Virgin Media is doubling customer broadband speeds... for free.

Great Britain is leapfrogging ahead in the global broadband speed race with two announcements this morning that represent major advances in British broadband.

First, Virgin Media is announcing it will double the broadband speeds for four million of its customers starting next month, for free.

The company says it will be the first residential provider in the United Kingdom offering 120Mbps broadband — a 20Mbps speed increase for their existing 100Mbps clients.  Customers on Virgin’s 10, 30, and 50Mbps tiers will soon receive free upgrades to 20, 60, and 100Mbps, respectively.  Those on the company’s popular 20Mbps plan will have their speeds tripled to 60Mbps.

That’s a major advancement for British broadband, where dominant BT-provided DSL runs at speeds averaging just over 6Mbps.

The new speeds were made possible by “modest investments” in Virgin’s fiber network, according to Virgin Media CEO Neil Berkett.

Berkett said the new speeds would help meet growing demand for faster access to support the proliferation of new digital devices.  Because Virgin invested primarily in fiber and cable broadband, speed upgrades on their existing infrastructure come “at a fraction of the cost of other network operators.”

That understanding was not lost on Sky Broadband, a growing competitor in the United Kingdom.  Sky this morning announced it has launched a newly-upgraded 100Gbps optical network to support its 3 million broadband customers.  The company is spending several hundred million British pounds on updating its network to position itself to become Britain’s largest Internet Service Provider.

Sky’s new network is based on the latest Alcatel-Lucent fiber technology, capable of supporting 100Gbps speeds on each of the individual 88 wavelengths on a single optical fiber.  Sky deployed the new dense wavelength division multiplexing technology on its existing optical fiber backbone network, demonstrating the infinite upgrade possibilities fiber optic technology offers.

Sky pitches its network capacity to consumers as a key benefit of its service, noting it is free of “traffic management” policies that reduce speeds for customers of other Internet providers.

The upgrade arrives just in time to handle the expected explosion of online traffic with this week’s introduction of Netflix streaming across Great Britain.

"Hey, we're #19!"

The United States may be a leader in many things, but broadband isn’t one of them. The country has now fallen two more positions — to 19th place, behind South Korea, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and even Iceland, since the Berkman Center for Internet and Society released its last rankings in 2009.

In 2004, President George W. Bush complained about the U.S. falling to 10th place, which he declared was “ten spots too low.”

Now eastern Europe and former Soviet Republics in the Baltics threaten to overtake the United States, and countries in southeast Asia already have.  Innovation in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand means deploying fiber to the home service to the vast majority of the population.  Innovation in North America means conjuring up new pricing schemes to raise prices on broadband service and engage in competition-busting mergers and acquisitions.

But a USA Today editorial this week also places much of the blame on corporate influence inside Washington, which has promulgated legislative policies that favor telecommunications companies and throw customers under the bus.

“The simple answer is that other countries have policies that promote competition and innovation,” the editors write. “In contrast, policies here have allowed a few dominant players that control the least interesting parts of the broadband landscape (the cables and the wireless spectrum) to dominate.”

Indeed, a series of telecommunications laws enacted by Congress, combined with short-sighted policies at the Federal Communications Commission, have allowed a handful of super-sized players to own and control broadband service in America, resulting in providers establishing non-competing fiefdoms that avoid head-on competition.

The worst policy of all allowed broadband providers to keep competitors from reaching customers over existing broadband networks.  During the days of dial-up, you could purchase Internet access from the phone company, a large provider like MSN or AOL, or thousands of smaller regional and local service providers.  Simply dial a local access number and you were connected to the provider of your choice.  Now, U.S. law gives broadband network operators the right to restrict these independents from selling service over their networks.  Comcast need not sell anything other than Comcast Internet.  Frontier Communications can make a killing selling its own DSL service, while protecting that revenue from other Internet Service Providers who might sell the service over Frontier’s network for half the price.  Time Warner Cable voluntarily allows Earthlink and a handful of other companies to sell cable broadband service over its infrastructure, but at prices equal to or higher than what Time Warner charges itself.

Broadband providers argue that allowing competitors to sell service on their network would discourage future investment and rob shareholders a return on investments already made.  Today, major cable operators and phone companies are falling all over themselves denying they are in anything but the broadband business.  It has become an enormously lucrative enterprise, more profitable than television or telephone service.

USA Today compares the broadband landscape back home with that in South Korea — perennially the world’s fastest, and considerably less expensive than what North Americans pay for service:

South Korea has made broadband a national priority, mandating deployment and in some cases giving private companies incentives to build out. It has also prevented major players from monopolizing their businesses, encouraging competition and innovation. In South Korea, consumers can get broadband service from a cable or telecom company. But they may also choose among myriad independent providers that are given access to the physical infrastructure. This competition keeps prices down and the quality of service high.

[…] But over time, cable and telecom companies worked the courts and Congress to make sure that this competitive world would never come to be [in the United States]. […] Wireless is a bit better. But the market has remained a near duopoly, with none of the smaller players emerging as a strong competitor to AT&T and Verizon.

The same open network concept has fought its way forward in Canada (where Bell has worked furiously to sabotage the business plans of independent providers) and in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand where all three governments have decided the best solution would be to scrap the ancient landline network and start fresh with an open-to-all-comers fiber to the home service.

Back home in the States it is business as usual with increasing broadband prices and the looming prospect of usage-limiting schemes designed to cut capital costs, monetize broadband usage, and stop cord-cutting.

The opposing point of view comes courtesy of dollar-a-holler, corporate-backed think tank The Heartland Institute, who is stuck quoting notorious industry-funded studies and think tanks like the Discovery Institute and the Technology Policy Institute:

The idea that European and Asian countries are lapping America in the race for broadband speed and penetration is a fallacy created with statistics comparing “persons” instead of “households.” Once you make that correction, the USA is firmly planted among the top of industrialized nations, as economist Scott Wallsten pointed out when he was a staffer at the Federal Communications Commission in 2009.

And as tech researcher Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics points out, if you measure Internet usage by gigabytes used per month — a better measure of the speed and utility of networks — the USA has nearly lapped Western Europe once and Asia twice.

Heartland Institute: "By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."

If you measure how many mouse clicks customers in New York make on a Thursday afternoon, we could be number one as well!  Gigabytes used per month does not measure the speed or price of service on broadband networks, considerations that actually do impact broadband rankings.

Mr. Wallsten is a familiar favorite go-to-guy for The Heartland Institute.  He’s also the choice of Time Warner Cable, who paid him $20,000 for a 2010 essay: “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.”

There is big money to be made writing corporate-funded research reports.  Bret Swanson knows that very well, having been involved with the Discovery Institute, a “research group” that delivers paid, “credentialed” reports to telecommunications company clients who waive them before Congress to support their positions.  Swanson is also a “Visiting Fellow” at Arts+Labs/Digital Society, which counted as its “partners” AT&T and Verizon.

The gentleman from Heartland also quotes from the misnamed “Progressive Policy Institute,” which counts among its funding partners, AT&T.

It would have been probably easier (but ineffectively transparent) to simply quote from AT&T and Comcast directly.

The Heartland Institute, unsurprisingly, believes letting existing broadband providers deliver service exactly the way they want is the best option:

The digital economy — one of the only vibrant economic sectors left — doesn’t need more government “investment” or regulation. It needs only for government to butt out and let the market work the magic that continues to bring us the marvels of the modern age.

That magic will cost you $50 a month and rising.  If some providers have their way, while the rest of the world abandons usage caps, American providers can’t wait to slap them on, reducing the value of your service even further.

Stop the Cap! reader Davey in Arizona was displeased to receive notification his Internet Service Provider, CommSpeed, suddenly announced an Internet Overcharging scheme that limits customers to two levels of service: a basic $40 plan with a ridiculously stingy 10GB monthly usage allowance, or a more generous (and double the price) $60 plan that comes with a 200GB usage cap.

Davey is particularly upset the company plans to punish customers who exceed the allowance with a stinging $2/GB overlimit fee.  It will not be difficult for customers to blow past  CommSpeed’s standard 10GB plan limit if they discover file backup, online video, or downloading.  If they do, CommSpeed’s overlimit fee will be coming soon to a bill in their mailbox. For those who use the Internet to watch television and movies, the only real options are to watch less or upgrade to a more expensive plan with a more realistic usage allowance that can accommodate high bandwidth applications.

CommSpeed claims their “advanced 4G network combines the best features of cellular, cable modem & DSL, and Wi-Fi networks, without the inherent limitations associated with these legacy systems.”  The company brands itself as “Tomorrow’s Internet Today.”

What they don’t mention is today’s wireless ISP’s are increasingly challenged by the growing usage demands consumers place on providers.  CommSpeed’s claim that their network “was designed and built, from inception, to deliver a full range of broadband content and applications” flies in the face of their 10GB usage limit. Fiber, cable broadband and even telephone company DSL has a better track record handling increasing usage demands, as long as providers maintain investments in their respective networks.

CommSpeed’s usage cap tells the real story — their network may not be able to handle the growing traffic from customers in their northern Arizona service area.

“The Internet has seen tremendous growth in total usage over the last year. New applications are being developed everyday and these applications are causing an ever increasing demand for bandwidth. Quite simply, the content of the Internet has evolved,” CommSpeed explains on a page dedicated to explaining their new caps.

Unfortunately for wireless, until more spectrum and better technology is available, usage limitations are an increasing reality for customers stuck using these networks. It’s why Stop the Cap! rarely recommends wireless broadband as a primary Internet service except as a last resort, when other choices simply are not available.

Still, we’ve seen much worse from other Wireless ISPs.  CommSpeed’s 200GB limit on their $60 tier is more generous than average.  Plus, the company takes the limits off during the overnight hours of midnight to 6AM.

We also think the company’s usage guestimates are a more honest approximation of real-world usage, not the ridiculous “send 10,000,000 e-mails and download 500,000 songs” reassurances we usually see from Internet Overcharging ISPs:

CommSpeed’s old plans ranged in price from $34.95 for basic 768kbps-1.5Mbps service to $54.90 for 1.5-6Mbps service, depending on the technology in use in the area. The new plans bring a $5 rate hike and usage caps — just two reasons why customers like Davey are so upset. They’ll be even more upset if their bill also include overlimit fees. Stay tuned.

[flv width=”608″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CommSpeed 4G – Tomorrow’s Internet Today.flv[/flv]

CommSpeed heavily promotes its newer 4G wireless broadband service, claiming its great for online video, downloading, gaming, and more, as long as you don’t use it too much.  In 2012, CommSpeed throws up limits on their wireless experience.  (3 minutes)

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission late Tuesday ruled against a revised proposal from Bell that could have effectively ended flat rate Internet service across the country, but also allows the phone company to raise wholesale prices for independent Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

The Commission ruled Bell and cable companies like Rogers must sell access to third party providers at a flat rate or priced on speed and the number of users sharing the connection.  The CRTC rejected a Bell-proposed usage-based pricing scheme that would have charged independent ISPs $0.178/GB.

Ultimately, the CRTC came down closest to adopting a proposal from Manitoba-based MTS Allstream, which suggested a variant on speed-based pricing, steering clear of charging based on usage.  Under the CRTC ruling, independent ISPs can purchase unlimited wholesale access based on different speed tiers.  The new pricing formula requires independent providers to carefully gauge their usage when choosing an appropriate amount of bandwidth.  If an independent ISP misjudges how much usage their collective customer base consumes during the month, they could overpay for unused capacity or underestimate usage, leaving customers with congested-related slowdowns.  ISPs will be able to purchase regular capacity upgrades in 100Mbps increments to keep up with demand.  They can also implement network management techniques which may discourage heavy use during peak usage.

The CRTC decision underscores that Internet pricing should be based on speed, not on the volume of data consumed by customers.  That’s a model Stop the Cap! strongly approves because it does not allow providers to monetize broadband usage.

Finkenstein

But that is where the good news ends.  Nothing in the CRTC ruling changes the Internet Overcharging regime already in place at the country’s leading service providers.  Companies like Bell and Rogers are free to continue setting arbitrary limits on usage and charging overlimit fees for those who exceed them.

Konrad von Finckenstein, chair of the CRTC, says the regulator made a mistake in deciding last year to allow Bell to raise its prices for independent service providers.

“Our original decision was clearly not the best one. It was wrong and it was pointed out by a lot of people, including Minister Clement. He was right. We have today fixed it, we have made this new decision,” von Finckenstein said. “The bottom line is that you as a consumer will not face a cap or limitation of use because of anything mandated by the CRTC. Any kind of cap or limit, payment per use, that you will have to pay is because your ISP decides to charge you, not because we mandate it.”

But many independent providers are unhappy with the CRTC ruling because it also allows wholesale providers like Bell to raise prices, sometimes substantially, on the bandwidth they sell.

One independent ISP — TekSavvy, said it faced increased connectivity costs in eastern Canada.

“The CRTC decision is a step back for consumers. The rates approved by the Commission today will make it much harder for independent ISPs to compete”, said TekSavvy CEO Marc Gaudrault. “This is an unfortunate development for telecommunications competition in Canada,” he added.

“Rates are going up,” added Bill Sandiford, president of Telnet Communications and of the Canadian Network Operators Consortium, an independent ISP association.

In addition to whatever rate increases eventually make their way to consumers, some independent providers may end up adopting network management and usage cap policies that attempt to slow down the rate at which they are forced to commit to bandwidth upgrades.  That’s because providers purchase capacity based on what they believe their peak usage rate is likely to be.  Providers will be free to upgrade service in 100Mbps increments.  But with the new, higher prices, providers could overspend on capacity that goes unused or find themselves underestimating usage, creating congestion-related slowdowns for all of their customers.

Angus

Some network management techniques that could reduce peak usage — and the need for upgrades — include speed throttles for heavy users during peak usage times or usage caps that fall away during off-peak hours when network traffic is lower.

Yesterday’s decision will provide some small relief to wholesale buyers of bandwidth in Quebec, where’s Videotron’s sky-high wholesale prices are set to be reduced.  But the unusual divide in Internet pricing between eastern and western Canada will remain.  Western Canadians will continue to enjoy much larger usage allowances, and lower wholesale pricing, than their eastern neighbors in Ontario and Quebec.

The CRTC’s ruling did not go far enough for NDP Digital Issues critic Charlie Angus. Angus notes only 6 percent of Canadians purchase Internet service from independent providers.  The rest will still be stuck with what he calls “unfair billing practices and bandwidth caps.”

Angus is convinced the CRTC just gave the green light to force rate hikes for the minority of consumers who found a way around companies like Bell, Shaw, Videotron, and Rogers.

“Allowing big telecom companies to reach into the pockets of struggling families and ask for even more money is just plain wrong,” Angus said.

Bell’s senior vice-president for regulatory and government affairs, Mirko Bibic, still believes the company’s proposal to charge just under 20c per gigabyte to wholesale users was appropriate, but the CRTC’s permission to allow Bell to increase wholesale rates was a nice consolation prize.  Bibic tried to frame the decision as forcing ‘independent ISPs to pay their fair share.’

Independent ISPs “are going to have to lease more traffic lanes,” he told CTV News. “I think the philosophy is [to] put the independent ISP in a position of responsibility. If usage goes up, you’re going to have to buy more lanes – it’s the same decision that we have to make.”

Canadians will learn at 4PM whether their Internet future will be unlimited or rationed with usage-based-billing (UBB) plans that could potentially charge consumers for every website they visit.

The much-anticipated decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) comes months after last winter’s hearings on how Internet service is priced in Canada.  It pits the largest phone company in the country — Bell — against small independent providers that are fighting to stay in business offering customers unlimited usage plans.

Most independent Internet Service Providers in Canada ironically buy wholesale access directly from Bell.  These upstart competitors like Primus and TekSavvy deliver unlimited DSL service at attractive prices.  In fact, some Bell customers have found them attractive enough to switch providers.  Bell’s wholesale division indirectly competing with its own retail business has proved unsatisfactory to Bell management, who proposed repricing wholesale access to resemble what Bell charges its retail customers.  But more importantly, Bell would demand that their competitors impose usage-based billing themselves, which would make unlimited Internet service in Canada a thing of the past.  The CRTC initially agreed with Bell, which sparked outrage among independent providers and consumers who faced the prospect of paying inflated prices for Internet service with no unlimited usage options in sight.

The backlash brought a half-million Canadians together to demand an end to unfair Internet pricing through a petition from Openmedia.ca.  That in turn attracted the attention of Canadian politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government’s Industry Minister Tony Clement.  Clement told reporters on Feb. 3 if the CRTC didn’t reverse its approval, and fast, the government would probably overrule the commission.

A day later, outgoing CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein said the commission would review its decision, the first in a series of backpedals in response to government pressure.

Even Bell, accustomed to having its way with the CRTC, has backtracked, now offering a compromise proposal that would charge independent ISPs 17.8c per gigabyte.  Many providers consider that excessive, too.

The CBC explains how Internet access is sold by independent providers in Canada.

Since the hearings, several marketplace changes have deflated some of Bell’s arguments that UBB was necessary to control over-eager users congesting their network.  Providers in western Canada — Shaw Cable and Telus, have dramatically boosted their respective usage caps, which call into question just how much of a congestion problem exists on Canada’s Internet networks.  The Canadian Network Operators Consortium, the voice of independent service providers, has offered its own proposal to charge wholesale customers based on peak network traffic.  MTS Allstream, itself a smaller player in Canadian telecom, proposed wholesale service be sold much like retail Internet in the United States — based on the speed/capacity of the service level selected.  If an ISP underpredicted usage, traffic would slow for everyone until the line was upgraded.

What ultimately gets approved by the CRTC may still be subject to government review, especially if the decision proves unpopular with consumers.  In a CBC online poll being conducted this afternoon, consumer sentiment is clear.  More than 91 percent of voters want the option of unlimited Internet access.

Whatever the CRTC decides will be reviewed by new Industry Minister Christian Paradis, who has managed to keep his head down and views to himself since he replaced Clement.  He may be hoping more than most that the CRTC will ultimately placate everyone, just so he doesn’t have to weigh in on the thorny issue.  But the CRTC’s track record representing consumers has been pretty dismal over the last few years, so we will not be surprised if the commission ultimately acquiesces to Bell’s substitute plan unaffectionately dubbed ‘GougeLite’ by Bell critics.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Internet pricing ruling expected from CRTC 11-14-11.flv[/flv]

The CBC reports on today’s expected ruling from the CRTC and what it means for Canadian Internet consumers.  (3 minutes)