Among the public interest groups that have historically steered clear of the fight against usage caps and usage based billing is Public Knowledge.

Stop the Cap! took them to task more than a year ago for defending the implementation of these unjustified hidden rate hikes and usage limits.  Since then, we welcome the fact the group has increasingly been trending towards the pro-consumer, anti-cap position, but they still have some road to travel.

Public Knowledge, joined by New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern over AT&T’s implementation of usage caps and asking for an investigation:

[…] Public Knowledge and New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative urge the Bureau to exercise its statutory authority to fully investigate the nature, purpose, impact of those caps upon consumers. The need to fully understand the nature of broadband caps is made all the more urgent by the recent decision by AT&T to break with past industry practice and convert its data cap into a revenue source.

[…] Caps on broadband usage imposed by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can undermine the very goals that the Commission has committed itself to championing. While broadband caps are not inherently problematic, they carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive and monopolistic ways. Unless they are clearly and transparently justified to address legitimate network capacity concerns, caps can work directly against the promise of broadband access.

The groups call out AT&T for its usage cap and overlimit fee model, and ponder whether these are more about revenue enhancement than network management.  The answer to that question has been clear for more than two years now: it’s all about the money.

The two groups are to be commended for raising the issue with the FCC, but they are dead wrong about caps not being inherently problematic.  Usage caps have no place in the North American wired broadband market.  Even in Canada, providers like Bell have failed to make a case justifying their implementation.  What began as an argument about congestion has evolved into one about charging heavy users more to invest in upgrades that are simply not happening on a widespread basis.  The specific argument used is tailored to the audience: complaints about congestion to government officials, denials of congestion issues to shareholders coupled with promotion of usage pricing as a revenue enhancer.

If Bell can’t sell the Canadian government on its arguments for usage caps in a country that has a far lower population density and a much larger rural expanse to wire, AT&T certainly isn’t going to have a case in the United States, and they don’t.

The history of these schemes is clear:

1. Providers historically conflate their wireless broadband platforms with wired broadband when arguing for Internet Overcharging schemes.  When regulators agree to arguments that wireless capacity problems justify usage limits, extending those limits to wired broadband gets carried along for the ride.  Dollar-a-holler groups supporting the industry love to use charts showing wireless data growth, and claim a similar problem afflicts wired broadband, even though the costs to cope with congestion are very different on the two platforms.
2. Providers argue one thing while implementing another.  Most make the claim pricing changes allow them to introduce discounted “light user” plans.  But few save because true “pay only for what you use” usage-based billing is not on offer.  Instead, worry-free flat use plans are taken off the menu, replaced with tiered plans that force subscribers to guess their usage.  If they guess too little, a stiff overlimit fee applies.  If they guess too much, they overpay.  Heads AT&T wins, tails you lose.  That’s a clear warning providers are addressing revenue enhancement, not network enhancement.
3. Claims of network congestion backed up with raw data, average usage per user, and the costs to address it are all labeled proprietary business information and are not available for independent inspection.

There are a few other issues:

In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by AT&T are particularly aggressive. Unlike competitors whose caps appear to be at least nominally linked to congestions during peak-use periods, AT&T seeks to convert caps into a profit center by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap. In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands.

In North America, only a handful of providers use peak-usage pricing for wired broadband.  Cable One, America’s 10th largest cable operator is among the largest, and they serve fewer than one million customers.  Virtually all providers with usage caps count both upstream and downstream data traffic 24 hours a day against a fixed usage allowance.  The largest — Comcast — does not charge an excessive usage fee.  AT&T does.

Furthermore, it remains unclear why AT&T’s recently announced caps are, at best, equal to those imposed by Comcast over two years ago.  The caps for residential DSL customers are a full 100GB lower than those Comcast saw fit to offer in mid-2008. The lower caps for DSL customers is especially worrying because one of the traditional selling points of DSL networks is that their dedicated circuit design helps to mitigate the impacts of heavy users on the rest of the network. Together, these caps suggest either that AT&T’s current network compares poorly to that of a major competitor circa 2008 or that there are non-network management motivations behind their creation.

AT&T has managed to create the first Internet version of the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, combining Comcast's 'tolerated' 250GB cap with AT&T's style of slapping overlimit fees on data plans from their wireless business.

As Stop the Cap! has always argued, usage caps are highly arbitrary.  Providers always believe their usage caps are the best and most fair around, whether it was Frontier’s 5GB usage limit or Comcast’s 250GB limit.

AT&T experimented with usage limits in Reno, Nevada and Beaumont, Texas and found customers loathed them.  Comcast’s customers tolerate the cable company’s 250GB usage cap because it is not strictly enforced — only the top few violators are issued warning letters.  AT&T has established America’s first Internet pricing version of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup: getting Comcast’s tolerated usage cap into AT&T’s wireless-side overlimit fee.  The bitter aftertaste arrives in the mail at the end of the month.

Why establish different usage caps for DSL and U-verse?  Marketing, of course.  This is about money, remember?

AT&T DSL delivers far less average revenue per customer than its triple-play U-verse service.  To give U-verse a higher value proposition, AT&T supplies a more generous usage allowance.  Message: upgrade from DSL for a better broadband experience.

Technically, there is no reason to enforce either usage allowance, as AT&T DSL offers a dedicated connection to the central office or D-SLAM, from where fiber traditionally carries the signal to AT&T’s enormous backbone connection.  U-verse delivers fiber to the neighborhood and a much fatter dedicated pipeline into individual subscriber homes to deliver its phone, Internet, and video services.

A usage cap on U-verse makes as much sense as putting a coin meter on the television or charging for every phone call, something AT&T abandoned with their flat rate local and long distance plans.

Before partly granting AT&T’s premise that usage limits are a prophylactic for congestion and then advocate they be administered with oversight, why not demand proof that such pricing and usage schemes are necessary in the first place.  With independent verification of the raw data, providers like AT&T will find that an insurmountable challenge, especially if they have to open their books.

[flv width=”640″ height=”368″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell’s Arguments for UBB 2-2011.flv[/flv]

Canada’s experience with Usage-Based Billing has all of the hallmarks of the kind of consumer ripoff AT&T wants Americans to endure:

• A provider (Bell), whose spokesman argues for these pricing schemes to address congestion and “fairness,” even as that same spokesman admits there is no congestion problem;
• Would-be competitors being priced out of the marketplace because they lack the infrastructure, access, or fair pricing to compete;
• Big bankers and investors who applaud price gouging and are appalled at government checks and balances.

Watch Mirko Bibic try to rationalize why Bell’s Fibe TV (equivalent to AT&T U-verse) needs Internet Overcharging schemes for broadband, but suffers no capacity issues delivering video and phone calls over the exact same line.  Then watch the company try and spin this pricing as an issue of fairness, even as an investor applauds the company: “I love this policy because I am a shareholder.  That’s all I care about.  If you can suck every last cent out of users, I’m happy for you.”  Finally, watch a company buying wholesale access from Bell let the cat out of the bag — broadband usage costs pennies per gigabyte, not the several dollars many providers want to charge.  (11 minutes)

AT&T Internet Rationing Board - Do More With Less!

Today should be your last day for doing business with AT&T’s DSL and U-verse services.  If you feel strongly about your broadband usage being counted and limited, it’s time to bail out of AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme, which took effect earlier today.

From this day forward, AT&T DSL customers are limited to 150GB of usage and U-verse customers top out at 250GB before the overlimit fee kicks in — $10 for every 50GB customers exceed the cap, billed in $10 increments. It’s classic AT&T Math, where $1.01 of usage is rounded up to $10.00.

AT&T certainly got off on the wrong foot on day one.  We’ve received more than a dozen messages today from customers who find AT&T’s usage meter offline, showing this message:

“We’re sorry, but we’re unable to display your Internet usage at this time.”

Do you think AT&T would accept that excuse if you enclosed a note telling AT&T you are unable to pay your Internet bill at this time?

On an ongoing basis, we intend to hold AT&T’s feet to the fire until they rescind this unwarranted overcharging scheme.  While company officials claim it is intended to protect their customers from a handful of “heavy users,” they also argue they have plenty of capacity for everyone.  The company cannot have it both ways.

Therefore, this week’s message to be shared with your friends and family is:

AT&T’s Broadband Network Is Not Good Enough to Handle Your Broadband Needs: Shop Elsewhere

AT&T’s wired broadband network, just like their bottom-rated wireless service, cannot handle their customers’ broadband needs.  The company proved that today by having to introduce a broadband rationing scheme, limiting customer usage.  Despite being America’s largest telephone company ISP, AT&T apparently cannot handle the traffic, telling DSL customers to lay off after 150GB and their “advanced” U-verse network customers to get offline after 250GB of use.  Evidently the company isn’t willing to invest some of their enormous profits to provide an ongoing level of broadband service their customers deserve to get, especially when compared with their closest cousin: Verizon.

“While Verizon is installing fiber optics to many of their customers’ homes and providing unlimited, blazing fast Internet service, AT&T admits through their own actions their network isn’t good enough to provide that same level of service to their customers — so now they are limiting the use of it,” says Phillip Dampier, editor at consumer group Stop the Cap! “If I was an AT&T customer, I’d shop around for an alternative provider that has a network robust enough to actually deliver the service customers pay good money to receive.”

AT&T’s U-verse service was touted to customers as delivering a next generation of broadband and television service that could provide healthy competition to cable television.

“AT&T wants U-verse to compete with the big cable companies, but usage caps tell us they can’t manage to do that,” Dampier says. “If their network is so great, why do they need to slap limits on customers?”

AT&T’s representatives claim the limits are intended to reduce congestion from a handful of heavy users, a claim that does not make sense to Stop the Cap!

“AT&T’s existing terms and conditions allow them to deal with any customers who create problems for other users on their network,” Dampier said. “Instead of expanding capacity or dealing with the so-called ‘handful’ of troublesome users, they have slapped an Internet Overcharging scheme on all of their customers.”

Stop the Cap! points out the irony AT&T has plenty of capacity for hundreds of television channels, but doesn’t have enough capacity to provide a worry-free High Speed Internet experience.

“AT&T’s U-verse has no problems finding space for more shopping channels, foreign language networks, and niche channels, but can’t find their way clear to leave customers’ unlimited Internet accounts alone,” Dampier adds.  “Their priorities are all wrong — giving you channels you didn’t ask for while taking away the service you do want.”

Remember when Bell’s head of government affairs Mirko Bibic told Parliament usage-based billing was necessary because he didn’t think it fair that all Canadians should pay for “heavy users” of the company’s Internet service?  That was a few months ago.  This is April — time for a rate increase that will jack Bell broadband service rates up an additional $3 a month, effective in May.  That’s a rate increase every customer will pay, and comes with Bell’s everyday Internet Overcharging scheme — usage caps and overlimit fees.

Stop the Cap! reader Alex in Quebec sent a copy of his bill showing Bell’s “Price Update.”  They don’t even want to call it a rate increase.

Bell's notification to customers in Quebec their bills are going up.

“Bell Canada will increase their Internet rates by as much as 15% (for Québec ”Essential” users),” Alex says. “Although $3 may seem like a negligible charge, it especially affects those with budget Internet plans, such as Essential, E Plus, and Performance ‘Fibe’ 6.”

Bell’s website cannot even get the story straight, originally telling customers their overlimit fees would now be rounded to the nearest gigabyte, instead of megabyte.  A Bell spokesperson tells Stop the Cap! that is a typo — they really still mean megabyte.

Bell is one of the few phone companies out there actually increasing their long distance calling rates as well, Alex tells us.  The original announcement came around the same time as the earthquake in Japan, underlining how essential long distance can be during natural disasters.  Many cable companies have waived long distance fees to Japan altogether.  Not Bell.

The rate increases mean customers like ‘Jackorama’ in Hamilton will pay $56.90 for “up to 7Mbps” ‘Performance DSL’ service.  After HST fees, he’ll pay $64.30 just for broadband service, with a 60GB monthly usage limit.  If he exceeds that, he’ll pay even more — $2.50 per gigabyte, or, if he knows he’ll exceed the cap in advance: $5/month for 40 GB, $10/month for 80 GB, or $15/month for 120 GB.

That also assumes Bell can count usage correctly, and there is every indication they cannot.  The company has admitted its usage meter is prone to errors — misreads they are still prepared to bill their customers.

Some AT&T customers unhappy about the company’s forthcoming implementation of usage caps are being offered an uncapped alternative from Comcast — Business Class service.

More than a few customers facing AT&T’s imminent 150/250GB usage caps who live in a Comcast service area are informally being pitched cap-free Business Class service as an alternative.  Jim, a Stop the Cap! reader near Chicago, tells us Comcast sales representatives are rushing to sign up customers coming back to the cable company.  Although he is not served by U-verse, he points us to messages on AT&T’s own message boards from customers sharing their experiences as they pull the plug on the phone company.

“Comcast is offering us unlimited access at 12/2Mbps speeds for $59.95 per month, which is more expensive than the company’s residential broadband service, but potentially cheaper than getting a bill from AT&T with overlimit fees on it,” Jim says.

For now, Jim is heading back to Comcast residential service because he doesn’t use more than the cable company’s current limit – 250GB per month.  But he appreciates there is an alternative service available that comes without a usage limit, something he’ll keep in mind for the future.

“I feel sorry for AT&T customers stuck with them as their only broadband provider, and I think customers should continue to call and complain about the unjustified limits,” Jim offers.  “The best way AT&T customers can tell the company it has gone too far is to take their business somewhere else.”

Comcast does not normally market business products to residential customers, but many sales representatives will offer the service if a consumer expresses concern about the residential service’s usage limit.

Should any family have to fight over the monthly Internet bill?

One of the side effects of Internet Overcharging is the one-two punch of the usage cap combined with a steep overlimit penalty.  While usage capping providers pay pennies for your Internet traffic, they can charge you up to $10/GB if you dare exceed your plan allowance.

Making sure you don’t… too much… is the job of the provider who will helpfully educate you on how to use your service less, how to establish an in-home Ministry for State Security — tracking down those malfeasant family members who want to deny running the bill up, and providing inaccurate monitoring tools designed to make you think twice about everything you do online.

Far-fetched?

Not really.  Just ask Mathew Ingram, a Rogers Cable customer in Ontario who tells Techdirt he spends much of his free time trying to figure out who is doing what with the family broadband account:

I have three teenage daughters who also download music, TV shows and so on. I figured someone had just gone a little overboard, and since it was close to the end of the month, I thought it wasn’t anything to be worried about. The next day, however, I went online and checked my usage (Rogers has an online tool that shows daily usage), and it said that I had used 121 GB more than my allotted amount for the month. In other words, I had used more than 100 GB in less than two days.

I just about spit my coffee all over the computer screen. How could I possibly have used that much? According to Rogers, I owed $181 in overage charges. Luckily there is a maximum extra levy of $50 a month (just think what it would cost if I was subject to usage-based billing).

With the help of Rogers (who also helped themselves to $50 of Ingram’s money for overlimit fees), an employee identified security holes in his wireless router which could have let all the neighbors join the broadband usage party at his expense.  But in reality, after considerable family tension and drama, one of Ingram’s daughters confessed to downloading some TV shows and forgot to close the file sharing software used to grab them.

Ingram learned a $50 (this month) lesson — he is not free to sit back and enjoy his broadband account that costs him much more than American providers charge for the same thing (without a usage cap).  He serves at the pleasure of Rogers Cable, who wins if Ingram succeeds in keeping his family’s usage under the limit — costing Rogers less money, or by pocketing the overlimit fees charged when he fails.

What scares many Canadians are plans by some providers to eliminate the monthly maximum overlimit fee.  That would have left Ingram paying a $181 penalty instead of $50.  As far as cable companies like Rogers are concerned, it’s his own fault for not keeping his family under control, and now he will pay the price.