xfinity=5GB

Comcast is introducing a new 5GB optional usage cap for customers subscribing to their Economy Plus ($29.95 – 3Mbps/768kbps) tier willing to limit their Internet usage in return for a $5 discount.

“The Flexible-Data Option is specifically designed for casual or light Internet users who typically use 5GB of data or less a month,” says a new Comcast FAQ on the subject. “It provides a $5 credit if your total monthly data usage is less than or equal to 5GB per month.”

Comcast admits only a tiny percentage of customers subscribe to the Economy Plus tier, and those are the only customers receiving letters offering a discount for keeping Internet usage low.

The company says it will inject a message into subscribers’ web browsers notifying them when they reach 90% of their usage allowance. If customers do happen to exceed 5GB of usage per month, there are repercussions. First, they automatically lose the $5 credit. Instead, they will be charged $1 per gigabyte in overlimit fees.

“We believe this monthly option is fair because it allows our eligible customers who use less data to now pay less,” writes the company.

But unlike Time Warner Cable’s trials of 5 and 30GB usage-capped plans that limit the overlimit fee to $25 a month, Comcast has no disclosed maximum, which means a customer consuming 200GB a month could face a $195 overage usage penalty.

Comcast notes the option is being offered later this month on a trial basis and only in the Fresno area. Customers can drop the usage capped option at any time.

Comcast discontinued its formal 250GB usage cap in May 2012, but it has not abandoned interest in usage limits or consumption-based pricing.

In Tucson, Comcast is testing variable usage caps with an overlimit fee of $10, which includes an extra 50GB of usage. In Nashville, all customers face a hard 300GB usage cap.

Time Warner Cable has repeatedly admitted very few customers have shown any interest in usage capped broadband plans.

Bruce

Charging usage-based pricing and monetizing your use of the Internet is key to enhanced profits and higher earnings as broadband becomes the key product for cable operators.

That is the view of Robert Bruce, president of the communications division of Rogers Communications, eastern Canada’s largest cable operator.

“[The Internet] is the key to the future of our business, hence monetizing the increased bandwidth usage will rapidly become the future across all our businesses, whether it is wireless or wireline,” Bruce told a financial analyst in response to a question about ongoing Internet rate increases from the cable company. “There are clearly some unlimited offers out there and we think they are fairly shortsighted as the Internet is the future of the business.”

Bruce believes there is plenty of room for future rate increases, especially as the cable company boosts Internet speeds and ends network traffic management, improving the perceived quality of Rogers’ Internet service.

“We have significantly enhanced the value of this product and over time it is our plan to monetize it accordingly,” Bruce explained to the analyst. “The price increase that you receive in the mail would have just been one step in the monetization that we think will continue as Internet service becomes the backbone product in the home.”

Rogers admits it will continue to lower the bar on customers with usage caps and higher broadband pricing.

Ironically, Rogers is currently offering its own unlimited use plans, primarily in response to a competing offer from Bell.

Dr. Michael Geist, a broadband industry observer and law professor at the University of Ottawa notes competition is the only thing keeping Rogers’ pricing and usage caps in check.

“If the Bell offer disappears, so will the Rogers plan,” Geist predicts. “With limited competition, favorable pricing plans will come and go, with executives anxious to increase prices and implement usage caps. The only solution is sufficiently robust competition that all players are continually forced to improve service and keep pricing in check to retain and attract customers.”

Rogers may tell the public Canadian broadband is robustly competitive but the company signals something very different to the investor community. With OECD data already showing Canada among the ten most expensive countries for broadband service in the developed world, Rogers is primed to raise prices even higher as it further tightens Internet usage caps.

Rogers’ improvements in its broadband service do not necessarily correspond with the company’s pricing power. As consumers increasingly consider Internet access an essential utility in the digital economy, Rogers is finding it can set prices as it likes and regularly increase them without effective subscriber backlash. With most Canadians buying service from the cable or phone company, if both providers avoid a pricing war, investors will be able to extract OPEC-like earnings from the barely regulated service.

Providers routinely claim rate increases are tied to costly upgrades, but Rogers’ own financial statements and comments to shareholders say otherwise. The cost to deliver broadband service in Canada is dropping, but the price charged for Internet access and the overlimit fees collected when customers exceed their usage limit will continue to rise as a growing percentage of company revenue now depends on broadband service.

Just as in the United States, the promises made by satellite broadband providers are turning out to be too good to be true.

In Great Britain, commercial broadband providers have argued satellite Internet access is a better solution for rural residents because wiring out-of-the-way places is “too uneconomical.”

Despite promises of 20Mbps service from satellite operators, customers report actual speeds are well below 1Mbps at the times they actually want to use the Internet. Unlimited access is also increasingly a thing of the past, replaced with usage caps of 50-60GB, with unlimited usage from 11pm-7am.

Providers deny any serious problems, pointing to speed test tools developed and released by the ISPs showing speeds are theoretically great. But browsing the public Internet suggests otherwise.

Avonline customers have a very active ongoing discussion complaining that £65 satellite broadband should work better:

For past three weeks, the service takes a dive in the evening, I thought this started about 7pm but having tried it earlier, it’s more like 5pm and today about 4pm. Speed tests provided by Avonline suggest I am getting 20/5Mbps but all other tests suggest between 1 and 2Mbps download and ?? upload. Often their own speed test stalls on the upload altogether or eventually returns a result of 0.1Mbps or similar.

As a family, we come home from work and school and want to watch things online at a time to suit us as terrestrial TV is a bit dire. The service is unavailable at this key time and remains down until 1 or 2 am.

Unlimited customers paying £75 per month have been told they are “abusing” the service and that it has effectively run out of capacity and is oversold.

“Unfortunately we cannot do much about the bandwidth on the shared network during peak hours,” came one response from Tooway, another satellite ISP that recently disclosed it will only sell unlimited service to 20,000 customers and wants assurances customers are using their accounts for private, family, and personal use only before the overnight usage caps come off.

*-Only applies at 3am.

But even then, some customers say pervasive speed throttling accomplishes the same thing as a strict cap – it keeps customers away from the service. One Tooway customer shares his dissatisfaction:

The Fair Use policy posted by ToowayUK has only just been introduced. Prior to this there was just boilerplate language that boiled down to “we can do anything at any time” (not that different from the FUP language of any other ISP).

Of course what is really a joke here is that the “unlimited” service actually has a 60GB cap – the traffic management policy works just the same way if we go beyond 60GB as when a capped customer goes beyond their cap.

ThinkBroadband notes satellite ISPs may also have insufficient capacity back on earth, but later reports show satellite bandwidth capacity is also a growing issue:

The KA satellites carry many transponders, but these are usually spread out to cover the whole of Europe meaning that for any particular satellite there may only be 3 or 4 transponder beams for the whole UK, and as a transponder has a throughput limit of 475Mbps this could prove a bottleneck. Oddly the fact that the speed probe tests gave good results, suggests the issue may not be satellite capacity but rather the purchased amount of capacity from the ground station to the Internet at large.

Comcast’s discounted Internet service for the poor forces customers to jump through hoops to get the service and considers protecting revenue from existing customers more important than expanding the service to reach those who need it most.

Those are the views of John Randall, program manager at the Roosevelt Institute/Telecommunications Equity Project.

For $9.95 a month, those that can meet some complicated eligibility requirements and prove they are not existing Comcast customers are qualified for 3Mbps broadband service with a 768kbps upload rate. It represents a $30 savings off Comcast’s regular price — a considerable amount of revenue that Comcast is effectively forfeiting for the benefit of poor families who live in Comcast’s footprint.

Except Comcast isn’t actually “out” that much at all, argues Randall.

Of the 2.6 million households eligible for Internet Essentials from Comcast, only 150,000 have taken Comcast up on their offer. That represents only 5.8 percent of those eligible. In Comcast’s hometown — Philadelphia — there are just 3,250 families hooked up, which represents only 3.3 percent of those eligible.

Randall calls the program ineffective and says the onerous requirements to qualify (and re-qualify) are such a hassle, few families bother. What is worse, those families already sacrificing something else in their lives to get broadband service for the benefit of their school-age children are punished for their noble efforts — they are completely ineligible for Internet Essentials regardless of income or need because they are existing customers. Randall argues Comcast carefully constructed the program more as a public (and government) relations exercise than a charitable endeavor. Comcast zealously protects its existing revenues from being cannibalized by customers switching to the discount plan.

Some might argue that Comcast is managing the program with costs in mind, but Randall dismisses that as nonsense.

“Within its footprint (which spans 50 million households in 39 states– 45 percent of the US population), the cost for Comcast to connect additional households is vanishingly low,” says Randall. “With no additional network build needed, Internet Essentials represents almost pure profit for Comcast.”

Randall claims Comcast’s gross profit margin on its broadband service is around 95 percent where the network has already been built. At that rate, Comcast’s cheap Internet still delivers almost $18 million in additional income, and there is a promise of much more as soon as a customer defaults on a bill, misses a qualification deadline, or their children graduate. When any of these occur, Comcast will reset customers to regular rates.

“While most observers might assume that the program is an act of corporate generosity, it was originally conceived in the fall of 2009 as a way to turn a profit by offering slower connections to certain low-income households,” said Randall.

“These plans were temporarily tabled at the direction of Comcast lobbyist David Cohen, who knew that this type of program would be attractive to the FCC and thus useful as a bargaining chip. When the time came for negotiations over Comcast’s $13.75 billion takeover of NBC Universal, Comcast was able to offer something it was planning on doing anyway. In the end, the FCC was able to claim credit for forcing Comcast to implement a program to combat the digital divide, while in reality no arm-twisting was needed,” he added.

One of the biggest challenges of America’s digital divide is making affordable Internet access available. Cable companies in particular are prepared to wring even more money from their Internet customers in the form of higher prices, new and increasing equipment rental fees, and consumption billing schemes that charge more for less service.

But that isn’t the story elected officials receive from Congress.

The potential public relations benefits far outweigh any costs to offer the service. Randall notes Comcast had delivered the Internet Essentials message to over 100 members of Congress and more than 2,000 state and local officials. To broaden its outreach effort, Comcast also engaged leading intergovernmental associations at the state and local level such as the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and various other organizations of elected officials. On top of that, Comcast says that the impressions generated by media coverage of Internet Essentials launch events earned it “millions of dollars” worth of media.

What message don’t these public officials hear?

America is subjected to local broadband monopolies and duopolies that guarantee the lack of competition for high-speed Internet access.

“It earns Comcast good press while distracting regulators and public officials into thinking that changes in policy aren’t needed and that digital divide problems will somehow work themselves out on their own as a result of corporate generosity. In the long run, Comcast Internet Essentials will do no more than contribute to the delay of much-needed regulation,” concludes Randall.

Schneiderman

The New York Attorney General has some strong words for Verizon Communications:

“Verizon [must] divest those portions of its New York franchise where it is no longer willing to continue providing wireline service and replace Verizon with another carrier that will provide wireline service.”

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is more than a little concerned with Verizon’s plans to abandon offering landline service on the western half of Fire Island and potentially other areas further upstate to satisfy the company’s wireless business strategy.

In a hostile 13-page filing directed to the New York Public Service Commission, Schneiderman’s office accused Verizon of abdicating its responsibility to provide universal access to high quality landline service in favor of moving customers to inferior Verizon Wireless service.

“Verizon is asking the Commission to depart from a century of telephone service regulation, which had as one of its fundamental principles, universal wireline telephone service for all customers,” Schneiderman wrote.

In return for a guaranteed monopoly, profits, and a secure franchise area across portions of New York, telephone companies like Verizon historically agreed to offer phone service to any customer who wanted it. State and federal universal service rules provided subsidies to phone companies to reach their most rural or expensive-to-reach customers.

The goal, Schneiderman argued, was for every resident in New York to have home phone service, enabling them to communicate with their doctors, families, schools, friends and businesses, as well as to send for police, fire and ambulance assistance in an emergency.

Verizon’s intended replacement, Voice Link, represents a downgrade in service even worse than hundred-year old copper wire “plain old telephone service,” according to the attorney general. Schneiderman called Verizon’s Voice Link inferior and its thick 10-page terms, conditions, and disclaimers “legalistic,” leaving consumers without services they previously received or imposing significant new burdens and obligations.

The issues cited by Schneiderman:

Voice Link Service “is not compatible with fax machines, DVR services, credit card machines, medical alert or other monitoring services or some High Speed or DSL Internet services.” Customers in western Fire Island and other rural parts of New York have no FiOS or cable modem Internet providers to switch to, so those who rely on these services have no alternatives if switched to Voice Link.

Because Voice Link “may not be compatible with certain monitored home security systems,” customers’ homes and businesses will be at greater risk from flooding by burst plumbing, fire or burglars. In the case of plumbing emergencies, visit Carlson Plumbing Company website for reliable solutions and prompt support.

Although wireline customers whose service is suspended for nonpayment can still reach a 911 operator in emergencies, suspension of Voice Link “will prevent ALL Service, including any 911 dialing and associated emergency response services. Customers may also lose the ability to receive or place calls, even to 911, if they fail to “promptly notify Verizon” of a change in their address, email, or credit card expiration date.

Customers must “defend, indemnify and hold harmless Verizon from and against all claims … for infringement of any intellectual property rights arising from use of Voice Link or its software.”

Voice Link Service “does not allow the Customer to make 500, 700, 900, 950, 976, 0, 00, 01, 0+, calling card or dial-around calls (e.g., 10-10-XXXX),” so customers will be unable to use such pay-per-call information services. Voice Link Service “does not allow the Customer to accept collect calls or third number billed calls. The Company will not bill any charges on behalf of other carriers. [Customers] must have an International Calling Plan in order to make international calls. Wireline customers are able to subscribe to toll and international calling plans provided by other carriers, and have these and other third-party service charges included on their Verizon bills.

Verizon Voice Link

Voice Link Service “is subject to the availability of adequate wireless coverage throughout your home, and is not available in all locations.”

Unlike wireline service, which supplies its own power over the copper wiring, Voice Link uses customers’ house current to operate. Verizon has not disclosed how much customers’ electric utility bills will increase to power the Voice Link device. Also, if electric power is interrupted, Customers may have to “reset or reconfigure equipment prior to using” Voice Link. This may be difficult for some physically limited or technologically unsophisticated customers to perform.

During power interruptions, the wireless Devices used in Voice Link are battery operated. Although the Devices include a rechargeable battery back-up that provides only 36 hours of standby power and up to 2.5 hours of talk time in the event of a commercial power outage, “[a ]fter the battery is exhausted, the Service (including 911 dialing) will not function until power is restored.”

After the expiration of a one year replacement warranty for the battery back-up included with customers’ wireless Device, customers “are responsible for replacing the back-up battery as needed,” but Verizon has not disclosed the cost of such replacement batteries.

Wireline customers purchase their own telephones from competitive manufacturers, but the Voice Link device is only supplied by Verizon, which continues to own it. Thus, customers will have to pay Verizon to repair the device if “such repair or maintenance is made necessary due to misuse, abuse or intentional damage to the Device.” Verizon has not disclosed what [the] repair or replacement might cost customers in such event.

When wireline customers end their service with Verizon, they have no equipment to return to the company. However, Voice Link customers who cancel their service “are responsible for returning their Wireless Device to [Verizon] in an undamaged condition. Failure to return the Device within 30 days … may result in [Verizon] charging [customers] an unreturned equipment fee.” Verizon has not disclosed the amount of this fee.

Schneiderman accused Verizon of dragging its feet on repairs on Fire Island and forcing Voice Link on customers as the only available alternative.

“It is clear that Verizon is leveraging the storm damage from Sandy as part of its long-term strategy to abandon its copper networks by substituting Voice Link for [landline] service on western Fire Island and forcing customers to accept wireless Voice Link wherever it does not build FiOS,” Schneiderman argued. “Verizon’s failure to make prompt repairs to its Fire Island facilities during the seven months following Sandy left the Commission little choice but to provide temporary approval of Voice Link so that customers would have some form of telephone service during the 2013 summer beach season. However, this ‘temporary approval’ should not be expanded to allow Verizon to avoid its obligations permanently, on Fire Island or anywhere else in New York.”

Schneiderman wants the PSC to force the issue with Verizon, and not on the preferred terms of its senior executives.

“Rather than allow Verizon to provide inadequate Voice Link service to Fire Island and other New York customers, the Commission should compel the company to either maintain its wireline network throughout its franchise territory or sell
those parts where it is unwilling to do so to another provider that will provide adequate service,” Schneiderman wrote.