Rogers Communications Monday began their latest Internet Overcharging scheme on Canadian broadband customers — they’ve doubled the maximum overlimit penalty from $25 to $50 for customers who exceed the cable company’s arbitrary broadband usage allowances.

It’s a fact of life for anyone living with a provider that wants to charge too much for broadband service.  Like the credit card industry, the tricks and traps keep on coming as providers seek to monetize everything they can to extract as much money from customers as possible.

For some providers like Bell, the trick is to gradually reduce your usage allowance, exposing more and more customers to overlimit fees (the company even sells an insurance plan to protect you from their audacious pricing).  For others, the fee trap comes from gradually increasing the maximum overlimit fee until there is no maximum.

Rogers has chosen the latter method, effectively passing through massive rate increases for Canadians that dare to use too much.

Originally, Rogers Extreme service was priced at $60 a month for 10/1 Mbps service with a 95 GB cap.  Customers who traditionally exceeded that paid $1.50 per gigabyte in overlimit fees.  With a $25 maximum penalty, many customers just accepted the fee as their ticket to unlimited broadband.  Now, Rogers has conceded a quarter to customers, lowering the per gigabyte penalty rate to $1.25.  But for customers who still regularly exceed their allowance, the charges really add up.  That $60 a month now balloons to $110 per month for exactly the same unlimited service customers used to enjoy for less.

That forces customers like the Globe & Mail’s Michael Snider to make some choices:

1. Reduce usage — a win for Rogers and broadband rationing for him;
2. Upgrade to a higher tier service plan to get a better allowance — a win for Rogers and a higher bill for Snider.  Extreme Plus has an allowance of 125 GB, just a 30 GB difference, for an additional $10 a month;
3. Grin and bear it — a win for Rogers and a future that guarantees him bigger bills indefinitely.

This is the type of move that may force customers who regularly approach or exceed their cap to seriously consider upgrading their service package.If that’s part of Rogers’ plan, it worked.

I just bumped up my service from Extreme to Extreme Plus (if you do the same, inquire about the promotion that offers $20 off Internet for the first six months if you lock in for a year — that’s upgrading only). So now, I’ll be getting 25-Mb download speeds (still a measly 1-Mb upload, though) and a cap of 125 GB a month and, once the promotion ends, will be paying $14 a month more ($10 for the service and $7 for the modem rather than $3).

Call me a sucker, but twice in the past year I have exceeded my 95 GB cap and paid an extra $25 on my bill — once after backing up several gigs on an online backup service and once after downloading a few movies on my Xbox.

But Snider also faces, by design, the one-two punch of Internet Overcharging schemes.  Not only do they fatten provider profits, they also discourage him from using his broadband service, fearing a higher bill.  Even better, they discourage cord-cutting — relying on your broadband service and dropping your cable-TV package.

I am discovering that I’m actually limiting my consumption of some totally legitimate services because I’ve no desire to pay extra on my Rogers bill at the end of the month.

Take for example Microsoft Xbox’s movie service. After waiting for what seemed eons for some kind of a legit movie download service, I finally have access to one that has a list of movies that I’d actually like to see, but it’s proving too expensive to really enjoy it regularly. Reason is, downloading an HD movie eats up more than 11 GB of my bandwidth — more than 10% of my monthly allotment (before I upgraded) for one freaking movie. That goes for games too. It seems as though distributors are leaning more and more to online delivery, but at 6 or 8 GB per game, again, that eats up a lot of bandwidth.

Being the gatekeeper for broadband distribution and also being a content distributor has its advantages.  If the competition starts getting too hot and heavy, locking down the distribution platform guarantees no competitor will ever get the best of you.

Whatever you do, don't turn off this modem, despite the fact you're paying for traffic it receives 24/7. Unplugging a cable modem could "damage it" according to Rogers.

Rogers claims its all about costs from increased broadband consumption, but one look at their pricing scheme proves that wrong.  Rogers reserves the biggest penalties of all for its lightest-use customers.  Those on Rogers Ultra-Lite tier suffer with barely-broadband speeds of 500/256 kbps with a usage limit of just 2 GB for a ridiculous $27.99 per month.  The penalty rate for customers who can hardly be described as “power users” is a whopping $5 per gigabyte.  They pay more because they impact the network more?  How does that work?

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the agency responsible for oversight of telecommunications services in Canada is no help.  They’ve become a de facto telecom industry trade association, rubber-stamping approval of whatever providers want.  The result is expensive, usage-limited, speed-throttled broadband service across the country.

What can you do to control your monthly broadband bill Rogers wants to raise?  Their advice is basically to use less of the broadband service you paid good money to get.  Oh, and despite the fact whenever your cable modem is powered on you are bombarded with constant traffic which eats into your allowance, whatever you do, don’t leave it unplugged — it will “damage it.”  From Rogers Internet FAQ:

We STRONGLY recommend that you do not turn off your modem when you are away from home. Your cable modem has been designed to remain powered at all times. Regularly turning it off and on may result in damage to your cable modem.

…and damage to our profits.

It’s appropriate that it is snowing heavily in Denver as attendees of the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers meet at Cable-Tec Expo ’09, under the banner “Touch the Technology.”

Yesterday’s Technology Leadership Roundtable, according to Lightwave’s Steven Hardy, was reserved for out of touch Verizon fiber bashing:

The title of this morning’s Technology Leadership Roundtable was “Enough Already!” “Enough of what?” you ask. Answers the roundtable description: “Growing a little weary of all that FiOS in your face?” The short answer, not surprisingly, is yes. Roundtable moderator Leslie Ellis (Ellis Edits LLC) opened the discussion by asking whether the cable-TV community should be defensive about the fact that it hasn’t fully embraced FTTH — particularly since the industry invented video over fiber and carries more video over fiber than anyone else.

Much pooh-poohing of FTTH and telcos ensued. Paul Liao, president and CEO of CableLabs, said that the MSOs are the big dogs when it comes to video and becoming big dogs in voice delivery — and when you’re a big dog, you’re going to attract competitive attention.

Dermot O’Carroll, SVP, engineering and network operations, at Rogers Cable Communications up in Canada, asserted that fiber “doesn’t do much” for voice or video (I assume he meant fiber access versus HFC) and perhaps only a little bit when it comes to Internet access. This last shortfall should go away with deployment of DOCSIS 3.0, he said.

Liao agreed that DOCSIS 3.0-enabled HFC should prove more than adequate for customer needs today and into the future, adding that DOCSIS 3.0 should enable more bandwidth than anyone will ever need. (This sounds like one of those “eat your words in 10 years or less” statements, but Liao is certainly smarter than I am and more versed in DOCSIS 3.0 capabilities.)

Meanwhile, at least two workshops later in the week will discuss how to migrate HFC networks to FTTH. It doesn’t hurt to hedge your bets, apparently. Getting a better understanding of how MSOs really feel about FTTH is one of my goals here.

The cable industry has routinely confronted the threat of fiber optics by dismissing it as irrelevant wizardry until they are forced to upgrade their networks to try and match the capabilities a well run fiber to the home system can provide.  Broadband service with equal upload and download speeds on cable?  Not so much.  The sheer bandwidth potential of fiber optics?  Quite nice, thank you.  The potential for Verizon FiOS to be positioned to meet the current and future needs of customers without a lot of expensive upgrades?  Very high, assuming it’s priced competitively.

Fiber bashing snowjob from Time Warner Cable

Rogers Cable has a point when they dismiss fiber’s potential for broadband.  That’s because the company treats its customers to a host of Internet Overcharging schemes which provide blazing fast speeds that customers can’t use for very long without facing overlimit charges on next month’s bill.  Few companies want to provide robust video broadband service in a country where such usage limits and other schemes prevail from Vancouver to St. John’s.

Mountain Cablevision becomes part of the Shaw Cable family with the approval of the CRTC

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has given approval to Shaw Communications for its acquisition of Hamilton-based Mountain Cablevision, Ltd., a small independent cable operator in southern Ontario.  The $300 million dollar transaction brings 41,000 cable customers, 29,000 Internet subscribers, 30,000 digital phone lines, and 135 Mountain Cablevision employees into the Shaw family, making the Calgary-based cable company Canada’s largest.

“This is a great move for us to come in there and be able to start being around that market. We always said that […] we want to be in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario,” Shaw chief executive Jim Shaw said Friday.

“Rogers had passed on the acquisition so we decided to go in there,” Shaw told analysts. “This is a great move for us, being around that market.”

Mountain Cablevision serves a small part of Hamilton and surrounding communities in southern Ontario

Shaw’s entry into Ontario upset Rogers Communications, eastern Canada’s dominant cable provider.  Rogers sued Shaw in an Ontario court, claiming the purchase violated a near-decade long agreement made personally between Ted Rogers and Jim Shaw to stay out of each other’s territories — Shaw stays out of eastern Canada if Rogers moves no further west than Ontario.

Canadian courts aren’t compelled to recognize handshake deals made over dinner, and the court ruled against Rogers.

With the agreement swept away, some analysts predict Rogers will investigate acquisition opportunities in western Canada, probably in the more populated regions.

Shaw claims it will upgrade Mountain Cablevision’s small cable footprint, which serves only a portion of greater Hamilton – Hamilton Mountain and East Hamilton, as well as the communities of Mount Hope, Caledonia, Hagersville, Jarvis, Dunnville/Byng, Cayuga and Binbrook, all in Ontario.  The company promises better broadband, cable, and telephone service after the upgrades are complete.  Shaw also says it will expand the Mountain Cablevision system into several unserved neighborhoods and townships.  That’s an important distinction, because it indicates Shaw has no intention of competing head to head with Rogers or Ontario’s other dominant cable company Cogeco.

The deal comes during challenging times for Shaw, who announced a 6% decline in profits in the fourth quarter, with gains only from new digital cable additions.  More than 110,000 Shaw customers signed up for digital cable in the third quarter, up from 23,000 in the third quarter a year ago.

In other areas, Shaw lost customers — 5,000 canceling broadband, 4,500 dropping Shaw’s direct to home satellite service, and nearly 9,000 disconnecting their Shaw digital phone line.

Shaw’s next product introduction will likely be its new cell phone service.  The company spent $190 million dollars last year acquiring 18 airwave licenses in northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.

Mountain Cablevision's concentrated service area in the city of Hamilton (click to enlarge)

But Shaw is taking a “very cautious approach” to wireless mobile services, according to the company.  It has refused to set a timetable when service would begin.  Shaw faces a growing number of wireless competitors introducing service in Canada late this year and into early 2010.  DAVE Wireless, Wind Mobile, and Public Mobile are all poised to launch in major Canadian cities, expecting to put competitive pressure on pricing and bring about lower priced, more generous service plans.

Shaw claims it’s not concerned, telling The Financial Post, “If they’re in there, we don’t really care. We already have a relationship with customers and they have zero,” Shaw said. “We have 3.4 million customers we have a relationship every month with.”

Telecommunications companies are increasingly concerned with offering customers “bundles” of telecommunications services from video, broadband, wired phone lines, and now increasingly wireless data and mobile phone services.  Customers purchasing bundles tend to remain loyal to the companies offering them.

One day before the Federal Communications Commission in Washington announced draft guidelines to establish an American Net Neutrality policy, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced its own guidelines to govern what Canadian broadband providers can and cannot do with the Internet traffic they deliver to millions of Canadian consumers.  While Bell (Canada), the nation’s largest telecommunications company praised the CRTC for its provider-friendly ruling, consumer groups varied their responses from “a step in the right direction” to “weak” to “here comes more gouging.”

The CRTC Net Neutrality policy for Canada essentially permits providers to continue to throttle broadband speeds for both retail and wholesale customers, and block traffic altogether should the CRTC grant permission in “exceptional cases,” as long as the provider discloses the practice to consumers up front, and warns them in advance of any policy changes that further slow their connections.

Laurel Russworm, who runs Stop Usage Based Billing, was not pleased.

“The CRTC decision doesn’t have a silver lining I can find; in fact they essentially said that usage based billing and caps are good tools to use to fight congestion. All Bell Canada has to do is warn us first, then they can gouge as they please. They’ve deferred making a decision on usage based billing until after the court challenges are dismissed, but I’m not holding my breath,” Russworm wrote.

On Wednesday the CRTC decided that Internet providers in Canada need measures to manage the traffic on their networks at certain times to deal with what providers claim to be a congestion problem.  At hearings held this past summer, several CRTC commissioners were receptive to the claims providers made that Canadian broadband does not have the capacity their American neighbors have.  Providers like Bell and Rogers claim that peer to peer traffic and increasing consumption of high bandwidth services have created capacity shortages on their networks, requiring traffic management which artificially slows certain traffic on their networks at “peak times.”  Canadian broadband providers almost universally also impose Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers, limiting customer use and charging them overlimit penalties for exceeding usage allowances.

The commission accepted the providers’ claims and gave the green light to those practices, but said before a provider literally blocks access to online services, or throttles time sensitive traffic on services like Voice Over IP telephone or two-way video conferencing to the point it becomes “degraded,” it needs to get Commission permission first.

Mirko Bibic, Bell Canada’s senior vice-president of regulatory and government affairs, told The Globe and Mail the ruling gives carriers the right to run their businesses the way they see fit. “We’re the experts, and we get the flexibility to determine how to manage our networks to give the user the best experience,” he said.

Bell already “throttles” its Internet service by slowing peer-to-peer downloading between 4:30 p.m. and 1 a.m. to make sure the network is not overloaded by a relatively small number of people transferring large video and music files.

Independent Internet providers are among the biggest proponents of Net Neutrality, and a ban on Internet Overcharging schemes known in Canada as “usage based billing.”  Many Canadian broadband providers obtain connectivity through wholesale accounts purchased from Bell.  The Canadian phone giant imposed both speed throttles and usage based billing on their wholesale customers.  Those costs, and the speed bumps that go with them, are now increasingly passed on to consumers.  Independent providers fear being put out of business.

For many of them, Wednesday’s decision might as well never have happened.

“This has really not changed anything,” Tom Copeland, chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, told PC World.

Copeland said the “biggest, most glaring omission” from the ruling is the lack of restraints on the time of day or how long suppliers like phone or cable companies can manipulate traffic. “So we could continue to see traffic management every day of the year,” he said.

“We’re still not addressing the cause of the problem,” he added: “Either weak points in the network, or abuse by users.” Most casual users of peer-to-peer applications — the biggest offending programs in the eyes of providers – aren’t the problem, he said.

“We just went backwards at warp speed,” lamented John Lawford, counsel for a coalition of consumer groups that fought for an end to throttling of Internet traffic of consumers, “ while we watch the U.S. rocket ahead.”

“The CRTC has said in this decision that ISPs own your content and own your Internet connection” said Lawford, “You just got owned.”

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre represented the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Canada Without Poverty and Option consommateurs during the hearings on Net Neutrality.  PIAC argued that the Telecommunications Act required ISPs not to interfere with customers’ Internet traffic unless such traffic was clearly harming other users of the network and not otherwise.  “ISPs should act as common carriers and just carry traffic, not as broadcasters deciding what you watch” continued Lawford, “but now they can decide what gets through – and how much they get to charge you for the privilege.”  Lawford also noted the CRTC’s requirement for the ISPs to disclose their “Internet traffic management practices” will not actually stop any of the practices.

The CRTC has repeatedly taken broadband industry-friendly positions in direct opposition to Canadian consumer interests, helping to set the stage for Canada’s rapid decline in broadband leadership.  The country’s standing in broadband rankings has taken a stunning fall from its earlier top-shelf position.  Regulatory policies that permit abusive, anti-competitive practices and reward providers for rationing broadband instead of investing in expanding it are at the heart of the problem.

Since the CRTC has taken positions more worthy of a industry trade group than an independent regulator, an increasing number of Canadians are demanding the CRTC lead or get out of the way.  A large group of Canadian voters upset about any issue is sure to attract politicians, and the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) has arrived.

Charlie Angus (NDP)

Charlie Angus, New Democrat Digital Affairs Critic and MP for Timmins-James Bay, who already is on record opposing Internet Overcharging schemes, says the CRTC dropped the ball on Net Neutrality.

“Yesterday’s CRTC decision on Internet traffic-management practices is a blow to the future of digital innovation in Canada,” Angus said in a statement.

“This interference [from traffic management] will be bad news for small third-party competitors and leaves consumers subject to digital snooping and interference from cable giants,” he added.

“Basically the CRTC has left the wolves in charge of the henhouse. ISP giants have been given the green light to shape traffic on the internet in favor of their corporate interests,” he said. “This decision is a huge blow to the future competitiveness of the Internet.”

Angus says that the premise of today’s decision – that notification from the ISP will allow customers to make an informed decision on where to buy Internet service – misses the harsh reality that the market for Internet service in Canada is not nearly competitive enough to work.

“Canada has fallen to the back of the pack in Internet service provision and pricing after leading the way for years. This is the direct result of a small band of ISP giants blocking out competition,” Angus said. “This decision clears the way for ISPs to squeeze out third-party players who are attempting to provide better price and service options.”

South of the border, the FCC has taken clear steps toward the establishment of Internet neutrality on U.S. networks.

Angus said that principle of Net Neutrality should be at the center of Internet policy in Canada, and that the CRTC has missed a golden opportunity with yesterday’s decision.

“The principle of Net Neutrality must be a cornerstone of the innovation agenda. The CRTC has once again acted as the rubber stamp for large ISP and cable players to dominate the market and decide which traffic goes in the fast lane and which traffic gets stuck in the slow lane. This decision continues a long and dismal tradition of Canada’s communication policy decisions chipping away at the public interest to the benefit of a few corporate giants.”

Dissolve the CRTC, a group collecting signatures to petition for the closure of the Commission, also made several comments about the CRTC decision.

Among their conclusions:

• The new policy leaves the door open to providers deciding their economic interests are better served from traffic management practices like throttles and usage limits than network investments.  Short term limits may serve the interests of stockholders, but could discourage long term investments needed to create new 21st century broadband platforms;
• The Commission’s encouragement that providers make additional investments in their networks is likely to fall on deaf ears.  It was Bell’s lack of investment in their broadband network which led to the traffic management practices, and the recent hearings about them, in the first place.  Without mandates, there is no real pressure on Bell to change their investment strategy.
• The Commission’s policy to regulate this issue through a user complaint process that calls out bad actors has no historical precedent of working.  The CRTC has a long history of ignoring public involvement in telecommunications proceedings, and does not like to involve themselves with individual customer complaints.  Campaigns to flood the CRTC with complaints on specific issues using their language may be the only way to get them to investigate.  Additionally, complaints that call out the disparity in network management policies between wholesale and retail accounts may only lead to additional restrictions on both types of accounts, making a bad situation even worse.

Canadians must contact their elected officials and demand federal legislation to enact true consumer protection and broadband reform policies to restore Canada to a position of leadership in broadband.  The CRTC is ineffective and must not be the final arbiter on these important issues.

Wind Mobile

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is back in this news this week after running a dog and pony hearing at the behest of Bell, Telus, and Rogers (three of Canada’s largest incumbent telecommunications companies) pondering whether would-be wireless competitor Globalive was Canadian enough to do business in the country.

The Telecom Act specifies that all wireless phone companies must be controlled by Canadian citizens.  Toronto-based Globalive Wireless Management Corporation insists it has met the requirements of Canadian law, despite having a major percentage of its financing coming from Egyptian-based Orascom, a wireless mobile provider itself.  Globalive points to approval of its holding company business structure by Industry Canada.

Under the arrangement, Globalive would launch competitive wireless service under the brand Wind Mobile starting later this year.  Then the CRTC got involved.

Canada’s three current wireless phone companies — Bell, Telus, and Rogers, complained to the Commission that Globalive is violating the spirit of the Telecom Act and have essentially joined forces to keep Globalive out of Canada.

The CRTC was quick to respond to the incumbents’ concerns and scheduled hearings which started last Wednesday.  As expected, Globalive got hard questioning from the CRTC and the providers.  Canadian citizens looking for competitive choice weren’t on the agenda.

The Commission previously forced Globalive to publicly release more than 1,000 pages of company documents relating to its business structure, pages that were kept confidential by Industry Canada, but made available to Globalive’s existing competitors for their review.  The result was a gold mine of insight on their potential competitor’s business plan, and they used the information gleaned to argue against the company’s right to provide service.  itWorldCanada covered the response:

“I don’t know how the commission could possibly approve that deal now with that kind of capital structure,” Michael Hennessy, Telus’ senior vice-president of regulatory and government affairs said in an interview. “It would be unprecedented.”

Rogers could have gone along with the Industry Canada ruling, said Ken Engelhart, the company’s vice-president of regulatory affairs, “but when we read the documents we were just amazed. There has never been an approval like this before. The rules have always been [a telecom company] could have a major foreign shareholder, a major foreign debt holder, a major foreign strategic partner. But you could never have the same person being all three. Orascom has 65 per cent of the equity, 100 per cent of the debt and they provide the brand and all the strategic and technical skills.”

“If this is OK there’s no point having any more hearings. They should all get rubber-stamped because if this is Canadian owned and controlled, what isn’t?”

Bell concern trolled their way through written comments, ringing their hands over an ownership structure modified to address their earlier concerns is now even worse.

Anthony Lacavera, chief executive officer for Globalive Wireless Management said Globalive has every right to operate a wireless provider in Canada as he is a Canadian citizen and has control.
TMCNet’s Canadian Angle blog explains:

The biggest problem seems to come down to math.  Globalive states that Lacavera is in control, and he is a Canadian citizen.  The incumbents are complaining about the amount of ownership and possible influence that the Egyptian financial backer, Orascom Telecom, has on the Globalive company.  The way that Lacavera has explained it, the Globalive team is following all the rules while still allowing for some out of this country funding.  Here is the breakdown:

• Anthony Lacavera owns 35 % of Globalive, and Orascom owns 65%.
• Orascom funded over $500 Million so Globalive could pay for the wireless spectrum that they bought, and the bridge financing required for the infratructure
• Both of these parties have agreed to replace the loans with third-party investments – as soon as it is commercially viable.

Telus and Bell suggest that Globalive and Orascom are pulling a fast one – trying to get around the legalities by setting up separate companies but still providing Orascom with a majority stake in the company, and  also with the added benefit of controlling the operations.

It shouldn’t be a big shock that Globalive was financed through another country, and as long as Globalive and Orascom commit to what they say they are going to do, there shouldn’t be any problems.

Well – still one hefty problem – the CRTC is under the influence of the incumbents.  The decisions coming from this regulatory body will provide fuel for many posts to come.

Am I the only one that sees the irony in the CRTC grilling Globalive about being influenced by outside sources?  Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black?

The reason for all of the debate is simple enough.  Canada’s three wireless phone companies could lose one quarter of their customers to competitors like Globalive and DAVE Wireless, according to Toronto-based Convergence Consulting Group, Ltd., which released a study on the matter last week.  Without Globalive being one of those competitors, incumbent providers will likely retain more customers and more revenue.