PSP Go

The arrival of Sony’s update to the PlayStation Portable, the PSP Go, gives potential buyers more to ponder than its $250 price tag and the fact it excludes a UMD drive, which means many consumers will now download their games from the PlayStation Store. LevelUp casino is a website wherein you can play games without needing to download anything.

In areas where broadband service is loaded down with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage allowances and overlimit fees, the first question for potential PSP Go owners is, “how big are these games?”

They are right to be concerned… and confused.  There has been considerable debate over the size of the average PSP Go game.  Some retailers have been talking about Go games running 50-100 megabytes.

But Al De Leon, PR Manager for Sony Computer Entertainment America, has stated the average size of a PSP Go downloadable game will be between 600-800 megabytes and no upper limit has yet been announced.  A few consumers who purchased the device discovered “no upper limit” is the operative phrase.  They found some examples among PSP titles on offer:

• Gran Turismo is 937 megabytes
• God of War: Chains of Olympus is 1.29 gigabytes
• Resistance: Retribution is 1.4 gigabytes

Of course, some games will be much smaller, especially those designed for playing on the Go. Enjoy competitive odds on kabaddi games with https://4rabetsite.com/sports/kabaddi-138.

Sony’s experiments with online game distribution could foretell a future where game titles are increasingly distributed online to consumers, which reduces manufacturing costs and speeds delivery to eager buyers.  But that future may be hampered if broadband providers implement usage allowances, particularly at the lower limits some companies have experimented with.  Frontier’s infamous 5 gigabyte, unenforced limit in their Acceptable Use Policy is a good example.

Cable ONE, owned by the Net Neutrality-bashing Washington Post, has turned the art of broadband service into a science of confusion for its customers.

In addition to introducing a forthcoming new, faster tier of service, offering speeds at 12Mbps downstream and 1.5Mbps upstream, Cable ONE has been tinkering with their convoluted usage capping system, which combines a daily usage allowance with throttled speeds and exempt periods during traditionally lower usage hours.

See if you can understand their new usage limit chart, and even if you can, ask yourself if your parents will pick up what they are putting down:

(Click to enlarge)

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports thinks “Standard Speed” refers to Cable ONE’s throttle — reducing effective speeds by half, assuming you exceed your “threshold.”  The limits shown are reset daily.  Exceeding that limit many times during a month can technically get your service suspended, but we’ve not heard of anyone who either hasn’t been able to talk their way out of it with company officials or who haven’t been bothered by local system managers who are probably just as confounded by this crazy cap scheme as we are.

Cable ONE customers like the new speed offering, if and when it arrives in their respective communities, but hate the silly usage allowances and speed throttles that accompany them.  As Stop the Cap! has always said, consumers are beating the doors down waiting to throw more dollars at broadband providers who offer them the higher speed service they desire.

Instead, some providers would rather create Internet Overcharging schemes to reduce demand and expenses, and profit the proceeds.  If given a competitive choice, consumers will leave a cap-happy provider for someone else who actually listens to customers.  Unfortunately, for too many Americans, the key words are “if given a competitive choice.”

A customer in Boise notes, “I can’t even watch a full movie from Netflix without getting my speed cut in half.  I started the movie at 12pm and by 1pm my speed was cut in half.  When I called Cable ONE and asked about my bandwidth, they wouldn’t even tell me if I crossed the threshold limit.  They kept dancing around my question with ‘it may have been reduced.’  Wake up Cable ONE!”

Many Cable ONE customers are located in smaller cities and communities that currently have just one other option – DSL service from the local phone company.  For many residents, that tops out at 1.5Mbps or 3Mbps downstream.  But for some, it’s better than being usage capped by cable.

Perhaps Cable ONE would do good to watch their own advertisements, which promise: “It’s the way we always listen, to every word you say; loud and clear is how we hear, there’s just no other way.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Stop the Cap! calls on Cable ONE to discard confusing, impenetrable usage allowances that few customers can find on their website and even fewer actually understand.  Investing in your network with the proceeds of higher speed premium service tiers and making upgrades to DOCSIS 3 can provide additional bandwidth and profit opportunities while customers can sit back, “enjoy the fun with Cable ONE,” and relax with the broadband service they pay good money to receive.  Cable ONE already provides customers with a way to self-regulate their usage, by selecting a speed tier that is comfortable for them and their anticipated Internet needs.

An avalanche of iPhones is to blame for AT&T's wireless problems, according to a Slate columnist

Telecommunications companies love people like Farhad Manjoo.  He’s a technology columnist for Slate, and he’s concerned with the congestion on AT&T’s wireless network caused by Apple iPhone owners using their phones ‘too much and ruining AT&T’s service for everyone else.’  Manjoo has a solution — do away with AT&T’s flat data pricing for the iPhone and implement a $10 price increase for any customer exceeding 400 megabytes of usage per month. For those using less than 400 megabytes, he advocates for a “pay for what you use” billing model.  Will AT&T adopt true consumption billing, a usage cap, or just another $10 price increase?  History suggests the latter two are most likely.

Stop the Cap! reader Mary drew our attention to Manjoo’s piece, which predictably has been carried through the streets by cheering astroturf websites connected with the telecommunications industry who just love the prospect of consumers paying more money.  They’ve called the organizations that work to fight against such unfair Internet Overcharging schemes “neo-Marxist,” ignoring the fact the overwhelming majority of consumers oppose metered broadband service and still don’t know the words to ‘The Internationale.’

Manjoo’s description of the problem itself has problems.

His argument is based on the premise that the Apple iPhone is virtually a menace on AT&T’s network.  He blames the phone for AT&T customers having trouble getting their calls through or for slow speeds on AT&T’s data network.

Every iPhone/AT&T customer must deal with the consequences of a slowed-down wireless network. Not every customer, though, is equally responsible for the slowdown. At the moment, AT&T charges $30 a month for unlimited mobile Internet access on the iPhone. That means a customer who uses 1 MB a month pays the same amount as someone who uses 1,000 MB. I’ve got a better plan—one that superusers won’t like but that will result in better service, and perhaps lower bills, for iPhone owners: AT&T should kill the all-you-can-eat model and start charging people for how much bandwidth they use.

How would my plan work? I propose charging $10 a month for each 100 MB you upload or download on your phone, with a maximum of $40 per month. In other words, people who use 400 MB or more per month will pay $40 for their plan, or $10 more than they pay now. Everybody else will pay their current rate—or less, as little as $10 a month. To summarize: If you don’t use your iPhone very much, your current monthly rates will go down; if you use it a lot, your rates will increase. (Of course, only your usage of AT&T’s cellular network would count toward your plan; what you do on Wi-Fi wouldn’t matter.)

First, and perhaps most importantly, AT&T not only voluntarily, but enthusiastically sought an exclusive arrangement with Apple to sell the iPhone.  For the majority of Americans, using an iPhone means using AT&T as their wireless carrier.  If AT&T cannot handle the customer demand (and the enormous revenue it earns from them), perhaps it’s time to end the exclusivity arrangement and spread the iPhone experience to other wireless networks in the United States.  I have not seen any wireless provider fearing the day the iPhone will be available for them to sell to customers.  Indeed, the only fear comes from AT&T pondering what happens when their exclusivity deal ends.

Second, problems with voice calling and dropped calls go well beyond iPhone owners ‘using too much data.’  It’s caused by less robust coverage and insufficient capacity at cell tower sites.  AT&T added millions of new customers from iPhone sales, but didn’t expand their network at the required pace to serve those new customers.  A number of consumers complaining about AT&T service not only mention dropped calls, but also inadequate coverage and ‘fewer bars in more places.’  That has nothing to do with iPhone users.  Congestion can cause slow speeds on data networks, but poor reception can create the same problems.

Third, the salvation of data network congestion is not overcharging consumers for service plans.  The answer comes from investing some of the $1,000+ AT&T earns annually from the average iPhone customer back into their network.  To be sure, wireless networks will have more complicated capacity issues than wired networks do, but higher pricing models for wireless service already take this into account.

Business Week covered AT&T’s upgrade complications in an article on August 23rd:

Many of AT&T’s 60,000 cell towers need to be upgraded. That could cost billions of dollars, and AT&T has kept a lid on capital spending during the recession—though it has made spending shifts to accommodate skyrocketing iPhone traffic. Even if the funds were available now, the process could take years due to the hassle and time needed to win approval to erect new towers and to dig the ditches that hold fiber-optic lines capable of delivering data. And time is ticking. All carriers are moving to a much faster network standard called LTE that will begin being deployed in 2011. Once that transition has occurred, the telecom giant will be on a more level playing field.

And there are limits to how fast AT&T can move. While it may take only a few weeks to deploy new-fangled wireless gear in a city’s cell towers, techies could spend months tilting antennas at the proper angle to make sure every square foot is covered.

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports also points out a good deal of the iPhone’s data traffic never touches AT&T’s wireless network and he debunked a piece in The Wall Street Journal that proposed some of the same kinds of pricing and policy changes Manjoo suggests:

iPhone users are using Wi-Fi 42% of the time and the $30 price point is already a $10 bump from the first generation iPhone. The Journal also ignores the absolutely staggering profits from SMS/MMS, and the fact that AT&T posted a net income of $3.1 billion for just the first three months of the year. That’s even after the network upgrades the Journal just got done telling us make unlimited data untenable.

Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett has been making the rounds lately complaining that a wireless apocalypse is afoot, telling any journalist who’ll listen that the wireless market is “collapsing” and/or “grinding to a halt.” Why? Because as new subscriber growth slows and the market saturates, incredible profits for carriers like AT&T and Verizon Wireless may soon be downgraded to only somewhat incredible. Carriers may soon have to start competing more heavily on pricing, driving stock prices down. That’s great for you, but crappy for Moffett’s clients.

You’ll note that neither the Journal nor Moffett provide a new business model to replace the $30 unlimited plan, but the intentions are pretty clear if you’ve been playing along at home. As on the terrestrial broadband front, investors see pure per-byte billing as the solution to all of their future problems, as it lets carriers charge more money for the same or less product (ask Time Warner Cable). Of course as with Mr. Moffett’s opinions on network upgrades, what’s best for Mr. Moffett quite often isn’t what’s best for consumers.

If AT&T doesn’t have the financial capacity or willingness to appropriately grow their network, inevitably customers will take their wireless business elsewhere, and perhaps Apple will see the wisdom of not giving the company exclusivity rights any longer.

Manjoo’s proposals (except the $10 rate increase, which they’ll love) would almost certainly never make it beyond the discussion stage.  A pricing model that automatically places consumers using little data into a less expensive price tier, or relies on a true consumption “pay for exactly what you use” pricing model would cannibalize AT&T’s revenue.  Past Internet Overcharging pricing has never been about saving customers money — they just charge more to designated “heavy users” for the exact same level of service.  Need more money?  Redefine what constitutes a “heavy user” or just wait a year when today’s data piggies are tomorrow’s average users.  Now they can all pay more.

The average iPhone user already pays a premium for their AT&T iPhone experience — an average $90 a month for a combined mandatory voice and data plan — costs higher than those paid by other AT&T customers.  AT&T accounted for the anticipated data usage of the iPhone in setting the pricing for monthly service.

The biggest data consumers aren’t smartphone or iPhone users. That designation belongs to laptop or netbook owners using wireless mobile networks for connectivity.  Those plans universally are usage capped at 5 gigabytes per month, far higher than the 400 megabyte cap Manjoo proposes.  If AT&T felt individual iPhone customers were the real issue, they would have already usage capped the iPhone data plan.  Instead, they just increased the price, ostensibly to invest the difference in expanding their network.

Perhaps at twice the price, everything would be nice.

Manjoo admits AT&T does not release exact usage numbers, but it’s obvious a phone equipped to run any number of add-on applications that the iPhone can will use more data than a cumbersome phone forcing customers to browse using a number keypad.  That in and of itself does not mean iPhone users are “data hogs.”  In reality, 400 megabytes of usage a month on a network also handling wireless broadband customers with a 5 gigabyte cap is a pittance.  That’s 10 times less than a customer can use on an AT&T wireless broadband-equipped netbook, and still be under their monthly allowance.

Here’s a better idea: end the monopoly AT&T has on the iPhone in the United States. That would immediately do a lot more for AT&T customers, as the so-called “data hogs” that hate AT&T flee off their network.

Manjoo’s alternatives are a “pay $10 more” solution that won’t save consumers money and “pay exactly for what you use” plan that AT&T will never accept.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

"PPC-1" - Pipe Network's new fiber link opens this week

Ongoing connectivity issues and lack of competition continue to leave Australians with expensive, slow, and usage-limited broadband service.

This week, Pipe Networks will make a small dent in improving international connectivity when it activates its new PPC-1 fiber link between Sydney and the U.S. territory of Guam in the Pacific. The project, first envisioned in December 2006, took nearly three years to complete at a cost of more than $175 million U.S. dollars, and has a design capacity of 1.92Tb/s run over two fiber pairs.

Telecommunications analyst Paul Budde said Pipe Networks, along with others “would help to reduce this problem and will therefore provide ISPs with better prices,” which was supposed to result in a lifting of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps.

Not so fast.

Broadband providers in Australia have taken notice of Pipe Networks’ new pipeline, but many have not lowered prices or removed usage caps.  The lack of competition has kept a price war from taking place.  Ovum senior telecommunications analyst David Kennedy told Australian IT that without a price incentive, a lot of customers, particularly those served by Optus and Telstra, are unlikely to switch providers.

ADSL2+ Speeds drop dramatically the further away you live from the phone company's switching office

One DSL provider in Australia, Internode, has made some changes to its service offerings in response to the new fiber link.  The Adelaide-based company has simplified some of its service plans, cut the price of small office/home office pricing by about $9 per month, and increased the paltry usage cap on its Easy Broadband plan from 30GB per month to 50GB per month.  Internode’s Easy Broadband charges $44 a month for DSL service at 1.5Mbps/256kbps,  or in areas upgraded to ADSL2+ service, up to 24Mbps/1Mbps.  Actual speed on the latter service is highly dependent on how far away you live from the telephone company local switching office.

Internode chief executive Pat Tapper doesn’t think PPC-1 will make a huge difference for his company.

Internode sells "data blocks" for consumers intending to exceed their allowance.

“In the whole scheme of things the PPC-1 circuit doesn’t represent a huge spend in terms of what it costs to run the network. It will change a little bit in terms of our overall cost but only a very small amount,” he said.

“What it does give us is the ability to deliver more capacity to customers in downloads.”

That means a larger usage cap, but not cheaper pricing.

Internode customers that exceed the cap can purchase additional usage blocks, at pricing starting at $2.20 per gigabyte.

I like to think our issues are neither right nor left.  Net Neutrality preserves freedom of speech from provider interference whether you are Glenn Beck or Michael Moore.  Internet Overcharging costs conservatives as much money as it does liberals.

As various special interest groups and public relations firms continue their efforts to co-opt Net Neutrality into a partisan political issue, in hopes of muddying the waters and helping to engage consumers to help in its defeat, I occasionally take time out to talk to some of the opponents of Net Neutrality to understand their points of view, to engage them in a discussion deeper than the usual memes about “government control” or “takeovers,” and ask them to present their arguments opposing a measure that has support from groups across the political spectrum (Democrat Underground, MoveOn.org, AfterDowningStreet.org, and Common Cause on the left,  Glenn Reynolds, the Christian Coalition, and the Gun Owners of America on the right.)

Sometimes the discussions are illuminating, and I can respect their points of view even if I personally disagree.  Other times, rebutting an article published on another blog that elicits a two sentence reply from the author illustrates the fact many of these articles are more heat than light.  Often, an author fundamentally seems to misunderstand the basic tenets of Net Neutrality, replacing them with an odd assortment of conspiracy theories.  Other times, they are assured of their fact presentation right up until their points are debunked, at which point the only response they are capable of is a feigned complaint that you are “attacking them”… and then they attack you back.

Such is the case this evening in a debate with RedState blogger Neil Stevens, who has been on a rage (Google Undermines the Internet, On Julius Genachowski and Net Neutrality, and Google’s Non-Evil Pose: Hand Out Palm Facing Up) over Net Neutrality for several months, alternating between the belief the entire campaign is being orchestrated by Google and the one about it being a giant socialist conspiracy.

Tonight, the latest tirade, The Real Net Neutrality Astroturfers, attempts to neutralize efforts to call out Broadband for America, and other like-minded industry front groups, by suggesting Net Neutrality proponents have their own groups in the fight.  There is no doubt there are consumer groups out there that do not take a penny of industry money and support Net Neutrality.  There is also no doubt there are some companies involved in this fight on the pro-Net Neutrality side as well.  That’s hardly “breaking news.”

Stevens wants readers to accept a moral equivalency between industry-sponsored astroturf groups, supported by the very industry that seeks to throttle and overcharge for your broadband service, and consumer groups like ours (and several others) that do not take a penny of industry money, just because some big companies on the Internet share our position.

Stevens takes a wrong turn down Astroturf Alley, offering up a handful of BfA members that sound like they aren’t the astroturfing type as proof that BfA is not nearly as guilty as those big bad Net Neutrality supporter groups:

But despite such blatant falsehood, Save the Internet presses on to accuse its opposition of being ‘astroturf,’ that is, fake grassroots involvement. Now I would love for someone to accuse me of that, because I and anyone familiar with my financial situation would never stop laughing. Of course, they don’t mention the Open Internet Coalition backed by the above Internet titans, oh no. Only opponents like Broadband for America, a group promoting greater Internet access across America, gets that tag. I mean sure, when I think ‘corporate astroturf’, I think of BfA members like the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Child Safety Task Force, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Livestock Marketing association, and the Jewish Energy Project. That’s just the corporate Axis of Evil right there, Save the Internet wants you to think.

Oh my.

I won’t bore our readers with my response to the rest of his theories about the true nature of Net Neutrality — you can follow the link and read them for yourself in the comments.  But this did represent an excellent opportunity to use the last week’s worth of research on individual BfA members to suggest Stevens might want to take a second look at his list, because most of them carry a fist full of broadband-provider-dollars or have telecom executives serving on their respective boards.  Another doesn’t even appear to exist.

But here is the illuminating part of my effort to engage with the Net Neutrality opposition:

I learned about BfA last week and saw the list of their 100 members. Most of them were obviously equipment manufacturers or telecommunications companies. But I wondered what in the world some of those public interest groups you mentioned, among others, were doing as members of this group. I spent last week researching ALL 100+ and the results are posted (on Stop the Cap!).

I could not find a single group that I could verify as representing actual consumers. Not one. The overwhelming majority of those public interest groups either received substantial funding from AT&T and/or Verizon, or had a company executive on their Board of Directors. I also found disturbing connections between several of the groups and Washington, DC lobbying and PR firms who have a habit of paying to use an organization’s name for a client’s agenda.

[…]

Odd how groups with Mission Statements that in no way relate to any of the broadband issues BfA will concern itself with: no regulation, no Net Neutrality, but yes to government handouts to providers to expand broadband, all seem to be members of this group, and often also magically chimed in on some other telecom issues, such as urging approval of Verizon’s merger with NorthPoint Communications or their buyout of Alltel.

[…]

Biggest advice I can give you is never simply take what you’re handed. Check it out yourself and be careful of hidden agendas and industry money, because it’s all over the place.

Stevens quickly responded, and I hoped it would provide for a spirited debate.  Not so much:

You can’t win the argument so you attack the speakers.

Get lost.

Although not so much a rebuttal as an indirect concession (when you can’t argue the facts, just feign you were ‘attacked’ and then attack back), in the spirit of harmony with conservative friends, Stevens and I continue to agree on one very important point: “We all need to look hard at just who is pushing this agenda….”

[Update: 2:20am — Moments before publishing this, I learned Stevens added a follow-up reply, before my account was banned:

Yeah, I’m not really going to let some fascist Obamanaut come here and start using this site to try to silence dissenters with the administration’s new FCC chairman.

Especially snotty bad faith posters like you.

Apparently on RedState, confronting inaccurate information and engaging in meaningful debate is a one-way ticket to banning.  That’s another indication of a weak argument at work — one that cannot withstand even the most basic scrutiny, without quickly getting rid of the person asking the questions.  On RedState, a ban is expressed by this error message when attempting to visit the site:

601 Database redigestation error.

I am not sure what ‘redigestation’ is, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  Stevens is, of course, free to visit Stop the Cap! and share his views without fear of immediate banning just for disagreeing with me.  I’m not afraid of his arguments.]

[Update: 1:30pm — Amusingly, as of this afternoon, my original rebuttal to Stevens was modified – it’s now white text on a white background, creating a giant white empty-appearing block.  If you attempt select the text, however, it’s all still there and becomes visible.  Evidently Stevens (or someone running the site) felt his original rebuttal wasn’t terribly effective, so “additional measures” were warranted.  An additional reply this morning dismisses the whole rebuttal as inspired by George Soros, the right’s favorite bogeyman.]