The Public Interest Advocacy Centre just released a report that found deregulation in Canada's telecommunications marketplace delivered most of the benefits to providers, leaving consumers holding the higher bill.

Four years after Canada deregulated its telecommunications industry with the promise it would bring competition, better service and lower prices, Canadian consumers are instead paying too much for broadband service that delivers too little.

That is the conclusion of a new report from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a non-profit consumer protection organization that compared provider promises with the bills ordinary Canadians ultimately pay for their Internet service.

Michael Janigan, the report’s author told CBC News that deregulation has brought “super-normal” profits for Bell, Telus and Rogers — among Canada’s largest telecom companies — while those same providers continue to increase prices and, in some cases, reduce the amount of broadband usage customers can access before overlimit fees kick in.

“We still have three big players with over 90 per cent of the market, and they’re pretty fat and happy,” Janigan said in an interview with CBC News. “We’re still seeing the incredible clout of the big telcos in relation to their ability to swing competition in their favor.”

Bell, Canada’s largest telecom company, stands to gain even more power over the broadband marketplace with a ruling from Canada’s telecommunications authority that has direct implications for Canada’s independent service provider market.  Most third party providers obtain their Internet connectivity from Bell at wholesale pricing.  Thanks to a now-approved-request from Bell to charge wholesale customers usage-based pricing, providers are now forced to pass along those artificially high prices to Canadian consumers.

“The days of unlimited Internet service are about to become extinct in Canada,” says Stop the Cap! reader Giles in Trois-Rivières, Quebec.  “How surprised can you be that the company that sells access to competitors has managed to find a way to price that competition out of business.”

For one such competitor, Primus, the effect of Bell’s usage-based pricing will have an immediate impact on their customers’ monthly bills.

The company is now notifying customers that effective Feb. 1, the unlimited service plans that appealed to those opposed to usage-limited broadband will be now limited to just 25GB of usage per month.  Primus directly implicated both Bell and the the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for the pricing changes.

Those who exceed the limit face overlimit fees of $2.00 per gigabyte, up to a maximum of $60 per month.

Here today, gone tomorrow: Primus is discontinuing its unlimited use services. Effective Feb. 1, overlimit fees of $2/GB kick in after just 25GB of usage.

Those limits could put Primus at a competitive disadvantage with larger providers delivering lower cost plans with higher usage allowances.

“Why would you still be a Primus customer after this,” asks Giles.

Primus will not be alone among third party DSL service providers — almost all will be forced to adopt similar pricing.  The result? More expensive service for Canadian broadband customers, and major troubles for third party competitors whose new pricing could turn customers away.

The price increase is a direct result of a recent decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to approve Bell Canada’s request to introduce Usage Based Billing on wholesale Internet services. Over the last four years, critics charge the CRTC with abandoning its watchdog role to protect Canadian consumers from unfair and uncompetitive practices and kowtowing to the interests of large telecom companies.

“In 2006 and 2007, the government stepped in to tell the CRTC to deregulate as a priority and to deregulate local telephone service faster promising better deals for consumers. As a our report notes, this did not happen despite all the hype”, said Janigan, author of the report, Waiting for the Dream, The Consumer Brief for Telecom Reform 2010.

In fact, the report concludes that Canada’s performance in telecommunications services such as broadband and wireless has been less than impressive, and the results for customers of cable and satellite services from deregulation of basic service has been the opposite of what should be expected in competitive markets.

“It is one thing to try a course of action that doesn’t work out: it is another to ignore the results and simply try more of the same,” said Janigan. “It doesn’t now make sense to have a government Policy Direction in place that hampers both competition and consumer protection”:

This report concludes that the failure of the regulatory reform of the last two decades to deliver the goods for ordinary residential consumers is not one that has its roots in theory, but in practice. Here, the interests of powerful stakeholders have affected the service landscape. In the same way that incumbent players used their political and economic influence and regulatory capture to get their way in the monopoly era of regulation, the winners have used the market- based system to their advantage. Neither regulation nor deregulation will engineer a thriving telecommunications industry producing innovative and efficient products and services with resultant economic growth for Canada if the decision making processes for each are skewed by conditions and assumptions that favour some stakeholders over others.

Most importantly, the governance and regulation of the telecommunications industry in Canada must respond to results. For the most part, the restructuring of telecommunications has been guided by untested economic theories, largely provided by experts engaged by the largest stakeholders. The relatively poor performance of telecommunications service for ordinary consumers should have long ago engendered a review of the  regulatory framework and market structure that is producing the same. In the last five years, the only acknowledged measure of success has been how fast telecommunications services have been deregulated with predictable market results.

The solution is not a return to old regulation but new models. First of all, there are a variety of consumer issues associated with basic rights for information, quality of service, security of service, disconnections, privacy etc. that should be met by all carriers whether they are incumbent or not. Basic service, obligations to serve, complaints resolution, and burdens of service in uneconomic areas have to be in place for all across the board. The best way to ensure that this occurs is for mandatory licensing for all carriers, with appropriate codes of conduct and enforcement with meaningful force in the form of administrative monetary penalties. The Telecommunications Act should be amended to reflect these improvements.

Interconnection with essential telecommunications facilities should be available for competitors at rates that are fair to users and suppliers. We cannot let abstruse theories supposing innovation and duplication in the absence of access to govern this important issue.

Media excitement about recent iterations of allegedly “4G” networks aside, no currently available wireless broadband service will replace the need for traditional wired broadband so long as providers limit consumption to 5GB (or less) per month.

As average consumption per household is now at least three times that level, wireless broadband customers will be faced with three choices:

1. Supplement a wireless broadband account with an unlimited, wired broadband service;
2. Be prepared to pay overlimit fees or purchase additional accounts or “usage packs;”
3. Reduce usage to remain within plan limits.

Sprint currently remains the largest carrier offering unlimited access to its 4G network, also sold independently under the Clearwire brand.  But as Clear subscribers found out, “unlimited” comes with “unlimited hassles” if Clear’s “intelligent network management” software catches you using it “too much.”  Speeds are quickly throttled downwards, well below even Sprint’s slower 3G network.

Many of Clear’s customers signed up in response to ads promising the 4G wireless service as a “home broadband replacement.”  Ditch your cable modem or DSL service for a wireless alternative!  Some salespeople even dared to suggest Clear was faster than cable or DSL.  Only for most it is not.

Every carrier has their own version of “4G” here or on the way, most of which can deliver better and faster service than the 3G alternative, but wireless providers are hellbent on ensuring customers never get used to the concept of truly unlimited service.

Glenn Britt, CEO of Time Warner Cable, admits the wired broadband industry erred when it got people used to all-you-can-use broadband.

“We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension,” Britt told investors back in 2009 when the company was contemplating its own metered usage trials.

4G networks can bring out the "data hog" in everyone if you actually take advantage of the faster speeds to stream multimedia.

Wireless providers are working hard not to repeat that mistake.

AT&T found usage caps anger customers, but got away with implementing a 2GB monthly wireless usage cap tied with the introduction of the wildly popular newest iPhone (and helped by grandfathering existing unlimited customers until their next phone upgrade.)

“If I had a baby in my hand and my iPhone and I had to drop one, I’d drop the baby,” laughed Dallas iPhone owner Luisa Benton.  But Benton’s love for her Apple phone does not extend to AT&T’s network, noting she has dropped calls and had poor reception in certain areas.

Many iPhone owners retain their cable or DSL broadband service because AT&T’s wireless usage cap limits what they can manage online, and the company’s network problems only adds insult to pocketbook injury.  With many locked into two year contracts, few are going to brave early termination fees to find an alternative.

As providers upgrade their networks, they are also upgrading their prices.  Verizon’s new LTE network, for example, carries a premium price tag for those wishing to use it.

Customers looking for a faster wireless experience will pay $50 for 5 GB or $80 for 10 GB of data on Verizon’s new network.  Run over those limits and an overlimit fee of $10 per gigabyte kicks in.

“People are never going to use wireless networks the way you see them on the commercials,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Jo-Anne in Seattle.  “They are always watching movies or TV shows — services you absolutely don’t want to risk at those prices.”

J0-Anne asked a Verizon representative if new 4G smartphones would be permitted to use unlimited data plans.

“‘Don’t bet on it,’ was the reply I got — Verizon may keep unlimited around for 3G network users only,” she said.

If true, Verizon will deliver overpriced, inadequate service for any customer looking to leave their home broadband account behind.  As soon as multimedia gets involved, usage caps rapidly become a dealbreaker.

Verizon recently contracted with Bridgewater Systems Corporation to supply it with data management software.  Bridgewater is also a major supplier of network throttling solutions to ferret out heavy users and impede their speed, as part of “fair use policy” regimes.

Some wireless companies are trying to have their cake and eat it too — selling “unlimited” wireless broadband service hampered by an aggressive “policy control” network management scheme.  You’ve seen the ads promising unlimited access, but probably missed the fine print warning the provider will throttle your wireless broadband speed to something comparable to dial-up once they deem you a data hog.

Cricket and Clear are both notorious for throttling customer speeds and delivering disclosures of the practice more impenetrable than North Korea.

A Clear blog entry tried to simplify the legalese:

During times of high network utilization our network management system may limit speeds, but we never limit the amount of data a customer with an unlimited data plan may use. The algorithm in place reviews several factors including long and short-term usage, current network capacity, and network demand to determine if network management needs to be applied.

The end result is that a few heavy users temporarily give up some speed during limited times of high demand so that everyone can have a good experience. A majority of customers are having a positive experience and experiencing faster speeds during times of greatest demand since these enhancements were enacted.

The “positive experience” Clear’s blogger reports may be wishful thinking, however, after reading the company’s support forums.  They’re overloaded with thousands of angry customers and probably many more ex-customers.  An “unlimited” broadband experience is meaningless if customers endure speeds well below the minimum acceptable definition of “broadband,” often for days on end.

Cricket is no better:

Cricket sets usage levels on the amount of data a customer can upload and download within stated periods of time. If you exceed your rate plan usage levels, Cricket will temporarily reduce the speed at which you can send and receive data over the Cricket network. You will still be able to use the service but your speed will be slower. Cricket may use other traffic management and prioritization tools to help ensure equitable access to the Cricket network for all customers. Your service speed is not guaranteed and is subject to this Fair Use Policy.

Cricket has set a data usage level (“Usage Level”) per customer. As shown in your rate plan brochure or on www.mycricket.com, this Usage Level varies based on the rate plan you’ve selected. Every day, we measure your upload and download data usage (“Actual Usage”) to determine if your total Actual Usage, as aggregated over your bill cycle (“Usage Total”), exceeds the Usage Level for the rate plan you selected. During hours of operation, you can inquire about your Usage Total versus your monthly Usage Level by calling 1-800-Cricket and speaking with a Care representative.

Once you begin a new bill cycle your rate plan Usage Level upload and download speeds will be restored.

The average Cricket customer is unlikely to grasp anything beyond the fact their speed sucks if they are targeted by Cricket’s throttle.  It’s not as simple as breaking through your monthly usage allowance.  Cricket can and does throttle customers who seem like they could exceed the limit, based on their daily account activity.

In the end, most wireless customers pay more for less service.  The primary benefit is portability, and carriers consider that worth the premium prices charged.  But as the Internet’s love affair with all things multimedia continues, none of these providers will provide a suitable alternative to the traditional home-wired broadband account.

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFAA Dallas iPhone Frustration 11-30-09.mp4[/flv]

Last year like this year, WFAA-TV in Dallas reports frustrations continue with AT&T’s wireless data network.  The company’s response?  Limit customers’ use of it and push more of them off to Wi-Fi alternatives.  (2 minutes)

Just in time for New Year’s Eve, AT&T is pushing revelers off its 3G network onto a newly expanded Wi-Fi hotzone that encompasses Times Square.

It’s all part of AT&T’s plans to improve connectivity for smartphone customers enduring the company’s overburdened 3G network.  A year ago, it could take 10 minutes or more for an AT&T smartphone user in a crowd to bring up a single web page.  That’s because too many other AT&T customers were trying to do the same thing at the same time.

In Times Square, where an estimated one million people are expected to ring in the new year, it’s a safe bet more than 200,000 AT&T customers will try and upload photos and send New Year greetings to friends and family back home.  They’ll have a better chance of success using AT&T’s Wi-Fi.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Expands Wi-Fi Hotzones Connections in United States 12-28-10.flv[/flv]

An AT&T social media representative introduces the new hotzone in Times Square.  (1 minute)

AT&T has been installing hotzones, accessible by their customers, in large gathering spots in cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco to address complaints from customers about network congestion.

“Our initial AT&T Wi-Fi hotzones have received great customer response and supported high data traffic,” says John Donovan, AT&T’s chief technology officer. “The pilot demonstrated the clear benefits of having fast and readily-available Wi-Fi options for our customers and our network, and so we have decided to deploy hotzones in more locations.”

AT&T’s outdoor hotzones typically deliver a signal across several city blocks and are intended for those on the go.  They join more than 20,000 indoor Wi-Fi hotspots already accessible to AT&T customers.

A strong Wi-Fi signal means reduced battery consumption and faster speeds.  And unlike AT&T’s 3G network, using Wi-Fi won’t eat into your monthly usage allowance, a major issue for those facing AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme on the wireless side, which delivers only 2GB of service per month before overlimit fees kick in.

But Wi-Fi alone cannot work miracles, and AT&T has no idea whether the hotzone in Times Square will have enough capacity to meet customer needs.  But the company is satisfied that it will certainly help, which is why it plans to continue installing the outdoor networks in other high volume areas.

Verizon Wireless already operates its own Wi-Fi network in Times Square for many of the same reasons.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Wi-Fi.flv[/flv]

AT&T explains how to use their Wi-Fi network.  (5 minutes)

In a welcome turn of events, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which has routinely turned up as a member of Big Telecom-backed astroturf campaigns and takes money from AT&T, has come together with Latinos for Internet Freedom to issue a joint statement calling on the Federal Communications Commission to adopt equal Net Neutrality policies for wired and wireless broadband services.

“Although we disagree on some of the components of the proposed network neutrality regulations, there is one point on which we are in lock step: the FCC’s network neutrality rules must apply equally to wireline and wireless internet access.  Of course we understand that what is ‘reasonable network management’ may be slightly different over different types of connections.  Cost is the primary barrier to broadband adoption, and Latinos are turning to their mobile phones as their only onramp to the internet.  We are committed to finding ways to lower broadband costs by increasing competition through wireless access and other means.  It is therefore essential that the FCC ensures that users of wireless and wireline services are protected by its openness rules.”

Of course, broadband providers’ demands for deregulation and unified opposition to Net Neutrality have never delivered and will never provide cheaper Internet service to anyone.  In fact, the court ruling that eliminated the FCC’s authority over broadband gave providers nearly a year of a wide open marketplace, yet many providers are now sending out notices they are -increasing- broadband prices for subscribers.  Net Neutrality has never been enforced against wireless networks either, and as a result most either usage cap, throttle, or charge enormous overlimit fees for users deemed to be “using too much.”

Increased competition can bring lower prices, but only if it extends well beyond today’s duopoly.  In areas where one provider is likely to maintain a de facto monopoly, effective oversight is required to ensure consumers receive adequate service at fair prices.

Still, it is a surprising and welcome change to see LULAC recognizing the true nature of broadband access for many economically-challenged Americans, especially in minority communities where unemployment continues to be catastrophic.  Some consumers are finding prepaid wireless broadband service to be one way onto the Internet, yet Big Telecom has sought to keep those networks exempt from any Net Neutrality consumer protections.  That cannot be allowed to happen.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon vs. Latinos for Internet Freedom.flv[/flv]

Watch these two competing spots from Verizon and the Latinos for Internet Freedom.  One is self-serving and a tad condescending, the other calls for a free and open Internet where individuals get a level playing field to tell their own stories and live their own lives without fear or special favor.  (2 minutes)

HP's Snowjob: The company that brought you the $70 ink cartridge supports an end to flat rate Internet service to "save" you money.

HP’s Joe Weinman argues consumers are behind the drive to abandon flat rate, “all you can eat” broadband pricing.

Weinman, whose company sells products and services to some of America’s largest broadband providers, has taken up their position that flat-rate Internet service is bad for you, claiming many are paying too much for Internet service they use too little.

In an essay posted on GigaOM, Weinman brings back the all-y0u-can-eat buffet metaphor:

For the record, I like unlimited Internet access just as much as anyone else. However, such plans appear to be on their way out, and here’s why. As I’ve explored in ”The Market for Melons” (PDF), pay-per-use is not an evil plot by greedy robber barons, but a natural outcome of independent, rational consumer choice. Consider a town with an all-you-can-eat (flat rate) buffet and an a la carte (pay-per-use) restaurant. Smart shoppers on diets will save money by patronizing the a la carte restaurant, whereas heavy eaters will save money by visiting the buffet. As patrons switch, the average consumption of the buffet will increase, driving price increases for the luncheon special, causing even more users to switch to pay-per-use.

Bottom line: it is not the proprietors driving this dynamic, but the customers themselves acting out of pure, rational self-interest—light users, by deciding not to subsidize the heavy ones, foster the vitality of the pay-per-use model.

Unfortunately for Weinman, most American broadband customers don’t believe a word of this, and even he was forced to admit as much when he noted consumers “often prefer to overpay for flat-rate rather than save money but risk bill shock.”

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports wasn’t suckered for a moment either, noting:

[…]Cable industry lobbyists would like the public to believe that such a shift isn’t about making more money, it’s about helping the poor. Not only is the metered billing push absolutely about making money, it’s about artificially constricting the pipe to protect uncompetitive carriers and TV revenues from Internet video. But instead, there’s a very concerted effort afoot to portray this shift as necessary, inevitable, and even altruistic.

Most consumers prefer the simplicity of flat rate pricing, and understand that ISPs are perfectly profitable under the flat-rate pricing model. They also understand that this is a pipe dream forged by never-satisfied investors, and once implemented ends with ever soaring per gig fees and ever shrinking usage caps.

Weinman’s essay completely ignores the reality his preferred pricing model already delivers to those who live under it in Canada.  Canadian broadband rankings continue to decline as customers there pay higher prices for a lower level of service, with usage caps that actually decline when new competitive threats from online video emerge.

Just what the doctor ordered: HP's Rx for American Broadband

We had to take time out to respond directly to Weinman and his cheerleading friends (see the comments section), some who wrote comments below the piece and couldn’t be bothered to disclose they owe their day jobs to industry-backed dollar-a-holler groups that are committed to delivering on behalf of their provider benefactors:

When Big Telecom comes ringing with promises of savings from metered or capped broadband, hang up immediately.

These plans save almost nobody money and expose dramatic overlimit fees to consumers, creating the kind of bill shock wireless phone users endure.

The OPEC-like Internet price-fixing on offer from big players delivers broadband rationing and sky high prices, while retarding Internet innovations that providers don’t own or control.

Consumers are forced to double check their usage and think twice about everything they do online out of fear of being exposed to huge overlimit fees up to $10 a gigabyte for exceeding an arbitrary limit ranging from 5-250GB.

Americans already pay too much for Internet service and now the providers want more of your money. The rest of the world is moving AWAY from the pricing schemes Weinman would have us embrace. It’s such a serious issue in the South Pacific, the governments of Australia and New Zealand are working to address the problem themselves.

Providers are already earning BILLIONS in profits every quarter from their lucrative broadband businesses. Now the wallet biters are back for more, with the convenient side benefit that limiting consumption is a great way to prevent Internet-delivered TV from causing cord-cutting of cable TV packages.

As far as consumers are concerned, and Weinman admits as much, people are happy with today’s unlimited price models. When Big Telecom complains people are overpaying for broadband, wouldn’t their shareholders be telling them to shut up and take the money? There is more to this story.

Weinman defends the extortion proposition Big Telecom would visit on us: either give us limited use pricing or we’ll raise all of your prices.

But as consumers have already figured out, these providers never reduce prices for anyone. When was the last time your cable bill went down unless you dropped services?

Don’t be a sucker to Big Telecom’s “broadband shortage” or pricing myths. Broadband is not comparable to water, gas, or electric. The closest comparison (and the one they always leave out) is to telephone service, and as we’ve seen, that business is increasingly moving TOWARDS flat race, unlimited pricing.

Want to know what metered pricing does to the wallets of consumers? Just ask Time Warner Cable customers in Rochester, Greensboro, San Antonio, and Austin what they thought about the cable company’s “innovative” pricing experiment that tripled the price for the same level of broadband customers used to get for $50 a month. After the torches and pitchforks were raised over $150 a month broadband service, Time Warner backed down.

Either with or without metered pricing, the cable company raised its prices three times last year alone.

The industry’s meme that “usage-based pricing” in inevitable is only true if consumers allow it to happen.  The parade of Internet Overcharging advocates all share one thing in common — they earn a living from the providers that dream about these pricing schemes.  Always follow the money.  As we’ve exposed repeatedly, the vast majority of defenders of these kinds of pricing schemes are not consumers.  They are:

• The providers themselves;
• Wall Street banks, investors, and the business media catering to them;
• Non-profit groups receiving substantial contributions from providers;
• Industry-funded “think tanks” and research that can carry the industry’s public policy agenda, hoping the media that quotes them are too lazy to follow the money;
• Equipment and service vendors, unions, and other groups who depend on the business or jobs they get from providers.