What would you do if your broadband bill was the same as your monthly rent?

That’s a question 21-year-old Notre Dame de Grace resident Amber Hunter has been dealing with since the neighbors began hacking their way into her wireless router, gaining access to her cable modem service from Videotron, Ltd., and running her bill into the next province.

It’s the predictable outcome of what happens when Internet Overcharging schemes gain traction, leaving ordinary consumers literally holding the bill.

Videotron sells usage limited broadband service across Quebec, but heavy users who routinely exceed their arbitrary usage caps knew there was a limit on the overlimit fees Videotron charged.

Not anymore.

Videotron left the usage caps on, but removed the limit on how much they can charge customers who exceed their monthly usage allowance.

Videotron sets prices like the OPEC of the Internet -- the sky is the limit

“The sky is the limit, or at least your bank account,” writes our Montreal reader Hei.  “The only thing unlimited with Videotron are the overlimit fees.”

Hunter had no idea she was being hacked.

“I had no idea what a gigabyte was, so when I started getting higher bills, I just assumed it was from watching TV shows online,” Hunter says.

Her boyfriend told her otherwise, making it clear it was impossible for her to be running up 350GB a month in usage just from watching a few movies and TV shows.

Since August, Hunter has accumulated more than $1,800 in broadband bills stemming from parties unknown who hacked their way into her wireless router and “borrowed” her Internet account.  Videotron itself is directly responsible for part of this debacle, encouraging Hunter to upgrade to a higher tier of service that upgraded her from a 30GB usage allowance to a 100GB usage allowance, with a major catch.

Hunter had become accustomed to paying her usual broadband bill plus the $50 maximum penalty charged for her “overuse.”  So a Videotron representative suggested a higher usage allowance plan might lower her bill.  But somehow, the Videotron customer service agent forgot to mention that the new plan no longer included a limit on overlimit charges.

When Amber switched plans, her broadband bill exploded.  Now the waitress hands over most of her weekly salary to Videotron.

“I’m a student, and I work at a bar, and now most of the money I have goes to pay my Internet bill,” Hunter told the Montreal Gazette. “It’s more than I pay for school and books, and I don’t have a lot of money left for food.”

She still owes the cable company $506 and they aren’t interested in providing her any service credits beyond the $313 they gave her a few months ago.

It took a Videotron help desk employee to finally unravel the mystery of the Internet Overcharges — someone was hacking into her wireless network.  Exactly who has been living their online life usage-limit free at Amber’s expense may never be known. Those living in apartment complexes and other multiple dwelling units can often find a dozen or more wireless connections, some password protected, others not.

Hunter’s wireless network was secured with a difficult to guess password using a four year old Linksys router.  Unfortunately, older routers often lack robust security and are easily hacked.

A handful of Canadian ISPs still offer unlimited broadband accounts.

As far as Videotron is concerned, it’s all Hunter’s fault — she should have understood what a gigabyte was, how many she was supposed to be using, what the security capabilities of her router were, that they were properly enabled, that she checked her usage on a daily basis looking for anomalies — investing her time, effort, and energy to stop the cable company before it billed her an enormous amount… again.

Speaking for Videotron, Isabelle Dessureault said, “It’s a case where Videotron showed some understanding and listened to what happened. We’re well-renowned in the industry for our technical support team. We credited her account for $313, but at a certain point, we need to share the responsibility. We don’t like these kind of situations.”

Videotron’s responsibility to their customers stopped where their profit margin began.  The company could have sent Amber a bill for the wholesale cost of her Internet usage, which she could have paid with a few of her bar tips.

Because Hunter’s broadband bills were now rivaling her monthly rent she decided to invest in her financial future, buying a new router and making sure the wireless was turned off.  Today she runs dozens of meters of Ethernet cable between all of her computers, just to keep the neighbors off her connection.

Although Videotron has become intractable, demanding Amber pay up, one of their competitors used the opportunity to score public relations points that Videotron sacrificed.

Jarred Miller, the president of the Internet Service Provider YOUMANO offered to cover all of Hunter’s overage fees amassed over the past year that also includes a free year of Internet service with his company, a generous offer Hunter will take.

YOUMANO is one of a handful of Canadian ISPs still offering unlimited Internet access, and do not think of themselves as the OPEC of the Internet.

The entire affair is a warning to Americans.  If you think Videotron is an Internet evildoer, imagine what Verizon, AT&T and Comcast could do to your bank account.  If they have their way, you’ll need to become intimately familiar with your router, the concept of a gigabyte, and take a class in “negotiating to win” when fighting over your future enormous broadband bills.

Listen to an interview with Amber Hunter. She appeared on this morning’s Daybreak on CBC Radio Montreal to discuss her experience with Videotron Internet Overcharging. (8 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre just released a report that found deregulation in Canada's telecommunications marketplace delivered most of the benefits to providers, leaving consumers holding the higher bill.

Four years after Canada deregulated its telecommunications industry with the promise it would bring competition, better service and lower prices, Canadian consumers are instead paying too much for broadband service that delivers too little.

That is the conclusion of a new report from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a non-profit consumer protection organization that compared provider promises with the bills ordinary Canadians ultimately pay for their Internet service.

Michael Janigan, the report’s author told CBC News that deregulation has brought “super-normal” profits for Bell, Telus and Rogers — among Canada’s largest telecom companies — while those same providers continue to increase prices and, in some cases, reduce the amount of broadband usage customers can access before overlimit fees kick in.

“We still have three big players with over 90 per cent of the market, and they’re pretty fat and happy,” Janigan said in an interview with CBC News. “We’re still seeing the incredible clout of the big telcos in relation to their ability to swing competition in their favor.”

Bell, Canada’s largest telecom company, stands to gain even more power over the broadband marketplace with a ruling from Canada’s telecommunications authority that has direct implications for Canada’s independent service provider market.  Most third party providers obtain their Internet connectivity from Bell at wholesale pricing.  Thanks to a now-approved-request from Bell to charge wholesale customers usage-based pricing, providers are now forced to pass along those artificially high prices to Canadian consumers.

“The days of unlimited Internet service are about to become extinct in Canada,” says Stop the Cap! reader Giles in Trois-Rivières, Quebec.  “How surprised can you be that the company that sells access to competitors has managed to find a way to price that competition out of business.”

For one such competitor, Primus, the effect of Bell’s usage-based pricing will have an immediate impact on their customers’ monthly bills.

The company is now notifying customers that effective Feb. 1, the unlimited service plans that appealed to those opposed to usage-limited broadband will be now limited to just 25GB of usage per month.  Primus directly implicated both Bell and the the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for the pricing changes.

Those who exceed the limit face overlimit fees of $2.00 per gigabyte, up to a maximum of $60 per month.

Here today, gone tomorrow: Primus is discontinuing its unlimited use services. Effective Feb. 1, overlimit fees of $2/GB kick in after just 25GB of usage.

Those limits could put Primus at a competitive disadvantage with larger providers delivering lower cost plans with higher usage allowances.

“Why would you still be a Primus customer after this,” asks Giles.

Primus will not be alone among third party DSL service providers — almost all will be forced to adopt similar pricing.  The result? More expensive service for Canadian broadband customers, and major troubles for third party competitors whose new pricing could turn customers away.

The price increase is a direct result of a recent decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to approve Bell Canada’s request to introduce Usage Based Billing on wholesale Internet services. Over the last four years, critics charge the CRTC with abandoning its watchdog role to protect Canadian consumers from unfair and uncompetitive practices and kowtowing to the interests of large telecom companies.

“In 2006 and 2007, the government stepped in to tell the CRTC to deregulate as a priority and to deregulate local telephone service faster promising better deals for consumers. As a our report notes, this did not happen despite all the hype”, said Janigan, author of the report, Waiting for the Dream, The Consumer Brief for Telecom Reform 2010.

In fact, the report concludes that Canada’s performance in telecommunications services such as broadband and wireless has been less than impressive, and the results for customers of cable and satellite services from deregulation of basic service has been the opposite of what should be expected in competitive markets.

“It is one thing to try a course of action that doesn’t work out: it is another to ignore the results and simply try more of the same,” said Janigan. “It doesn’t now make sense to have a government Policy Direction in place that hampers both competition and consumer protection”:

This report concludes that the failure of the regulatory reform of the last two decades to deliver the goods for ordinary residential consumers is not one that has its roots in theory, but in practice. Here, the interests of powerful stakeholders have affected the service landscape. In the same way that incumbent players used their political and economic influence and regulatory capture to get their way in the monopoly era of regulation, the winners have used the market- based system to their advantage. Neither regulation nor deregulation will engineer a thriving telecommunications industry producing innovative and efficient products and services with resultant economic growth for Canada if the decision making processes for each are skewed by conditions and assumptions that favour some stakeholders over others.

Most importantly, the governance and regulation of the telecommunications industry in Canada must respond to results. For the most part, the restructuring of telecommunications has been guided by untested economic theories, largely provided by experts engaged by the largest stakeholders. The relatively poor performance of telecommunications service for ordinary consumers should have long ago engendered a review of the  regulatory framework and market structure that is producing the same. In the last five years, the only acknowledged measure of success has been how fast telecommunications services have been deregulated with predictable market results.

The solution is not a return to old regulation but new models. First of all, there are a variety of consumer issues associated with basic rights for information, quality of service, security of service, disconnections, privacy etc. that should be met by all carriers whether they are incumbent or not. Basic service, obligations to serve, complaints resolution, and burdens of service in uneconomic areas have to be in place for all across the board. The best way to ensure that this occurs is for mandatory licensing for all carriers, with appropriate codes of conduct and enforcement with meaningful force in the form of administrative monetary penalties. The Telecommunications Act should be amended to reflect these improvements.

Interconnection with essential telecommunications facilities should be available for competitors at rates that are fair to users and suppliers. We cannot let abstruse theories supposing innovation and duplication in the absence of access to govern this important issue.

Clearwire’s often-unclear “network management” policies are the subject of a lawsuit filed yesterday in Seattle seeking class action status.

Angelo Dennings vs. Clearwire Corporation was filed in the Western District of Washington federal court, and seeks refunds for consumers who were mislead by the company’s failure to disclose its network speed throttling and usage limitations, and charged early termination fees when subsequently canceling service.

Clearwire promises that its high-speed Internet service provides a “fast” and “always on, always secure” Internet connection allowing users to “[d]ownload pictures, music and videos.” But Clearwire does not provide an “always on,” “high-speed” connection as it promises. Clearwire purposefully slows the connection of its users because it cannot accommodate the high volume of traffic. Clearwire engages in a practice known as “throttling,” which is the intentional delay and/or blocking of Internet communications. This practice deprives Clearwire customers of the ability to “[d]ownload music and videos,” and leads to slow connection speeds.  Clearwire engages in throttling at times when demand for Internet use is highest, beginning at approximately 7:30 p.m. and ending at about 1:00-to-2:00 a.m.

If users attempt to cancel their service, Clearwire claims that, pursuant to its “contract” with them, it is entitled to collect an early termination or a re-stocking fee. The “contract” referred to by Clearwire is not a contract between it and its customers. The contract between Clearwire and its customers is simply that the customers will pay for, and Clearwire will provide, “unlimited” Internet usage at certain speeds, depending on the speed and payment plan selected in Clearwire’s stores, kiosks, or online.

The remaining “terms” invoked by Clearwire at its convenience are embedded in a document that consumers never see prior to subscribing to Clearwire’s service. Clearwire sells its services in its stores, kiosks at shopping centers, and online. Clearwire’s stores and kiosks do not have copies of this “contract” on hand for potential subscribers to read before they “agree” to its terms. Users who subscribe through Clearwire’s website never see the contract either because the link to it is at the bottom of a page, in substantially smaller font and lighter shade than all of the other text on the page. The text states: “Want to read the fine print (and who doesn’t read the fine print?) It’s all there in the CLEAR Legal Index.” No one wants to read fine print legalese and almost no one does. The statement is obviously and sharply ironic, and mocks anyone who may have been fussy enough to have considered continuing.

Despite not showing its terms to consumers, Clearwire refuses to allow users to cancel their service without paying the unconscionable fees it claims it is owed under this “contract.” These fees include an early termination fee (“ETF”), which penalizes consumers that want out before the end of the two-year term. Although Clearwire breached its contract with its customers, Clearwire insists on the payment of this ETF when customers realize they are not getting what they bargained for.

The suit argues that Clearwire has oversold its wireless broadband network, and allegedly quotes a company representative at one point telling Dennings, “Clearwire had signed up more customers than its cell towers could accommodate, and that therefore it was ‘managing’ users’ accounts.”

Attorney Clifford Cantor argues in the filing that Clearwire reduces customer speeds to 300kbps or lower when their network is congested, making the service unsuitable for most broadband applications.  Dennings, who lives near Ft. Worth, Tex., was outraged to learn Clear sold him a home and mobile broadband account that was advertised as a replacement for wired cable or DSL broadband, but was left with service he considered largely useless when throttled.  Even more upsetting, the suit alleges, Denning was asked to pay a $219 early contract termination and restocking fee when he tried to cancel service over the matter.

Cantor is asking for a court ruling declaring Clear’s policies to be unconscionable, attorneys’ fees of at least $5,000, and refunds for all impacted subscribers.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Michael in Chicago for sending along a copy of the lawsuit.  He runs the “Clear/Clearwire internet not as advertised” Facebook group.

HP's Snowjob: The company that brought you the $70 ink cartridge supports an end to flat rate Internet service to "save" you money.

HP’s Joe Weinman argues consumers are behind the drive to abandon flat rate, “all you can eat” broadband pricing.

Weinman, whose company sells products and services to some of America’s largest broadband providers, has taken up their position that flat-rate Internet service is bad for you, claiming many are paying too much for Internet service they use too little.

In an essay posted on GigaOM, Weinman brings back the all-y0u-can-eat buffet metaphor:

For the record, I like unlimited Internet access just as much as anyone else. However, such plans appear to be on their way out, and here’s why. As I’ve explored in ”The Market for Melons” (PDF), pay-per-use is not an evil plot by greedy robber barons, but a natural outcome of independent, rational consumer choice. Consider a town with an all-you-can-eat (flat rate) buffet and an a la carte (pay-per-use) restaurant. Smart shoppers on diets will save money by patronizing the a la carte restaurant, whereas heavy eaters will save money by visiting the buffet. As patrons switch, the average consumption of the buffet will increase, driving price increases for the luncheon special, causing even more users to switch to pay-per-use.

Bottom line: it is not the proprietors driving this dynamic, but the customers themselves acting out of pure, rational self-interest—light users, by deciding not to subsidize the heavy ones, foster the vitality of the pay-per-use model.

Unfortunately for Weinman, most American broadband customers don’t believe a word of this, and even he was forced to admit as much when he noted consumers “often prefer to overpay for flat-rate rather than save money but risk bill shock.”

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports wasn’t suckered for a moment either, noting:

[…]Cable industry lobbyists would like the public to believe that such a shift isn’t about making more money, it’s about helping the poor. Not only is the metered billing push absolutely about making money, it’s about artificially constricting the pipe to protect uncompetitive carriers and TV revenues from Internet video. But instead, there’s a very concerted effort afoot to portray this shift as necessary, inevitable, and even altruistic.

Most consumers prefer the simplicity of flat rate pricing, and understand that ISPs are perfectly profitable under the flat-rate pricing model. They also understand that this is a pipe dream forged by never-satisfied investors, and once implemented ends with ever soaring per gig fees and ever shrinking usage caps.

Weinman’s essay completely ignores the reality his preferred pricing model already delivers to those who live under it in Canada.  Canadian broadband rankings continue to decline as customers there pay higher prices for a lower level of service, with usage caps that actually decline when new competitive threats from online video emerge.

Just what the doctor ordered: HP's Rx for American Broadband

We had to take time out to respond directly to Weinman and his cheerleading friends (see the comments section), some who wrote comments below the piece and couldn’t be bothered to disclose they owe their day jobs to industry-backed dollar-a-holler groups that are committed to delivering on behalf of their provider benefactors:

When Big Telecom comes ringing with promises of savings from metered or capped broadband, hang up immediately.

These plans save almost nobody money and expose dramatic overlimit fees to consumers, creating the kind of bill shock wireless phone users endure.

The OPEC-like Internet price-fixing on offer from big players delivers broadband rationing and sky high prices, while retarding Internet innovations that providers don’t own or control.

Consumers are forced to double check their usage and think twice about everything they do online out of fear of being exposed to huge overlimit fees up to $10 a gigabyte for exceeding an arbitrary limit ranging from 5-250GB.

Americans already pay too much for Internet service and now the providers want more of your money. The rest of the world is moving AWAY from the pricing schemes Weinman would have us embrace. It’s such a serious issue in the South Pacific, the governments of Australia and New Zealand are working to address the problem themselves.

Providers are already earning BILLIONS in profits every quarter from their lucrative broadband businesses. Now the wallet biters are back for more, with the convenient side benefit that limiting consumption is a great way to prevent Internet-delivered TV from causing cord-cutting of cable TV packages.

As far as consumers are concerned, and Weinman admits as much, people are happy with today’s unlimited price models. When Big Telecom complains people are overpaying for broadband, wouldn’t their shareholders be telling them to shut up and take the money? There is more to this story.

Weinman defends the extortion proposition Big Telecom would visit on us: either give us limited use pricing or we’ll raise all of your prices.

But as consumers have already figured out, these providers never reduce prices for anyone. When was the last time your cable bill went down unless you dropped services?

Don’t be a sucker to Big Telecom’s “broadband shortage” or pricing myths. Broadband is not comparable to water, gas, or electric. The closest comparison (and the one they always leave out) is to telephone service, and as we’ve seen, that business is increasingly moving TOWARDS flat race, unlimited pricing.

Want to know what metered pricing does to the wallets of consumers? Just ask Time Warner Cable customers in Rochester, Greensboro, San Antonio, and Austin what they thought about the cable company’s “innovative” pricing experiment that tripled the price for the same level of broadband customers used to get for $50 a month. After the torches and pitchforks were raised over $150 a month broadband service, Time Warner backed down.

Either with or without metered pricing, the cable company raised its prices three times last year alone.

The industry’s meme that “usage-based pricing” in inevitable is only true if consumers allow it to happen.  The parade of Internet Overcharging advocates all share one thing in common — they earn a living from the providers that dream about these pricing schemes.  Always follow the money.  As we’ve exposed repeatedly, the vast majority of defenders of these kinds of pricing schemes are not consumers.  They are:

• The providers themselves;
• Wall Street banks, investors, and the business media catering to them;
• Non-profit groups receiving substantial contributions from providers;
• Industry-funded “think tanks” and research that can carry the industry’s public policy agenda, hoping the media that quotes them are too lazy to follow the money;
• Equipment and service vendors, unions, and other groups who depend on the business or jobs they get from providers.

If you are a Frontier DSL customer, your unlimited Internet service is at risk of being arbitrarily limited by a company that wants to cut costs and increase revenue… at your expense.

Suburban Sacramento residents deemed to be “using too much” Frontier Internet service are being told they have to ration their Internet usage or pay more — a lot more — for the same speed service.  Even worse, many customers are paying extra for a “Price Protection Agreement” from Frontier that protects Frontier’s profits while your Internet bill doubles.  That’s a price protection racket only the Sopranos could love.

Frontier’s own representatives are literally at a loss for words when told it’s easy to exceed their “5GB” limit just by web browsing and checking e-mail.  But they are even quieter when customers report Frontier’s own video website – my fitv, a “free online video service” heavily promoted by Frontier, is ultimately responsible for their looming $99.99 monthly Internet bill.

Frontier wants to get tough with some of their best customers.  As a result, many are exploring disconnecting service for a cable competitor.  The best way to fight these Internet Overcharging schemes is to make it clear to Frontier you will not submit to them.  The first step is to bring wider media attention to the issue.

Sacramento-Elk Grove Customers

• Contact the Sacramento Bee, the Elk Grove Citizen and other local newspapers and ask them to write a story about this;
• Contact KOVR-TV’s consumer reporter and ask him to do a story;
• Contact other stations and local call-in shows and draw attention to Frontier’s abuse of its customers;
• If you are on a “price protection agreement” contact the California Public Utilities Commission and file a complaint.

Points to consider raising:

• Frontier’s usage caps are easily broken using the company’s own video website, my fitv;
• What the company suggests most people will not exceed today is not reasonable tomorrow.  Besides, how much customers actually use is considered proprietary and we have to take their word on it;
• Customers on price protection agreements are being asked to pay more than double for the exact same quality of service they used to receive for less.  Where is the price protection?;
• Frontier is generous with their shareholders, paying outrageously high dividends out of step with their earnings, but are notoriously stingy with the customers that deliver them that revenue;
• Where’s the fire?  This is the same company that said it had more than enough capacity to take on millions of ex-Verizon broadband customers, but now suddenly can’t deliver the same level of service to existing customers in Elk Grove without doubling the monthly price?;
• Customers are being asked to pay $1 a gigabyte for a service that costs Frontier far less to actually provide;
• At a time when Frontier continues to lose landline customers, can they afford to alienate more, who take all of their business elsewhere?

Frontier alienating its own customers who pay for their landline and broadband DSL service does not sound like a winning business strategy.  Let Frontier know you will not do business with a company that abuses its big-spending customers.  Let them know in clear terms you will cancel all of your services if the company maintains its Internet Overcharging practices and you will encourage your friends and family to take their business elsewhere as well.