Filipinos looking for reasons why broadband providers want to limit their Internet usage can find all the explanations needed in the financial reports of companies enthusiastically supporting Internet Overcharging proposals.

As ABS/CBN News noted, “To say that 2010 was a difficult year for the Philippine telecommunications industry is an understatement.”

“Consumers are demanding an unlimited telecommunications experience,” says Renato Razón, an investor and telecom industry watcher for more than 30 years. “The wireless sector and the growth of the Internet, and the companies that compete to provide both, have turned telecommunications in this country on its head.”

Razón tells Stop the Cap! the privatization of telecommunications initially showed a lot of promise for investment and development to get the country on the Asian economic fast track.  But increasingly in recent years, companies have grown fat and lazy, trying to compete with existing networks in need of upgrades — in search of quick profits and no costly capital expenses.

“They learned what they think are important lessons from the huge amounts of money that were spent to build and upgrade wireless networks in the Philippines,” Razón tells us. “They were convinced it was worth countless billions to build wireless infrastructure and wait for the enormous profits that would come later, but then everyone wanted to get into the business and the big profits they thought they’d get never materialized.”

Razón says wireless competition that exploded across major cities in the Philippines was initially a boon to consumers, who today benefit from heavily marketed unlimited calling and texting plans at declining prices.  But now that profits are taking a hit, investors and company executives learned what they feel is a bitter lesson.

As wireless becomes a mature market in the Philippines — with more than 80 percent of consumers already using wireless devices, almost all of the marketing from existing providers targets customers of their competitors.  Customers threatening to switch force providers to offer steeply discounted retention deals that are often infinitely renewable.

Such fire sale pricing enrages investors, who are calling for greater industry consolidation among the three largest operators.  With a fourth provider possibly on the horizon, the chorus demanding that some of the players get out of the market through mergers and acquisitions for the “good of all” could soon grow too loud to ignore.

“Heavy competition is your worst nightmare — it results in price wars and everyone, except consumers of course, are hurt in the end,” he admits.  “I admit I have to divorce myself from the fact my family and I are also consumers — and we love the lower prices — but as an investor, I understand the loud demands to improve shareholder value.”

Razón says executive compensation, often tied to financial performance, delivers the ultimate incentive that executives answer first to shareholders, not customers.

“If a handful of customers get angry at you, that doesn’t cost you the company-paid vacation on the French Riviera and a healthy bonus — an angry compensation committee answering to a dispirited Board of Directors could,” Razón says.

Razón says it’s the same story wherever private companies control telecommunications with few regulations governing their operations.  He believes private market solutions without regulatory oversight helps him more than it helps you.

“I understand what the Philippine government wants — regulations to promote better broadband, but they are only hearing from industry people on how to accomplish that,” Razón believes.  “They answer to shareholders who think about short term results and the health of their investment, not the overall health of the broadband marketplace.”

With financial results for 2010 showing the impact of price competition and predictions of another year of anemic profits, providers are looking for new revenue streams.  Broadband offers one of the few major growth opportunities available to telecom companies in the short term, Razón says.

“At least half this country doesn’t have meaningful broadband, so if you can deliver service over existing infrastructure, keeping capital costs low, you couldn’t count the money coming in fast enough,” Razón says.  “DSL from the phone companies delivers it all — existing phone wires delivering a value-added service to existing phone customers.  It’s not fast, but it’s cheap.”

Rafael Aguado, the chief operations officer of Bayan Telecommunications, agrees the real revenue is in broadband:

“2010 was a challenging year for the telcos, as competition intensified and the Internet/social media and new technologies influenced the shift on consumer behavior on how to communicate, putting pressure on traditional revenue sources like voice calls and international long distance calls. Data and internet subscribers continued to increase and is expected to accelerate to the next level of sustained growth.  It was a difficult year for Bayan but performance was consistent with the industry trend. Total revenue decreased due to lower voice revenues but residential internet and corporate data services posted revenue growth. With sound operating expense management, we expect the year to end in double digit growth in EBITDA. Our growth drivers next year would continue to be data and internet services for both consumer and corporate sectors.”

Philippines Long Distance Telephone Co.

Razón believes usage caps are just another mechanism to protect companies from performing costly upgrades.

“If you can limit usage, you don’t have to spend as much capital upgrading,” Razón says.  “Investors don’t mind if you spend to expand DSL into new territories, because the costs are relatively low.  They will get upset if your support and ongoing costs increase, however.”

That could explain the growing burdens of wireless traffic on the country’s cellular networks.  Some providers have been accused of deliberately overselling access to their networks while refusing to upgrade them to meet growing demands, because the return on “unlimited use” doesn’t deliver:

“The telco industry had a good year but its profitability was greatly reduced due to the highly competitive ‘unlimited plans’ that each provider offered its subscribers. This trend would continue this coming year,” said Ivan Uy, chairman, Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT). “What needs to be looked into is the deteriorating service availability or accessibility due to network congestion brought about by the unlimited plans. Customer dissatisfaction has been rising because of higher frequency of dropped calls, delayed SMS, and line unavailability.”

When given a choice how to solve this problem, most companies prefer to advocate for usage limits, not mass scale upgrades.

Even long distance companies, which played through a price war more than a decade ago, see the flow of investment heading into broadband.  Unfortunately, in their eyes, usage demands are coming along as well:

“Competition intensified in the cellular business. Broadband grew strongly. Margins came under pressure even as demand for more network resources increased. For PLDT, 2010 has been a year when it maintained its market leadership in the face of these challenges. Our focus has been managing this transition where traditional revenue sources such as fixed toll revenues like IDD and NDD were on the decline while new revenue sources such as broadband were on the rise. We preserved margins by strengthening cost management given the modest top-line growth.

“We expect the challenges of 2010 to carry into next year. Demand for bucket and unlimited offers in the cellular space will continue. We expect that broadband will keep growing given the growing popularity of social networking and new access devices such as tablets and smartphones. PLDT will continue to invest in its network in order to fortify its market leadership.” — Napoleon Nazareno, president and CEO, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.

For a long term investor like Razón who has seen this all before, there is a better answer: invest in your networks and grow them faster than your competitors.

“You have to spend money to earn money I have always found and there is a ton of money to be spent and made on broadband in this country,” Razón says. “The low hanging fruit has already been picked — now we must spend to get broadband into towns and villages and we should also be investing in content and products we can sell to broadband customers.”

Razón thinks Internet Overcharging schemes are a foolish mistake.

“You can’t create value-added services on an artificially limited network and expect consumers to buy,” Razón said.  “If you limit usage, you discourage people from using the services that get them addicted to using it in the first place.  Get them hooked, keep them happy and you have a customer for life.”

What would you do if your broadband bill was the same as your monthly rent?

That’s a question 21-year-old Notre Dame de Grace resident Amber Hunter has been dealing with since the neighbors began hacking their way into her wireless router, gaining access to her cable modem service from Videotron, Ltd., and running her bill into the next province.

It’s the predictable outcome of what happens when Internet Overcharging schemes gain traction, leaving ordinary consumers literally holding the bill.

Videotron sells usage limited broadband service across Quebec, but heavy users who routinely exceed their arbitrary usage caps knew there was a limit on the overlimit fees Videotron charged.

Not anymore.

Videotron left the usage caps on, but removed the limit on how much they can charge customers who exceed their monthly usage allowance.

Videotron sets prices like the OPEC of the Internet -- the sky is the limit

“The sky is the limit, or at least your bank account,” writes our Montreal reader Hei.  “The only thing unlimited with Videotron are the overlimit fees.”

Hunter had no idea she was being hacked.

“I had no idea what a gigabyte was, so when I started getting higher bills, I just assumed it was from watching TV shows online,” Hunter says.

Her boyfriend told her otherwise, making it clear it was impossible for her to be running up 350GB a month in usage just from watching a few movies and TV shows.

Since August, Hunter has accumulated more than $1,800 in broadband bills stemming from parties unknown who hacked their way into her wireless router and “borrowed” her Internet account.  Videotron itself is directly responsible for part of this debacle, encouraging Hunter to upgrade to a higher tier of service that upgraded her from a 30GB usage allowance to a 100GB usage allowance, with a major catch.

Hunter had become accustomed to paying her usual broadband bill plus the $50 maximum penalty charged for her “overuse.”  So a Videotron representative suggested a higher usage allowance plan might lower her bill.  But somehow, the Videotron customer service agent forgot to mention that the new plan no longer included a limit on overlimit charges.

When Amber switched plans, her broadband bill exploded.  Now the waitress hands over most of her weekly salary to Videotron.

“I’m a student, and I work at a bar, and now most of the money I have goes to pay my Internet bill,” Hunter told the Montreal Gazette. “It’s more than I pay for school and books, and I don’t have a lot of money left for food.”

She still owes the cable company $506 and they aren’t interested in providing her any service credits beyond the $313 they gave her a few months ago.

It took a Videotron help desk employee to finally unravel the mystery of the Internet Overcharges — someone was hacking into her wireless network.  Exactly who has been living their online life usage-limit free at Amber’s expense may never be known. Those living in apartment complexes and other multiple dwelling units can often find a dozen or more wireless connections, some password protected, others not.

Hunter’s wireless network was secured with a difficult to guess password using a four year old Linksys router.  Unfortunately, older routers often lack robust security and are easily hacked.

A handful of Canadian ISPs still offer unlimited broadband accounts.

As far as Videotron is concerned, it’s all Hunter’s fault — she should have understood what a gigabyte was, how many she was supposed to be using, what the security capabilities of her router were, that they were properly enabled, that she checked her usage on a daily basis looking for anomalies — investing her time, effort, and energy to stop the cable company before it billed her an enormous amount… again.

Speaking for Videotron, Isabelle Dessureault said, “It’s a case where Videotron showed some understanding and listened to what happened. We’re well-renowned in the industry for our technical support team. We credited her account for $313, but at a certain point, we need to share the responsibility. We don’t like these kind of situations.”

Videotron’s responsibility to their customers stopped where their profit margin began.  The company could have sent Amber a bill for the wholesale cost of her Internet usage, which she could have paid with a few of her bar tips.

Because Hunter’s broadband bills were now rivaling her monthly rent she decided to invest in her financial future, buying a new router and making sure the wireless was turned off.  Today she runs dozens of meters of Ethernet cable between all of her computers, just to keep the neighbors off her connection.

Although Videotron has become intractable, demanding Amber pay up, one of their competitors used the opportunity to score public relations points that Videotron sacrificed.

Jarred Miller, the president of the Internet Service Provider YOUMANO offered to cover all of Hunter’s overage fees amassed over the past year that also includes a free year of Internet service with his company, a generous offer Hunter will take.

YOUMANO is one of a handful of Canadian ISPs still offering unlimited Internet access, and do not think of themselves as the OPEC of the Internet.

The entire affair is a warning to Americans.  If you think Videotron is an Internet evildoer, imagine what Verizon, AT&T and Comcast could do to your bank account.  If they have their way, you’ll need to become intimately familiar with your router, the concept of a gigabyte, and take a class in “negotiating to win” when fighting over your future enormous broadband bills.

Listen to an interview with Amber Hunter. She appeared on this morning’s Daybreak on CBC Radio Montreal to discuss her experience with Videotron Internet Overcharging. (8 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Clearwire’s often-unclear “network management” policies are the subject of a lawsuit filed yesterday in Seattle seeking class action status.

Angelo Dennings vs. Clearwire Corporation was filed in the Western District of Washington federal court, and seeks refunds for consumers who were mislead by the company’s failure to disclose its network speed throttling and usage limitations, and charged early termination fees when subsequently canceling service.

Clearwire promises that its high-speed Internet service provides a “fast” and “always on, always secure” Internet connection allowing users to “[d]ownload pictures, music and videos.” But Clearwire does not provide an “always on,” “high-speed” connection as it promises. Clearwire purposefully slows the connection of its users because it cannot accommodate the high volume of traffic. Clearwire engages in a practice known as “throttling,” which is the intentional delay and/or blocking of Internet communications. This practice deprives Clearwire customers of the ability to “[d]ownload music and videos,” and leads to slow connection speeds.  Clearwire engages in throttling at times when demand for Internet use is highest, beginning at approximately 7:30 p.m. and ending at about 1:00-to-2:00 a.m.

If users attempt to cancel their service, Clearwire claims that, pursuant to its “contract” with them, it is entitled to collect an early termination or a re-stocking fee. The “contract” referred to by Clearwire is not a contract between it and its customers. The contract between Clearwire and its customers is simply that the customers will pay for, and Clearwire will provide, “unlimited” Internet usage at certain speeds, depending on the speed and payment plan selected in Clearwire’s stores, kiosks, or online.

The remaining “terms” invoked by Clearwire at its convenience are embedded in a document that consumers never see prior to subscribing to Clearwire’s service. Clearwire sells its services in its stores, kiosks at shopping centers, and online. Clearwire’s stores and kiosks do not have copies of this “contract” on hand for potential subscribers to read before they “agree” to its terms. Users who subscribe through Clearwire’s website never see the contract either because the link to it is at the bottom of a page, in substantially smaller font and lighter shade than all of the other text on the page. The text states: “Want to read the fine print (and who doesn’t read the fine print?) It’s all there in the CLEAR Legal Index.” No one wants to read fine print legalese and almost no one does. The statement is obviously and sharply ironic, and mocks anyone who may have been fussy enough to have considered continuing.

Despite not showing its terms to consumers, Clearwire refuses to allow users to cancel their service without paying the unconscionable fees it claims it is owed under this “contract.” These fees include an early termination fee (“ETF”), which penalizes consumers that want out before the end of the two-year term. Although Clearwire breached its contract with its customers, Clearwire insists on the payment of this ETF when customers realize they are not getting what they bargained for.

The suit argues that Clearwire has oversold its wireless broadband network, and allegedly quotes a company representative at one point telling Dennings, “Clearwire had signed up more customers than its cell towers could accommodate, and that therefore it was ‘managing’ users’ accounts.”

Attorney Clifford Cantor argues in the filing that Clearwire reduces customer speeds to 300kbps or lower when their network is congested, making the service unsuitable for most broadband applications.  Dennings, who lives near Ft. Worth, Tex., was outraged to learn Clear sold him a home and mobile broadband account that was advertised as a replacement for wired cable or DSL broadband, but was left with service he considered largely useless when throttled.  Even more upsetting, the suit alleges, Denning was asked to pay a $219 early contract termination and restocking fee when he tried to cancel service over the matter.

Cantor is asking for a court ruling declaring Clear’s policies to be unconscionable, attorneys’ fees of at least $5,000, and refunds for all impacted subscribers.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Michael in Chicago for sending along a copy of the lawsuit.  He runs the “Clear/Clearwire internet not as advertised” Facebook group.

If you are a Frontier DSL customer, your unlimited Internet service is at risk of being arbitrarily limited by a company that wants to cut costs and increase revenue… at your expense.

Suburban Sacramento residents deemed to be “using too much” Frontier Internet service are being told they have to ration their Internet usage or pay more — a lot more — for the same speed service.  Even worse, many customers are paying extra for a “Price Protection Agreement” from Frontier that protects Frontier’s profits while your Internet bill doubles.  That’s a price protection racket only the Sopranos could love.

Frontier’s own representatives are literally at a loss for words when told it’s easy to exceed their “5GB” limit just by web browsing and checking e-mail.  But they are even quieter when customers report Frontier’s own video website – my fitv, a “free online video service” heavily promoted by Frontier, is ultimately responsible for their looming $99.99 monthly Internet bill.

Frontier wants to get tough with some of their best customers.  As a result, many are exploring disconnecting service for a cable competitor.  The best way to fight these Internet Overcharging schemes is to make it clear to Frontier you will not submit to them.  The first step is to bring wider media attention to the issue.

Sacramento-Elk Grove Customers

• Contact the Sacramento Bee, the Elk Grove Citizen and other local newspapers and ask them to write a story about this;
• Contact KOVR-TV’s consumer reporter and ask him to do a story;
• Contact other stations and local call-in shows and draw attention to Frontier’s abuse of its customers;
• If you are on a “price protection agreement” contact the California Public Utilities Commission and file a complaint.

Points to consider raising:

• Frontier’s usage caps are easily broken using the company’s own video website, my fitv;
• What the company suggests most people will not exceed today is not reasonable tomorrow.  Besides, how much customers actually use is considered proprietary and we have to take their word on it;
• Customers on price protection agreements are being asked to pay more than double for the exact same quality of service they used to receive for less.  Where is the price protection?;
• Frontier is generous with their shareholders, paying outrageously high dividends out of step with their earnings, but are notoriously stingy with the customers that deliver them that revenue;
• Where’s the fire?  This is the same company that said it had more than enough capacity to take on millions of ex-Verizon broadband customers, but now suddenly can’t deliver the same level of service to existing customers in Elk Grove without doubling the monthly price?;
• Customers are being asked to pay $1 a gigabyte for a service that costs Frontier far less to actually provide;
• At a time when Frontier continues to lose landline customers, can they afford to alienate more, who take all of their business elsewhere?

Frontier alienating its own customers who pay for their landline and broadband DSL service does not sound like a winning business strategy.  Let Frontier know you will not do business with a company that abuses its big-spending customers.  Let them know in clear terms you will cancel all of your services if the company maintains its Internet Overcharging practices and you will encourage your friends and family to take their business elsewhere as well.

Frontier Communications is trying to enforce an Internet Overcharging scheme it deleted from its Acceptable Use Policy months earlier, telling customers the company generously extended them an allowance “well above our usual 5GB monthly limit,” but using 100GB per month is “just too much.”

Customers in suburban Sacramento are the latest recipients of letters some are calling “extortion,” giving them seven days to call the company with a promise to cut back or move up to “the next price tier,” priced at $99.99 per month.

Ironically, some of Frontier’s customers receiving the letter say it’s the company’s own fault — they’ve been watching Frontier’s heavily promoted online video website, ‘my fitv.’

“You may not be aware that your specific usage has consistently exceeded 100GB over a 30-day period.  This is excessive for residential usage and more represents the amount of bandwidth usage of a typical business,” the letter says.  “If you wish to maintain your current pricing plan, you may work with us to reduce your Internet usage.  Another option is to move to the next price tier of $99.99 per month, which reflects your current average monthly usage.”

The letter adds if the customer does not make a decision, the company will terminate the account in 20 days.  No word if the customer is on the hook for an early termination fee amounting to more than $100 in most cases.

The customer who received the letter, who lives in Elk Grove and wishes to remain anonymous, was highly annoyed.  He sent Stop the Cap! a screenshot of Frontier’s new “Flexnet/Account Editor,” poorly documented on Frontier’s own website, which shows over the last three months, he only broke the invisible 100GB Frontier barrier once, by just 38GB.  For that, Frontier wants to more than double his monthly Internet rate for its DSL service.

The monthly usage limit was news to him… and us… and everyone else.

A well-placed source at Frontier tells Stop the Cap! the company is making the rules up as it goes.

“There is no set plan here — Frontier’s corporate office is testing the waters in different communities to see what kind of response they get,” our source says. “We have been quietly collecting usage statistics on our customers for a year now, and here and there we are chasing those outliers using far above the norm in order to keep our costs as low as possible.”

Our source adds the company wants to keep bad publicity to a minimum, so these kinds of Overcharging schemes are not publicized, and unless customers make a federal case out of it, most will simply reduce usage to avoid the overlimit rates.

“They absolutely do not want a big political stink over this, because it creates headaches and leaves customers with a negative impression about the company and that usually means a disconnect order will follow, usually taking all of their business somewhere else.  That’s why we usually are strictest in places where the customer has nowhere else to go.”

Our reader was perplexed by the letter, the policy, and his options, especially since Frontier does not disclose either a usage limit or a $99.99 plan on their website.

“The [representative] from Frontier told me that the monthly usage limit is 5GB. I told him this is not enough for checking e-mail and surfing the web and reading news.” our reader writes. “He did not answer [when I challenged him about this].”

But no worries, the representative told the Elk Grove customer. If he exceeded 100GB of usage again, he’d automatically be billed the $99.99 rate — no decision needed.

Our reader adds when he signed up, nobody told him about a monthly limit, and there is none disclosed on the website.  Stop the Cap! fought to remove Frontier’s 5GB usage limit from its Acceptable Use Policy for more than a year, finally succeeding earlier this year.  But now it appears Frontier wants to enforce limits anyway, with no disclosure and little recourse for customers who don’t have access to a competing provider.

Before our reader started watching online video, he used about 16GB per month just web browsing, checking e-mail, and downloading the usual software updates.

Didn’t that put him over Frontier’s invisible 5GB cap already?

“The representative told me if I kept it under 50GB a month, I’d be safe,” our reader writes.

So is the usage cap 50 or 100GB per month?

Our customer exceeded Frontier's arbitrary, unpublished usage cap just once in the last three months (click to enlarge)

Stop the Cap! called Frontier customer service three times this morning as a potential new customer.  The responses we received:

• “There is no usage cap I am aware of.”
• “We don’t limit your Internet service.”
• “I don’t understand what you mean when you say limit?  We don’t censor websites.”

Sandy, who also contacted Stop the Cap! also received a letter, and ironically blames Frontier for the usage.

Frontier's own video website was responsible for one customer using "too much" Frontier Internet service.

“I received a warning letter from Frontier for using too much Internet, but get this — all of the growth in my usage came after the company started promoting its new online video website, which my family has fallen in love with,” Sandy writes. “We hooked up a video box on our television, something Frontier helped us with, and we’ve been streaming my fitv a lot.”

“That is extortion plain and simple and is illegal under California state law, especially because the representative told us we’d be charged $99.99 the moment we went over the limit again, and we are on a two-year ‘price protection agreement’ Frontier says locks in our price, which is a lie,” Sandy says.

Her next call was to the California State Attorney General.  Sandy was told the office has already received more than a dozen complaints from Frontier customers in the Sacramento area alleging violations of California contract law.

Jeff, a Broadband Reports reader, also received a letter from Frontier and was told the company was getting plenty of pushback from angry customers.

“The tech guy said they just started metering and have been getting a ton of calls regarding the letters being sent out. He then asked if I got the 100GB or the 250GB letter, as apparently the 250GB warning letters were more severe stating to pay up or get cut off.  The 100GB letter stated they’d work with you to help ease usage or recommended a business plan. They said the “work with you to help with usage” was new and just added if you call within 7 days or else get cut off after 20 days.”

Jeff’s response to all this?

“Comcast is looking better every day now.”

So far, Frontier has not imposed its usage cap on its ex-Verizon FiOS customers.

“Putting a 5, 100, or even 250GB cap on a fiber optic connection would just be plain greed,” says our reader Ajai. “But of course, Frontier needs as much cash as possible to pay out those high dividends to shareholders that often exceed the company’s earnings.  There is nothing to like about this company, period.”

Frontier’s letters sound suspiciously similar to the enforcement letters sent to some of their customers in Mound, Minn. Those letters stopped after Stop the Cap! distributed copies to a wider national audience.  Our source at Frontier says the company doesn’t appreciate our help one bit.

“The higher ups on the corporate level despise your website, but they also pretend to dismiss you as an angry blogger that nobody reads,” our source says.  “I get a laugh out of that whenever I get another memo from the executive office basically delivering talking points to counter your arguments, so they very much do care what you and your readers say and apparently read Stop the Cap! regularly.”

For our source, it’s all “so stupid.”

“Trust me, a lot of guys who deal with customers every day want nothing to do with their usage caps which do nothing but infuriate customers,” he says. “They wonder why people are disconnecting Frontier landlines and taking their Internet business elsewhere — it’s policies exactly like these combined with pretty low speed DSL service which makes our customers easy pickings for our competitors.”

But not every customer has a choice.

“Where we own the broadband market, it’s too bad for customers — either ration your use, pay us double, or go without.  It is as simple as that.”