AT&T has announced an across-the-board rate increase for smartphone and tablet data plans, raising prices $5 Sunday for most plans while including incrementally larger usage allowances:

• Lite Usage: 200MB for $15 is now 300MB for $20;
• Average Usage: 2GB for $25 is now 3GB for $30;
• Higher Usage: 4GB for $45 is now 5GB for $50.
• Regular Tablet Plan:  2GB for $25 is now 3GB for $30.
• A new, higher use tablet plan will offer 5GB for $50.
• Overlimit fees are now $20 for 300MB of additional usage on the lite usage plan, $10/GB on all other plans.

AT&T originally charged $29.99 for unlimited-use data plans.  The company claimed in the summer of 2010 its new limited-use plans would save most customers money, but except for very light users, that is no longer true.

AT&T's throttles are engaged.

AT&T says the new usage allowances reflect customer resistance to paying overlimit fees when they exceed AT&T’s existing caps.  But the company has also previously said the vast majority of its customers never exceed the old allowances. According to AT&T, 65 percent of its customers use less than 200MB per month and 98 percent of its smartphone customers use less than 2GB of data per month. That effectively means every customer will now face a $5 rate hike for increased usage allowances most will not currently use.

Existing customers can hang on to their old data plans indefinitely, but those who bounce between carriers will be forced to choose from a more limited, and expensive, menu of options.

Considering that AT&T’s most significant rival Verizon Wireless currently charges $30 for just 2GB per month, AT&T officials are still able to claim their new prices represent a “great value.”

Customers grandfathered under AT&T’s old unlimited-use plans are also discovering they are anything but unlimited.  So-called “heavy users” who exceed 2GB of use per month are first warned by AT&T they are in the “top 5%” of usage-hungry users, after which their wireless connection is throttled to as little as 15kbps for the remainder of the billing cycle.

Providers establishing Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, so-called “consumption billing,” and speed throttles that force subscribers into expensive upgrades are planning for a growth industry in data consumption.

According to new research from a firm that specializes in market strategies, data usage is going up and fast.  Providers that seek to monetize that usage could win enormous new profits just sitting back and waiting for customers to exceed the arbitrary usage caps some companies are now enforcing with their customers and take the proceeds to the bank.

iGR says the demand for connectivity inside the home is at an all-time high, with the biggest growth coming from wireless Wi-Fi connections.  The more devices consumers associate with their home broadband connection, the greater the usage.

That is one of the reasons why providers are increasingly supplying customers with free or inexpensive Wi-Fi routers, to make the connections quick, simple, and potentially profitable down the road.

Comcast's Wireless Gateway: A Future Money Machine?

Comcast announced this week it would supply a free 802.11N “home gateway” free of charge to every new customer signing up for Blast!, Extreme 50 or Extreme 105 broadband service.  In addition to wireless connectivity for every device in the home, the Xfinity Wireless Gateway also includes a built-in cable modem and phone service adapter.  Time Warner Cable strongly encourages new DOCSIS 3 customers use their equipment for Wi-Fi service as well.  AT&T has included its own wireless gateway with U-verse for a few years now.

The offer is hard to refuse.  Nearly 80 percent of homes use wireless access, connecting cell phones, tablets, laptops, personal computers, game consoles, and even set top boxes that let customers stream video entertainment to their television sets.

iGR found average usage in heavily-connected homes at the all time high of 390GB per month.  By 2015, that will rise to more than 440GB per month.  Both numbers are well in excess of average consumption limits by providers like Comcast and AT&T, which top out at just 250GB per month.  Of course, not all Wi-Fi usage is based on traffic from the Internet.  Some users stream content between computers or devices within the home.  But the research is clear — usage is growing, dramatically.

Video is by far the biggest factor, according to iGR.  Their report, U.S. Home Broadband & WiFi Usage Forecast, 2011-2015, says the appetite for downloaded and streamed video is only growing.

Matt Vartabedian, vice president of the wireless and mobile research service at iGR, says home Wi-Fi has become inextricably woven into the personal, social and business fabric of today’s life.

Broadband is increasingly seen by consumers as an essential utility, as important as the home wired telephone, safe drinking water, and reliable electric and natural gas service.

Providers are positioning themselves to take advantage of the growth market in data by establishing what, at first glance, may seem to be generous (often inflexible) usage limits that remain unchanged years after introduction.  While only a handful of consumers may cross those provider-imposed thresholds at first, within a few years, it will be more uncommon to remain within plan limits, especially if you watch online video.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission late Tuesday ruled against a revised proposal from Bell that could have effectively ended flat rate Internet service across the country, but also allows the phone company to raise wholesale prices for independent Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

The Commission ruled Bell and cable companies like Rogers must sell access to third party providers at a flat rate or priced on speed and the number of users sharing the connection.  The CRTC rejected a Bell-proposed usage-based pricing scheme that would have charged independent ISPs $0.178/GB.

Ultimately, the CRTC came down closest to adopting a proposal from Manitoba-based MTS Allstream, which suggested a variant on speed-based pricing, steering clear of charging based on usage.  Under the CRTC ruling, independent ISPs can purchase unlimited wholesale access based on different speed tiers.  The new pricing formula requires independent providers to carefully gauge their usage when choosing an appropriate amount of bandwidth.  If an independent ISP misjudges how much usage their collective customer base consumes during the month, they could overpay for unused capacity or underestimate usage, leaving customers with congested-related slowdowns.  ISPs will be able to purchase regular capacity upgrades in 100Mbps increments to keep up with demand.  They can also implement network management techniques which may discourage heavy use during peak usage.

The CRTC decision underscores that Internet pricing should be based on speed, not on the volume of data consumed by customers.  That’s a model Stop the Cap! strongly approves because it does not allow providers to monetize broadband usage.

Finkenstein

But that is where the good news ends.  Nothing in the CRTC ruling changes the Internet Overcharging regime already in place at the country’s leading service providers.  Companies like Bell and Rogers are free to continue setting arbitrary limits on usage and charging overlimit fees for those who exceed them.

Konrad von Finckenstein, chair of the CRTC, says the regulator made a mistake in deciding last year to allow Bell to raise its prices for independent service providers.

“Our original decision was clearly not the best one. It was wrong and it was pointed out by a lot of people, including Minister Clement. He was right. We have today fixed it, we have made this new decision,” von Finckenstein said. “The bottom line is that you as a consumer will not face a cap or limitation of use because of anything mandated by the CRTC. Any kind of cap or limit, payment per use, that you will have to pay is because your ISP decides to charge you, not because we mandate it.”

But many independent providers are unhappy with the CRTC ruling because it also allows wholesale providers like Bell to raise prices, sometimes substantially, on the bandwidth they sell.

One independent ISP — TekSavvy, said it faced increased connectivity costs in eastern Canada.

“The CRTC decision is a step back for consumers. The rates approved by the Commission today will make it much harder for independent ISPs to compete”, said TekSavvy CEO Marc Gaudrault. “This is an unfortunate development for telecommunications competition in Canada,” he added.

“Rates are going up,” added Bill Sandiford, president of Telnet Communications and of the Canadian Network Operators Consortium, an independent ISP association.

In addition to whatever rate increases eventually make their way to consumers, some independent providers may end up adopting network management and usage cap policies that attempt to slow down the rate at which they are forced to commit to bandwidth upgrades.  That’s because providers purchase capacity based on what they believe their peak usage rate is likely to be.  Providers will be free to upgrade service in 100Mbps increments.  But with the new, higher prices, providers could overspend on capacity that goes unused or find themselves underestimating usage, creating congestion-related slowdowns for all of their customers.

Angus

Some network management techniques that could reduce peak usage — and the need for upgrades — include speed throttles for heavy users during peak usage times or usage caps that fall away during off-peak hours when network traffic is lower.

Yesterday’s decision will provide some small relief to wholesale buyers of bandwidth in Quebec, where’s Videotron’s sky-high wholesale prices are set to be reduced.  But the unusual divide in Internet pricing between eastern and western Canada will remain.  Western Canadians will continue to enjoy much larger usage allowances, and lower wholesale pricing, than their eastern neighbors in Ontario and Quebec.

The CRTC’s ruling did not go far enough for NDP Digital Issues critic Charlie Angus. Angus notes only 6 percent of Canadians purchase Internet service from independent providers.  The rest will still be stuck with what he calls “unfair billing practices and bandwidth caps.”

Angus is convinced the CRTC just gave the green light to force rate hikes for the minority of consumers who found a way around companies like Bell, Shaw, Videotron, and Rogers.

“Allowing big telecom companies to reach into the pockets of struggling families and ask for even more money is just plain wrong,” Angus said.

Bell’s senior vice-president for regulatory and government affairs, Mirko Bibic, still believes the company’s proposal to charge just under 20c per gigabyte to wholesale users was appropriate, but the CRTC’s permission to allow Bell to increase wholesale rates was a nice consolation prize.  Bibic tried to frame the decision as forcing ‘independent ISPs to pay their fair share.’

Independent ISPs “are going to have to lease more traffic lanes,” he told CTV News. “I think the philosophy is [to] put the independent ISP in a position of responsibility. If usage goes up, you’re going to have to buy more lanes – it’s the same decision that we have to make.”

Now all prepaid and contract-free.

Clearwire customers are being informed the wireless broadband provider is consolidating service plans in a move the company hopes will simplify what’s on offer.  Following on the heels of Leap Wireless’ Cricket, which launched simplified pricing last year, Clearwire will now market prepaid, no-contract broadband to new customers effective today.

Broadband Reports has been talking with Clearwire after forum members began noticing changes on some dealer websites that eliminated 3G coverage and dropped postpaid bundles of voice and data plans.  Earlier today, the company confirmed it was getting rid of contracts, early termination fees, rental fees for devices, and activation fees.  New customers will be asked to purchase their own mobile broadband device which will work exclusively on Clearwire’s own 4G WiMax network.  You can purchase plans that work by the day, week, or month.

The most popular anticipated plan will offer “unlimited” 4G wireless broadband for $50 a month.

Gone is the bundled Sprint 3G voice option and the annoying early termination fees customers howled about when Clearwire’s advertised coverage didn’t live up to expectations.  Although Clearwire continues to pitch “unlimited mobile broadband,” their notorious speed throttles will remain for “congested cell sites.”  Customers have dropped the service over significant throttling issues in some areas, which reduce speeds to near dial-up in some cases.

Broadband Reports speculates Clearwire wants to be in the wholesale broadband business, and slowly exit the retail business that has earned them the scorn (and threatened legal action) of some of their customers.

Existing customers will be able to keep their existing plans, at least for now.

A class action lawsuit accusing AT&T of methodically over-measuring wireless customers’ usage and subjecting them to overlimit fees has been re-assigned to arbitration because AT&T wrote terms into contracts denying customers the right to pursue grievances any other way.

Plaintiff Patrick Hendricks claimed AT&T was systematically overstating customer usage by 7-14 percent with a rigged usage meter.  Hendricks claims some customers were overbilled by as much as 300 percent for phantom data usage that he claims never took place.  The measuring errors found in a two-month study cited by Hendricks were in AT&T’s favor, potentially exposing customers to surprise overlimit fees or, more recently, speed throttles.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer shut down the court case, heard in a San Francisco federal courtroom.  Breyer ruled that since AT&T’s contracts bar lawsuits by customers, Hendricks must pursue his case in the venue required by AT&T — arbitration.

“[AT&T’s contract] requires the use of arbitration on an individual basis to resolve disputes, rather than jury trials or class actions, and also limits the remedies available … in the event of a suit,” Breyer ruled.

Ironically, Breyer is the same judge that dissented from an earlier case — AT&T v. Concepcion, that ultimately set the stage allowing AT&T to force consumers to pursue arbitration and practically speaking, remove their right to pursue class action relief.

“What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?,” Breyer wrote. “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30’.”

Brandi M. Bennett, a California attorney who specializes in intellectual property law, considers arbitration clauses to be a major threat to class action cases:

“Class actions make it possible to find recourse for individuals with damages that make traditional litigation impractical. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion appears to leave the average consumer at risk of being defrauded by corporations for $10, $20, $50 without any practical remedy. If one million customers are damaged for $20 each, a corporation can improperly realize a $20 million gain. Class actions serve to prevent that.”

Arbitration can offer a poor substitute, because most arbitration firms are beholden to their corporate clients for repeat business.  An arbitrator perceived to be exceptionally pro-consumer stands little chance of being retained when corporate defendants pay the arbitration firm for its services.  Some arbitration policies require consumers and the company to split the costs of arbitration, but those costs often easily exceed the value of the original claim, discouraging customers from pursuing a refund settlement.

Companies understand that reality, which is why clauses requiring arbitration to settle disputes are increasingly common in service contracts.

Hendricks’ original suit sought restitution for the entire class of consumers and damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and fraudulent business practices, unfair competition, and violations of the federal Communications Act.  Most arbitration clauses require consumers to file individual complaints, which few may ultimately do considering arbitration proceedings may occur in another city and often requires the complainant to appear in person to provide testimony.