Shaw Cable, Canada’s dominant broadband provider in the west, has admitted it has stopped enforcing usage caps as the company upgrades its Internet Overcharging scheme.

Jim MacDonald, a Stop the Cap! reader, long-standing Shaw customer and member of the company’s “Shaw Friends” program noticed on a recent bill he qualified for “additional Internet usage” by belonging to the company’s loyalty club.

“I used Shaw’s concierge chat to learn more about what this means and found I would qualify for an additional 25GB allowance as a Shaw Friend, but the representative didn’t seem to think it was an important distinction,” MacDonald writes.

Apparently that is true, considering a Shaw representative admits the company has stopped monitoring customers’ Internet use:

MacDonald: I am wondering how I can get the extra 25GB added to my account as a Shaw Friend. The usage meter does not seem to reflect anything about it.

Shaw: We plan to apply that extra usage in the near future. I’m not exactly certain of the date but it should be soon. But no worries, we are not even monitoring the data right now. Once upgrades are complete and when we do monitor, you will have the extra space on your account and visible on the ‘view usage’ screen.

Phillip “Tollbooths are not innovation” Dampier

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski last week wrote a guest editorial on TechCrunch espousing the benefits of faster broadband networks, but the advances he celebrates often come with innovation-killing usage caps and overlimit fees he continues to ignore.

We feel the need – the need for speed. As Tom Friedman and others have written, in this flat global economy a strategic bandwidth advantage will help keep the U.S. as the home and most desired destination for the world’s greatest innovators and entrepreneurs.

[…] But progress isn’t victory, particularly in this fast-moving sector. Challenges to U.S. leadership are real. This is a time to press harder on the gas pedal, not let up. The first challenge is the need for faster and more accessible broadband networks. We need to keep pushing because our global competitors aren’t slowing down. I’ve met with senior government officials and business leaders from every continent, and every one of them is focused on the broadband opportunity. If we in the U.S. don’t foster major investments to extend and expand our broadband infrastructure, somebody else will take the lead.

We need to keep pushing because innovators need next-generation bandwidth for next-generation innovations – genetic sequencing for cancer patients, immersive and creative software to help children learn, ways for small businesses to take advantage of Big Data, and speed- and capacity-heavy innovations we can’t yet imagine.

We need to remove bandwidth as a constraint on our innovators and entrepreneurs. In addition to steadily increasing broadband speed and capacity for consumers and businesses throughout the country, we need – as we said in our National Broadband Plan – “innovation hubs” with super-fast broadband, with speed measured in gigabits, not megabits.

[…]Some argue the private sector will solve these challenges itself, and that all government has to do is get out of the way. I disagree. The private sector must take the lead, but the public sector has a vital though limited role to play.

Among the policy levers government needs to use is the removal of barriers to broadband buildout, lowering the costs of infrastructure deployment with new policies like “Dig Once” that says you should lay fiber when you dig up roads. The President recently issued an Executive Order implementing this idea, suggested in our Broadband Plan. Government must promote competition, which drives innovation and network upgrades.

We must ensure the Internet remains an open platform that continues to enable innovation without permission.

Genachowski

Genachowski’s vision for faster broadband has the noble goal of maintaining competitiveness with the rest of the world and putting the United States back on top in broadband rankings and innovation. But while hobnobbing with his industry friends at recent industry conventions, he may have gotten too close to one of the biggest impediments holding us back — big cable and phone companies merrily working their magic to create a comfortable duopoly with pricing and service plans to match.

Back in the late 1990s, most cable operators thought of broadband as an ancillary service easy enough to operate, but probably hard to monetize. Just like digital cable radio services like Music Choice and DMX, “broadband” would likely appeal only to a tiny subset of customers.

“Back in the 1990s, Time Warner was primarily a TV company in a TV industry.  Broadband then was an innovating and radical thing, and a lot of people thought it was stupid and wouldn’t work,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said in April, 2009.

The launch of “Road Runner” was not the most auspicious marketing effort undertaken by the cable operator. In fact, the service was rarely targeted for price adjustments, hovering at around $40 a month for a decade.

When the Great Recession hit the United States, something unexpected happened. Cable operators discovered people were willing to cancel their cable and phone services, but not their broadband. In fact, as high bandwidth online video became an increasing part of our lives, the cable industry realized they were in the catbird seat to deliver the best broadband experience, and be well-paid for it. With little competition, increasing prices brought little risk and, thanks to the insatiable drive to boost revenue and reduce costs, implementing usage caps to control “excess” usage and costs were within their grasp.

In 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, only a handful of ISPs had usage caps. Now most providers, with the exception of Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cablevision, and a handful of others, all have usage allowances and overlimit fee Internet Overcharging schemes to further pad their bottom lines.

Innovation: Rationing Your Internet Experience — Stick to e-mail and web pages.

Genachowski has completely ignored the growing pervasiveness of usage caps, and even excused them as an experiment in marketplace innovation. But limits on broadband usage will also limit the broadband innovation revolution he wants, especially when most Americans have just one or two realistic choices for broadband service:

1. Usage caps are the product of artificial scarcity. Rationing Internet usage, even with now-pervasive cost-effective upgrades like DOCSIS 3, simply does not make sense (but it will make dollars). Cable operators are switching off analog television service to free up bandwidth to provider faster Internet speed and fatten the pipeline that delivers it. They have plenty of capacity, but continue to proclaim they must limit usage for “fairness” reasons, without providing a single shred of evidence to prove the need for usage caps. Consumers will self-ration just to avoid the prospect of being cut off or handed a bill with overlimit fees.
2. Usage caps make faster speeds irrelevant. Selling customers premium-priced, super fast broadband speed is hardly compelling when accompanied by usage caps that constrain the benefits of buying. Why pay $20-50 more for faster speeds when customers cannot take practical advantage of them. Customers using their Internet service to browse web pages and read e-mail have no interest in upgrading to 30+Mbps. Customers streaming video or moving large files do.
3. Usage caps retard innovation. Google’s new 1Gbps fiber optic network was built on the premise that usage caps were unnecessary on a fiber-based network and would retard innovation. Developing the next generation of innovative apps that Genachowski celebrates will never happen if developers are discouraged by Internet usage toll booths and stop signs. The cost to provide the service is not largely dependent on customer usage. It is the initial price of last mile infrastructure that really matters. Both cable and phone companies have reduced their investments to upgrade their networks, and AT&T and Verizon both contemplate getting rid of their rural landlines. Most cable operators paid off their networks years ago.
4. Usage caps create a whole new digital divide.  Time Warner Cable’s discounted Internet Essentials program delivers only a $5 discount with a harsh 5GB usage cap. For an income-challenged home compelled to switch to a provider’s budget plan, the result is a different Internet experience than the rest of us enjoy. Imagine if your home broadband account was limited to 5GB a month. What online services would you have to avoid to stay under the provider’s limit? Traditionally, operators sell the lowest speed tiers with the lowest usage allowances. Slower speeds already offer a disincentive to use high bandwidth services, but many providers typically drive that disincentive home even harder with a paltry allowance that will cost plenty to exceed.
5. Usage caps harm our broadband standing. While Genachowski celebrates increasing broadband speeds, he ignores the fact the rest of the world is moving away from usage caps even as the United States moves towards them. Both Australia and New Zealand elected to construct their own national fiber networks in large part because the heavily usage-capped experience was holding both countries back. Usage caps are a product of a barely competitive market.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bandwidth Caps 7-2011.flv[/flv]

Tech News Today debunks providers’ claims that usage caps are fair and control those who “overuse” their networks, noting the same phone companies (AT&T) pushing for usage caps are also moving voice calling to unlimited service plans. (August, 2011) (4 minutes)

Maitreyi Krishnaswamy, Verizon’s head of FiOS TV admits she practically never watches live television — she records everything on her DVR first.

Krishnaswamy has been responsible for many of the interactive video services offered on Verizon’s FiOS TV platform, including on-screen apps, the media program guide, and how customers connect various devices to the FiOS television experience.

Now she’s directing Verizon’s consumer video services — deciding which channels make the lineup on FiOS TV and the networks available for streaming to mobile devices.

Krishnaswamy told the Tampa Tribune she recognizes the way Americans watch television has changed over the past few years, and she admits it has led to the “growing” trend of customers’ cord-cutting their cable TV subscriptions in favor of online viewing.

Krishnaswamy

“The question is: Is it growing enough for us? For us, it’s a matter of cord-cutters versus cord-shavers — people who switch to smaller tiers,” Krishnaswamy said. “Is the migration to a-la-carte enough that we can go that route? It has a way more important impact that just on them. It impacts how we negotiate TV contracts with studios. It’s not something we can do overnight, but definitely something we’ve been looking at.”

Verizon has made it clear it intends to compete for customers regardless of how they watch television, but Krishnaswamy signals the company is also considering protecting their core video business model, and would only say Verizon had no announcements to make “just as yet” regarding an Internet Overcharging scheme including usage caps and overlimit fees. Critics of data caps argue that limiting broadband usage prevents customers from taking their viewing experience online because it threatens consuming the majority of their monthly data use allowance.

But Verizon does not mind offering customers a TV Everywhere experience — streaming video content over its broadband network, so long as a customer also subscribes to its TV package. The company already offers live streaming television of many channels on its lineup and wants to bolster that with on demand content. Verizon also is experimenting with non-traditional set top boxes, and although Krishnaswamy had nothing to say about supporting the forthcoming Apple TV, she is actively working on improving how Verizon’s television service works away from the traditional company-provided set top box.

Some highlights:

• Verizon’s partnership with Redbox will let the company offer a new streaming and DVD rental service for customers, regardless of whether they live in a Verizon FiOS area or not. Customers will be able to access the service over mobile broadband, Wi-Fi, or any home broadband connection;
• Verizon will introduce an online viewing app for forthcoming versions of Amazon’s Kindle;
• The company has thus far only managed to secure streaming rights for in-home viewing and has run into difficulty getting content providers to let customers watch shows while on the go;
• Google Fiber is “interesting,” but Krishnaswamy doesn’t believe they are “a real operator” when only offering service in one city. She thinks the project is a good idea, however, because it forces competing providers “to increase your speed;”
• Verizon is considering simplifying its family of apps to reduce customer confusion. They currently have different apps for home security, home media, the remote control, and the program guide. Verizon wants its MyFiOS app to become a “super-app” that manages everything.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TVnext Interview – Maitreyi Krishnaswamy Verizon FIOS 1-28-11.m4v[/flv]

Back in 2011, Maitreyi Krishnaswamy explained her thinking about where Verizon FiOS was taking the TV experience. Many of these applications have since been released, but Verizon — like most providers — still runs into brick walls with content providers getting licensing to allow more flexible viewing of content.  (12 minutes)

Phillip “The Company Paid by Suddenlink to Issue a Third Party Guarantee Makes All the Difference” Dampier

When Stop the Cap! and Broadband Reports reader Simon contacted us about Suddenlink’s fact-free usage measurement tool that managed to rack up nearly 23GB of usage for one West Virginia customer on the same day his service was out for most of the evening, he probably did not think one customer catching the cable company’s fingers in the usage cookie jar would make much difference.

But it did.

Suddenlink spokesman Pete Abel, initially responding to complaints about the usage tool’s accuracy, told Light Reading last week its meter was “consistently accurate, as was demonstrated in the tests we ran before we launched this program.”

Four days later, the company effectively disavowed that, put the meter’s built-in overlimit fee scheme on hold and plans to hire a third party company to “validate the accuracy of its system,” after finding it was faulty after all.

Suddenlink won’t say what is causing the inaccuracies, but blamed “unusual” circumstances for the problem. The company is now refunding customers billed overlimit fees of $10 per 50GB and waiving future charges until its system is reviewed and validated by “a trusted third party.”

Stop the Cap! believes that does not come close to satisfying the company’s responsibility to its customers for accurate billing.

Suddenlink has never demonstrated it actually needs an Internet Overcharging scheme with usage limits and overlimit fees. The company proves that when it claims only a “relatively small number of customers” were ever billed overlimit fees. With no demonstrable usage problem, the company’s need to implement its Project Imagine “Allowance Plan” is sorely lacking.

Easy as counting anyway we like.

Additionally, the accuracy of providers’ usage measurement tools has proven highly suspect, and not just with Suddenlink. All of the companies caught with inaccurate meters always strongly defend them, until overwhelming evidence suggests they should not. Even super-sized companies like Bell Canada (BCE) and AT&T have enforced usage limits with meters the companies later had to disavow. Suddenlink is only the latest.

The scale in your grocery store is checked and certified. So is the corner gas pump, your electric meter, water meter, and gas meter. Why should broadband usage be any different?

Consumers are right to suspect Suddenlink’s usage meter. No official regulatory body verifies the accuracy of usage measurement tools and whatever company Suddenlink chooses to “verify” its meter has a built in conflict of interest — it works for a company that depends on a certain result in its favor. Suddenlink clearly has no business in the usage measurement business when it insists on the accuracy of a meter it disavows just a few days later.

With only murky details available to consumers about what caused the problem and why Suddenlink did not see it until a customer managed to catch them in the act, there is little confidence the company will actually solve a problem it never realized it had. There is also nothing to assure us — “third party guarantee” or not — it cannot happen all over again.

Suddenlink customers need to reach out and tell Suddenlink its “Allowance Plan” is completely unacceptable. Tell the cable company you don’t want to worry about their unverifiable and proven-inaccurate metering program. Ask them why you should remain a customer when they spend time and money on a scheme that the company itself admits is not really needed — targeting just a small number of “heavy users.”

Suddenlink’s customer service team does not think much of customers who use their broadband service a lot, as this recent “Who’s On First” exchange illustrates:

Lisa (Suddenlink): “Well, you show heavy OVERUSAGE of the Internet, you drew 14GB of data yesterday.”

Customer: “Okay, let’s back up, explain to me how I drew 12GB of data when my power was off and I wasn’t home on June 30.”

Lisa: “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “If you have sooo much faith in your meter, explain to me how I drew 12GBs of data on June 30, while I didn’t have power, and wasn’t home.”

Lisa:  “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “I’m asking, how did I draw 12GB of data without power to my house?”

If Suddenlink has a problem with a handful of users creating problems for other subscribers on its broadband network, it has always reserved the right to contact those customers directly and work out the problem one on one. That is a far better solution than inconveniencing all of their customers with endless rounds of “usage roulette,” where the big winner could find themselves with Bill Shock from overlimit fees, whether they actually deserve them or not.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Internet v. Cable 8-20-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC interviewed Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent in August 2010 on how his company intends to deal with “invasive online video,” threatening to erode cable-TV profits. Kent proved Suddenlink doesn’t really need any extra money from overlimit fees — the days of big spending on capacity are over, but the money is nice to have anyway.  (8 minutes)

THE Internet Overcharger

Cable One, one of the nation’s most notorious, usage-capped broadband providers, has left thousands of Columbus, Miss. subscribers without phone, Internet, and cable television service since 6pm Sunday night, unable to repair the problem until a part arrives at the local cable office.

The Dispatch reports a steady stream of people, unable to get answers from Cable One over the phone, have been showing up at the company’s local cable office from the time it opened for business this morning, all looking for answers.

Cable One General Manager David Lusby said he had no idea how many customers were affected by the outage or when the cable system would be back up and running. Those are not the answers customers want to hear, particularly for customers depending on Cable One for their local businesses. Local shops have been unable to process credit card transactions, cannot make or receive calls, and are relying on personal cell phones for basic connectivity with the outside world.

New Hope resident Walter Worthy is fed up with Cable One’s bad service, calling the company’s broadband service “spotty” for more than a month.  Worthy told the newspaper he would rather have AT&T’s DSL service if he could, but AT&T has shown no interest extending service in his neighborhood.

One ex-customer named Matt told the newspaper he finally dropped Cable One Internet service that cost $65 a month for the same reason.

Cable One maintains one of the most arcane Internet “Fair Use” policies in the country, with broadband usage limits that apply to both daily and monthly usage:

Another limit applies to monthly usage:

The combination of poor service and a confusing Internet Overcharging scheme resulted in the cable operator experiencing a loss in broadband customers, almost unprecedented for cable companies. Cable One said goodbye to 1,017 high-speed Internet and 9,610 basic video subscribers during the second quarter, according to its owner, The Washington Post.

Communities like Natchez, Miss. are responding by attempting to shorten its franchise renewal with the company, which typically runs 10 years.

Ward 3 Alderwoman Sarah Smith foresees the contract being renewed but isn’t certain she wants the city’s digital future tied to Cable One for the next decade.

“Technology is changing so fast, I just don’t see us having any contract for as long as 10 years,” Smith told the Natchez Democrat.

Smith notes local residents have regularly complained about Cable One’s service, and the city has considered the possibility of letting another operator take over in the area, but has found no takers.

“We’re not going to be on the top of the radar for every service to be here,” Smith said.

More importantly, it is unprecedented for another major cable provider to displace a current operator, no matter how poorly they provide service.