Phillip Dampier: The Blizzard of BS from Canadian ISPs is getting salted and plowed by Canadian media and outraged citizens.

A major ongoing Internet Overcharging campaign by Canadian Internet Service Providers to extract more revenue from consumers has sailed under the radar for more than two years now in most of the Canadian press.  Although some newspapers have occasionally covered various telecommunications atrocities related to cell phone pricing, lagging broadband speeds, and an overall lack of competition in the country, specifics about efforts to curtail broadband usage (or monetize its claimed “overuse”) has been a topic mostly discussed on online forums.

No more.

As Stop the Cap! turns more attention to Canadian Internet Overcharging schemes, let this be an object lesson to our American readers about how the game is being played.  What starts in Canada could finish American flat rate broadband as well.

CRTC Ruling Lights the Flame

This week, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) finalized rules that will effectively end unlimited broadband service in the country.  Remarkably, the Commission’s ruling completely ignores the one group such “usage-based billing (UBB)” impacts the most: individual customers.

The game-changing rules, found in the obliquely-named “Telecom Decision CRTC 2011-44,” effectively establish false usage-based pricing on both the wholesale and retail levels.  No provider will actually sell broadband packages that charge only for what a consumer actually uses.  Instead, each provider will set arbitrary usage allowances — usage limits — on their broadband accounts.  Any remaining unused allowance is forfeit at the end of the month, but “overuse,” at the discretion of the provider, will be penalized with overlimit penalty fees running several dollars per gigabyte.

The CRTC acknowledges, and big providers admit, these Internet Overcharging schemes are all about getting consumers to change their online activities.

[Providers] submitted that UBB rates shape end-user behaviour and that different UBB rates would lead to different behaviours by carriers’ and competitors’ end-customers.

Perish the thought.  Without such pricing, Canadian broadband could ultimately offer an alternative to overpriced cable-TV and telephone packages sold by the very providers that advocate limited use plans.  Providers insist on predictable, uniform usage.  The Commission apparently agrees.

The Commission even acknowledges today’s unlimited use plans in Canada almost always recover the actual costs incurred to provide them, and then some:

The Commission also notes that the flat-rate component of the carriers’ retail Internet service rates recovers most, if not all, of the associated retail UBB costs. In the Commission’s view, this situation provides carriers with the flexibility to adjust or waive retail UBB rates on a promotional basis.

With this in mind, why the CRTC felt radical changes were warranted is only a mystery until you realize most of the commissioners were former employees of the various telecommunications companies themselves.

Birds of a feather….

The only audience the CRTC listens to.

All of the falderal about the merits of UBB aside, in the end the CRTC threw a small bone to independent service providers not affiliated with super-sized players like Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron — the Commission ordered they be given a “whopping” 15 percent price break off wholesale rates.

Major carriers were outraged even by this token amount, arguing that providers forced to charge correspondingly higher prices (higher than major carriers charge) could still eke out a place in the market by offering other services or better support.  They didn’t need, or deserve a discount.

But independent competitors warned without discounts approaching 50 percent, many will be gone within five years.  Many providers argued the major companies, some who received taxpayer subsidies to construct national telecommunications networks, would be able to set wholesale prices artificially high to drive them out of business.

Canada’s Media Reacts

The effective end of flat rate service across Canada finally sparked significant national media coverage of the imminent death of Canada’s broadband revolution, soon to be relegated to a nickle-and-dime metered pricing scheme that will give providers the monetary power to control usage, limit innovation, and have their hands into picking marketplace winners and losers.  Don’t like Netflix?  Slash usage allowances.  Want to protect your cable-TV revenue?  Exempt your own online content from the meter as long as you keep your subscription.  Want to drive down Canada’s broadband standing in the world?  Turn the marketplace over to a handful of companies dreaming of revenue opportunities afforded by monetizing broadband usage.

The Globe and Mail — A metered Internet is a regulatory failure: The CRTC has decided to allow Bell and other big telecom companies to change the way Canadians are billed for Internet access. Metering, or usage-based billing (UBB), will mean that service providers can charge per byte in addition to their basic access charges. The move is sure to stifle digital creativity in Canada while the rest of the world looks on and snickers.  […] So there you have it. Just as the world is ready to feast on what Canadians might cook up in the way of multimedia 3.0, Canada decides to meter the Internet, tilting the table sharply towards old-school TV networks and big corporations that can absorb the higher cost of doing business.

Canadian newspapers have covered the story in the greatest detail, but now — finally — Canada’s television news has discovered the story, which for many media critics mean the story is actually “real.”

“If you don’t see it on television, it didn’t really happen,” writes Jim from Halifax, Nova Scotia.  “A lot of Canadians don’t read newspapers, and the magazines certainly are not covering this story, so it has been an online-only event  until CBC, CTV, and Global put it on their newscasts.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Extra Billing for Internet 1-18-11.flv[/flv]

CBC Television reports on the Internet Overcharging controversy.  (2 minutes)

Some critics say much of Canada’s commercial media is already in the hands of a tightly controlled, vertically integrated empire.  Most of the cable and phone companies have ownership in many major commercial broadcasters, cable networks, and even newspapers and magazines.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Vertical Integration.mp4[/flv]

30 Rock’s Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy explore the concept of “vertical integration.”  Then see how it relates to Canada’s media.  (3 minutes)

But even a controlled media environment cannot stop outrage over UBB going viral, as ordinary Canadians realize they are about to pay much higher prices for a service they depend on more and more.

Outrage Commences

Charlie Angus (NDP) -- "This pricing is a ripoff."

While these pricing schemes have been around awhile, now that they are getting well-publicized exposure, consumers have realized the implications of counting how many YouTube videos they watch.

Tens of thousands have signed Openmedia.ca’s online petition, others are complaining to the media and writing their members of Parliament, demanding action.

That will only get louder when consumers start receiving bills for double, triple, or even higher for the exact same quality of service they used to pay less to receive.

“There will be a huge wake-up call for many customers,” said Jared Miller, president of Youmano, a provider based in the Town of Mount Royal.

Charlie Angus, the NDP member of Parliament who speaks about digital issues, said he he thinks the entire pricing scheme is a ripoff that will lead to huge increases in customers’ bills.

“What we need to have is clear and transparent rules so it’s being used in a measured capacity, and it’s not just instituting the principle that every time you turn on the Internet, they can ding you for fees like they do with cell-phones,” Angus said. “We’ve seen this before; when we were told that deregulating cable rates would give customers a big benefit. We were paying 60-to 100-per-cent more in no time.”

“Canada is already falling behind other countries in terms of choice, accessibility and pricing for the Internet,” Angus added.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV British Columbia – Canadians rank among most enthusiastic web users 12-28-10.flv[/flv]

CTV British Columbia explores Canada’s love affair with technology and how its integration has dramatically changed the social lives of many families.  That’s no surprise, considering Canadians are North America’s most enthusiastic net users.  (2 minutes)

The Vancouver Sun‘s Gillian Shaw reports consumers in British Columbia, Alberta, and beyond are about to pay more for their Internet service, and consumers across Canada are not pleased.

Shaw, who isn’t affiliated with Shaw-the-cable-company, notes changes by a federal regulator could mean the end of unlimited broadband service across the country.

Steve Anderson, founder and national coordinator of the Vancouver-based OpenMedia.ca., which also fights for Net Neutrality protections in the country, thinks “usage-based billing,” a core component of Internet Overcharging, has struck a nerve.

“Bell, Rogers, and Shaw have been given the green light to determine how we pay for Internet,” Anderson tells Shaw.  “If this decision goes unchecked, broadband is about to cost much more for Canadians.”

Anderson tells the newspaper more than 40,000 consumers have signed the group’s petition opposing the pricing schemes, and many Canadians are taking the matter to their member of Parliament.

“It is a really interesting grassroots community that has sprung up around this. Basically they said enough is enough. They are drawing a line in the sand and saying ‘we are not going to take this anymore, this is where it stops.’”

Shaw also talked to Stop the Cap! about the pricing schemes:

“We have consumers who pay good money to receive broadband service, now they have to think twice about everything they do online in case they expose themselves to over-limit fees,” said Phillip Dampier.

“How many people measure how much they are using online?” said Dampier. “If you have kids that are teenagers and you are sharing an Internet connection, can you imagine the battles when the bill arrives – ‘Who ran up the bill?’

“If you thought cellphone bill shock was bad, imagine you have two teenagers living at home who are on the Internet all the time.”

Dampier said usage explanations by companies, such as Shaw’s graphic that shows 15 gigabytes of data equals 105,000 emails are useless for the average consumer.

“Shaw says these are generous; that’s all nice, but nobody needs to send out 105,000 emails. But what they do need to do now that Netflix has come to Canada is video streaming and you can blow through these usage limits a lot faster using online video.

“If you have Shaw’s lite service you can get through four movies tops, that’s it — no more emails for you, no web pages, or you can, but watch out, you’ll get a big bill at the end of the month.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFMZ Allentown Comcast NBC Universal Merger May Impact Comcast Customers 1-19-11.flv[/flv]

Now that the FCC has given the green light to Comcast’s merger with NBC-Universal, the headquarters of Comcast is moving to 30 Rockefeller Plaza in New York City.

While Comcast is moving on up, customers’ bills may soon follow.

Critics warn Comcast’s standing as the leading Internet Service Provider combined with its unprecedented power over programming could change the face of broadband Internet, particularly where online video is involved.

Comcast’s efforts to protect its cable business could lead to additional fees for broadband customers who seek to use the Internet to watch programming they used to get on cable-TV.

WFMZ-TV in Allentown, not too far from Comcast’s old headquarters in Philadelphia, reports.  (2 minutes)

Knology's Shakedown in Lawrence

Pesky facts have a way of getting in the middle of silly marketing campaigns.  Knology of Kansas (actually Georgia) has run into this problem in a big way with its glitzy, carefully-crafted welcome website KnologyKnows.

Some of the company’s facts are uncoordinated.

Lawrence blogger Joe Davis sure noticed:

Knology put up a new website to help build their brand in Lawrence, Kansas. In big capital letters, they write:

Allow us to introduce ourselves. We’re Knology, the new (115-year-old) kid on the block.

Sounds eerily familiar to the beginning of “Sympathy for the Devil” by the Rolling Stones.  Trust me… I have no sympathy for the Devil (in this case, a non-local company), also known as Knology. Their website is called KnologyKnows.com. But considering how many “facts” they’ve put out this past week that have been wrong, they really don’t know.

[flv width=”640″ height=”253″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sunflower Broadband is Now Knology.flv[/flv]

Knology’s opening welcome video to residents of Lawrence, Kansas has some fact-checking problems. (1 minute)

Davis caught a fact-checking lapse in the company’s introductory video, which claims the world record for handshakes was 13,372.  Oops.  In 2002, while campaigning for office, soon-to-be Gov. Bill Richardson set a world record for the most number of handshakes in an eight-hour period: 13,392.

The only thing Knology has been good at so far in Lawrence is shaking down their customers with Internet Overcharging schemes.  The company has plenty of money to invest in promoting itself, but has so far retained Sunflower Broadband’s costly usage limits and overlimit fees.

Knology hasn’t been around for 115 years either — a company it bought out was.  The Interstate and Valley Telephone Company was one of many independent phone companies created to serve areas AT&T dismissed as rural backwaters not worthy of their service.  Knology itself has only been around since 1994, owned by ITC Holding Company — the people who also brought you Mindspring, a defunct Internet Service Provider sold to Earthlink one month before the dot.com crash.

Did you know Lawrence omits several states?

Davis is also unimpressed with the company’s sell-out of its customer support staff, many of whom will lose their jobs as part of the company’s “rightsizing” initiative.

For Davis, first impressions mean a lot, and Knology is doing themselves no favors.  Some of their other trivia isn’t always accurate, either:

This “fact” is told to anyone who first comes to Lawrence. However, it is wrong. Truth is, 14 states are missing from the Lawrence street grid. The first thing I did when I was told this in 2006 was to find where Connecticut street was located. The funny thing is… Of the 36 state streets in Lawrence, Georgia is not included. Knology is based out of Georgia. Whoops.

Davis says Knology has turned Sunflower’s well-regarded Twitter customer support account into an automated marketing spambot, spewing out continuous tweets telling customers to enter its giveaway and visit its newly branded website.

Stop the Cap! reader Brian, also from Lawrence, agrees with Davis.

“Knology has no concept of the truth in their marketing campaign. This is a scary test of things to come. Fortunately, we just switched to AT&T’s U-verse.”

Perhaps Knology should learn from the ghost of Mindspring, which used to have legendary customer service and a list of:

By filling out Knology's survey, you can give the company a piece of your mind over its Internet Overcharging schemes and possibly win this 32" Samsung flat panel TV.

The 14 Deadly Sins of Mindspring (a/k/a “the ways that we can be just like everybody else”)

1. Give lousy service- busy signals, disconnects, downtime, and ring no answers.
2. Rely on outside vendors who let us down.
3. Make internal procedures easy on us, even if it means negatively affecting or inconveniencing the customer.
4. Joke about how dumb the customers are.
5. Finger point at how other departments are not doing their job.
6. Customers can’t get immediate “live” help from sales or support.
7. Poor coordination across departments.
8. Show up at a demo, sales call, trade show, or meeting unprepared.
9. Ignore the competition, they are far inferior to us.
10. Miss deadlines that we commit to internally and externally.
11. Make recruiting, hiring, and training a lower priority because we are too busy doing other tasks.
12. Look for the next job assignment, instead of focusing on the current one.
13. Office gossip, rumors, and politics.
14. Rely on dissatisfied customers to be your service monitors.

Readers can share their views about Knology’s unjustified Internet Overcharging schemes and enter to win a 32″ Samsung flat panel TV in the process.  You need not be a customer to participate.  Just complete their survey, and be sure to let them know in the box labeled “other” that you will never do business with an Internet provider that doesn’t provide truly unlimited, full speed, flat rate broadband service.

Frontier used Time Warner Cable's usage cap experiment against them in this ad to attract new customers in the spring of 2009. Now they're no better.

Stop the Cap! reader Mike in Elk Grove, California reports his departure from Frontier Communications carried a goodbye kiss he’ll not soon forget: a $680 final bill made up primarily of early termination fees:

“I just got my Frontier bill after canceling (they canceled me because I ported my number to another provider),” Mike writes.  “The bill cycle was through 2/14/2011 (my contract ends on March 6, 2011).”

The bill was for $679.72.

More than 22 months into his 24 month contract, Frontier charged him early termination fees at the same rate he would pay if he departed 14 days into his term:

• High Speed Internet Loyalty Fee: $200
• Netbook Term Fee: $300
• California Unlimited Term: $200

The only reason his final bill was not higher is that he received some service credits for the partial month he was not their customer.

Needless to say, Mike is livid.  He is one of several Sacramento-area customers who received letters from Frontier threatening to terminate his Internet service if he did not reduce his usage.  When Mike ultimately decided to reduce his usage to zero and switch providers, Frontier dumped every termination fee it could find on Mike’s final bill.

But before Mike opens his checkbook, he (and any other customer gouged with early termination fees) should remember this:

Frontier cannot bill you early termination fees and expect to be paid when they unilaterally changed the terms of the contract.

From Frontier’s Terms and Conditions for High Speed Internet:

Our Right To Make Changes

UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE MAY CHANGE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS AT ANY TIME BY GIVING YOU 30 DAYS NOTICE BY BILL MESSAGE, E-MAIL OR OTHER NOTICE, INCLUDING POSTING NOTICE OF SUCH CHANGES ON THIS WEB SITE, UNLESS THE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE GUARANTEED BY CONTRACT. YOU ACCEPT THE CHANGES IF YOU USE THE SERVICES AFTER NOTICE IS PROVIDED.

When Mike (among others) signed up for Frontier service, their broadband service did not carry any usage limits.  Frontier’s “price protection agreement” claims it will “lock in” your current price.  But Frontier violated their own contract when they sent letters to customers threatening to terminate their broadband service for using Internet service that had no specified usage limit and demanding they pay a higher price of up to $250 a month to continue service.  So much for “price protection.”

You are not obligated to accept Frontier’s unilateral action and can notify the company they have made a “materially adverse” change to your contract by specifying that you exceeded a never-defined usage limit (100GB), and that the company sought a price increase ranging from $99-250 to continue service with them.  If you exceeded 100GB a year ago, you would not have received this letter.  Today you will — and that is a change you need not accept.

Frontier defaulted on their obligations to you as a customer, and your recourse is to cancel the contract, penalty-free.

Frontier Communications’ outrageous term contract fees were precisely what got the company in hot water with the New York State Attorney General in 2009, and the company settled charges with refunds and waivers for those unjustly billed cancellation fees Frontier was not entitled to receive.  Apparently they have not learned their lesson.

Your response:

1. Send a registered, return receipt requested letter to Frontier notifying them under the terms of their own contract, you do not accept the changes outlined in their letter limiting your broadband service.  Your original contract with Frontier did not include a specified usage limit and now using more than 100GB results in a request to pay more or reduce usage.  That represents a “materially adverse change” in your agreement.
2. Under these conditions, you are exercising your right to depart, penalty-free, from your term contract with Frontier Communications.
3. Warn Frontier that any attempt to collect early termination fees or other cancellation fees will result in civil action appropriate to protect your credit rating and will trigger a complaint with the California Attorney General’s office.
4. Keep copies of all correspondence and record dates, times, and names of any representatives you speak with, as they will be helpful in any official investigations that follow.
5. Also be sure to proceed with the terms found on the back your Frontier bill to protest erroneous charges, preferably in writing.  You want a paper trail and you want to protect your credit rating from any adverse collection activity.

Mike has already contacted local media about his case, which is a smart idea.  Warning other consumers about the potential costs of doing business with Frontier is likely to only further deteriorate their reputation in the Elk Grove area.  Alienating and overcharging your customers is a great way to get them to share their story with as many people they can find, and that only makes a bad company look worse.

[flv width=”360″ height=”240″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WROC Rochester Frontier Flagged for Not Telling Customers About Fees 10-5-09.flv[/flv]

WROC-TV Rochester reported back in October, 2009 that Frontier was on the hook for hundreds of dollars in refunds to some customers. (2 minutes)