Hours before the deadline imposed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Rogers Communications responded Tuesday evening to the CRTC, which demanded Rogers correct malfunctioning speed throttle technology that slowed certain online gaming traffic to a crawl, because is mistook it for peer-to-peer file sharing traffic.

In a four-page letter to the Commission, Rogers essentially rehashed the Commission’s original concerns and then attempted to explain why the company throttles broadband traffic in the first place:

We manage P2P upload traffic because if we did not, this traffic would grow to occupy the capacity available on our network and so impact our customers’ experience. The vast majority of P2P upload traffic is being sourced by non-Rogers customers. Without our traffic management practices, our customers, including online gamers, would experience difficulty uploading traffic. The traffic management we do slows down the upstream delivery of P2P file sharing but does not prevent it. Since P2P file sharing is not as time sensitive as other forms of traffic, we believe managing it has little impact on customer satisfaction.

Remarkably, unthrottled peer-to-peer traffic on other Internet Service Providers in places like the United States does not seem to threaten the viability of those networks, but evidently Rogers is a special case.

Our ITMP policy does not target any customer group or content: it is designed to allow us to manage traffic to maximize our customers’ overall experience. Online gamers, in particular, need a responsive upstream network. In an effort to provide the best service for all of our customers, Rogers’ ITMPs limit only P2P file sharing applications to a maximum of 80kbps of upstream throughput. Our traffic management deploys specialized network appliances to classify traffic and apply our policy where appropriate.

That explains why the Canadian Gaming Organization (CGO) was so upset about Rogers’ throttling technology malfunctions which can slow game traffic to a crawl. But Rogers decided in light of the evidence exposing the gaming traffic throttling problem, the best thing to do was to blame someone else. Getting the right kind of server with the right Keywords can be helpful:

The technology and software in use at Rogers is provided by a leading network equipment vendor: Cisco. This is the same technology that is in place in hundreds of other ISPs worldwide, and Rogers does not believe the problems we have experienced are unique to our network.

Most traffic, such as web browsing or email, can be clearly identified by our Cisco equipment with very little chance of error. In very rare situations, traffic that is not P2P file sharing may be misclassified, such as was the case with World of Warcraft (WoW). Rogers has experienced a small number of cases of gaming traffic being misclassified as P2P file sharing traffic. In these cases, gaming customers have only been affected when running P2P file sharing simultaneously with a misclassified game. The typical game requires less than 80 kbps and so would not be affected even if a misclassification were to occur. It is only when the games are running in conjunction with P2P file sharing that our ITMP would be deployed. This has been confirmed by repeated testing in our lab. We have currently resolved all of these cases.

In other words, if customers shut off the offending peer to peer software, gaming traffic won’t be impacted by the throttle which reduces file sharing speeds to around 80kbps, which is just above dial-up.

Rogers’ “Rube Goldberg” Throttled Traffic Resolution Flow Chart. (All you wanted to do was play your online game in peace.)  Our suggestion for improvement: turn off the broadband traffic throttle and upgrade your network and the problems go away for everyone.

Rogers denies there is a problem worth getting upset about, because in their view, game traffic doesn’t need anything faster than 80kbps anyway.  Rogers’ attitude and response were both hotly contested by CGO co-founder Jason Koblovsky, who says his members are still directly and clearly affected by Rogers’ throttle.

“Rogers is stating here that they are actively dealing with throttling issues, and suspecting throttling when connection problems are being reported to them.  Quite frankly we are seeing quite the opposite,” Koblovsky says.  “They are actively refusing to even acknowledge that throttling might be taking place, and evidence of this has been submitted to the Commission in previous complaints proving what Rogers is claiming with this flowchart is false.  Hopefully the CRTC can read flowcharts and connect the dots.”

Rogers says it will take a two-step approach to make further corrections to reduce the impact of its errant broadband throttle, but did not provide any timeline.

“In the few cases where we have determined there has been a misclassification of an online game, we have used a two-stage solution to fix the problem. In the short term, we whitelist the game manufacturer’s servers. Whitelisting means creating a policy that will not apply ITMPs to packets going to and from a game manufacturer’s servers no matter how the traffic is classified. This can usually be accomplished in a very short period of time. Whitelisting is effective where the game manufacturer’s server can be located. The second stage is a long term solution that involves a software upgrade created by Cisco and deployed on our network that will correct the misclassification. We note that we did not use whitelisting until recently. Using whitelisting allows us to resolve problems much more quickly than was the case with WoW.”

Whitelisting, according to CGO, is not a sufficient solution to the problem because game manufacturers often change or add additional servers that Rogers will not initially be aware of, requiring constant tweaking to keep the whitelist up to date.

CGO co-founder Teresa Murphy added that “World of Warcraft traffic isn’t safe until the final fix from Cisco is applied to all Rogers-controlled Deep Packet Inspection systems.  Until that happens, if Blizzard moves any of their servers (as they did last summer), the whitelist will no longer apply to World of Warcraft traffic, and we’ll be back in this same situation all over again.  We’re also curious as to the current status of the other games users reported to Rogers back in March which were experiencing the same problems as World of Warcraft, but which didn’t get as much user outcry as World of Warcraft garnered.  There has been no update from any Rogers employee regarding these other games, which we find concerning.  Updates were sparse on the World of Warcraft issue before the CRTC complaint went in, but updates to users on the forums became non-existent after Rogers was forced to admit their practices with WoW.”

Rogers also promises to begin testing the top-ten most popular gaming titles on an ongoing basis to make sure game traffic for those applications goes unaffected.  Woe to those who don’t make the top-ten list, however.

CGO calls Rogers’ response wholly inadequate.

“The way the CRTC has put this to Rogers is that the CRTC expects a plan with dates to have this misclassification issue resolved. This just simply hasn’t happened here,” Koblovsky added.  “The CRTC has been pretty clear to Rogers they want no possibility of misclassification here on any programs, games etc.”

Some of Clearwire’s very first, and most loyal customers in the Pacific Northwest are receiving an unwelcome message of thanks for their years of service with the company: a massive rate increase.

The company is nearly doubling rates for customers who were promised special “lifetime” discounts for agreeing to remain with the wireless 4G broadband service, which has been experiencing financial problems recently.

D.B. in Seattle has been a Clearwire customer for years, even before the company upgraded to WiMax speeds.  In 2009, Clearwire sent him an offer he couldn’t refuse: stay with Clear and pay just $22 a month (plus $5 modem rental fee) for life.

“Of course I accepted immediately,” D.B. writes. “Then Clear [sent me a letter recently] telling me my monthly fee was going up to approximately $47 a month with the modem fee.”

D.B. has been calling and e-mailing Clearwire asking what happened to the $22-for-life promotion he has in writing from the company, but “nobody knows anything.”

Clearwire says they have improved their service recently in Seattle, but D.B. isn’t impressed.

“I’m here to tell the world that is not true,” he says. “Plus the times I’ve had this thing freeze up has greatly increased, and usually I have to unplug the modem for five minutes [to get service back].”

Mireille in Seattle managed to get an even lower “lifetime” rate from Clearwire two years ago.

“They offered me a monthly rate of $19.95 for as long as I maintained uninterrupted Clearwire service. That means forever and ever until I cancel.,” she says.  “Last week they sent me an email letting me know that they were raising my rate to $35.95 a month (that includes a $10 a month ‘long time customer discount’) and since I was such a good customer I was being offered that rate for the life of my uninterrupted Clearwire service. Sound familiar?”

Mireille calls it something else: breach of contract.

“I spoke to three different people and no one had anything to say besides that they were sorry but they were not able offer me that rate anymore.”

Customers in the Portland, Ore. area are getting similar e-mails, and The Oregonian took note:

Clearwire Corp., a wireless Internet provider that operates as Clear, is raising prices for 30,000 customers who signed up for the service soon after its 2009 launch.

The Kirkland, Wash.-based company didn’t provide details of the rate hikes, but e-mails to customers show that monthly rates for some home Internet plans will rise from $35 to $45 beginning in October.

Clearwire said the rate hike affects both home and mobile customers who subscribed when the service was first available, at a time when rates were lower or promotional prices were available.

Clearwire still offers a home Internet plan for $35 a month, but it limits download speeds to 1.5 megabits per second — one-eighth the speed of Comcast’s standard plan. Clear’s standard plan, which now costs $45, promises downloads between 3 and 6 megabits per second.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has issued new guidelines for consumers with complaints about their Internet Service Providers’ throttling practices that puts the burden of proof on the consumer to demonstrate an ISP is engaged in wrongful behavior before the CRTC will act.

The revised guidelines appear to come in response to complaints from consumers who have been subjected to dramatically reduced speeds when using Rogers Cable Internet service to play online games while also running file sharing software in the background. Rogers’ speed throttling technology appears to be unable to discriminate between game traffic, which is not subject to speed reductions, and file swapping traffic, which is.

The Canadian Gamers Organization filed a formal complaint with the CRTC this summer accusing Rogers of engaging in Network Neutrality violations.

The CRTC gave Rogers until today to fix the errant speed throttle or respond to the agency with an explanation for the delay.  As of this hour, Rogers appears not to have responded.

Last week, the CRTC began a crackdown of its own — against consumers bringing Internet complaints.  The CRTC modified the complaint procedure to instruct consumers to first work with their ISP and application developers to resolve any outstanding issues before filing complaints.  From the updated CRTC Guidelines:

How to make an Internet performance complaint

Before you complain to the CRTC about an Internet traffic management practice, you should first contact your Internet service provider to see if it can resolve the issue.

If your service provider doesn’t address your complaint to your satisfaction, and you believe that your service provider’s traffic management practices are not compliant with the CRTC’s policies, you can complain to the CRTC. Before doing this, make sure that you know your rights.

Rogers chokes the speed of undesireable peer to peer file traffic, but other applications like online gaming are also impacted. Consumers are complaining about the collateral damage.

What to include in your complaint

In your complaint, explain why you think your service provider’s traffic management practice doesn’t meet the requirements set out in their traffic management policy.  It is not necessary to provide technical details about the problem, but the CRTC needs enough information to understand the problem.  Please, clearly describe:

• What part of the traffic management policy you believe the provider has not followed
• When the problem occurred, and whether it is a recurring problem
• Which software program, or application, has been affected
• How the application has been affected
• The steps you’ve taken to try to resolve the issue with your service provider, including your provider’s response to your complaint

Consumer groups are not pleased the CRTC won’t engage directly in independent oversight of ISP speed throttling practices regardless of consumer complaints.

“We are not a consumer-protection agency,” the CRTC’s Denis Carmel was quoted as saying back in July.

“The CRTC must start enforcing its own policies,” says Canadian Gamers Organization co-founder Jason Koblovsky. “The CRTC needs to put a plan forth to ensure that regular audits are done on Internet Providers rather than relying solely on consumer complaints. We are asking the public to tell the CRTC that enough is enough: the Commission needs to take a much more proactive role in ensuring that Internet providers play by the rules. We are ready to act politically and force a solution here if need be.”

Koblovsky expanded his views on the subject in a blog entry:

We find this policy update to be more of an insult to consumers, and puts the responsibility of monitoring ISP’s use of [speed throttles] directly on the back of consumers. This is not acceptable by any means, and none of the policy recommendations we made that were thrown out by the CRTC in our initial complaint were taken into consideration, or for that matter seriously by the CRTC. This is a slap in the face to what we have been fighting for, and that is the CRTC has the responsibility to follow through, monitor and enforce its policies.

[…] Not one ISP has been found by the CRTC to be acting against net neutrality policy since they acted on this in 2009 with several complaints sent to the CRTC by consumers being dismissed due to lack of evidence over years of enforcement failure by the commission. There is no indication here that the CRTC is going to be dealing with a very high evidentiary thresh hold put on the consumer to launch a CRTC investigation in this policy update. All this update does is provide information on CRTC complaints procedures that are already in place, and consumers are already abiding by.

[…] Maybe it’s time we start acting politically on this issue instead, drop the CRTC from the picture to force the CRTC through legislation to listen to consumers, and start putting forth a much better effort on their responsibility to the public to enforce their policies. Or better yet, start billing the CRTC for our efforts on each complaint we become a part of.

Read this excellent analysis of game throttling and how Canadian ISPs master the art of Internet Overcharging.

Sprint is preparing to launch its own 4G LTE network early next year in an undetermined number of markets to increase 4G speeds and compete with AT&T and Verizon.

Sprint’s existing 4G service, based on older WiMax technology that powers the Clearwire network, has not kept up with subscriber demands, and many of Sprint’s “4G”-capable markets have speeds more in common with 3G than Verizon’s LTE or AT&T HSPA+ 4G networks.  As Clearwire continues to struggle through serious financial problems (the service has not expanded into a new market since 2010), lawsuits, and disgruntled customers, Sprint isn’t waiting around for Clearwire’s own planned upgrade to TD-LTE, which would require at least $600 million in financing to undertake.

Instead, Sprint is deploying the same technology used by Verizon for its LTE network.

CNET reports Sprint will initially use its G-block spectrum (1900MHz) for its LTE network, but the most robust coverage will come in 2013 when Sprint retires the Nextel iDEN network which currently resides in the 800MHz band, more suitable for longer range reception.

Sprint says the 4G LTE upgrade is all part of its Network Vision plan, which upgrades virtually the entire Sprint network at a cost of $4-5 billion.  But shareholders aren’t reacting over Sprint’s LTE spending, because it is included in the earlier budget already disclosed to Wall Street.

For consumers, the upgrade will mean the company that first embraced 4G will once again deliver speeds worthy of that label.  Sprint customers across the country have reported network speeds have suffered as more customers have piled on Sprint’s and Clearwire’s network.  Clearwire will remain a Sprint partner, but that wireless provider will increasingly depend on Sprint’s network, a reversal of Sprint’s current dependence on Clearwire WiMax for their existing 4G service.  Clearwire may ultimately be unable to finance its own upgrades.

Sprint also announced it will keep its unlimited smartphone data plans, because they attract customers from AT&T and Verizon who do not want limited-use plans.  But preserving unlimited data comes at a cost.  Sprint has been cutting perks all month:

1. Sprint nearly doubled its early termination fee from $200 to $350 effective Sept. 9.
2. Sprint slashed its satisfaction guarantee program for new customers from 30 to 14 days on Sept. 16.  Sprint’s guarantee allows new customers the opportunity to test Sprint’s network before committing to a two-year contract.  The company also now expects to be paid for whatever airtime charges were incurred during the trial.
3. Sprint has announced it is ending its Premier Program Dec. 31.  Premier gave customers who spend more than $89 a month on an individual cell plan the opportunity to upgrade their phones annually, penalty-free.  Members also received free minutes, discounts on accessories, early buying opportunities for the newest phones, and regular plan reviews.  Instead, customers will be dropped into the same New for You^SM Upgrade Program lower spenders receive.  But Sprint will be changing that program too:

Unlimited data... for now.

On October 2, the following changes to our New for You^SM Upgrade Program will take effect:

• New lines of service and existing customers who upgrade on or after October 2, 2011 will receive future upgrades after 20 months;
• $75 and $25 upgrade discounts will no longer be available for customers signing up for a 1-year agreement or 2-year agreement after 12 months or signing a 1-year agreement after 22 months.

Additional information for existing customers. As of October 2:

• If you’ve already qualified for a full upgrade, nothing changes. When you sign up for a new 2-year agreement and take your device offer, future upgrades will be available after 20 months;
• If you haven’t qualified for your full upgrade yet, to receive a discount you’ll wait until you qualify for your full upgrade at 22 months.

On Oct. 5, Sprint is expected to introduce the Apple iPhone on its network for the first time.  Some analysts predict iPhone will be the catalyst to drive Sprint’s unlimited data plan into the ground, because the phone has a reputation for being a favorite for heavy data users.  iPhone 5 will remain dependent on 3G networks for connectivity outside of Wi-Fi, which could drive data usage higher than any other Sprint phone.  Should that overwhelm Sprint’s 3G network before its 4G service enjoys a widespread rollout (and Apple introduces a phone that works on 4G), Sprint may find itself limiting data usage as well, as least on its 3G network.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Welcome to 4G from Sprint.flv[/flv]

Sprint’s promotional video promoting its current 4G WiMax network, powered by Clearwire.  (3 minutes)

The network envisioned with the help of a $30 million federal broadband grant, now in jeopardy.

A consortium of 15 rural north Florida counties awarded a $30 million federal broadband grant to provide a “middle-mile” wireless broadband network for the region has spent almost $7 million of its federal grant on consultants, design engineers, land acquisition and staffing without breaking ground on a single construction project.

In February 2010, the Obama Administration announced the broadband grant to deliver rural Florida residents a way to finally obtain high-speed access to the Internet within three years.  Now, a year-and-a-half later, not a single tower of the wireless network has been built, residents have been told they will never receive Internet service directly from the project, and one of the key members of the North Florida Broadband Authority charged with constructing the network has called one of the major contractors “incompetent.”

Last week, federal officials suspended the grant amid growing accusations of wasteful spending and lack of oversight.

NFBA was supposed to be building a wireless wholesale-access network across 15 counties that would deliver ISPs, government agencies, libraries, and other institutional users packages of 6, 12, 25, 60, 150Mbps or faster service, linked with fiber to Orlando and Tampa.

Although media coverage touted the project as delivering improved access to residential customers in Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Putnam, Suwannee, Taylor, Union and Wakulla counties, the NFBA project will not directly make broadband service available to consumers.  Would be residential customers will have to hope an incumbent Internet Service Provider chooses to participate and resells access to the network across the region.  Otherwise, those taxpayers will only be able to use the network they paid for at a local library.

That is, if the project ever gets completed.

To date, financial statements from the NFBA reflect the biggest checks paid to-date have gone to architecture and design consultants, which have received a total of more than $3.37 million dollars.  In contrast, NFBA has paid $0.00 for on-site construction and site work as of the end of the last quarter.  Money has also been spent on “Administrative and Legal Expenses” amounting to more than $863,000, and $1.54 million has been spent on property appraisal, acquisition, and expenses related to establishing rights-of-way.

When questions began to be raised about why the project had spent so much on so little, the fur began to fly, according to the North Florida Herald:

Christopher Thurow of Bradford County, accused [contractor] Government Services Group of being “incompetent.” Government Services Group answers to the Authority and is in charge of managing the project.

Then Rapid Systems, one of the project’s engineering companies, began making accusations of not getting paid. But GSG pointed to what it said was inadequate documentation by Rapid Systems and not following payment procedures.

Adding to the controversy was that GSG had been let go from managing the Florida Rural Broadband Authority (FRBA), a program similar to the North Florida Broadband Authority.

Multiple FRBA meetings were canceled, and the project was behind schedule, said Rick Marcum, chairman of FRBA.

“We felt like we needed to move in a different direction,” he said.

Since then, Government Services Group has filed a lawsuit against FRBA, saying there is a breach of contract.

At the North Florida Broadband Authority, some members allege a conflict of interest between GSG and Capital Solutions, which was contracted by GSG to oversee the administration of the grant money.

The apparent conflict comes from the accusation that Government Services Group CEO Robert Sheets is 25-percent owner of Meridian Services group, where Lisa Blair is CEO and president. Blair also is the CEO of Capital Solutions.

NFBA project members seem content to blame most of the problems on others, as well as on a sudden discovery their initial network design would not meet the performance requirements of potential wholesale customers.  That meant a wholesale re-design of the project into a “interconnected-ring network” design topology.  The rest of the delay, according to the NFBA, was because the project was sitting around waiting for government approvals:

This entire process (which included design re-evaluation, engineering services procurement, and network redesign) was carried out over a period of two to three quarters, which was the period of time designated in the original Baseline Plan for the turnkey link design phase as well as for subsequent equipment procurement, site acquisition, and pre-deployment activities. Additional variance from the Baseline Plan resulted substantial delays that were incurred awaiting wage-rate determinations (more than 3 months), awaiting a response to a waiver request to allow eligibility of Long term Operational leases (requested process in December, 2010, AAR submitted in April 2011, received in June, 2011); and comments from the Program Office on a Route Change Request (2 months).

That explanation did not pass muster with grant administrators at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the federal agency overseeing broadband grants.

“NFBA has experienced a number of external and internal delays on its project and, as a result, NTIA has serious concerns regarding the project’s long-term viability and, in the short-term, its ability to implement and deploy the proposed project during the grant award period,” the NTIA wrote in a statement.

As a result, the NTIA has suspended the program, ending all work, pending some sort of oversight agreement with the NFBA being concluded before Oct. 10.

The NTIA wants all invoices and disbursements from the $30 million grant approved directly by them before any more money is spent on the project.

To date, filings indicate the project has no signed customers of any kind, institutional, commercial or otherwise.  NFBA anticipates it will “outline service to 308 anchor institutions by project closeout,” with “outline” at this point defined as “offer.”

However, NFBA claims to have received a “Commitment Letter for a substantial monthly service commitment from one of our last mile partners, and we expect to receive additional Commitment Letters over the next quarter as we continue to actively engage last mile providers in the network region.”

Last-mile partners are the ones that will ultimately deliver service to residential and business customers.

Dixie County resident and Stop the Cap! reader Jimmy Dixon, who alerted us to the latest developments, calls it “a good government program hijacked by greedy consultants and incompetent local officials.”

“This was supposed to be about serving the unserved — we the people — and instead the project will only sell to government buildings and libraries, and whatever ISPs choose to buy access,” he writes. “But when an ISP won’t sell DSL to your home today, nothing about this grant will make them sell it tomorrow.”

Indeed, Dixon says the local phone company in his area continues to have no plans to wire his neighborhood for DSL, grant or no grant.

“They frankly told me it did not make economic sense to extend DSL here, and unless the government directly defrayed those expenses, they never will service us,” Dixon shares. “But I guess until recently it was just fine to line the pockets of consultants with millions in taxpayer dollars to not deliver service to anyone else, either.”

“We’re all in the same boat, and it’s sinking fast.”

Read the special investigative report published by the North Florida Herald here.