Lowering the bar on customers by increasing the maximum overlimit fee. It’s another example of Rogers’ Broadband Limbo Dance.

Rogers Communications is quietly notifying its broadband customers it is doubling the overlimit fee for excessive use of its broadband service from $50 to $100, effective Aug. 16, 2012.

The company characterizes the new maximum fee as “protecting you from unexpected high charges,” but of course does nothing of the sort. Rogers’ charges eastern Canada some of the continent’s most expensive prices around for usage-limited broadband. Its Internet Overcharging scheme has relied on all of the classic tricks of the trade to get consumers to pay higher and higher prices for broadband service, while assuring investors the company can rake in additional profits at will just by adjusting your allowance and overlimit fee.

Companies that introduce usage caps and consumption billing are monetizing broadband usage. By adjusting prices upwards and reducing usage allowances, customers can find themselves paying confiscatory overlimit fees. But until recently companies in Canada capped the maximum overlimit penalties. Over the last three years, those maximum fees have increased dramatically, and some companies like Cogeco have removed the maximum limit altogether.

While Rogers’ cost to deliver service continues to decline, these kinds of policy changes can cause broadband bills to soar, especially when customers are in overlimit territory.

Rogers (with thanks to Broadband Reports readers who shared the text):

“To protect you from unexpected high charges, we currently cap the maximum monthly amount you can be charged for additional internet usage at $50 in addition to your Hi-Speed Internet plan’s monthly service fee, modem rental fee (if applicable) and taxes. Effective August 16, 2012 this monthly limit will be increased to $100 in addition to your plan’s monthly service fee, modem rental fee (if applicable) and taxes. If you exceed the monthly usage allowance included in your Hi-Speed Internet plan you will begin to see charges up to the new limit beginning on your first invoice on or after September 16, 2012. All other aspects of your Rogers service(s) will remain the same. Remember, you can track your internet usage online by signing into My Rogers at rogers.com/myinternetusage. For more information or questions please contact us in any of the ways listed on page 2 of this invoice. Thank you.”

Customers can use the occasion of Rogers’ contract changes to potentially switch providers without paying early cancellation fees. This process is more straightforward in Quebec, according to the company’s terms and conditions.

Quebec Residents Only

Unless otherwise specified in the Service Agreement, we may change, at any time, but upon no less than 30 days’ prior written notice to you:

• a) with respect to a  plan or Service not subscribed to for a Commitment Period (as defined below), any charges, features, content, functionality, structure or any other aspects of the plan or Service, as well as any term or provision of the Service Agreement, and
• b) with respect to a plan or Service subscribed to for a Commitment Period, any aspect of the plan or Service, as well as any term or provision of the Service Agreement, other than essential elements of the plan, Service or Service Agreement.

If the change entails an increase in your obligations or a decrease in our obligations and if you do not accept such a change, you may terminate your Services without an ECF (as defined below) by sending us a notice to that effect no later than 30 days after the amendment takes effect.

Rogers’ Customers Elsewhere in Canada

Unless otherwise specified in the Service Agreement, we may change, at any time, any charges, features, content, functionality, structure or any other aspects of the Services, as well as any term or provision of the Service Agreement, upon notice to you. If you do not accept a change to the affected Services, your sole remedy is to terminate the affected Services provided under the Service Agreement, within 30 days of your receipt of our notice of change to the Services (unless we specify a different notice period), by providing us with advance notice of termination pursuant to Section 34. If you do not accept a change to these Terms, your sole remedy is to retain these Terms unchanged for the duration of the Commitment Period (as defined below), upon notice to us within 30 days of your receipt of our notice of change to these Terms.

While Quebec residents have a clear path to avoid Rogers’ ECF, customers elsewhere may be subject to an early cancellation fee because of Section 9 of Rogers’ agreement:

Unless otherwise set out in the Materials, if you agree to subscribe to one of our plans or Services for a committed period of time (the “Commitment Period”), you may be subject to an early cancellation fee (“ECF”) for each Service. Any decrease in your Commitment Period may be subject to a fee. If your Service is terminated prior to the end of the Commitment Period, you will pay us an ECF as specified in the Service Agreement, plus taxes.

Customers outside of Quebec may want to check with Rogers directly to determine if an early cancellation fee will apply when canceling service because of the change in maximum overlimit fees.

Customers leaving Rogers can find better deals for broadband services from independent ISPs like TekSavvy or Start.

AT&T wireless customers grandfathered on unlimited wireless data plans might want to think twice about calling to protest billing errors, because the company is using the occasion to strip off unlimited data plans from customer accounts.

Stop the Cap! reader Jess DeSanto is one of thousands of Florida customers who discovered AT&T has a tendency to add “extras” on wireless lines without the customer’s consent. DeSanto had been paying $2.99 a month for “Roadside Assistance,” part of her phone bill since the day she signed up for AT&T, and she never asked for it. She only noticed when a lawsuit required the company to notify customers the service was optional and offered refunds to those paying for the plan without realizing it.

“We always thought it was just one of those fees AT&T puts on our monthly bill, because we have been paying for it ever since we switched to AT&T from T-Mobile,” DeSanto shares. “When we finally learned we should have never had to pay for a service we did not order, we contacted AT&T to have the service removed.”

DeSanto said AT&T promptly took the service off her account, and even refunded more than a year of charges because she never used the service. But the company also quietly stripped the DeSanto family of its grandfathered, unlimited use data plans in the process.

“When I was reviewing the bill, I saw the credits, but I also saw we were suddenly placed on 3GB usage-limited data plans — the unlimited data we had was gone,” DeSanto writes. “Boy was I mad at AT&T.”

DeSanto had to endure a lecture from a customer service representative about how the unlimited use plan and the 3GB plan were essentially identical. (AT&T throttles the speed customers receive on the unlimited plan after 3GB of usage per month. AT&T will charge customers overlimit fees on the 3GB plan if they exceed their allowance.)

“I told them I don’t want to deal with a sneaky phone company switching my services without my permission in such an underhanded way,” DeSanto said. “It’s like buying a car off the lot and after you sign the papers, they drive up in a different car.”

A manager finally agreed to switch DeSanto back to the plans she originally signed up for, but she is still seething over the affair.

“If you are an AT&T customer, you better scrutinize that bill real careful every month, because you have no idea what they will pull next.”

DeSanto is not alone. A blogger named “Michael” reports his unlimited data plan was also eliminated when he called about another AT&T “billing error”:

I’ve had one of AT&T’s unlimited data plans since I first got an iPhone 3GS not quite three years ago. You can thus imagine my surprise when I checked my bill last month and discovered that I had been switched to 3GB/month limited data plan.

[…] When I finally got a rep on the line, I learned that they had made the change on March 22nd when I had called in about another billing error. As it turns out, when I upgraded my phone, they not only renewed my contract, but they also added roadside assistance ($2.99/month), phone insurance ($6.99/month), and something called the “enhanced mobile protection plan” ($3.00/month). (Note that none of these charges were reflected on my signed contract.)

When I called back in March, I had no trouble getting them to remove the unwanted services and credit me for the charges, but… they apparently took this opportunity to also switch me from my beloved unlimited data plan to a 3GB/month limited data plan. Without my permission.

Michael had no trouble getting his unlimited plan back when he complained. In fact, he was suspicious because it seemed “too easy.”

“[It was sort of]  like they’ve been making this “mistake” on purpose and are ready if/when people notice and call in to complain,” Michael writes.

Phillip “They Want to Save You Money By Charging You More” Dampier

The pro-Internet Overcharging forces’ meme of “pay for what you use” sounds good in theory, but no broadband provider in the country would dare switch to a true consumption-based billing system for broadband, because it would destroy predictable profits for a service large cable and phone companies hope you cannot live without.

Twenty years ago, the cable industry could raise rates on television packages with almost no fear consumers would cancel service. When I produced a weekly radio show about the cable and satellite television industry, cable companies candidly told me they expected vocal backlashes from customers every time a rate increase notice was mailed out, but only a handful would actually follow through on threats to cut the cord. Now that competition for your video dollar is at an all-time-high, providers are shocked (and some remain in denial) that customers are actually following through on their threats to cut the cord. Goodbye Comcast, Hello Netflix!

Some Wall Street analysts have begun warning their investor clients that the days of guaranteed revenue growth from video subscribers are over, risking profits as customers start to depart when the bill gets too high. Cable companies have always increased rates faster than the rate of inflation, and investors have grown to expect those reliable profits, so the pressure to make up the difference elsewhere has never been higher.

With broadband, cable and phone companies may have found a new way to bring back the Money Party, and ride the wave of broadband usage to the stratosphere, earning money at rates never thought possible from cable-TV. The ticket to OPEC-like rivers of black gold? Usage-based billing.

Since the early days of broadband, most Americans have enjoyed flat rate access through a cable or phone company at prices that remained remarkably stable for a decade — usually around $40 a month for standard speed service.

In the last five years, as cord-cutting has grown beyond a phenomena limited to Luddites and satellite dish owners, the cable industry has responded. As they learned customers’ love of broadband has now made the service indispensable in most American homes, providers have been jacking up the price.

Time Warner Cable, for example, has increased prices for broadband annually for the last three years, especially for customers who do not subscribe to any other services.

Customers dissatisfaction with rate hikes has not led to broadband cord cutting, and in fact might prove useful on quarterly financial reports -and- for advocating changes in the way broadband service is priced:

1. Enhance revenue and profits, replacing lost ground from departing video customers and the slowing growth of new customers signing up for video and phone services (and keeping average revenue per user ((ARPU)) on the increase);
2. Using higher prices to provoke an argument about changing the way broadband service is sold.

Pouring over quarterly financial reports from most major providers shows remarkable consistency:

• The costs to provide broadband service are declining, even with broadband usage growth;
• Revenue and profits enjoy a healthy growth curve, especially as increased prices on existing customers make up for fewer new customer additions;
• Earnings from broadband are now so important, a cable company like Time Warner Cable now refers to itself as a broadband company. It is not alone.

Still, it is not enough. As usage continues to grow in the current monopoly/duopoly market, providers are drooling with anticipation over the possibility of scrapping the concept of “flat rate” broadband, which limits the endless ARPU growth Wall Street demands. If a company charges a fixed rate for a service, it cannot grow revenue from that service unless it increases the price, sells more expensive tiers of service, or innovates new products and services to sell.

Providers have enjoyed moderate success selling customers more expensive, faster service, also on a flat rate basis. But that still leaves money on the table, according to Wall Street-based “usage billing” advocates like Craig Moffett, who see major ARPU growth charging customers more and more money for service as their usage grows.

Moffett has a few accidental allies in the blogger world who seem to share his belief in “usage-based” billing. Lou Mazzucchelli, reading the recent New York Times piece on Time Warner’s gradual move towards usage pricing, frames his support for consumption billing around the issue of affordability. In his view, usage pricing is better for consumers and the industry:

It costs real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand, and those costs are ultimately borne by the subscriber. So in the US, we have carriers trying to raise their rates to offset increases in capital and operating expenses to the point where consumers are beginning to push back, and the shoving has come to the attention of the Federal Communications Commission, which has raised the possibility of treating Internet network providers as common communications carriers subject to regulation.

I believe that flat-rate pricing is a major source of problems for network carriers and consumers. In the carrier world, the economics are known but ignored because marketers believe that flat rates are the only plans consumers will accept. But in the consumer world, flat rates are rising to incomprehensible levels for indecipherable reasons, with little recourse except disconnection. Consumer dissatisfaction is rising, in part because consumers feel they have no control over the price they have to pay. This is driven by their sense of pricing inequity that is hard to visualize but comes from implicit subsidies in the current environment. The irony is that pay-per-use pricing solves the problem for carriers and consumers.

Mazzucchelli reposted his blog piece originally written in 2010 for the benefit of Times readers. Two years ago, he measured his usage at 11GB a month. His provider Verizon Communications was charging him $64.99 a month for 25Mbps service, which identifies him as a FiOS fiber to the home customer.  Mazzucchelli argues the effective price he was paying for Internet access was $5.85 for each of the 11GB he consumed, which seemed steep at the time. (Not anymore, if you look at wireless company penalty rates which range from $10-15/GB or more.)

Mazzucchelli theorized that if he paid on a per-packet basis, instead of flat rate service based on Internet speed, he could pay something like $0.0000025 per packet, which would result in a bill of $31.91 for his 11GB instead of $65. For him, that’s money saved with usage billing.

On its face, it might seem to make sense, especially for light users who could pay less under a true usage-based pricing scenario like the one he proposes.

Verizon Communications is earning more average revenue per customer than ever with its fiber to the home network. That’s about the only bright spot Wall Street recognizes from Verizon’s fiber network, which some analysts deride as “too expensive.”

Unfortunately for Mazzucchelli, and others who claim usage-based pricing will prove a money-saver, the broadband industry has some bad news for you. Usage pricing simply cannot be allowed to save you, and other current customers money. Why? Because Wall Street will never tolerate pricing that threatens the all-important ARPU. In the monopoly/duopoly home broadband marketplace most Americans endure, it would be the equivalent of unilaterally disarming in the war for revenue and profits.

That is why broadband providers will never adopt a true usage-based billing system for customers. It would cannibalize earnings for a service that already enjoys massive markups above true cost. In 2009, Comcast was spending under $10 a month to sell broadband service priced above $40.

Mazzucchelli

Instead, providers design “usage-based” billing around rates comparable to today’s flat rate pricing, only they slap arbitrary maximum usage allowances on each tier of service, above which consumers pay an overlimit fee penalty. That would leave Mazzucchelli choosing a lower speed, lower usage allowance plan to maximize his savings, if his use of the Internet didn’t grow much. On a typical light use plan suitable for his usage, he would subscribe to 1-3Mbps service with a 10GB allowance, and pay the overlimit fee for one extra gigabyte if he wanted to maximize his broadband dollar.

But his usage experience would be dramatically different, both because he would be encouraged to use less, fearing he might exceed his usage allowance, and he would be “enjoying” the Internet at vastly slower speeds. If Mazzucchelli went with higher speed service, he would still pay prices comparable for flat rate service, and receive a usage allowance he personally would find unnecessarily large. The result for him would be little to no savings and a usage allowance he did not need.

Mazzucchelli’s usage pattern is probably different today than it was in 2010. Is he still using 11GB a month? If he uses double the amount he did two years ago, under his own pricing formula, the savings he sought would now be virtually wiped out, with a broadband bill for 22GB of consumption running $63.82. By the following year, usage-based pricing would cost even more than Verizon’s unlimited pricing, as average use of the Internet continues to grow.

That helps the broadband industry plenty but does nothing for consumers. Mazzucchelli might be surprised to learn that the “real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand,” is actually more than covered under today’s profit margins for flat-rate broadband. In fact, if he examines financial reports over the last five years and the statements company executives make to shareholders, virtually all of them speak in terms of reducing capital investments and the declining costs to deliver broadband, even as usage grows.

Verizon’s fiber network, while expensive to construct, is already earning the company enormous boosts in ARPU over traditional copper wire phone service. While Wall Street howled about short term capital costs to construct the network, then-CEO Ivan Seidenberg said fiber optics was the vehicle that will drive Verizon earnings for decades selling new products and services that its old network could never deliver.

Still, is Mazzucchelli paying too much for his broadband at both 2010 and 2012 prices? Yes he is. But that is not a function of the cost to deliver broadband service. It is the result of a barely competitive marketplace that has an absence of price-moderating competitors. Usage-based pricing in today’s broadband market assures lower costs for providers by retarding usage. It also brings even higher profits from bigger broadband bills as Internet usage grows, with no real relationship to the actual costs to provide the service. It also protects companies from video package cord-cutting, as customers will find online viewing prohibitively expensive.

One need only look at pricing abroad to see how much Americans are gouged for Internet service. Unlimited high speed Internet is available in a growing number of countries for $20-40 a month.

Usage-based billing is a dead end that might deliver temporary savings now, but considerably higher broadband bills soon after. It is not too late to turn the car around and join us in the fight to keep unlimited broadband, enhance competition, and win the lower prices users like Mazzucchelli crave.

Cogeco Cable is mailing flyers to residents in eastern Canada promoting the company’s ‘value’ option:

• 4Mbps download speed
• 12 Month Contract with $75 early termination fee
• Increases to $32.95/mo off contract
• “Generous” 15GB usage cap with $1.50/GB overlimit fee (maximum penalty: $50)

Cogeco calls this plan ideal “for anyone who uses the Internet to exchange emails with friends, search sites and download pictures.”

In other words, it’s barely broadband for those who barely use the Internet.

Many Ontario and Quebec phone companies can offer even faster speeds through traditional DSL service. In Bell Fibe areas, for $6 more a month, customers can get a 15/10Mbps package for $26.97/mo for six months, which includes a safer 75GB allowance. At the end of six months, threaten to walk and Bell will extend the offer an extra six months.

Customers bundling services with either Bell or Cogeco may be able to negotiate for a package with better speeds and a more generous allowance. While Cogeco has cracked down on promotions, Bell has not, so customers served by Cogeco are advised to ask about all available deals before committing to either provider.

Sprint is notifying their mobile hotspot customers the company is now prepared to enforce their formerly soft-capped 5GB plan with a $50/GB overlimit fee, billed at $0.05/MB increments.

Sprint has long informally capped customers using their phone as a Wi-Fi hotspot or tethered device, but until now was not prepared to enforce the limit because it could not accurately track usage.

“Starting June 2012, and effective on your next bill, your phone or tablet’s Mobile Hotspot on-network data allowance will be limited to 5 GB,” reads the message sent to Sprint customers.

Customers will begin receiving text message alerts when they reach 75% of their usage allowance, with repeated alerts at both 90 and 100%. When the 5GB limit is reached, Sprint will give customers the option of continuing service at the penalty price of $50/GB billed in megabyte increments, or shut the service down until the next billing cycle.

Some customers have been confused by the change, in part because Sprint has made a series of sometimes-confusing adjustments to their data pricing. But the company insists it has always had a limit on its mobile hotspot service, even if not enforced.

Smartphone customers using broadband on their phone still receive unlimited access. But other devices with mobile broadband access are usage capped based on the usage tier selected.