbles its broadband service plans by imposing limits on services that could challenge some of its other products.  For standalone broadband customers, GCI builds in plenty of protection against customers potentially using its Internet service to bypass its cable and phone offerings, despite some recent speed and usage allowance increases.  How much online viewing will you feel safe doing on some of these Internet service plans:

Monthly service fees

Our reader in Alaska thinks the usage limits are unjustified considering GCI’s capacity, and its prices:

GCI has well over 600 Gigabits of capacity across two undersea fiber optic cables.
Since 2007, the only way to get an unlimited download option for the company’s various speed tiers was through its bundled packages.  With the new limit on “unlimited” downloads, GCI fraudulently misrepresents its service to Alaskans.

GCI is the poster child for the cable industry’s push for metered billing. I think you’re well aware that cable companies view metered billing as an anti-competitive solution to fend off emerging competition from online content providers like Hulu and Netflix Online. Time Warner backed down when confronted with the possibility of regulation for the entire industry. They will however try again if companies like GCI continue to have success over a long term. This is why it’s imperative that groups like Stop the Cap! fight beyond your region and get regulation passed to bar forced bundling and data transfer limits entirely. Content providers (video services) should be separate entities from network providers (ISPs). It’s the only way to keep rates low and businesses competitive. Thank you for keeping up the good fight.

Apple's iPhone 4

As expected, Steve Jobs introduced America to the new Apple iPhone 4 today at Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco.  Karl Bode at Broadband Reports did a great summary on what’s new, so I won’t reinvent the wheel:

As everyone had expected, Apple just announced the long-awaited iPhone 4. According to his Jobsness, the phone is 24% thinner than the iPhone 3GS and as expected has a more powerful primary 5MP camera with flash — and a new camera on the front that will be used primarily for video chat. The phone’s stainless steel frame (sandwiched by glass) is being partially used as an antenna, something that may prove helpful for connectivity issues.

Other specs: Dual mics, 802.11n WiFi, GPS, compass, accelerometer, Quad band HSDPA (7.2Mbps), gyroscope (perfect for gaming, insists Jobs). The company says they’ve also improved the device’s battery. It can now handle 7 hours of 3G talk, 6 hours of 3G browsing, 10 hours of Wi-Fi browsing, 10 hours of video, or 40 hours of music. The phone also records HD video (720p at 30fps, insists Steve), and the new flash will stay on during video recording.

Amusingly, Apple ran into network connectivity issues while trying to demonstrate the phone’s higher resolution screen (join the club, Jobs). According to Apple, the phone comes in white or black, with the 16GB version costing $199 and the 32GB version costing $299. The phone will be available on June 24, with pre-orders beginning on June 15.

Karl also notes, as others have confirmed with us, AT&T is so eager to get this new phone into your hands (along with a new two-year contract), they are waiving the usual two-year waiting period before customers can upgrade their phones.  If your contract expires anytime this year, you can obtain the phone at the subsidized price.

But should you?

For many, the iPhone 4 will represent an incremental upgrade, especially if you aren’t a power user.  In this economy, is it worth $200-300 for a new phone and a new service commitment?

The upgrade for current customers, who can keep their unlimited data plan, may make sense -if- you receive tolerable service from AT&T and feel the latest phone would directly benefit you.  You should consider, however, that signing a new contract will lock you into another two year marriage with the company that drove more Americans crazy with bad service, dropped calls, slow data, and irritating customer service than any other.  A divorce will cost you up to $325 per phone. Their 3G coverage isn’t all that, either.

It also gives the company that loves to cap more of your money.

Unfortunately, waiting for the iPhone to arrive at Verizon Wireless is increasingly less likely to be a panacea for AT&T’s Internet Overchargitis.  That’s because AT&T and Verizon are the Mary Had a Little Lamb of big telecom:

Everywhere that AT&T went,
AT&T went, AT&T went,
Everywhere that AT&T went
Verizon was sure to go.

It’s a safe bet that by the time Verizon brings forth the coveted iPhone, it will have an Internet Overcharging scheme matching AT&T’s.

If you are seeking to upgrade to a smartphone, it’s increasingly likely you’ll find a better deal with Sprint or T-Mobile, both of which have no plans for AT&T’s pricing schemes.

The best way to get a company like Verizon or AT&T to pay attention is to avoid their products when they charge too much.  A dramatic reduction in demand for AT&T’s iPhone among new customers, for example, would send a clear message to Wall Street that their love of usage caps is hurting shareholder value in a big way.  They follow the money.  If existing customers hang on to their $30 unlimited plans while other customers head elsewhere to avoid AT&T’s Internet rationing, you’ll see an overnight conversion among many industry players suddenly demanding a return to the unlimited buffet.

Or better yet, how about giving every customer a choice of both types of plans — pay less for limited service or pay today’s prices for unlimited.

[flv width=”636″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Apple – iPhone 4 6-2010.mp4[/flv]

Apple proclaims the arrival of iPhone 4, calling it a revolutionary upgrade.  Apple released this video showcasing iPhone 4’s video capabilities that AT&T has now effectively hobbled with a wireless Internet rationing plan that punishes customers who try to use the phone’s new features.  (6 minutes)

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt told Wall Street the company is backing AT&T’s decision to cease unlimited access to its wireless data services.

“In most businesses when usage goes up, that’s a good thing because people pay more,” Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable’s chief executive officer, said at a Sanford C. Bernstein Wall Street investor conference Friday in New York. “It’s going to get the industry better aligned with consumer behavior.”

But Britt also said AT&T’s decision was “more sensible than when we did it,” referring to the company’s April 2009 aborted experiment to charge customers up to three times as much for broadband service with a consumption billing scheme that got a hostile response from consumers.

Britt was speaking about the network capacity constraints that wireless data networks have that do not compare with the much wider pipeline available to wired provides like Time Warner Cable.  Britt cited AT&T’s still-exclusive iPhone as being the single most significant factor in AT&T’s decision.

Britt told Business Week that “at the time” consumption “pricing was needed to maintain the expense and expansion of the network.”

But consumer advocates suggested the company targeted its overcharging experiment in cities where customers didn’t have strong competitive alternatives.  That was particularly the case in Rochester, N.Y. and Greensboro, N.C., where alternative broadband meant significantly slower telephone company DSL service.  In the case of Rochester, that service included a monthly 5GB usage allowance in Frontier Communications’ Acceptable Use Policy.

Without equivalent competing alternatives, broadband consumers would be trapped in a broadband backwater with significantly worse service than neighboring cities.

Despite Britt’s acknowledgment that his company backed off because of strong consumer opposition, he’s still willing to talk about bringing the overcharging scheme back, telling Business Week, “Exactly how it works and what the PR around it will be is something we can talk about.”

[Note: We will have some audio up soon. — Editor]

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY)

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-New York) has begun to worry broadband consumers in his western and central New York district.

In April 2009, when Time Warner Cable’s announced Internet Overcharging experiment was upsetting customers in Rochester, Maffei claimed he was concerned about limiting broadband usage for customers in the area.  But when former Rep. Eric Massa introduced legislation to ban unjustified usage caps and consumption billing, Maffei told his constituents he wasn’t interested in Massa’s approach:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act was introduced by Representative Eric Massa (NY-29) on June 16, 2009, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill would authorize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review volume usage service plans of major broadband internet service providers to ensure that such plans are fairly based on cost.

When Time Warner Cable announced in April that Rochester would be used as a test market for charging Internet users based upon consumption usage, I, along with Representative Massa, opposed this policy. We helped persuade Time Warner to abandon the plan in the area. At that time, Representative Massa also introduced the Broadband Internet Fairness Act.

Other utilities, like water or electricity, charge customers based on usage, but Internet users have traditionally been charged a flat fee for unlimited access to the web. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act would require Internet Service Providers that want to implement usage-based pricing plans to go through several traditional regulatory hurdles. While I share many of the goals of Representative Massa’s legislation, I do not believe passing this stand-alone bill is the right approach at this time.

Of course broadband is nothing like water or electric utilities.  In fact, Maffei’s inclusion of that reference is a classic talking point of the telecom industry.  Notice they, and Maffei, didn’t mention telephone service — the one utility that provides flat rate calling for most Americans.  It also happens to be the utility most comparable to broadband service!

New York's 25th Congressional District

But Maffei made a bad situation worse when he joined 72 other House Democrats co-signing a letter from Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T), urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to fight a court decision overturning the agency’s ability to conduct broadband oversight.

The letter represented one giant talking point — the false premise that enforcing a fair, free, and open Internet with Net Neutrality would somehow stifle investment in broadband expansion.  Yet AT&T was required to honor the very same principles when it merged with SBC, and managed to remain a multi-billion dollar powerhouse well positioned to expand broadband service to additional customers in its ever-growing service areas.

The fact the broadband industry is a duopoly for most Americans — one that can threaten to pull back on service if it doesn’t get its way in Washington — is just one more reason the industry requires more oversight, not less.

Yet Rep. Maffei stood alone as the only member of the western New York Congressional delegation to sign his name to the agenda of big cable and phone companies.

Perhaps the congressman has forgotten these facts which trouble broadband consumers across western and central New York:

• Rochester, NY was the only city in the northeast where Time Warner sought to conduct an Internet Overcharging experiment, made possible because of limited competition in the Rochester market;
• Rochester’s other broadband provider, Frontier Communications, insists on a monthly usage allowance of just 5GB per month in its Acceptable Use Policy;
• Verizon FiOS has suspended expansion indefinitely and the service will never be available in most of the 585 area code where Frontier operates, and it will take years for most of the rest of his Syracuse district to see the service reach those areas;
• Time Warner Cable increased its broadband rates in 2010, as did Verizon;

Green’s letter dances around the real issue — telecommunications companies are spending millions to oppose pro-consumer reforms and stop a return of oversight authority the FCC lost after a recent court decision.  Without this authority, the FCC cannot implement the National Broadband Plan’s insistence that American providers not block or impede network traffic.  These Net Neutral policies preserve net freedom.  The FCC cannot even require that providers tell the truth about broadband speeds and include the company’s terms of service in plain English.

Western New York is a hotbed of consumer activism on broadband issues, particularly because we are actual victims of provider abuse.  No one knows more than we how critical 21st century broadband is to the transformation of this region’s perennially challenged economy.

Rep. Maffei needs a reminder this is a hot button issue for consumers from Irondequoit to Manlius.  Perhaps he just doesn’t fully understand what’s at stake here.  You need to remind him.

We’ve included a suggested letter you can use to help write your own.  For maximum effectiveness, include some of your own personal stories, challenges, and frustrations with your local broadband provider.  Feel free to share yours in the Comments section.

Dear Rep. Maffei:

I was extremely disappointed to discover you signed your name on a letter written by Rep. Gene Green urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to restore oversight authority over broadband.  While Rep. Green’s letter illustrates he’s mostly concerned about the well being of AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Comcast, as a consumer I am more concerned about the broadband duopoly that exists in Rochester & Syracuse.

If the FCC does not regain its ability to oversee broadband by reclassifying it under Title II — as a telecommunications service (which it very clearly is), the FCC can effectively do nothing to stop broadband provider abuses, such as Comcast’s notorious speed throttle on customers using certain Internet websites and services. It took an FCC investigation to finally get the cable company to admit the truth — it was interfering with customers’ broadband speeds.  The oversight power the agency had was just what was needed to convince Comcast to stop.

Unfortunately, a DC Circuit Court recently disagreed it had that authority and effectively stripped it away.  Chairman Genachowski is simply seeking a return to the status quo before that court decision was handed down.  He’s not asking to regulate broadband anything like telephone service.  In fact, he’s insisted on a “light touch.”  That’s better than today’s court-imposed total-hands-off reality.

By signing Rep. Green’s letter, you effectively tell us you don’t support Net Neutrality protections that guarantee providers cannot censor or impede web traffic.  You also do nothing to protect consumers from other provider abuses.  Considering what residents of Rochester went through last year fighting a Time Warner Cable scheme that would have tripled broadband prices for the same level of service, I’m shocked you of all people would be a supporter of big telecom’s agenda.

Telecom companies are claiming that if regulations enforcing Net Neutrality are enacted, investment will suffer and broadband expansion will be slowed.  Yet AT&T was required, as part of its merger with SBC, to respect Net Neutrality for several years.  The company flourished, broadband was offered to more customers than ever, and investors liked what they saw.

The record in western New York is clear — Time Warner Cable was willing to limit its customers access to broadband service, Frontier already does in its terms and conditions, and Verizon FiOS deployment has been suspended indefinitely.  For too many of us, there are too few choices.  In fact, the only thing we can be assured of is higher pricing and a strengthened duopoly.

I strongly urge you to remove your signature from Rep. Green’s letter and get on board with consumers like myself in your district who believe deregulation and oversight failures have given us nothing but nightmares — from Wall Street to BP’s oil spill.  Let’s not make another mistake in handing cable and phone companies unfettered permission to abuse their customers.

Please get back in touch with me as soon as possible on this important matter.

Rep. Dan Maffei told constituents he was concerned about Time Warner Cable’s Internet Overcharging scheme proposed in April 2009.  At a town hall meeting in Irondequoit, New York, he admitted Time Warner Cable held near-monopoly power over consumers in Rochester.  What changed his tune when he signed on to Rep. Gene Green’s anti-consumer letter to the FCC? (April 9, 2009 — 2 minutes)

Rep. Dan Maffei’s Contact Information

Washington, D.C. Office
1630 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3701
Fax: (202) 225-4042

Syracuse Office
P.O. Box 7306,
1340 Federal Building
Syracuse, NY 13261
Phone: (315) 423-5657
Fax: (315) 423-5669

Irondequoit/Rochester Office
1280 Titus Avenue
Rochester, NY 14617
Phone: (585) 336-7291
Fax: (585) 336-7274

[Update: 11:30pm EDT: Free Press reports Rep. Maffei accepted $29,000 in contributions from telecom companies, including Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T.]

Pot?  Meet Kettle!

In one of the biggest ironies thus far this year, a British broadband provider trying to one-up the competition has started running ads with Dr. Seuss-like characters that represent marketing exaggerations, traps, and bad customer service, all while forgetting to disclose it engages in some tricks of its own.

O2’s Niggles & Narks campaign features animated creatures that represent where broadband has gone all-wrong:

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/O2 Niggles and Narks Ad 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Once upon a time, when broadband was made, we browsed and surfed and chatted — everybody played.

But for some, the magic faded.  Some things started to go wrong.

Without any warning, the niggles and nobs came along.

With the No Support-a-Saurus — spouting twaddle was his game.  His impossible instructions would slowly knot your brain.

The Crafty-Cost Nark took pleasure in his work, delivering line rental bills that drove us all berserk.

And with the Mystery-Speed Mook, you never really know. You thought you’d get mega-fast but got stuck with dead slow.

But this is where we draw the line and try to right what’s wrong.  Wouldn’t broadband be a better place, with narks and niggles gone?

But accusing the others of broadband narks and niggles -you- see, without confessing your own is little more than hypocrisy.

In a land of broadband O2 promises is not a dream, it brings to the table its own Internet Overcharging scheme.

No nobble or niggle could ever believe, selling unlimited broadband -that wasn’t- was something they could achieve.

But O2 managed — somehow, we don’t know, to define “unlimited” as 10GB per month — exceeding it brings woe.

Maybe it's a typo that should have read, "download as much as WE like."

O2 sells its broadband packages across the United Kingdom, either bundled under a BTWholesale-based package or unbundled direct from O2 or BeBroadband.  Only the BTWholesale accounts, common in rural areas where O2 doesn’t have its own equipment installed in the exchange offices, are impacted by the limit on unlimited.  BT apparently charges them some form of consumption billing, and they aren’t willing to eat the costs.

Starting in March, many customers started receiving letters stating they were using the service too much, and if they didn’t back off, they’d be disconnected.  One customer received a disconnect warning after using 40.1GB, primarily from watching BBC’s iPlayer, which delivers on demand television programming.

What represented “too much” for an “unlimited service?”

“Most O2 customers use less than 10GB a month. Aim for that and you’ll be okay,” says one of O2’s support pages on the topic.

Outraged consumers arguing that “unlimited” should mean “unlimited” and didn’t comply were promptly disconnected.

With the introduction of O2’s new high-priced Niggles & Narks advertising campaign, the hilarity ensued as customers began calling out O2’s hypocrisy, leading to clarifications from O2 that were anything but:

As some of you have been discussing, we’ve started to disconnect some of the very highest usage customers whose download patterns have detrimentally affected other customers’ experience, even after we have requested them to reduce their usage and explained the effect it’s having. We will continue this in order to improve the experience for the majority of the customers on the service.

We are also making the service run more efficiently by updating the hardware and software that runs the Access service. This will improve the prioritization of the real-time activity, such as streaming, over less time-sensitive activities such as P2P. — O2 Statement from March 26th 2010

O2's "Unlimited Broadband" Price Chart

Then there is this fine print on the question of “unlimited service” that only a credit card company or bank could love (the underlining is ours):

How much should I cut my broadband use?

Most O2 customers use less than 10GB a month. Aim for that and you’ll be okay.

Your product is unlimited, so why are you telling me to use less?

There aren’t any usage limits on any of our O2 Home Broadband packages. That means you can download and upload as much as you like each month, within reason.

Our network’s been designed to cope with people downloading large files (like music or films) and watching video online. But if you’re using the service excessively – like continually downloading large files at peak times – then we do reserve the right to warn you to lower your usage. In exceptional circumstances, we can even terminate your account.

This is because excessive use by a few people can reduce the speed that other customers in the same area can get. We just want to provide everyone with an excellent level of service.

Then company officials unofficially increased the limit to 40GB per month, as this note on an official company forum disclosed:

We’re contacting less than 10% of our heaviest users at the moment and you fell into this top tier. The majority use less than 10GB and at present if you use less than 40GB, you wouldn’t hear from us.”

This isn’t the first time O2 has confused its customers.  ThinkBroadband reminds us of 2007’s mess over the same issue:

O2 have never been good at defining the term ‘unlimited’ as can be seen in 2007 when they had three different definitions for the word. Back then they did recognize that customers were confused by the term and the marketing director Sally Cowdry was quoted as saying “customer feedback has been that if we say unlimited, it should be unlimited.” We wonder why two and half years on, O2 still have not ‘nobbled this broadband niggle.’

Unfortunately for O2 customers, the company has not righted any broadband wrongs.  They’ve added to them.  O2 has an chronic problem with their own Niggles and Narks.  Perhaps British regulators can do a better job exterminating them.