Shamrock Museum

The city of Shamrock, Okla. may not be a city for much longer, facing unincorporation and liquidation of its remaining assets, which include the abandoned police cars that used to earn the city enough ticket revenue to keep the doors open.  But fast (and free at the local community center) Internet prevails (with competition, too) in a city with fewer than 100 remaining citizens.  It’s all thanks to a federal broadband grant and an existing Wireless ISP.

Shamrock’s unlucky predicament comes at the expense of the boom-and-bust oil business that launched dozens of small towns in rural Oklahoma, only to leave them largely abandoned when the oil dried up, or the cost to access it becomes too prohibitive.  Once a community numbering 10,000, Shamrock, located nearly halfway between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, had recently been surviving on revenue earned from writing traffic tickets in infamous speed traps set up along Highway 16.  Shamrock, along with Big Cabin, Caney, Moffett, and Stringtown, became so notorious for their dependence on traffic ticket revenue to keep the towns afloat, at one point the state government publicly designated them “speed trap towns” and banned them from writing tickets on state and federal highways. When Creek County officials learned the city was using non-commissioned officers to write tickets, they shut down the whole operation.

Soon after, residents found the city hall padlocked, with coffee cups still on the desks and police evidence lockers still stuffed with property from active criminal cases (although seized marijuana and beer has since disappeared.)

In fact, the only service now in operation at the city hall, now converted into a “community center,” is Internet access on 10 computers made possible by @Link Services LLC, an Oklahoma City-based Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) that provides service in rural areas, with the help of a broadband grant from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

The broadband grant, amounting to $536,000, with matching funds of $134,000 kicked in by @Link, covers the costs of running the community center for two years and extending wireless access with the construction of a new wireless radio tower in Stillwater, which allows the company to reach Shamrock residents.

In addition to providing free access at the former city hall, @Link also sells Internet access to area residents (the only remaining business in town is a diner):

“This is going to be the last place anyone would provide Internet without government funding because there is no chance of turning a profit,” Kerry Conn, chief financial officer of @Link Services told The Oklahoman. “But if you don’t have Internet services, your town is going to die.”

@Link CEO Samual Curtis says their wireless Internet access sells itself.

“Broadband is a very easy sell where there is no broadband,” Curtis told the newspaper.

The only problem with that is Shamrock currently does receive service from another Wireless ISP — OnALot, a service of HDR Internet Services, Inc.  OnALot operates from 70 systems in more than 25 cities and communities across rural Oklahoma.  @Link’s arrival in town, with the assistance of a federal broadband grant, came as a surprise to some Shamrock residents who already had Internet service from OnALot.  Now those customers have two choices — both wireless — for Internet service.  OnALot, the incumbent, is often cheaper, too:

OnALot does not sell traditional speed tiers.  Instead customers share access points rated at speeds of 11 and 54Mbps.  Customers do not actually see anything close to those speeds, because they are theoretical maximums and each access point is shared by several users.  But since many residential customers do not have a firm understanding of what different speed levels represent, it has proven workable for HDR Internet to sell services based on price, not speed.

OnALot does sell dedicated, private wireless circuits to customers who don’t want to share, but they are comparatively expensive:

OnALot.com operates both standard Line-of-Sight and Near-Line-of-Sight systems on the 80' tall water tower on the west side of Shamrock.

One Oklahoman reader, Bobbi, wondered why @Link received federal grant money to provide Internet service in a community that already had access.

“Why this company didn’t do their homework before they used government money to provide a service to a town that had that service,” Bobbi asked. “Wouldn’t that be a misuse of the grant money?”

Broadband grant funding has come under criticism at times for funding projects that incumbent providers accuse of duplicating services.  A study funded by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the cable industry’s top lobbyist, found several instances of grants that would deliver broadband service to areas already served by other providers.

“While it may be too early for a comprehensive assessment of the [government]’s broadband programs, it is not too early to conclude that, at least in some cases, millions of dollars in grants and loans have been made in areas where a significant majority of households already have broadband coverage, and the costs per incremental home passed are therefore far higher than existing evidence suggests should be necessary,” the study says.

Thus far, much of the funding for rural Oklahoma seems to be directed towards wireless Internet access projects, which typically serve sparsely populated areas cable and phone companies have traditionally ignored.

The NCTA’s criticism, in particular, was directed against its would-be competitors.  The lobbying group suggests the price of competition was too high.

Based on the cost of the direct grants and subsidizing the loans, the NCTA study estimated that the cost per incremental home passed would be $30,104 if existing coverage by mobile broadband providers was ignored, and $349,234 if mobile broadband coverage was taken into account.

Wireless ISP operators have told Stop the Cap! many of their projects are self-financed and do not receive government assistance.  Some WISP operators have accused the government of making broadband grants to wireless operators a cumbersome, if not impossible prospect because incumbent telephone companies are often most likely to meet the government’s grant criteria.

For Shamrock residents, one piece of good news: @Link Services and OnALot both have no Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps.  However, OnALot prohibits the use of peer-to-peer software (torrents) and @Link Services maintains the right to curtail speeds for those who create problems for other users on their shared wireless network.

OnALot’s usage policies are among the most frank (and common sense) we’ve seen, because they are up front with customers about the impact certain traffic can have on their wireless network:

1. You are paying us to download from the Internet. We do not limit you on that. You can download anything you want 24/7. Games, email, web pages, radio stations, and so on – we don’t care, downloading is what you are paying us for. That said, we would prefer that you do not leave an active game un-attended, or run a radio station continuously, as these eat up bandwidth that others could be using. When you’re done with your game, please turn it off.
2. We do have restrictions when it comes to uploading TO the Internet. P2P or Peer-to-Peer programs are NOT allowed. These limitations apply primarily to file sharing programs. We do NOT allow music or video sharing programs, bit torrent programs or other programs where outside users can extract files from your computer with or without your express consent. And seriously, do you actually WANT others to have full access to your computer? That’s what you’re giving to file sharing programs! Please call us if you are unsure if the program you are using is a file sharing program.
3. Yes, you can upload to your favorite website, send big emails, and transfer any size files that are under your control. That’s OK with us – these are intermittent in nature and under your full control. It’s the unattended uploading that sharing programs do that we do not allow.
4. If your computer has a virus and is “spewing” out onto the Internet, we expect you to have it cleaned. Causing others to become infected is wrong, and we may take steps to disable your Internet connection. We will call you first, explain what is going on and ask that you have your machine cleaned. If you decide not to do this, we will then cut you off until you do.

Too bad Comcast doesn't allow their Internet customers to use the service until 'xfinity.'

A Comcast customer of seven years has been warned if he exceeds the company’s arbitrary 250GB usage cap one more time, his family will be cut off from the cable company’s Internet service for one year.

Jrodefeld is just one more example of a customer who never thought he would have to monitor an online usage gauge to enjoy the Internet service he pays good money to receive.  But Comcast has deemed him an Internet abuser for exceeding a usage limit the company takes pains to bury in its lengthy terms and conditions, far away from glitzy marketing promising a fast, always-on experience.

In my house there are five people with five computers, several smartphones, a Playstation 3 and AppleTV all connected to the Internet through a wireless router.  Several of us are tech minded people who need to be able to send and receive large amounts of data through our network and publish material on the Internet.

Not only that, but I have (legally) downloaded films through places like iTunes and downloaded games and software in the same manner.  I create digital content (web pages, animation, other content) and publish it on the Internet. Not only that, but I send this content to friends and colleagues through web hosting sites like Netload.  I download games and watch streaming Netflix through my Playstation 3.

I think it is absolutely beyond belief that Comcast can offer the speeds that they do, with the evolving demands of the Internet and modern digital demands that people have, and think that 250GB is sufficient for even the moderately tech savvy user.  This data cap is absolutely horrible and is an insult to my family and an abomination given how much money we have given to Comcast over the last several years for their service, amounting in the thousands of dollars.  Not to mention that we signed up with the idea of getting an “always on”, unlimited service.

Jrodefeld claims his family steers clear of the usual suspect of heavy usage consumption — peer-to-peer software.  But with five tech-savvy teenagers and high-tech workers living under one roof, Comcast’s usage meter reflected the family was several times over the company’s usage limits:

• In May, 2011 the total data used was:  1363GB
• In June, 2011 the total data used was:  758GB
• In July, 2011 the total data used was:  1271GB

Based on a review of the applications being run by those achieving that level of usage, online file backup is usually the culprit generating the most usage.  That is closely followed by avid online streaming and gaming.  While game-play itself is probably not much of a factor, the relentless number of game updates and new games distributed over an Internet connection can easily exceed several gigabytes each.  The family also streams some very high bitrate HD movies over a video rental service that uses their Comcast Internet connection to provide the video.  That can run nearly 10GB an hour in some cases, Jrodefeld says.

For usage cap opponents, this represents the perfect example of what can happen in families that rely on video streaming and have teenagers living at home.  While one individual may have little trouble staying within Comcast’s arbitrary 250GB limit, unchanged since its introduction in 2008, the more Internet-savvy members in a household sharing a connection, the bigger the risk for Internet Overcharging or a warning e-mail.

Comcast says their average user keeps usage well under 10GB per month.  But they don’t provide any demographic breakdown of usage profiles.  Older households may pay for an Internet account exclusively for web browsing and e-mail.  Younger households, those with teenagers, and cord-cutters who rely on Internet video streaming will almost certainly use considerably more.

Jrodefeld can’t believe Comcast has stuck his family with a “one size fits all” Internet experience.  And their reasons for the 250GB usage cap don’t make any sense.

“On the one hand, it is said that a user going over that threshold hurts the Internet experience for other users in your area, and on the other hand Comcast claims that the ‘average’ user uses only 2-4gb per month,” he notes. “If that is the case, then multiple users who average 250GB a month would slow down the Internet far more than one individual who uses, say, 500GB in a month.”

“If such a small number of users exceed the cap, Comcast’s network should easily be able to allow that without it affecting other users,” he argues. “If, on the other hand, many users are exceeding the cap, it means that the limit is far too small and Comcast should upgrade their infrastructure if they cannot keep up with user demands.”

The cap-free alternative for Comcast's "heavy users."

In fact, Comcast has upgraded the Internet experience for most of their customers considerably since they introduced a usage cap.  The company has aggressively deployed DOCSIS 3 upgrades, exponentially increasing the amount of bandwidth available in individual neighborhoods, allowing them to sell highly-profitable, faster tiers of service and eliminating congestion issues.  But no matter what speed you buy, or how much you spend, Comcast imposes the same 250GB usage limit on all residential accounts.

Comcast company officials had nothing to offer Jrodefeld, but several other Comcast customers did: upgrade to a Business Class account, if only to be rid of the usage limits.  Comcast Business Class service currently has no usage limitations, and carries this pricing in the northeast, before taxes and fees:

• Starter Plan — 12/2Mbps:  $59.95/mo Best Value
• Preferred Plan — 16/2Mbps:  $89.95/mo
• Premium Plan — 22/5Mbps:  $99.95/mo Best Speed/Performance Value
• Deluxe Plan — 50/10Mbps:  $189.95/mo
• Installation Fee: 1 year contract = $199, 2 years = $99, 3 years = $49

The alternative is to sign with a telephone company provider, but AT&T also has a 250GB usage limit on their U-verse service, and charges an overlimit fee of $10 for every 50GB of excess usage.  Verizon FiOS offers unlimited service.

New Zealand is one of a handful of countries stuck with pervasive Internet Overcharging schemes that limit usage or throttle broadband speeds because of international connectivity limitations.  But as international underseas fiber cables ease traffic congestion, Internet Service Providers are increasingly relaxing usage caps and reducing the level of speed throttling during prime time usage hours.

Now one ISP, Slingshot, has gone all-out, reintroducing an unlimited, flat rate broadband option for New Zealanders who don’t want to worry about how much usage they’ve racked up over the past month.

For roughly $32.50US for the first six months, $65 after that, customers don’t have to watch a usage meter or “gas gauge” or face a wholesale heavy speed throttle when deemed to be using “too much” Internet service.

News Corp.’s Fox television network has announced it will erect a pay wall that will delay access to popular Fox shows for eight days after airing… unless you are an authenticated cable-TV or other pay television subscriber.

The announcement is the first among the major broadcast networks to keep cord-cutters and those who don’t pay for their television entertainment from conveniently watching shows online.  With most Fox shows formerly available for free on Hulu one day after airing, many viewers simply watch programs online, enjoying a reduced number of commercials along the way.

Now, viewers will have to wait a week before those shows become accessible.  Or, they can pay Hulu $7.99 a month for a Hulu+ subscription and watch right away.  Or sign up for cable television.

The pay wall will be introduced Aug. 15 and was constructed at the behest of the nation’s largest cable, phone, and satellite companies to stop consumers from watching shows online for free.  Local Fox stations don’t mind the change either, if it means you will watch your favorite shows on local stations instead of a national website.

Michael Hopkins, Fox’s president of affiliate sales released a statement explaining the change was designed to “enhance the value” of cable, satellite, and telco-TV subscriptions.  Cable companies have been upset about paying retransmission rights fees for Fox’s local affiliate stations, only to see the network give away programming, for free, online.

Hopkins

“We’re concerned that cord-cutting is going to be a problem,” Mike Hopkins, Fox’s president of affiliate sales, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “The more you enable it by putting content out there for free without any tether to a pay-TV subscription, the bigger that danger becomes.”

If Fox is the first broadcast network to erect a pay wall, it likely won’t be the last.  Disney’s ABC is exploring adopting a similar strategy, and CBS had withheld much of its programming from online ventures precisely because it believes it dilutes the value of its shows.  It will likely favor a similar pay television approach.

For consumers, the details of how the pay wall will work could become problematic depending on their pay television provider.  DirecTV is quickly working to keep free access to Fox shows for its subscribers after the pay wall takes effect.  But some cable companies like Time Warner Cable have dragged their feet on TV Everywhere online projects, and subscribers, even with cable TV packages, could still find themselves locked out behind the wall, unless they also have a Hulu+ subscription.

The risk of annoying viewers by keeping them away from their favorite shows could easily spark a renewed interest in piracy.  With a commercial newsgroup account, access to peer-to-peer software or file storage sites like Rapidshare or Megavideo, bypassing the industry’s pay-walls is as easy as finding the shows viewers want to watch, legally or otherwise.

Andre Vrignaud of Seattle has been benched for a year by Comcast for using too much of its Internet service.

From time to time, we get reports from Comcast customers victimized by the company’s 250GB usage cap.  The nation’s largest cable broadband provider implemented that arbitrary limit back in 2008 after the Federal Communications Commission told the company they could not throttle the speeds of customers using applications like peer-to-peer file sharing software — then pegged as the usual suspect for turning “ordinary” broadband users into “data hogs.”

For at least 18 months, Comcast’s usage cap came with no measurement tools or real explanation most customers could find about what a “gigabyte” was, much less how many of them they “used” that month.  Only last year, Comcast finally rolled out usage measurement tools for customers who bother to find them on their website.  New customers signing up for service never even realize there is a usage cap until a thick brochure of legalize comes with the installer outlining the company’s Acceptable Use Policy.

Still, compared to some of the usage cap battles Stop the Cap! was fighting three years ago, Comcast was the least of our problems.  Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage allowance was the worst we’d ever seen, Cable One’s IRS-like usage policies required an academic to explain them, and Time Warner Cable’s ‘lil experiment in broadband rationing with a 40GB usage cap experiment crashed and burned soon after being announced in the lucky test cities scheduled to endure it.  That doesn’t make Comcast’s cap fair or right, but protecting consumers from these schemes requires triage.

But we remember well Comcast’s promise that it would regularly revisit and adjust its usage cap to reflect the dynamic usage of its customers.  That’s just one more broken promise from a broadband provider with an Internet Overcharging scheme.  In fact, Comcast has not moved its cap one inch since the day it was announced, although they have increased their rates.  The only thing going for the cable giant is that it doesn’t treat “250GB” as a guillotine.  In fact, the cable company only sends the usage police after the top few percent of users that exceed it, issuing a warning not to exceed the cap again during the next six months, or face a year without having the service.

This punitive policy is what Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt loves to rail against.  For him, broadband usage should never be penalized — it should be exploited for all the money the provider can possibly get from customers.  That’s why Britt favors a consumption billing system that starts off with a high monthly price for everyone, than goes much higher the more you use.  Would the neighborhood crack dealer cut you off for using too much?  Of course not.  Feeding your broadband usage habits can mean fat profits, and investors love it.

Andre Vrignaud, a 39-year-old gaming consultant in Seattle, wrote us (and many others) about his own experience with Comcast’s usage ban.  He’s a victim of it, having been warned once about usage and then ultimately told his cable modem was disabled for a year.  For Vrignaud, it was a case of using a cloud storage file backup provider, moving very high resolution images around, and having roommates.  Since Comcast counts upload and download traffic towards its usage limit, it’s not hard to see what can happen to anyone trying to back up today’s supersized hard drives.  What’s especially ironic is that Comcast itself sells online file backup services — which also counts towards your cap.

Comcast’s attitude about its decision to ban Vrignaud from its broadband service for a year was simple enough: it’s a clear cut case of violating their usage caps.  In their view, heavy users slow down broadband service for everyone else in the neighborhood.  So they set a policy that cuts them off when they use too much.

To add insult to injury, broadband-disabled Comcast customers have to call Comcast’s Retentions & Cancellations Department to get the billing stopped on his disabled service.  Vrignaud had to negotiate with a representative whose instinct is to keep you a Comcast customer at all costs, even when the company won’t allow you to be one!

But is Comcast really facing a congestion issue?  Not if you happen to be a business customer at the same address, using the exact same infrastructure that residential customers in the neighborhood use.  Business Class service has no usage limits at all — “congested neighborhood” or not.  And that is where Comcast’s argument simply starts to fall apart.

We’ve been in touch with Vrignaud privately in an effort to help him find a way back to his broadband service.  The alternative is DSL from Qwest/CenturyLink, and unless you live in an area where the phone company has upgraded their networks to support ADSL 2+ or other advanced flavors of DSL, that represents quite a speed downgrade.

Our readers have told us Comcast representatives have several unofficial ways of dealing with heavy users who have gotten their first warning from the company.  Some have told customers to sign up for a second residential account under the name of someone else in the home to allot themselves an additional 250GB of usage.  Others recommend signing up for a business account, which means no usage cap at all.  For those who have been cut off, signing up as a new customer under the name of someone else in the household usually gets you back in the door, albeit facing the same usage cap issue all over again.

The problem Vrignaud encountered is Comcast’s clumsy way of dealing with customers, like himself, who have been sentenced to a year without broadband service (from them).

Vrignaud explored the route we recommended — Business Class service — and found he couldn’t sign up.  Evidently Comcast’s ban is tied to his personal Social Security number, and when he tried to enroll in Business Class service using it, he was stopped dead in his tracks.

Turns out that once Comcast has cut your broadband account for violating their data cap policy you are verboten from being a Comcast customer for 1 year. That’s right:

After being cut off from Comcast’s consumer internet plan due to using too much data, I’m told I’m ineligible to use Comcast’s recommended solution, their business internet plan that allows the unlimited use of data — solely because I made the mistake of actually using “too much” data in the first place.

As the sales rep said in my Google Voicemail message, “what’s interesting is that if you would have started off on the business side of the house, since we don’t have a cap limitations [sic] you would’ve been fine.”

Vrignaud also mentioned he was unsure if Comcast required a business Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) in order to sign up for Business Class service.  In fact, for our readers who have gone this route, it turned out not to be necessary.  They just put their Social Security number in the space reserved for a TIN and had no problems.  Vrignaud would have a problem, however, because his Social Security number is effectively “poisoned” for the year.  He would need to obtain a specific kind of TIN — an Employer Identification Number (EIN) to proceed.  Luckily, it takes less than five minutes to apply for one online and is free.  The number displayed at the end of the process would be the one to use with Comcast.  An alternative suggestion would be to sign up for service under the name of someone else in the household.

For those on Comcast’s bad side, there is more hoop-jumping to get your service back than at the Ringling Bros. circus.

Should all this even be necessary?

Broadband service carries up to a 90% profit margin.

Stop the Cap! thinks not.  While Comcast may have endured last-mile congestion on its shared cable broadband network in days past, the company’s aggressive upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology makes congestion-based usage limits more of an excuse than a reality.  Comcast is pitching faster broadband speeds than ever, all hampered by the same 250GB usage limit.  While residential and business class customers share the same physical cable lines strung across neighborhoods, one faces a usage cap and the other does not.  It’s simply not credible.  Comcast’s punitive usage cap scheme throws away their own customers and the revenue they bring.

Vrignaud wants the option of getting his service back, perhaps by buying additional usage.  That’s Time Warner Cable’s dream-come-true, and one we are concerned about.  Once broadband usage is limited and monetized, it becomes a commodity that can be priced to earn enormous additional revenue for cable operators, regardless of the actual cost of providing the service.  That’s a dangerous precedent in today’s duopolistic broadband marketplace, because the cost per gigabyte will likely be on the order of a thousand times or more the actual cost, with no competitive pressure to keep that cost down.  That’s how Canada ended up in its Internet Overcharging pickle, where providers call $1.50-$5 per gigabyte “reasonable,” even though it costs them only pennies (and dropping) to deliver.  Some providers are even raising those prices, even as their costs plummet.  That’s not a road we want the cable or telephone industry walking down, or else we’ll find today’s enormous cable TV bills pale in comparison to the outrageous broadband service bills of the future.  Time Warner Cable provided a helpful preview in 2009 when they proposed unlimited 15/1Mbps residential service at the low, low price of $150 a month.

Vrignaud is just one more example of why Internet Overcharging risks America’s broadband future.  It’s an end run around Net Neutrality, its arbitrary, and unjustified.  The rest of the world is racing to discard what they called congestion pricing almost as fast as America’s providers (and their Wall Street cheerleaders) are racing towards Internet Overcharging.  The United States should be following Canada’s lead and hold providers to account for this kind of Internet pricing and force them to prove its warranted, or be rid of it.  With virtually every provider earning enormous profits off Internet service at today’s speed-based pricing, there remains no justification to overcharge customers for their broadband usage.