Phillip Dampier

I have been following the Canadian hearings on Net Neutrality and Canada’s widespread use of bandwidth throttles and usage limits on broadband access.  It has been an issue confronting customers of the largest telephone and cable providers across Canada for at least a year.  Now that these practices have spread to wholesale accounts, which directly impact independent Internet Service Providers, it has created a major hullabaloo across the country.

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has decided to address these two issues together during the week-long hearings.

Unfortunately for Canadians, there is considerable division about how to manage Internet traffic, based on a premise from the largest providers that they do not have the capacity to provide everything to everybody.  Of course, getting providers to cough up raw data and allowing an independent group to verify it is like trying to feed your dog a head of lettuce.  You always have a fight on your hands.

Everyone attending has an agenda, and more than a few are willing to throw each other under the bus if it means getting what they want.  Some pro-content groups who also claim to be pro-consumer, but receive money from private businesses want no bandwidth throttles and suggest usage based pricing is the better option.  Some wholesale ISPs would prefer to put up with peer-to-peer usage throttling and “equal” throttling of other Internet applications if it means no usage based pricing for their wholesale accounts.

Consumers don’t want either one, and cannot understand why an industry raking in such enormous profits can’t simply make the investments required to rake in even more profits, especially if they create their own new products and services to take advantage of the broadband marketplace they are helping to create.

Canada’s largest providers have enjoyed the fight, and have managed to take advantage of the divisions created by groups willing to sacrifice each others’ interests for their own sake: they imposed BOTH usage based pricing and bandwidth throttles.  Oh, and raised your broadband bill by at least 10% for good measure.

This comes as a result of the myopic “only my interests matter” agendas some of these groups bring to the hearing room, and Commissioners obviously realize it, based on some of their challenging questions back to those testifying.

No hearing on these issues should ever rely on an unproven premise: the great exaflood, the clogged pipes, the torrent of data is upon us and we cannot survive without imposing limits, rate increases, and try to control usage.  Bring in an independent auditor and provide full access to raw usage data, consider how much investment companies are making in their networks compared with the profits they extract from them, and then consider whether we have a problem and examine possible solutions to it.  These third party astroturf groups releasing bought-and-paid-for “independent research” and equipment manufacturers with an agenda are not suitable for the task either.

Just as we’ve seen providers attempt to custom-draw their own maps for broadband penetration, providers are only too happy to release their own massaged data, but won’t allow anyone outside of the company to do so, ostensibly for privacy and competitive reasons.  Sorry, that’s not even close to being acceptable.

Stop the Cap! opposes Internet Overcharging schemes, which include usage based pricing and limits.  But we also oppose bandwidth throttles, free passes for provider-owned content while everyone else faces some “meter,” and companies that believe in “this is fast enough for you” broadband speeds which are far slower than those in more competitive markets.  We support Net Neutrality.  We support public investment in broadband development, as well as private investment.  We’re happy to support a deregulated framework for broadband when it works for consumers.  But we want oversight and regulation where competition is insufficient or non-existent.

As we’re watching events unfold to our immediate north, it’s clear other pro-consumer organizations and those that want to claim to represent consumers must also be on the same page so we don’t make the same mistakes.  We cannot be willing to throw in the towel on Net Neutrality if it means no Internet Overcharging, and we should never support Net Neutrality alone if it subjects consumers to enormous Internet bills because of some rationing plan that subjects people to overlimit fees and paltry usage allowances.

The only real choice is fast, affordable, reliable broadband service.  If private companies can’t or aren’t willing to provide it, than it’s time for municipal or public sector projects to build the infrastructure necessary to guarantee it.

Netflix, Apple, and Amazon — are you paying attention? This is your future, as your business plans go up in flames should Internet Overcharging schemes get a foothold in the United States.

Sky Television is New Zealand this week announced it was throwing in the towel on Sky Online, its broadband video on demand service for New Zealand.  It’s not that the service wasn’t popular and keenly sought by broadband customers in the country.

John Fellet, Sky New Zealand

Chief Executive John Fellet said the fault was entirely with broadband providers who annoyed customers with broadband usage caps.  In the end, “the service does not make sense in the current New Zealand broadband market.”

Subscribers got unlimited access to Sky Online for $5 a month, but they quickly learned the $5 charge was just the beginning.  Once customers consumed their paltry usage allowance, their speeds were dropped to dial-up for the rest of the month.

“It has not been a great viewer experience,” Fellet told The New Zealand Herald.

Fellet told the newspaper he thought these kinds of usage limits detracted from one of the primary selling points for broadband service in the first place — video content.

Fellet has fielded several customer complaint calls daily about the situation, something he considers the tip of the iceberg.

Until Sky can secure an arrangement to exempt usage caps from their video service, an unlikely proposition, the entire service will be put on hold.

The Herald provides an update on what other services are facing in the south Pacific:

Sky – which has invested heavily in online rights to its programmes – has not been alone in looking to open up the market.

Hybrid Television Services holds Australasian rights to TiVo, which has download capabilities and wants to offer an internet download service. Hybrid, one-third owned by TVNZ, has been talking to Kiwi telcos.

Sky launched its On Demand service this time last year, about 15 months after TVNZ had launched TVNZ ondemand.

Sky has been unable to make it work under a pay TV model. But TVNZ head of emerging markets Jason Paris says that TVNZ ondemand – funded through advertising attachments to programme downloads – has been profitable since March.

Unlike Sky, Paris insisted yesterday that TVNZ had received no complaints from viewers about breaching data caps.

TVNZ was the first broadcaster in Australasia to launch a full online catch-up service and nearly all of of its prime-time shows are available through this service. Each week nearly 250,000 New Zealanders stream 1.5 million shows to their homes, Paris says.

Some TVNZ traffic has been through a relationship with the state-owned ISP Orcon, which has allowed its subscribers to access the TVNZ ondemand website without affecting data caps.

While residential customers face the threat of Internet Overcharging schemes designed to ration their use of the Internet with excessive pricing combined with usage limits, business customers are finding the opposite:  providers rolling out several new innovative services designed to control costs and increase broadband flexibility.

Verizon Business‘ Ethernet Virtual Private Line Service customers, who enjoy enormously fast speeds over a fiber-based network, will now have the ability to customize their bandwidth on-demand, through an online control panel.

Verizon EVPL Dynamic Bandwidth enables customers to raise or lower their broadband speeds as needed, and pay for their broadband service based on the speed they select.  The service is designed to maximize savings for businesses that have a periodic need for higher bandwidth, but don’t feel justified paying for a higher tier of service that will go unused at other times.  A customer accesses an online control panel, reviews pricing for different levels of speed, and then selects the option that best meets their needs.

Customers can raise or lower both the upload and download speeds once every 24 hours.  The requested capacity is provided within 60 minutes, and the control panel lets customers schedule bandwidth needs in advance.

The Dynamic Bandwidth service supports speeds between 1Mbps all the way up to 1000Mbps, depending on available facilities in your area.

“There is an insatiable hunger for bandwidth as technologies such as video transmission become more widely adopted by enterprises,” said Blair Crump, worldwide president of sales with Verizon Business.  “Our self-service dynamic bandwidth capability allows our EVPL and Private IP customers to make the most of their networks, at their convenience.”

David Hold, senior analyst, network services with Current Analysis, said: “Verizon Business is delivering a unique value proposition to the Ethernet services market with their new dynamic bandwidth capability.  With the proliferation of sophisticated, bandwidth-intensive applications, most organizations are demanding greater network capacity, and this new capability will help customers improve their return on investment in EVPL by only paying for greater speed when needed.”

Speed-based tiered pricing is familiar to consumers, and does not raise the same level of concern that consumption-based billing schemes do.  It is based on the premise that those heavy users of broadband will naturally gravitate towards higher speed, more expensive tiers of service to enjoy faster speeds.  The provider’s premium pricing also guarantees premium profits.

While residential customers bear the brunt of Internet Overcharging experiments based on data consumption, most business-class customers curiously escape such limits and fees.  Indeed, if the rationale for such pricing is based on demands placed on the network infrastructure, business customers, who face pricing commensurate with their anticipated higher usage, should be the natural first candidates for experimentation, not the ones exempted from it.

Verizon Business’ new speed based tiering demonstrates that there is money to be made providing customers with their choice of speed, without alienating them with unwarranted usage limits and the penalties and fees that follow those who exceed them.

Sunflower Broadband Pricing - Note a $10/month surcharge applies for customers not subscribing to Sunflower's video package.

We’ve covered the story of Sunflower Broadband before here on Stop the Cap! This dubious provider has become well entrenched with its Internet Overcharging schemes in and around the Lawrence, Kansas region, charging top dollar pricing while imposing ridiculous limits on usage.  One Mac owner in the Lawrence area is fed up with Sunflower’s 3GB monthly usage limit for broadband users, charging a ludicrous $27.95 a month for standalone broadband service (that’s $9.32/GB!).  He’s calling on Apple Corporation to get involved in the opposition to price gouging and Internet Overcharging by providers like Sunflower.

Sunflower’s a big proponent of these pricing schemes.  Patrick Knorr, who works for Sunflower and is also ex-officio chair of American Cable Association, wants this kind of pricing for everyone.  No matter how much you consume, you are probably paying too little for your broadband account.  Sunflower’s pricing of its most deluxe Gold plan assumes you’ll never use more than 50GB per month, and for that charges customers $59.95 a month if all you want is broadband service.

Dave Greenbaum, writing for theAppleBlog, considers these kinds of limits to be abusive.

Apple is the leader in multimedia content creation; new Mac users are always pleasantly surprised by how easy it is to buy from the iTunes store, or create their own content. A common question we get in our local user group is “I’m not sure what I did wrong, but all of a sudden I have a substantial overage bill from my cable company.” Of course, the user did nothing wrong, other than subscribe to a few podcasts, and perhaps download a new Apple software update and buy some shows with iTunes! The Mac is also blessed with great online backup services like MobileMe, yet when our user group did a presentation on backup strategy, I had to warn novice users to be careful lest their backups end up costing them an arm and a leg in bandwidth overage fees!

Sunflower Broadband claims, with absolutely no independent verification, that nearly 50% of their customers consume less than ONE gigabyte per month and 98.9% of users had less than 40GB of bandwidth usage.  Of course, despite updates to its website, it curiously only provides statistics from April 2007, more than two years ago.

Greenbaum informs readers of Rep. Eric Massa’s proposed legislation, HR 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act.

Ultimately, without an end to abusive broadband pricing, the implications for consumers go well beyond their own pocketbook:

Unfortunately, using the Internet normally with bandwidth metering is also unsustainable. When Mac owners are worried about downloading movies, doing backups or performing system updates, that hurts the Apple brand. Apple is continually innovating new ways to make the Mac OS the best Internet operating system, creating a whole ecosystem with iTunes, MobileMe and iLife. All of these great products rely on the ubiquity of the Internet. When Internet providers start making normal Internet use an expensive proposition, Mac users lose.

Apple should lead the way and come out against bandwidth caps. Given that many of the offerings on the iTunes store actually compete with cable TV, Apple should be vigilant that cable companies do not use bandwidth metering as a way to stifle alternative ways of viewing content.

[Updated 1:00pm ET: Stop the Cap! reader Michael Chaney found a video interview done last fall with some Australian providers falling all over themselves to praise themselves for Internet Overcharging schemes, and suggest American providers learn from them how to get away with trying the same thing.]

The group managing director of Telstra (Australia), Justin Milne, wants you to know that the era of free love is over.  They are sick and tired of letting content producers like Ninemsn (a partnership between Australia’s Nine Network ((think ABC or CBS)) and Microsoft’s MSN) use their pipes for free to send those video clips to their customers.  It’s time to break out the checkbooks and start paying them for freeloading on their network.

In a commentary for ZDNet Australia, Milne equates Net Neutrality with greed and “economic self-interest dressed up as moral virtue.”  Pot to kettle, especially when he quotes Franklin Roosevelt:

Franklin Roosevelt said during the Great Depression that heedless self-interest reflected not only bad morals but bad economics too.  Seventy years on, his advice still rings true.

Yes it does, and Telstra is a perfect example of that in practice, offering dreadful broadband service with paltry limits on usage and heavy throttles on speed when one exceeds them, all for a substantial price.  Telstra’s own self-interest leaves a lot of Australians despising the provider and begging for alternatives.  The morality of a company that now wants content providers, with whom it has no business relationship, to pay them money to reach their customers, can be left to the reader’s determination.

This is a tune we’ve heard before.  AT&T’s former CEO Edward Whitacre was the guy who first lit the flame to the gas line of abusive provider tactics using generally the same language:

How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?  (11/07/05)

Justin Milne

After Whitacre was educated that providers already pay hosting fees, infrastructure and licensing costs, and provide the very stuff that drives consumers to sign up for AT&T’s broadband services (and pay them for it) in the first place, Whitacre did a full reversal three months later:

“Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider. And that’s just bad business.” (3/21/06)

Milne follows in Whitacre’s earlier footsteps, except he wants to be paid by everyone.  His customers are already subjected to limits on usage, which have limited Australia’s multimedia online experience years behind most others, and now he wants to have the money he earns from Internet Overcharging -and- the right to limit content that reaches his customers to only those who pay Telstra for the right to deliver it:

“Some content providers such as ninemsn argue that Telstra should subsidise the cost of the ninemsn customers visiting their internet sites. We might also assume [they] would prefer petrol to be free for their cars, and Hayman Island would like air travel to the resort free,” Milne wrote.

“But Shell, Qantas and Woolworths do not give their services away for free. Just like BigPond and the rest of Australia’s ISPs, they need to charge their customers a fee so that over time their investment is recouped,” he said.

Of course, Shell, Qantas and Woolworths only charge once for their products and services.  They don’t install a toll booth on a road and claim that because a full petrol tank weighs more than a near-empty tank, there needs to be a surcharge toll.  Qantas doesn’t send people down the aisle on a flight with a collection plate demanding more money for your ticket because the plane was packed.  All of Australia’s ISPs charge their customers for providing broadband connectivity.  Telstra does as well.  The difference is that Telstra wants to charge its customers a fee and also charge the websites you choose to visit a “transport fee” on top of that.  Your bill as a customer doesn’t go down because of “cost sharing.”  Telstra’s profits simply go up.

Milne’s problem with Net Neutrality is its core principle that all legal data traveling across the net must be treated equally.  That means Telstra has no way to enforce their HissyFit.  In the absence of Net Neutrality, they can block, limit, or throttle those that refuse to pay them.

The cost of the infrastructure to support this traffic has been borne almost entirely by internet service providers, and not by the publishers. In Telstra’s case alone, the company has invested billions of dollars in the Next G mobile broadband network covering 99 per cent of Australian consumers, the HFC cable network in major cities and the extensive ADSL network.

Unfortunately there is no magic pudding, so this investment must be repaid by the beneficiaries of the internet — the users on the one hand, and the publishers who seek to make money from those users through advertising and subscriptions.

Milne almost suggests they did this out of the goodness of their heart, and their investment was not going to be paid back.  The fundamental reality is that subscribers to those services are Telstra’s customers and they pay for that service, such as it is.  That is where that investment will be recouped.  Demanding a company that has no business relationship with your company to pay up or else face the potential of being cut off is akin to extortion.

I offered Milne two alternative suggestions:

• Expand your network to create infrastructure suitable to meet the needs of your subscribers, who will sign on in greater numbers to your service.
• Create hosting platforms and services at attractive prices to content providers who will use your service to host their content (and pay you for actually doing something for them).

Barring that, this is nothing but a HissyFit from another provider looking for a payday.

Michael Chaney, one of our readers, discovered this video interview compilation done last fall by ZDNet.  Enjoy the Internet Overcharging excuse making, where the customer becomes the enemy, and the creativity to find new ways to charge more in without bounds.

“The attempt is being made certainly in the UK but also in the US to push that cost onto the content owner by saying, you pay, and we’ll prioritise your traffic,” he said. “[And] if you don’t pay, your traffic will be really crap.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”360″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ZDNet Australia Providers 2008.flv[/flv]